It is interesting how two very similar ideas can produce two very different outcomes. The idea of "multiculturalism" supposedly is just a natural outgrowth of our tradition of religious pluralism, our tradition of allowing everyone to follow their own conscience in matters of religion. Yet, pluralism is in many ways the opposite of multiculturalism, and, far from being a logical continuation of pluralism, multiculturalism ends up silencing opinions.

Pluralism, in its original form, is nothing more than the simple statement that holding any belief will not in itself by a crime in the eyes of the government, nor shall it prevent the person holding that belief from holding office or otherwise exercising their rights. It is a very simple and negative statement. It says nothing about how the rest of society will treat the believer, it gives no guarantee that one's beliefs will not cause others to shun or ridicule them. It is, in short, simply a promise that the government won't interfere with one's beliefs, but that's it.

Multiculturalism argues that if society is not open to other beliefs, then those government guarantees are meaningless. If someone is shunned for their beliefs, then they will be forced to give them up, so we need to make others tolerant. In other words, unlike the original pluralist idea, multiculturalism also provides a positive guarantee that the state will protect a believer against some degree of criticism.

And that is why multiculturalism actually ends up squelching some beliefs. For example, my beliefs say that a practice is immoral and should be opposed whenever possible. Your belief says it is required. I cannot practice my belief, cannot even criticize you, because to do so would be to transgress the rules of multiculturalism.

Of course,  there are exceptions. Were there not, multiculturalism would simply mean the victory of the most permissive beliefs, as any belief which sought to place restrictions on behavior would violate someone else's freedom, and thus be forbidden. And perhaps that was the original goal of the multiculturalists, to sneak license in through the backdoor. But it has not turned out to be so.

In addition to the institutionalized license, multiculturalism has also adopted a page from the government and adopted a hierarchy of preferred beliefs. For example, Christians are not allowed to preach against homosexuality, while Moslems are. In the scheme of multicultural practices the more primitive, the more alien, and the more peculiar a set of beliefs are the more likely it will be allowed to criticize others who are less "exotic".

However, that does not matter, even were multiculturalism to simple embrace the "no criticism" rule it would still be the opposite of pluralism. Pluralism is simple a negative right, the freedom from government interference with one's beliefs, while multiculturalism is an actual interference with beliefs. It tells people that they may not criticize or attempt to change others' beliefs even if their faith tells them they must.

In short, pluralism allows one to follow his beliefs, whatever they may be, while multiculturalism allows one to follow his beliefs only in so far as they avoid criticizing the beliefs of others, which is not truly freedom, but simply an institutionalization of license.


POSTSCRIPT

There is one matter I need to clarify. Originally pluralism embraced ONLY beliefs. If the application of those beliefs violated a law, then the fact that they were part of one's beliefs did not make them legal. Only if one could argue that the law existed solely to prevent the practice of one's faith could  one challenge the law. Provided there were a reason for the law, it would stand.

Multiculturalism has taken that concept and changed it. Now it appears that unless there is a compelling reason for the law, any law which violates the tenets of a group is presumed invalid. This is a major change, as it makes the law subservient to the most extreme religious and cultural practices.

That topic may actually deserve a second essay, as it is n apparently small change with serious implications.

UPDATE

In many ways the difference between pluralism and multiculturalism is caused by a confusion I have previously mentioned, the confusion of government and private action. While pluralism seeks tor estrict only government interference, pluralism attempts to force tolerance on both the state and the individual.

This is interesting, as it shows how easily the confusion of private and government action can be used to illicitly extend government power. By blurring the lines between state and private, those arguing for protection can actually extend government power rather than limiting it.

But that seems like a subject which deserves a separate essay as well.