If you don't like the definitions at the links, then you should stop using your computer. You should see the reams and reams of intricate definitions that were required to design, build, and deploy the computers and networks required for you to access Free Republic! Should we expect philosophy, which hopes to explain the subtleties of human behavior, to be simpler in its definitions?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not some libertarian or leftist site. There are numerous articles written by Christian philosophers. It represents the current state of the art in philosophy.
BTW, since it is an American-based site, if anything it leans toward the analytical philosophers who are adamantly opposed to all things "post-modern" such as the deconstructivism of Foucault and Derrida. It is because they are so concerned about explaining and understanding concepts in such detail that the definitions are as fleshed out as they are.
If you are against relativism then you are intelligent and sane.
If you are against pluralism then you are opposed to the American experiment expressed in the Declaration of Independence and our beloved Constitution.
No, pluralism as you define it is value neutral, just like relativism. It is dangerous and insidious because it can be used to over turn our legal system, which is not value neutral.
Our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian law and Sharia Law is in no way equal. To consider any other culture or religion as equal to US culture or the Judeo-Christian value system is insidious and dangerous.