Democratic religion and spiritual democracy

Sancho

Sancho

Well-Known Member
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Globalization and the world wide web are forcing the reconcideration of many notions such as democracy, religion, culture, and nationalism. Economics is the aspect of globalization which receives the most media attention --rightly so, since human suffering is often the result of economic policies with global scope. This forum site, however, could be an apt place to discuss wider issues.

What can religion do for globalization? What is globalization doing to religion? How does democracy relate to these questions?

Imagine democracy as a global religion. The way I'm seeing this involves understanding a role of religion as weaving culture. Northrop Frye called the Bible the "Great Code" of western cultures. He was interested in the networks of meaning created through artists of all sorts weaving biblical imagery and perspectives into the cultures that weave our current thoughts. I am interested in thinking of democracy as re-programing our cultural codes.

Democracy as a religion would involve tolerance for all traditional religious practices, as well as weaving together various strands of ancient wisdom and conteporary interpretations to allow new world views to flourish.
 
The spiritual democracy part of democratic religion would be through uniting people to be spiritually in solidarity with each other. The empowering aspect of globalization is recognizing that we are one people, and united we can have far more power than any state or corrporation. Recognizing ourselves as one people, it seems to me, involves letting go of nationalism, identifying as citizens of Earth.
 
Sancho, wonderful thread! :)

In thinking of this topic, I wonder how the role of science fits in as we learn to go beyond some of the boundaries which have held us back in ages past. In today's world we can look inward on the scale of the very small, as well as look outward and observe other worlds, other galaxies, on the scale of the very large. How are our assumptions changing as the result of so many amazing discoveries? How is our sense of place and purpose evolving?

Also, how do our choices about how - and whether - to come together as nations affect the future of religion (both eastern and western) ... and how do both democracy and the more positive aspects of the religious experience help to shape the emerging global culture which you suggest?

Or, we might ask what kind of world civilization we wish to see develop as the result of all the best from religion, science, democracy and the creative human experience? And how can we help to make this happen?
 
Science is often seen as a world view that can replace religious world views. I find this a dangerous perspective. Science is a method. Objectivity and efficiency are it's central values. If used as a guide to how to live and organize culture science could very easily point towards fascism. Science clearly can be used to serve other world views, helping to create new view points, but should not be seen as having a monopoly on truth. Democracy needs to be the new alternative old world views --democracy as a forum for deciding what of past traditions should be retained and what innovations should be introduced.
Science and technology are providing us with the revolutionary means to do this on a global level --yet we allow our future to be decided by those with the money to influence government policies.
Democracy needs to be a cultural force seperate from governments and financial institutions. Democracy is the power of the people. Let states and corrporations be bedfellows for the time being, meanwhile we the people who want justice and tranquility for our brothers and sisters around the planet should consider how we can use the power at our finger tips to take matters into our own hands.
 
Recognizing ourselves as one people, it seems to me, involves letting go of nationalism, identifying as citizens of Earth.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
Imagine....there is no country.
But we need to build that into a reality, or it just remains a nice little song.

All countries need to be viewed as municipalities, or provinces/states.
At this point in our history, our technological ability has brought world destroying powers into the hands of the many.
This MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) concept is not tenable and is certainly not a good position, nor does it have a bright future.

The main blockades to a unified world are the medieval thinkers in all segments of society.

A danger in the transition is the corporate opportunists who will seek to gain power.
Like the pharma-cartel (for 1 example) who wish to make it law for all to listen to them as authorities and be forced to buy and consume their products.
They are very devious and will use threat of disease as the means to that end.

The goal of a truly democratic world can be seen (but we must narrow down which of the many definitions of democracy we are referring to)
although there are many shoals to navigate through before it can be realized.
 
Hello to both Shawn and Taijasi, I like both of your comments. As for narrowing down which concept of democracy, though it is always best to clearly define one's terms, at this point in the history of democracy what we need is to expand the relevant concepts. For far too long it has been assumed that representational democracy is the only form worth considering. The debates have been about how to make these systems fair or how to have effective checks and balances. This is fine and better than totalitarianism, but perhaps it is time to consider how aspects of our cultures other than political systems can be made democratic.
In this thread specifically I'd like to consider how the globalization of religion can be made into a peaceful democratic process rather than an excuse for violence.
 
