Now and again Larry King's tele-circus comes to town, showcasing a religious panel to tackle tough questions. And, of course, they never offer any serious logical analysis. But they do go on. Typically, Larry will choose one person on the panel who -- we are led to believe -- each represents one of the major (or occasionally minor) religious viewpoints. The underlying assumption here -- assumed, but never stated -- is that, somehow, all religions are of the same value, and that each deserves a say-so no more (or less) than any other.

To be sure, Larry King has the best of "democratic" intentions. He tries to show himself impartial to all sides, but seems completely unaware that, in doing so, he has put his foot down, taking a specific position on the issue himself. He has opted for agnosticism, the view that "no one can really know for sure what the ultimate answers are." In some of his rare moments, I have witnessed Larry saying as much. He does not merely consider it that he himself doesn't know the ultimate answers; he thinks no one else really knows them either. This stands behind his pluralism: for if no one knows such answers for sure, then it follows that we ought to give a hearing to each set of answers. For we do not have, on this view, the answer sheet by which to check the work of Larry's "experts."

But this presents Larry and company with some extraordinary logical problems. First, Larry seems quite confident (at times) about his own views. He may "say" that no one knows, but note this: the agnostic pretends to KNOW FOR SURE that no one knows for sure. This is the inescapable contradiction of agnosticism. This position short-circuits, for it would eliminate itself as a candidate for (knowable) ultimate truth along with all others. In other words, something must be true, and we know it isn't agnosticism. This means Larry won't be inviting me on his show anytime soon. Guests who refute the host do not stay long.

Second, Larry's pluralism assumes what most of his guests would deny. Each guest holds that his (or her) advocated religion names the true one, and that (they do not say this part, but only imply it, for the sake of PR) the religions the other guests advocate represent false ideas at best. They do not believe, as Larry does, that each of their views remains "just as good as the other guy's." Just think about it. How could they? How could the Truth ever be "just as good as some made-up, phoney religion?"

By promoting pluralism, pluralists like Larry imply polytheism. But I am sure from listening to them that they do not realize this at all. If every religion is only as good or bad as the next, then no one god could be considered the One True God (and the others phonies). This shows that Pluralism logically shuns Monotheism -- and vice-versa. So religious pluralism really amounts to POLYtheism - the equality of gods, a kind of democratic theism where each god gets only one vote, and not merely the equality of "my views and your views." This also shows that agnosticism and polytheism find each other a logical match, while standing over against Monotheism. In other words, democracy applied to religion implies the denial of the Christian faith. Fortunately, pagans aren't all that consistent, so the two can coexist alongside each other for quite some time.

Pluralists tout the tolerance line, but they in fact require much more than religious tolerance. They require monotheists to talk like polytheists. They demand the equality of gods. This is why polytheists never tolerate monotheists, unless the monotheists talk like polytheists, using the language of "tolerance." You see, religious pluralism depends on the notion that ideas (religions are at least that) do not have consequences. For if bad ideas have harmful consequences, then the bad religions should be outlawed, and for the same reason we outlaw the act of screaming "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (bad consequences).

Finally, Larry's pluralism overlooks the simple fact that Islam, Christianity and Judaism each logically excludes the others. If they are each equal -- which his view demands and each of these three religions denies -- then they would have to be equally false. Now, any atheist who is even remotely self-conscious about his views, would agree with this assessment. But Larry's agnosticism now crumbles. For if his pluralism is correct, then WE KNOW in fact that some of the views out there -- namely monotheisms -- promote falsehood. But again, Larry does not seem to realize these implications of his own views. But I do.

So here we have, by logical necessity -- the Atheist, Agnostic and Polytheist -- landing on the same side of the fence over against any form of monotheism. That is, like it or not, how the current political landscape has taken shape in the cultural and political history of the U.S. too. But that story remains the topic for a different day.

For now, it suffices to note that pluralism -- the operating political philosophy of agnostics, polytheists and Atheists -- has many built-in contradictions. Chief among these, Christians will be quick to notice, is that in claiming to include everyone, it excludes those who do not believe that everyone should be included. Think on THAT over a beer. In other words, pluralism only works when everyone in that society is a pluralist. Hence the demand for total conformity (tolerance speak) by pluralists - even if they invite you on their shows. Larry's show is no exception.