PLURALISM AND FAITHshape of Christ, Allah, the nameless one, or a more faint whisper yet—draws you to the
experience of the rupture or difference in faith, faith inimmanence, in a world of becom-
ing without a divine force above the world, projects confidence that the world is without
rupture, or knowable in the last instance, or subject to consummate human control. Such
a reading, however, misrepresents several philosophies of immanence by failing to come
to terms with the image of time as ‘‘out of joint’’ in which they are set. Such misrepresen-
tations can have fateful consequences, as the ugly history of Euro-American orientations
to paganism and atheism testify.
Assuming, then, that most faiths encounter a disruptive moment within their own
faith, the response of participants to this internal rupture is fateful for the possibility of
pluralism. The response might open the door to pluralism or marshal its repression. There
is, in my judgment, no definitive causal process or undeniable moral law that governs the
outcome. It depends, as our earlier foray into Straussian theory may have indicated, upon
the sensibilities the faithful cultivate, the decisions they make, and the ethos they seek to
negotiate. That’s why, at this point and others too, pluralism emerges as a possibility to
pursue rather than as the certain effect of determinate conditions. To the extent it is
attained, it remains a fragile achievement to be cherished rather than an outcome to be
taken for granted.^30
The most that can be said, then, is that, in an age of multiple minorities of numerous
types co-existing on the same territory, considerable pressures emerge to amplify the
dimension of difference or mystery within each faith. To the extent that pressure is af-
firmed without resentment rather than repressed or resented, negotiation of a positive
ethos of engagement becomes more promising.
In a political culture of deep pluralism with a twist, each faith practices its specific
rituals, and each faith-minority brings pieces and dimensions of its faith into the public
realm when the issue in question makes it pertinent to do so. Deep pluralism thereby
reinstates the link between practice and belief artificially severed by secularism; and it also
overturns the impossible counsel to bracket your faith when you participate in politics.
But, to support the possibility of multiple faiths negotiating with dignity on the same
territory, each faith-minority now amplifies awareness of the element of rupture or mys-
tery already simmering within it. It responds affirmatively to the preliminary sense of
rupture in faith, as well as to other ingredients that counsel generosity to others. It does
so by mixing into its faith-imbued practices a secondary set of practices that prepare it to
participate with forbearance and presumptive generosity in a larger ethos of multidimen-
sional pluralism. Each faith therebyembedsthe religious virtue of hospitality and the civic
virtue of presumptive generosity in its own relational practices.
But what are the attractions of such an agenda? Negotiation of such an ethos of
pluralism, first, honors the embedded experience of faith; second, gives expression to a
fugitive element of care, hospitality, or love for difference simmering in most faiths; third,
speaks to a compelling need during a time when most territorial states house multiple
PAGE 295295.................16224$ CH14 10-13-06 12:35:35 PS