When There Is Peace Among Religions

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/when-there-is-peace-among-religions_b_1443667.html
Steve McSwainAuthor,
Speaker, Executive Coach...and, the Voice for the Spiritual but Not Religious
Posted: 04/25/2012 4:02 pm

?4

Slightly over a year ago, I picked up my iPad one morning and began drawing the image you see in this post. I named it the Unity pendant. I designed this to be a kind of "brand" for my speaking and coaching on matters related to spirituality and interfaith acceptance and cooperation -- even the interfaith comedy show a Jewish friend and a professional comedian, Mark Klein, and I have created. I have long felt that the Dalai Lama is right when he said, "When there's peace among religions, there will be peace in the world." I had those words inscribed on the outer rims of the pendant.

It's true -- embarrassingly true. Many of the conflicts between nations, peoples and cultures throughout history have been motivated and sustained by religion and religious differences. Virtually all religions start out well but it isn't long before a kind of collective ego takes over and things get insane. I've written extensively about what goes wrong in most religions, Christianity notwithstanding, in the book, "The Enoch Factor: The Sacred Art of Knowing God":

"All religions are subsets of a stained-glass window through which the light of the Divine shines in all its dazzling color, diversity, and beauty."

In other words, there is no one religion that holds a patent on God, Allah, Yahweh, Source, Intelligence -- whatever you wish to call the divine. "God has no religion," said Gandhi.

more at link

[longship]

1. I resent this thinking

Maybe us non-believers should just shut up. We make up possibly a fifth of the planet, but we are always asked to defer to the believers.

And then, they wonder why non-believers are angry. It is like a thread posted earlier in the week which likened it to apartheid.

When one specifically excludes non-believers, you are practicing apartheid.

Otherwise, I am all for this discussion. But, for Christ sakes (so to speak) include the non-believers.

[cbayer]

2. Who is asking for deference? This has nothing to do with atheism, imo.

He maintains that much of the world's lack of peace is due to religious conflict and that some measure of world peace may be found if the various religions could find peace among themselves. The article doesn't address atheists because he doesn't identify atheists as part of the problem.

Does every article posted in the religion forum have to speak to atheism or atheists?


Please. Apartheid? I think not. It's just an article about religions and religious people, and you are not one of them.

[longship]

5. When one speaks of peace, aren't non-believers part of the interested parties?

Or maybe we should just shut up? Maybe we don't belong in a discussion about interreligious warfare? I would remind all religious here that in many of what might be called religious wars, non-believers are often the most persecuted.

It is precisely that to which I object. The extent to which non-believers are not included is the extent to which the problems are not all going to be addressed.

It is precisely the same arguments that the America is a Christian nation crowd make, that the freedoms in the First Amendment only apply to believers (maybe even just Christians, to listen to many of them). Of course anybody who has paid attention to the House and Senate debates during the adoption of the amendment would know that those specific phrasings were explicitly voted down and the only surviving one was the most liberal one, no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Here is where I stand. As a non-believer I have no other choice. Where would you draw the line?

As always I welcome your input as well as your respectful disagreements.

[cbayer]

6. Of course non-believers are interested parties in world peace.

Who says you can't join the discussion? You could even join the movement. He has just said that you are not part of the problem and he is trying to engage the parties he thinks are part of the problem.

If this were about actively excluding atheists from an effort to promote peace, I think you would have a case. But it's much more about identifying who is the problem and how we might address that.

Maybe I am missing your point here. My mind is a little cluttered from some severe weather that just blew through here (and the reparative vodka and OJ I am drinking as a result).

Let me sit on this awhile and I will get back to you.

I also continue to enjoy and learn from our dialogues, my friend. I understand that I speak from a particular point of privilege, as I have not proclaimed myself to be something that is discriminated against and widely misunderstood.

At least not in this particular area.

[longship]

13. As a previous church-goer (as Larkin put it)

I understand as he did that there is something to religious belief, something that both Larkin (also an atheist) and I possibly do not understand.

Look up Philip Larkin Church Going where he expresses a wonder of such numenous experiences. A very nice poem.

on edit: I may experience similar things when I listen to Bach's sacred works or sitting in the midst of St. John the Devine in New York City while the organist practices.

There is something there underpinning these things. The only thing I reject is that anybody can state that, if there is a God, that they known her mind.

[Thats my opinion]

18. Tell us why anybody would object to people of different faith traditions working togegther?

The former Methodist Seminary near me is now a multi-faith University training religious leaders of several different traditions including Jews and Muslims.

Nobody is asking anyone to shut up.

Somehow I missed the thread that compared atheism to apartheid. Help me find it. I too would find that bigoted and appalling.

A group of scientists who met across their individual disciplines and did not included anti-evolutionists, that would not be practicing apartheid. The purpose of this OP is to suggest that people of various religious groups need to talk with each other about overcoming their divisions.

[AlbertCat]

3. When There Is Peace Among Religions

we will be in the Matrix.

[cbayer]

4. You are likely correct, but does that mean we shouldn't try?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

7. I like the optimism, but I'm not at all sold

If humans didn't have religion to kill each other over, we'd just find something else.

