Om svårigheterna med att förställa sig Jesus i lotusställning

Sociologen Peter Berger skriver här ett intressant blogginlägg med anledning av en artikel om pluralistiska förhållningssätt till religiös mångfald. Artikeln förespråkar att man kan tillhöra två religioner samtidigt. Berger invänder:

There are two important themes that frequently occur in pluralistic approaches to religious diversity. They also occur here. One is the notion that one can relate to other religious traditions by way of common moral principles and of joint political actions. The other is the notion that commonality can be perceived as a result of comparable mystical experiences. Both notions underemphasize the cognitive aspect of religion. Both notions, I think, are problematic. It is doubtful that most traditions share moral principles. One can reduce morality to some practical recommendations. Buddhists and Christians can agree that one should not kick little old ladies into the gutter. But behind this shared recommendation lie vastly different definitions of reality. It is even possible to argue that Buddhist “compassion for all sentient beings” is almost the opposite of Christian caritas. Buddhists and Christians can cooperate in a political project to benefit old people, as indeed they can cooperate in such a project with agnostics and atheists, or even with self-interested businesses marketing walking sticks and sturdy walking shoes to old ladies. Leave aside here the fact that Third Worldist and “progressive” projects are unlikely to do much for the intended beneficiaries. Any joint political projects, whatever their ideological coloration, can only bring together the adherents of different faiths in a temporary, ad hoc manner.
...
It is very important to understand that this mystical undercurrent has always been in tension with the major developments in the three Abrahamic traditions, whose representatives quite correctly suspected mysticism of undermining the core of the respective faiths. Let me put it this way: It is very difficult to imagine Moses, or Jesus, or Muhammad proclaiming their message while sitting in the lotus position!
...
The literature on inter-religious dialogue distinguishes between three general approaches: exclusivism, which affirms the uniqueness and superiority of one’s own faith.; inclusivism, which takes its stand within one tradition, while conceding that truth may also be found outside it; and pluralism, as ably represented by Knitter and Hick. I am of the opinion that inclusivism has the best chance of avoiding both closed-minded fanaticism and self-liquidating relativism.

I ett tänkt postsekulärt samhälle, där distinktionen mellan sekulärt eller religiöst upphävs, och där inte något perspektiv betraktas som neutralt, vidgas naturligtvis frågeställningen om hur olika perspektiv och livsåskådningar skall förhålla sig till varandra. Skall till exempel den kristna traditionen ses som en resurs som genom sina insikter kan hjälpa den liberala staten att motivera och utveckla de mänskliga rättigheterna? Eller, är den kristna traditionen en distinkt egen berättelse som knappast låter sig kombineras med, eller reduceras till verktyg för, någon annan överideologi? Den som exempelvis hävdar att det är klokast att samverka med andra traditioner för människans bästa, måste kunna besvara motfrågorna:

Vilken traditions föreställning om människan, vilken traditions förståelse av "det bästa", och på vems spelplan skall samverkan ske?