Religion & Law

Sally Quinn, writing in The Washington Post, encourages President Obama and his family to select the National Cathedral as their new church home.  That's fine.  But her supporting argument is ridiculous:

I am drawn to the cathedral over all of the other sacred spaces in Washington because it is the most pluralistic of the places of worship I've been to.

On Nov. 12, Deepak Chopra, a Hindu, spoke there to a packed house. Asked about Obama in the question-and-answer session afterward, he said that the president-elect "has transcended religious identity. Just imagine when he puts his hand on the Bible to be sworn in and says, 'I, Barack Hussein Obama' . . . How wonderful!"

It would indeed be wonderful for the country to have a president who worshiped at a place most likely to welcome all Americans and all people of the world alike.

Don't get me wrong.  I like America's commitment to pluralism.  But the value of American pluralism is its facilitation of spaces in which communities can maintain their own distinct and authentic identities, including religious identities.  Pluralism as a relevant criterion for our evaluation of a religious community's identity is nonsensical.  If we reach the day when we can transcend religious identity -- or when our President's church is expected to transcend religious identity -- what exactly is our nation's commitment to pluralism supposed to be protecting?