Interfaith as a Faith

[InLove]

Dear bolo--

I don't know a whole lot about Pat Robertson. I do know that he ran for president of the United States, but could not get elected. If the quotes here are his words, then they don't look like sneaky "sugar-and-spice" tactics to me.

Are you trying to force people who say things like this to "play well with others"? Why?

Like I said before, if people claim to be Christians, but do not reflect a Christ-like attitude (and I'm not saying that humans don't slip up now and then), then they are not really fundamentalists. They are political activists, or egotists, or any number of things. And this does not apply just to Christians--it applies to any person or group of people who claim a particular philosophy but do not show it in their actions.

And yes, I agree--it is a problem in this world. But nothing a few "naive" choir members can't overcome. Wars and crusades will come and go, but Truth lives forever.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[bolo]

InLove

I find it hard to take your comment at all seriously:

And yes, I agree--it is a problem in this world. But nothing a few "naive" choir members can't overcome.

You ARE joking yes (funny if so, lol good one)? If not however then we are in a bigger mess than I had previously though possible! No one can be that naive can they?

Are you really suggesting the old Coke advert jingle will fix everything - "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.... "

Dream on if so my friend..

 

[bolo]

Like I said before, if people claim to be Christians, but do not reflect a Christ-like attitude (and I'm not saying that humans don't slip up now and then), then they are not really fundamentalists.

Cannot quite get my teeth aroung that one either. Are you really suggesting that the Christian Coalition (with all its committed members) and thousands/millions like it are NOT Christian? They deeply believe that their attitude (private and theocratical) is MUCH more fundamentally accurate that mine, yours or anyone elses!

Odd

 

[InLove]

Peace--

I don't know much more about the Christian Coalition than I do Pat Robertson. I only know bits and pieces, mostly from what I read in the papers and see on television. And I admit that I know absolutely nothing about the missionary program you mentioned.

I will try and do some research so that I can be better informed.

I do know that there are millions of people who call themselves fundamentalists. What I am trying to tell you is that, in my opinion, they are not if they do not in actions reflect the fundamental values of the faith or philosophy they express with their words. And even their words give them away sometimes. I think perhaps you and I are in disagreement over terminology more than anything else. Some might call it "semantics", but that implies that it isn't important to distinguish one term from another. It is important in this case.

I do agree with you that there will be people who will follow others, at least for a while, without really understanding the alignment they have chosen. And there will probably always be someone out there who can and will shout louder and longer than someone else. But the majority of the people do not shout all day. A lot of them are focused on common ideals that transcend philosophy and religion and work toward a better world. Often this happens in small, dedicated groups or one-on-one. And I say that "word-of-action" in bits and pieces speaks volumes.

That said, I want you to know that your sentiments are not lost on me. nor are your words in vain. I will take a closer look. Understanding is the objective, after all.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Yes I think “respect” is the hot word herein. The problem is that absolutist faiths that claim to have the only worthwhile monopoly on truth and light and see others as satanically- inspired, due to bigoted teaching from their holy books, seldom respect others.

I mean adherents to a religion that claims to have the ‘only’ way to the godhead (i.e. so-called Gospel truth) can never really respect other faiths, not really if they are honest (which they are not). It just is not in their nature.

This is a large and ongoing problem for many more tolerant who naively people believe that its all about trust and respect and YES it is for these folks yet NOT for the fundamentalists that get in by the back door and seek to use the system as nothing but a platform to convert and manipulate.

And yes I know that many Christians and Muslims etc of a more let’s say ‘amicable’ nature may wish that it was not so but the evangelicals (the hardline right wingers) always have the last word as they actually ‘follow’ the doctrine of their faiths as set out in the scriptures accurately.

It is a problem.

I like how you pin-point the exact problem with fundamentalists. It's not just a lack of respect; it's outright fear. They cannot trust anyone outside their own trusted circles. They believe the devil is out to get them in whatever shape or form. So long as I remained a member in good standing in my parents' church I was warey of who I talked to about religion. I was not aware of this fear, but the minute I left I found myself talking freely with Catholics, Anglicans, whoever. The church I was born into had let me down and I no longer cared who I talked to. If that church wasn't "real" then no church was real. That's basically how I felt. Huge claims make huge accountability. They made huge claims and they failed to live up to those claims.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Over this time I've come to the recognition that interfaith is my faith. Interfaith is for me not merely tolerating other faiths, not even merely respecting other faiths, not even promoting joint interaction. The true interfaith spirit is the recognition that all religious practices that promote love for everyone are essentially right, they are part of God's hope for humanity. (Not purpose! God's hope is that we freely choose a worthwhile purpose.)

