|
This material is for the most part taken from other web sites, and prepared for discussion at a meeting of the Auckland University Chaplaincy Network. In all cases, the portion reproduced here is a only a part - usually a very small part - of the whole. I have tried not to bias the text when extracting a part sufficient for illustration, but you should refer to the originals for the true story.
Items in orange are my comments. |
We hear regularly how all the wars in the world are caused by religion. It isn't true, but there are enough lunatics among us for people not too careful with the truth to make a plausible case.
We do not hear so much about religious bodies trying to cause peace, or generally trying to work together for good. Here are some examples. But if they're really trying to work together for peace, why are there three of them ? I haven't even attempted an exhaustive search, but I didn't notice any cross-references between the three web sites. Still, I suppose they mean well.
| From VisionTV, "the only multifaith and multicultural television network in the world" : | ||
|
The Roman Catholic Church has its problems. So does Pope John Paul the 2nd. But among those problems, lack of a stated commitment to world peace Is Not One. We had dramatic proof of this last year. A year ago tomorrow, to be exact. That's when the Pope convened the largest multi-faith gathering of religious leaders in world history, for possibly the most important interfaith prayer service ever held. Can't recall it ? Well, it barely made the television news. ....
The faith leaders congregated in Italy, in Assisi, on January 24th of last year. More than 200 of them from 18 countries. Thirty Muslim leaders. Ten rabbis including the secretary of the World Jewish Congress. Leaders of 16 Christian denominations. Buddhists, Sikhs, representatives of traditional African religions. And many others. They unanimously endorsed the Decalogue for Peace, a 10-point moral blueprint to replace war. Point One condemns recourse to violence and war in the name of God or religion. Point 5 enjoins all people "to engage in dialogue with sincerity and patience, without considering what separates us as an insurmountable wall." | ||
| Part of a comment from David Waters, "a columnist who writes about religion for the Memphis, Tennessee Commercial Appeal" : | ||
|
What if leaders of the world's major religions got together one day and denounced all religious violence ? What if they unanimously agreed to make this plain, clear and bold statement to the world ? "Violence and terrorism are opposed to all true religious spirit and we condemn all recourse to violence and war in the name of God or religion." It could change the world. It could save the planet.
At the very least, it would be big news, wouldn't it ? Apparently not.
More than 200 leaders of the world's dozen major religions did get together Jan. 24 in Assisi, Italy. Maybe you missed the story about it the next day. Most newspapers didn't carry it. And it was hidden inside many of those that did. There was a lot of other news that day. The Enron hearings opened in Washington. John Walker Lindh made his first court appearance. | ||
| I'd either missed it or forgotten it, too. Why ? - it's the sort of thing I'd want to remember. | ||
| The Decalogue is : | ||
| 1. | We commit ourselves to proclaiming our firm conviction that violence and terrorism are incompatible with the authentic spirit of religion, and, as we condemn every recourse to violence and war in the name of God or of religion, we commit ourselves to doing everything possible to eliminate the root causes of terrorism. | |
| 2. | We commit ourselves to educating people to mutual respect and esteem, in order to help bring about a peaceful and fraternal coexistence between people of different ethnic groups, cultures and religions. | |
| 3. | We commit ourselves to fostering the culture of dialogue, so that there will be an increase of understanding and mutual trust between individuals and among peoples, for these are the premise of authentic peace. | |
| 4. | We commit ourselves to defending the right of everyone to live a decent life in accordance with their own cultural identity, and to form freely a family of his own. | |
| 5. | We commit ourselves to frank and patient dialogue, refusing to consider our differences as an insurmountable barrier, but recognizing instead that to encounter the diversity of others can become an opportunity for greater reciprocal understanding. | |
| 6. | We commit ourselves to forgiving one another for past and present errors and prejudices, and to supporting one another in a common effort both to overcome selfishness and arrogance, hatred and violence, and to learn from the past that peace without justice is no true peace. | |
| 7. | We commit ourselves to taking the side of the poor and the helpless, to speaking out for those who have no voice and to working effectively to change these situations, out of the conviction that no one can be happy alone. | |
| 8. | We commit ourselves to taking up the cry of those who refuse to be resigned to violence and evil, and we are desire to make every effort possible to offer the men and women of our time real hope for justice and peace. | |
| 9. | We commit ourselves to encouraging all efforts to promote friendship between peoples, for we are convinced that, in the absence of solidarity and understanding between peoples, technological progress exposes the world to a growing risk of destruction and death. | |
| 10. | We commit ourselves to urging leaders of nations to make every effort to create and consolidate, on the national and international levels, a world of solidarity and peace based on justice. | |
NEXT YEAR : The Parliament of World Religions. | ||
| Briefly : | Mission | The mission of the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions is to cultivate harmony between the world's religious and spiritual communities and foster their engagement with the world and its other guiding institutions in order to achieve a peaceful, just, and sustainable world. |
