Religious pluralism and religious relativism

Hoff's Principle of Relativism: you can think what you want but to act on it is a criminal offence.

Pope Benedict has spoken out against "the dictatorship of relativism". But what does he mean, and how does relativism differ from pluralism.

Religious pluralism is defined in "NOSTRA AETATE", one of the documents of Vatican II, which deals with the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions:

On the the parts of the text on other faiths says:

"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

That is clearly different from, for example, your friendly (or unfriendly) neighbourhood fundamentalist, who sees other religions as diabolic deceptions.

Theologically, the position most in contrast with it would be that of Karl Barth, who made a clear distinction between Christianity as God's revelation of himself to us, and "religion", which he defined as "our attempt to reach God", and which leads to the Barthian rejection of "natural theology" and apologetics.

So we can see what is meant here by "religious pluralism".

What Benedict seems to mean by "Religious relativism" is the notion that any religions is as good as any other, and is analagous to "moral relativism" (I have my code of ethics, you have yours, and there are no universal ethical principles). Basically, it is the idea that "all truths are equal, that one is of the same value as another."

This can be seen clearly in Benedict's speech of 2005:

"Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. "

That relativism can become dictorial is perhaps best illustrated in the science fiction novel by Philip K Dick - "The World Jones Made". In that book, relativism ("Hoff's Relativism") is the governing political orthodoxy, defined as a moral and ethical philosophy that states everyone is free to believe what they wish, as long as they don't make anyone else try to follow that principle, which has become established law after the destructiveness of the war unleashed by ideologies. However, dissidents from that orthodoxy do end up in forced labour camps - because it really is a "dictatorship of relativism".

Dick is prophetic, as we are moving towards a society in which relativism becomes an imposed orthodoxy, and as a result, freedom of speech can be silenced under the banner of laws against religious hatred. Those laws have noble intentions, but the inability to clearly differentiate between a stated disagreement of belief, and deliberate provocation means that it can so easily be abused to produce entirely the opposite effect.

Links:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/articolo.asp?id=33987
http://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/world_jones_made_by_dave_hyde.htm