No Paradox in Practice
There's no real paradox in the political practice or philosophy of pluralism. You conflate two types of rules as a category mistake.
One can believe that one has a right to believe anything for one's own beliefs and that no one belief is required to be believed. Every major multicultural society or institution practices this. Ancient Rome practiced it. In the US, one can choose to be Protestant or choose to be Catholic, and Protestants and Catholics get along just fine if they respect that the other has the right of the freedom of and from religion. When religious beliefs fuel some sort of practical conflict, such as in the debate over abortion, a society simply provides a mechanism for conflict resolution, which is usually just a third-party imposing rules of its own to structure the situation.
Right now, in the famous case of Roe v. Wade, which is on the verge of being repealed by a religious minority sitting on SCOTUS representing the beliefs of a minority of the American polity, the rule is simple. In the absence of a federal law, the conflict is now handled by the state. Thus, we see California leaning towards enshrining the rights conferred by Roe V. Wade in its constitution, while politically conservative states are likely to criminalize it.
The US had the same challenges with the institution of slavery, and in that case, the minority attempted to secede from the US Republic, and civil war followed. In this case, when a political solution failed, a military solution prevailed.
Logical Paradoxes Can Be Dissolved
If there's any ground for claiming that a plurality of belief is somehow fundamentally paradoxical, the solution is simply to qualify. For instance, in Russel's paradox, one simply has to constrain the rules regarding sets having themselves as members. To avoid any further complications, Russel simply began advocating type theory. If Russel's paradox is interpreted as a state machine, again, the paradox is eliminated because the state at t0 can be opposite of the state of a system at t1.
So, if pluralism is established by a principle:
- Anyone can harbor any belief of their own to allow for individual freedom to encourage a pluralism of truth.
Then what happens when one believes they can impose their beliefs on others? Then, sure it appears to be a paradox of sort. But every paradox can be dispensed with by simply adding rules or context. That's why society simply accepts a second rule:
- No one can impose their beliefs on others to prevent tyranny.
But what if a person claims it’s their duty to impose their will on others, say, as a religious fundamentalist might do? Then they will claim rule 2 is oppressive, which brings us back to conflict resolution. If conflict resolution fails, the situation degrades into physical violence, and the victor of the physical violence then sets the terms, a phenomenon described as might makes right.