| Vision | The vision of the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions is of a just, peaceful and sustainable world in which: The Earth and all life are cherished, protected, healed and restored Religious and cultural fears and hatreds are replaced with understanding and respect People everywhere come to know and care for their neighbors The richness of human and religious diversity is woven into the fabric of communal, civil, societal and global life The world's most powerful and influential institutions move beyond narrow self-interest to realize the common good Religious and spiritual communities live in harmony and contribute to a better world from their riches of wisdom and compassion All people commit to living out their highest values and aspirations | |
| History : | Started 1893 ( Chicago ); centenary celebrated with a second assembly in 1993 ( Chicago ), then another in 1999 ( Cape Town ). The intention is to continue to meet at about five-year intervals; the next is to be in 2004 ( Barcelona ). | |
|
| ||
- AND ALSO : The World Conference of Religions for Peace."Throughout history, religious differences have divided men and women from their neighbors and have served as justification for some of humankind's bloodiest conflicts. In the modern world, it has become clear that people of all religions must bridge these differences and work together, to ensure our survival and realize the vision of peace that all faiths share." - H.R.H. Prince El-Hassan bin Talal, Jordan Moderator, Religions for Peace Governing Board. | ||
| Description : | The World Conference of Religions for Peace is the largest international coalition of representatives from the world's great religions who are dedicated to achieving peace. Respecting cultural differences while celebrating our common humanity, Religions for Peace is active on every continent and in some of the most troubled places on earth, creating multi-religious partnerships that mobilize the moral and social resources of religious people to address their shared problems. | |
| Activities : | Religions for Peace helps these communities unleash their enormous potential for common action. Some of Religions for Peace's recent successes include mediating dialogue among warring factions in Sierra Leone; building a new climate of reconciliation in Bosnia and Kosovo; organizing an international network of religious women's organizations; and launching an extraordinary program to assist the millions of children affected by Africa's AIDS pandemic, the Hope for African Children Initiative. | |
| History : | The World Conference of Religions for Peace was founded in 1970 to provide leaders of the world's many religions with a forum in which they can share common concerns, address collective challenges, and express their hopes for the future. Since then, Religions for Peace has done just that, bringing together hundreds of key religious leaders every five years - most recently in Amman, Jordan, in 1999 - for World Assemblies in which people of many faiths discuss the great issues of our time and affirm their shared commitment to multi-religious cooperation and common living. | |
( by James A. Haught )
|
The Bill Moyers public television agency flew me to New York to join a circle of theologians and scholars discussing a baffling question: Why is religion - which universally teaches love, forgiveness and brotherhood - entwined in so much murder and hate around the world ?
..... Since the Cold War ended, most of the horrors around the planet have involved religion, in one way or another. America's Sept. 11 al-Qaida tragedy was a grotesque and spectacular example, but there are many others:
In all these nightmares, it's extremely difficult to determine whether religion is a major cause, or merely a fringe factor. Most religio-ethnic conflicts also involve politics, language, economics, power-grabbing, demagoguery and other elements. ..... Actually, religious killing and persecution are as old as history. A pattern can be traced through the era of human sacrifice, the Crusades, the Inquisition, jihads, Reformation wars, pogroms, etc. Did you know that Catholic-Protestant strife caused a deadly cannon battle in Philadelphia in 1844 ? Or that Shi'ite Muslims have massacred thousands of Baha'is in Iran since the offshoot religion began ? Or that the world's worst religious war, the Taiping Rebellion, killed an estimated 20 million Chinese in the 1850s ? Don't forget the West Virginia textbook war in 1974. Fundamentalists decided that new Kanawha County schoolbooks were "godless." They held stormy protests, staged a school boycott and turned violent. Schools were dynamited. Two people were shot. School buses had bullet holes. A preacher and his followers went to federal prison. Court testimony said they discussed wiring dynamite caps into the gas tanks of cars in which families drove their children to school, defying the boycott. Thank heaven, the militants didn't actually burn kids to death to prove how morally superior they were. |
( I note that the title above is that of the original article. It presents a view of Christianity from outside. I have added the bold emphasis. )
|
Over the last few months, neoconservatives and Christian leaders have banded together in an attempt to mar the value systems defined by Islamic ideology and to present Islam to America as a violent, bloodthirsty religion that demands the subversion of the world, or its death. Islam has been decried by many a pastor and priest as a "religion of hate" and a "culture of intolerance." Neoconservatives claim that Islamic ideology is so foreign and fundamentally different from Western ideology that overlap or mutual understanding is impossible. After all, they reason, how can America come to terms with a society that sends its children to die in the name of God, or a faith that demands its adherent to kill all infidels if they refuse to covert to Islam ?