Have you ever checked out the definition for universalism? I'm not sure what it is myself but I came across the term in sociology of religion and I got the idea it is the kind of religion where you believe all religions are good. I did have the impression that it meant Christians who accept all other religions as equal to their own. If that is the case, then you do take it a step further. I really like the similarities you point out. I am simply amazed to see someone express my own beliefs so well. Thanks for sharing.

Ruby

 

[arthra]

I think that it begins for me on the local level where you live.. so in your own community check out what your Inter-faith Council is doing or maybe help organize one. Our Inter-faith Council began as a Community of Churches a mostly Christian organization but over the years non-Christians began participating until in 1997 it became an Inter-faith Council.

Yes "bolo" can say that we've all got our heads in the clouds and are naive ...that's alright with me, because the payoff comes when we support each other and have common goals. I suppose my community may be more idealistic than yours...be that as it may..there is still work to be done I think wherever we are...

If we are patient and work together a lot can be accomplished! Or we can just hang our heads and not do anything I suppose but that's just against my nature.

- Art

 

[DT Strain]

By the way, that is an excellent list of golden rules DrFree. I hope you don't mind if I present it on my blog (with links and credit back to here of course).

 

[seattlegal]

If you know of other versions, please let me know.

This thread.

 

[bolo]

If we are patient and work together a lot can be accomplished! Or we can just hang our heads and not do anything I suppose but that's just against my nature.

I will happily interfaith with any pluralistic and tolerant faith system that does not insist that I am a follower of Satan just because I may disagree with a one-sided fundamentalist world viewpoint and I certainly do not hang my head to anyone. However certain vital points need addressing.

By seeking to interfaith with TOLERANT faiths and the good-natured adherents within these ranks we are certainly doing much and moving forward. Alternatively, by Interfaithing with a rampant theocratical monster that sees us all as nothing more than cold ‘Mission Targets’ (souls in urgent need of conversion and salvation) we jeopardise virtually everything and achieve the ‘exact’ opposite of what we originally started out to accomplish. Fundamentalism does not know how to interfaith – it only knows how to convert! One choice is based on common-wisdom and good sense whilst the other is based on naivety, ignorance and misplaced loyalties. Genuine Interfaith liaison certainly does NOT require the permission or blessing of wholesale fundamentalism to evolve. The opposite is indeed true – fundamentalism needs to change yet it is stuck forever in Dark Age superstition, bigotry and ignorance.

The overtly trusting types amongst us will never appreciate this truth yet many will come to realise the reality of the situation, either by direct or indirect confrontation with the forces of intolerance that we have so far debated.

 

[jiii]

originally posted by bolo

Fundamentalism does not know how to interfaith – it only knows how to convert! One choice is based on common-wisdom and good sense whilst the other is based on naivety, ignorance and misplaced loyalties

I understand your point, bolo, and I must agree with you on a certian level. Some religious faiths would seem predisposed to a one-way exchange, which is contrary to cooperation and "inter"-anything. However, I don't think that the "doctrines" of these such religions actually directly commands that. I think, rather, that it is the most popular interpretations in this day in age for some sects.

If I had a whole lot of initiative (and I don't right now), I don't doubt that I could find excerpts from sacred books all over the world in every religion that could be easily interpreted as advising that "this way is the only way worth following. You should tell people about it." Every religion that has written anything has spoken of their religion in this way at some point. Needless to say, it would seem that most religious adherents do not actually do this. They take such self-aggrandizing statements quite lightly, not because they believe they are untrue, but because they don't actually understand them to be something that translates exclusively into action and intention...maybe not at all.

Take Protestantism, for instance. Historically speaking, Protestantism developed in resistance to the terror tactics and tyrannical rule of the Catholic Church. They argued that following an interpretation of spirituality from some religious organization was foolish. Casting away the Catholic authority, the Protestants were left, by default, with only the Bible. Thus, their faith cut away the umbilical cord to their somewhat abusive parent organization and went out to find out what it was all about based upon their interpretation of the Bible. No interpreter was to be accepted anymore. This was a huge step forward in many respects!

Now, most religions have been around for a LONG, LONG time! Buddhism began around 500 BC, Christianity around 1 AD, Confucianism around 550 BC, Islam around 600 BC, Taoism around 600 BC, Zoroastriansim around 1000 BC. These religions have had a very long time to refine and redefine themselves. Although the schism of the Eastern and Western church occurred around 1000 AD, the Protestant breakaway didn't really start until the mid-1500's. The revolutionary idea of abandoning the Catholic Church as the sole interpreter of the meaning of God and Jesus hasn't really even had a solid 500 years to work itself out yet. In this way, the Protestant doctrine is a newly developing faith that hasn't had nearly the amount of time to develop as many other religions. Protestantism is still without a refined identity.
Protestantism cast Christianity into the dark for a while, sacrificing easy acceptance of authority for the opportunity to find out for themselves. This is a very important development, I think.

