User talk:UBX/Religious pluralism

I am not supporting the changes Satanael has added [[1]] ("...and therefore tolerates all religions"). Firstly Satanael's phrase is constructed as a logical conclusion (...therefore...), suggesting that religious pluralists are obliged to 'tolerate' ANYTHING considered a religion. The Wiki article on religious pluralism doesn't support this notion, in fact things are way more complicated, as the article shows. Secondly the positive, openminded attitude of the Userbox towards religion is being destroyed by tieing it to a verry specific conclusion (in the sense of: you are only allowed to hold this positive, openminded view on religion IF you subscribe to the conclusion that it has to be applied to anything considered a Religion). Don'l like that; don't want my convictions to be held hostage. Thirdly religious pluralism in my understanding isn't as much about 'tolerating' other religions as it is about 'being deeply convinced' that other Religions are as valuable and as true as ones own; using the verb 'tolerate' in this context seems to me to devalue everything considered an other Religion. But I can be wrong - as I have been many times. Finaly: While I probably would subscribe to most of the implications expressed by the userbox in it's current form, I am not happy with it; I'd like userboxes to UNITE people rather than seperate them and therefore prefere them expressing convictions that a lot of people can subscribe to - even if they can't subscribe to all the implications; Userboxes can offer a common ground but the common ground the current userbox is offering is far less spacious than before. Nouly 12:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with every single one of the above points, and also found it highly offensive due to its assumption that only religious pluralists are "tolerant" of religions (thus equating and conflating "all religions are true" with "all religions are acceptable", ugh). There's no reason we can't create more templates, like "user religious pluralism2", to express more nuanced and specific versions of religious pluralism, but to change this one would be a very, very bad idea: there are already about 33 people using it, and no doubt many of them differ wildly on which interpretation of "religious pluralism" they follow. Best to provide options for future userbox-users rather than assume all the past ones agreed exactly. -Silence 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My only point in the changes was to specify what the userbox implies, but I didn't do it to be conclusive or anything. If the changes are unsatisfactory, I don't mind if it's reverted. I assumed that what I added only specified what religious pluralism means. I did not and will not assume that only religious pluralists are tolerant of other religions. My changes were specifically meant to show that what I meant about creating the userbox, to show that those who use it believe that other religious can be/are as true as their own, and in that way, also advocating religious tolerance. If you disagree strongly(as I can see that you are), then please don't hesitate to revert it(as you already have). My edits were not meant, in any sense or purpose, to be restrictive, so please don't take it the wrong way. Peace, dudes(or dudettes).

PS. I'm also very glad to see that such a number of people are using this userbox. Satanael 19:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with something that works at such a small size, and that also reflects the nine largest organised religions of the world - this is to be fair to most, rather than to indiate that only large religions "count"; a notable absence of the previous image was Buddhism - But Jainism and Bahai were also absent. All of these are notably larger in population than Wicca, etc. See further comments on talk:Religious pluralism(20040302 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC))