Ideological Pluralism Quotes

Tolerance of true diversity on university campuses - diversity of opinion and belief - has been eroding for decades while alumni and trustees looked the other way.

All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted.

Pluralism of opinions is not dissent but democratic centralism understood in a new way.

Eventually an effective political ideology cannot be based on any certain religion. Religion can offer some contribution, but an entire political activism cannot be oriented in accordance with religion. Political history of this region has the example of religion-based politics attempted in Pakistan and it failed. Not only in Islam, people in other religions of many regions try to keep on politics based on religion. It's not right.

I have great respect for people's right to believe what they want to believe. And I don't think anybody should be prosecuted or judged based on what their beliefs are.

What we want is a social harmony, even as we live in a world where any idea about 'the real thing' is as likely to evoke the ancient memory of an advertisement for a soda pop as anything solid or necessary.

There are two ways to replace an orthodoxy: with openness or with another orthodoxy.

The CDU is a party with more than 400,000 members. The fact that each one has a different opinion is what makes us interesting.

It's become easy for Americans to live in a cocoon of monolithic ideology and thought. It's time to embrace diversity of thought and diversity of experience.

America is not doctrinaire. It's hard for an American politician to come up with an ideological position that is permanently unforgivable.

The CDU was a party that united different denominational and ideological currents. If the idea of a rightward shift means that we ignore those roots and only define ourselves as a conservative party, then I am strictly opposed.

Our country, like every modern state, needs profound democratic reforms. It needs political and ideological pluralism, a mixed economy and protection of human rights and the opening up of society.

The country needs more than one-party dominance, as much as I believe the Democratic Party is the party for the middle class... We need to have a marketplace of ideas.

Every individual in the church is free to think as he pleases.

What I would like to build is a new centre, a wider, broader centre, which would encompass a lot of different philosophies - you know, the philosophy that I'm putting forward that is a market liberal philosophy and a socially liberal philosophy but would have room in it for a broader church than that.

In politics, religion and other areas of culture, people disagree on the worth of competing ideas. There is no equivalent to the scientific method that can determine in a robust way which ideas match the real world, and which ones can be ruled out. So conflicting ideologies persist indefinitely.

Traditionally, open-minded secular liberal rationalists have not made a case for tolerance.

Neither party has God on its side, a monopoly on good ideas, or a lock on any single fiscal, social, or moral philosophy.

For better or worse, MTV sort of bridges the whole country together almost like the BBC does in England. It's opened up everything so wide that it's possible for everyone to have different ideas.

My instinct as a philosopher is that we are effectively approaching a multicentric world, which means we need to ask new, and for the traditional left, unpleasant questions.

I have always believed in the marketplace of ideas.

I think reading intelligent expressions of different points of view is a good thing, and there is a way in which being in academia in a classroom at the University probably gives you, can give you an academic view of things, and reading actual real time debates about what should we do in Syria or the Buffett rule, budget issues...gives you a kind of sense that's hard to get in a classroom.

It seems to me that in our lifetime we have passed from the wreck of liberal humanism to the beginning of a new recognition of dogma: isn't it rather tremendous?

I don't think anybody who looks carefully at us thinks that we are a left-wing or a right-wing organization.

... a metropolis rarely of one mind