Namaste Sancho,

Rule of the people has not been shown to work though. The US likes to lead this claptrap about forming democracies but when the people vote in a socialist or communist we flip our lids and say they don't know what they are doing...

A religious democracy of tolerance? Can you tell me how that isn't an oxymoron? Imagine a vote today of what global religion we'd have....then imagine the losing side cooperating...if you can, Disney is looking for you.

I'm not trying to be cynical or devil's advocate, just can't fathom that you'd think it would work. Look at California, tis the closest thing the US has to a Democracy... If we were a democracy the slaves would not have been freed, the women would not have gotten the vote, the civil rights movement would not have succeeded and we wouldn't have the ADA. There would be zero funding for AIDS, and our country would have long since been bankrupt.
 
The problem is that corrupt governments such as the American one have hijacked the concept of democracy and the imaginations of us all.
Democracy is discussions such as this.
Voting is the least imaginative aspect of democracy.
What I'm thinking of in making the globalization of religion more peaceful is not saying, this religion wins the vote and the rest of you can go to hell. What I'm thinking of are interfaith discussions that integrate our global heritage of spiritual wisdom.
 
Sancho said:
what I'm thinking of are interfaith discussions that integrate our global heritage of spiritual wisdom.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm very open to that, it is the name democracy that gets in my way.

This is exactly what I am here for. Reading about other religions in their boards, 'listening' in on their discussions of nuances of their faith, and discussing the same with my own....while exploring our connections in the open forums.

Honza was just inquiring about something similar here

and some others maybe...

Interfaith as a Faith
Interfaith and the Transcendent unity of Religions
What does Interfaith mean to you?
Interfaith as a Faith
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/peace-season-for-nonviolence-4397.html

and take a look at what the site software thinks is similar at the bottom of the page....
 
Sancho said:
In this thread specifically I'd like to consider how the globalization of religion can be made into a peaceful democratic process rather than an excuse for violence.
Click to expand...
Well, simply put, it has to be shown clearly to all involved how this globalization process benefits everyone including "them", and people have to be shown clearly that there really is no "them" just all of us, that we are all ONE regardless of differences of religious opinion or cultural traditions.
If there is still an emphasis on the us vs them mentality then there can be no progress.

If all traditions/religions are homogenized into one universal religion then can it be done without losing the things which hold the most value?
And how do we establish what has the most value?



Can we build a truly multi-cultural mosaic which creates a basic global standard while still honoring traditional values of merit?

Certainly all will never be satisfied. All are never satisfied regardless of how anything is done. Somebody is always going to feel slighted or wronged somehow, even if they are just being stupid and difficult about it and many troubles begin due to just that.
 
Sancho said:
The problem is that corrupt governments such as the American one have hijacked the concept of democracy and the imaginations of us all.
Click to expand...

I used to believe pretty fables like that, back when I thought that "democracy" had some sort of "real" version that was magically independent of how it was practiced in the real world. I've since grown up. "Democracy" only exists AS IT IS ACTUALLY PRACTICED. The same is true for any other doctrine.

Making "democracy" into a religion will only give religious imprimis to people who are happy to impose the tyranny of the majority--and such people try to arrogate religious sanction for this practice too much, already.
 
shawn said:
Can we build a truly multi-cultural mosaic which creates a basic global standard while still honoring traditional values of merit?
Click to expand...

In other words, can we exterminate diversity while preserving diversity? The opposite of conflict is not necessarily peace, it can just as easily be stagnation. The opposite of disagreement is not necessarily harmony, it can just as easily be the "peace" of extinction.
 
Dogbrain said:
In other words, can we exterminate diversity while preserving diversity? The opposite of conflict is not necessarily peace, it can just as easily be stagnation. The opposite of disagreement is not necessarily harmony, it can just as easily be the "peace" of extinction.
Click to expand...
Not really, but I can understand why you would say this and I am concerned about the same issues.
The idea we need to develop is finding a basic set of concepts we can all agree on which unites humanity rather than divides us.