When I first heard these comments, I laughed. I laughed at the sheer stupidity of the fools that would suggest such patently idiotic ideas. I laughed at what I thought were their pathetic attempts to wage a propaganda and misinformation war against Muslims in America in an attempt to vilify and marginalize them. After all, what kind of dupe would believe the ridiculous lies they were spreading ? Anyone could pick up a book or talk to a Muslim and find out the truth. Well, I am not laughing anymore. ...... It seems to me that no matter how loudly we protest that Islam is not a religion of violence, conservative Christians are not willing to listen. They point out specific passages in the Qu'ran that demand Muslims to go to war against the infidels, or to kill the unbelievers wherever we should find them. Passage after passage is recited or detailed with exacting patience and precision; passages that deal with war, death, and punishment. Why is Islam so violent ? Why does it demand so much bloodshed and death ? Why does Allah command that Muslims kill Christians, Jews, and anyone else who does not convert to Islam ? It is thus with great irony that I would ask the same question of the Christian world. Why does the Biblical God demand the death of enemies or the seemingly brutal subjugation of women ? "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth ... - Ex. 21:22-25 "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." - Genesis 3:16 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Tim. 2:11-14 ..... It is clear then that the use of selective quotes out of the Qu'ran is merely an attempt at the legitimization of the false claim that Islam is violent. Indeed, by the examples referenced above, it is unmistakable that neoconservatives are relying on misinformation and lies to propagate their vicious slander. Their attempt to vilify jihad is similar in its intent, if not its process. What could be more in sync with American ideals of honor, self-sacrifice, and courage in the face of adversity ? Jihad is not an Islamic invention; it is a global definition of valor and a demand for personal excellence. It is all the more wretched that these lies are told by men and women that claim to represent the leadership of their faith. If this is what Christianity is, then I am glad that I am Muslim. Now it is time to determine if these leaders represent the exception or the rule. Do these leaders espouse what is commonly believed by the practitioners of their faith, representative of a majority of Christians that would like to see pluralism and interfaith communication perish ? Or are these pundits on the leading edge of extremism, delegates of the few fanatics that Christianity generally rejects ? From what I see in the media, I am fearful that it is the former. |
There are some nice people who have meetings and pass resolutions which probably make them feel better, but don't obviously do a lot of good. I imagine they don't make the headlines because good intentions don't; the headlines will come when something significant and big happens. Does it happen ? The things that do happen - and there certainly are some - tend, by their nature, to be fairly low-key and not very conspicuous. It would be a bit more impressive if the nice people would really get together into ONE organisation. If they're so nice, why don't they ?
But they certainly mean well. They want the best for everyone, and they see that in terms of human rights, democracy, and so on.
There are some other people who think differently. They are almost certainly also nice and mean just as well. It is my impression that they are not quite so clubby, and not so sure about the value of international debates. They too want the best for everyone, which they see as Christianity. Or Islam. Or .... - but only one of them.
I have some sympathy for both sides, but also some criticism. The first lot have a tendency to sell their divine birthright for a mess of humanism ( if you find that puzzling, it's your own fault for not knowing the Authorised Version of the Bible ); the second lot emphasise the divine, but usually insist that they know all the real truth, and that everyone else is wrong.
Is there a middle way ? How can we get there ?
FATALLY OVERSIMPLIFIED COMMENT
Alan Creak,
2003 September 25