Last week we read chapter eight from McGuire. McGuire and Spickard, in this chapter, talk about pluralism saying that when people are surrounded by different practices and beliefs they will in turn question their own. Furthermore, modern societies “brings together many people with many different views, and …expect them to behave civilly towards each other with toleration for difference.” (288) This made me think of modern politics and the discussions surrounding topics like immigration. Pluralism in religion seems comparable to pluralism in regards to political views. California for example, we have large immigrant populations as well as diversity in general and as a state we tend to be more liberal on issues surrounding immigration. Whereas we might see trends of states with low immigrant populations have opposite stances on immigration. And while I recognize this isn’t always the case (e.g. Texas), it has some of the same tones. Diversity forces us to challenge our perceptions of people, religion, etc. but as McGuire and Spickard makes a case the alternative, not challenging our own views, led to lack of freedom. “That same firm sense of tradition and community, however, also gravely restricted individual freedom: Choices of marriage partners, occupations, leisure-time activities, and political options were all controlled, sometimes subtly and often overtly.” (283) It was interesting to think of the decline in religion in terms of positive results. Often, the connotation of the loss of religion is a loss of some type of moral set of ideals, but instead this chapter frames the implications that other narratives might have on an individual level. Implications of individual freedom and tolerance of different views and practices.