A more apt quote might be: "When There Is Peace Among Men, There Will Be Peace Among Men."

[cbayer]

8. But the idea of starting with some longstanding, contentious, power grabbing,

groups with large followings couldn't hurt.

Could it?

I'm not optimistic either, but I like it that others are and give them support.

You just never know.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

12. Humans don't have a great track record of peace

And while I'd like to think otherwise, humans will probably never not be at war.

[laconicsax]

9. Something interesting...

This is the first time I can recall seeing a thread which both makes the statement, "Many of the conflicts between nations, peoples and cultures throughout history have been motivated and sustained by religion and religious differences." and isn't jumped on by theists eager to denounce such 'vile, atheist lies.'

[darkstar3]

14. Attacking the messenger is far more effective against out-group messengers.

[trotsky]

17. +1 n/t

[Thats my opinion]

19. Of course the statement you quote is accurate.

What is jumped on is the notion that this tells the whole story of religion, or even most of it.

Could you tell us where you found the quote 'vile atheist lies.'

[Goblinmonger]

20. You do know that the things you write are still there, yes?

None of these wars were instigated for any religious reason.


There are lots of reasons why nations instigate wars. In our history, which includes the major killing in historic wars, none of them had any religious roots. In fact in our most recent wars, thousands of religiously motivated people were COs.

For the first 4 centuries of Christian history, there were no Christians in any army. War was anathema
to their faith.

You were making a pretty strong case that religion was NOT a motivator for war in contradiction to the quotation of the OP.

[Thats my opinion]

24. One of the marks of fundamentalists is that they are fond of quoting out of context.

The quotes you cited were from a long list of American wars--which were NOT instigated for any religious reason.

The third quote is from a Roman leader who could not get Christians to fight.

But then fundamentalists are fundamentalists, no matter what their perspective..

[Goblinmonger]

28. If I ever said anything like that about a theist on here

you and your daughter would be shaking your head and using me as an example of what is wrong with this forum. But you go ahead and do it. Just another clear indication of the fact that you don't even have a clue when you being insulting.

But go ahead and let me know what that thread was supposed to be about. As per your usual M.O., you didn't not reply to the thread once you got done preaching your musings to what you perceive as your forum. So I am them left to figure out what you meant with just what you gave me. But, yes, you argued that no U.S. war was fought for religion. That statement along seems to contradict what your daughter and the Dalai Lama had to say. Is the Dalai Lama right but some how, miraculously, EVERY SINGLE WAR in the U.S. is the exception to what he was saying? What are the odds of that? Or was he wrong?

I'm sure your next reply (if you deem me worthy of one) will not deal with the substance of my post but be another lecture about how I am fundamentalist to whatever the hell an atheist would be fundamental to (and, personally, I think it is interesting that you would take a word that describes a specific religious sect and use it as an insult. I have many friends that are fundamentalists and they are good people).

[laconicsax]

21. If it's accurate, then why did you make an entire OP dedicated to its converse?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=19953

[trotsky]

23. No fair. That's a "gotcha" question.

He doesn't answer those, because they reveal a blatant inconsistency in his beliefs, and those simply cannot exist, so therefore nyah nyah nyah.

[laconicsax]

26. Maybe I should ask what newspapers he reads...

[skepticscott]

10. And yet someone you know well

tried very recently to make the exact OPPOSITE case: that religions, by and large, are NOT responsible for wars, now or in the past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=19953

So who's dead wrong...the Dalai Lama and the author you're trumpeting, or your father?

[dark forest]

11. I sorta think

that wars are a competition for scarce resources.

Religious reasons are just rationalizations. Or so I believe.

[darkstar3]

15. One of the primary facets of religion is grouping.

You will never see unification and peace among so many groups that rely on out-group ostracization as one way to maintain group cohesion.

[trotsky]

16. I find it interesting that on this "Unity pendant"...

while there are religious symbols from several faiths, the Christian cross is the largest and most prominent.

Why do you think that is, cbayer?

[laconicsax]

25. You noticed that too?

[cbayer]

27. He explains this in the article.

He made it the central and largest symbol for two reasons. First, to acknowledge the influence of christianity in the world in general and, second, because it is his personal religion. This pendant is very personal to him.

[skepticscott]

29. So this is more about him

than about promoting unity, equality and world peace, then?

[skepticscott]

22. Now you can see why your calls for "discussion" and "dialogue"

ring so hollow. As can everyone else here. You've offered up a post claiming that if the conflicts between religious people were to cease, the world would be free of war. And yet, when confronted by another post (by someone whose claims and opinions you presumably respect) arguing exactly the opposite, that religion is not, and has not been, responsible for any wars that matter, you steadfastly refuse to address that contradiction. You upbraid others for not wanting to participate in discussing these types of issues, and yet now you refuse to do the same.

The contradiction is staring you right in the face, irrespective of what you think of the people pointing it out. It's not going away. Address it. Discuss it. Show that you're serious about trying to resolve this conflict...because you are all about resolving conflict, aren't you?