Religious pluralism is a term that has gained traction among atheists, humanists and humanists-in-training.
Its meaning is simple: There are a variety of religions that all share a common belief in the dignity and worth of all human beings.
And, because they all believe in this dignity and value, they are all entitled to worship the same God.
In many ways, that definition is quite clear, and there is a wide range of interpretations of religious pluralism that can be found online.
But there is also a lot of controversy about what it means, and the definition is often challenged.
A lot of people have been arguing that religious pluralists should be able to have a private ceremony to celebrate their own beliefs, and that this should be allowed.
The argument has come up in discussions around the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a Colorado baker’s refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
But in a letter to the Supreme Judicial Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit argued that there are some differences between a private celebration and a public event.
In his letter, Justice Elena Kagan said that while it is possible for religious believers to share their faith in private, the court had not yet decided what it meant to have an event “solely for a private occasion.”
Kagan’s position could not be more clear.
There are many aspects of a religious celebration, including, but not limited to, decorating the venue, singing, performing, and dancing, which is all perfectly appropriate for a wedding ceremony.
But, for religious pluralist couples, the act of hosting a private event is not only a private matter, it is also an expression of their personal faith.
The court went on to argue that this was important, because the government does not have the authority to impose a particular religious practice on a religious group.
Kagan disagreed, noting that the First Amendment does not protect “any religious practice that the government chooses to regulate.”
But, the justices continued, it does protect the freedom of individuals to worship as they see fit.
That freedom, she argued, is a bedrock principle of the American republic, and she went on in her letter to reiterate this point.
In fact, it’s precisely what the Supreme court was upholding in the Colorado case, which found that a Christian baker could not refuse to serve a gay couple, based on their religious beliefs.
In her dissent, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the Colorado court did not rule on whether a private religious event is truly a private activity, but rather whether the private ceremony itself violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendments.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the private religious expression of religious believers is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Alito argued that in this case, the private event was not an expression.
The Colorado court noted that religious believers are not required to have private ceremonies, and said that the state does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to allow the ceremony to take place.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that a public ceremony does violate the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution because it “requires the public to subsidize private religious conduct.”
In other words, the government cannot force a private, private, religious celebration.