All the Custodial religions are all based upon dividing people, keeping us weak and fighting amongst each other over petty bull***t which has no relevance to anything of real importance.

We need to transcend these Custodial religions and develop a new framework which helps us grow.
I agree that diversity is important and we don't want to see a monoculture, but if we don't overcome our present issues which divide us all these concerns will be moot as we will most likely be just a smoking cinder and who will give a damn then?
 
Hi all.

Shawn, you make a good point about the need to free ourselves from "us and them" mentalities. Vimalakirti's gate of non-dualism comes to mind. If only everyone could pass through it. While mentioning Vimalakirti, who's sutra recently astounded me, let me also suggest that one way to approach the
world of scripture is aesthetically. The Vimalakirti Sutra is an exquisite work of art besides being a treasure trove of profundity. I will add more later.

It seems that many people find the word democracy distastful. This is troubling. What I'm envisaging is not so much about the people ruling at all, it is more about the people deciding how their culture functions and influences the forming of their personalities. What other word represents this?
 
Vimalakirti's silence speaks to everyone. Rather than argue, I'll offer my suggestion of a perspective that illuminates other view points.

Code: 
When the various bodhisattvas had finished one by one giving their explanations, they asked Manjushri, "How then does the bodhisattva enter the gate of nondualism?"
    Manjushri replied, "To my way of thinking, all dharmas are without words, without explanations, without purport, without cognition, removed from all questions and answers. In this way one may enter the gate of nondualism."
      Then Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, "Each of us has given an explanation. Now, sir, it is your turn to speak. How does the boddhisattva enter the gate of nondualism?"
      At that time Vimalakirti remained silent and did not speak a word.               Manjushri sighed and said, "Excellent, excellent! Not a word, not a syllable -------this truly is to enter the gate of nondualism!"
 
Vimalakirti's silence speaks to everyone. Rather than argue, I'll offer my suggestion of a perspective that illuminates other view points.

The Vimalakirti Sutra.

When the various bodhisattvas had finished one by one giving their explanations, they asked Manjushri, "How then does the bodhisattva enter the gate of nondualism?"
Manjushri replied, "To my way of thinking, all dharmas are without words, without explanations, without purport, without cognition, removed from all questions and answers. In this way one may enter the gate of nondualism."
Then Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, "Each of us has given an explanation. Now, sir, it is your turn to speak. How does the boddhisattva enter the gate of nondualism?"
At that time Vimalakirti remained silent and did not speak a word. Manjushri sighed and said, "Excellent, excellent! Not a word, not a syllable -------this truly is to enter the gate of nondualism!"[/CODE][/QUOTE]
 
Sancho said:
It seems that many people find the word democracy distastful. This is troubling. What I'm envisaging is not so much about the people ruling at all, it is more about the people deciding how their culture functions and influences the forming of their personalities. What other word represents this?
Click to expand...
People deciding. The crux of the biscuit.

I still need to grasp your definition of democracy....if it is making decisions where a majority opinion 'decides' that just leaves out the whole.

There are a number of forms of concensus that allow for discussion and moving toward decisions that benefit the whole and include the individual, but a non representative democracy is not one of them.
 
Sorry about the glitches, and for getting seemingly off topic.
 
The change I'd like to see is to have a non governmental organization that could function both on local and global levels that would have an appealing networking site. Both the local centers and the website would be geared towards encouraging people to speak and listen: to discuss what local and global cultures could be --or anything else. These centers could be in community centers, parks, libraries, old churches, or wherever those involved could find. Public space really needs to be reconcidered. Discussing religion would be one among many discussions to have to consciously collectively change our cultures. These local centers could actually serve the community, as other genuine community groups do, providing whatever the people participating are interested in. What is different now is that isolated community groups can form an international network.
It is not so much about getting everyone to agree. It is more about organizing a way to influence the direction our cultures are heading in that can counter the advertising industry, to name but one force that is molding us while we could be deciding for ourselves who we want to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top