To ostracise Protestants that embody your complaint, for instance, would seem to be the easy solution. They aren't being reasonable, "they are still in the Dark Ages", they won't cooperate...kicking them out would seem to be the best way to handle it. I just don't think that in the long run that would be the "clear" and obvious decision, because the best way to develop is by exposure to everything else. In the early days of all religions, I'm sure that there were plenty of fundamentalists. Starting a new faith is almost considered laughable in this day in age, and it wasn't always much easier in the times of antiquity either. New faiths are, almost always, based upon the conviction of people that were very bold in their faith to a new idea expressed by a spiritual icon or book. This conviction was almost always one that the average person would consider irrational...even in those times.

So, yes, you are right about what you say. Protestantism doesn't contain the only examples, either, it's just a particular take I had thoughts on. Many people are still considered to be somewhat fundamentalist in their viewpoints and their interest in what others say is blockaded from their beliefs. Nothing really sinks in. It is certainly frustrating at times, but removing them from inter-faith ventures is not nearly the clear-cut way of dealing with the issue as I think you are expressing.

The continent of North America was once inhabited far and wide by various tribes of Native North Americans. When European man arrived with modern technology, the Native Americans were still living in the Stone Age. They had migrated much further than Europeans from Africa, and they hadn't been settled for half the time that homo sapiens in Europe had. Europeans looked down upon Natives as though they were savages and used their primitive ways as a validation for exterminating them. The should've changed with the times, the Europeans said, but the Natives were doing all that they knew. I'm not suggesting that you, in any way, are taking this kind of drastic stance against fundamentalists, but I do think that so far as Protestantism goes, the bugs are still being worked out, and deciding based upon our apparently superior outlook that they are just primitve and in the "Dark Ages" is not entirely appropriate based upon historical facts.

-jiii

 

[arthra]

My own view is that people can always change ..including fundamentalists and we need to "keep the door open" to them. But it takes time and patience and willingness to do this.

People who giveup on this I think will only tend to harden the attitudes on both sides. So my strategy is to "keep the door open".

I had an example of this a year or so ago when we had a forum sponsored by our Inter-faith Council on Church and State issues...

An evangelical more fundamentalist pastor had a reputation in our community as being among the most hardened in his attitudes.

On the other side was a more liberal pastor who was the chaplain of the University.

Both told me at one point that they would never appear together in a forum to discuss church-state issues...

But some time later they agreed..

and we had a valuable dialogue that was much appreciated.

I also set up display boards from local newspapers and the internet on church-state issues.

So people from various views appeared at our church-state forum uncluding the former Mayor and Police Chief.

So I say be open and willing to consider that people can change!

- Art

 

[RubySera_Martin]

If I had a whole lot of initiative (and I don't right now), I don't doubt that I could find excerpts from sacred books all over the world in every religion that could be easily interpreted as advising that "this way is the only way worth following. You should tell people about it."

The Christian version is "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." Then there's also verses like Mark 16:16 that say unless you believe and are baptized you won't be saved. And the "Great Commision" verses where Jesus commands to preach the gospel to every creature to the ends of the earth. There are so many ways to understand/interpret every single one of those passages that people from pretty much any position can use them to support and justify their own agenda.

Take Protestantism, for instance. Historically speaking, Protestantism developed in resistance to the terror tactics and tyrannical rule of the Catholic Church. They argued that following an interpretation of spirituality from some religious organization was foolish. Casting away the Catholic authority, the Protestants were left, by default, with only the Bible. Thus, their faith cut away the umbilical cord to their somewhat abusive parent organization and went out to find out what it was all about based upon their interpretation of the Bible. No interpreter was to be accepted anymore. This was a huge step forward in many respects!

I would be inclined to ask where you are getting your information. I have taken more than one formal course on the Reformation and what you describe does not at all reflect what I learned.

Now, most religions have been around for a LONG, LONG time! Buddhism began around 500 BC, Christianity around 1 AD, Confucianism around 550 BC,

Islam around 600 BC

Sorry but you're off by 1200 years. Islam started about 600 AD/CE.

Taoism around 600 BC, Zoroastriansim around 1000 BC. These religions have had a very long time to refine and redefine themselves. Although the schism of the Eastern and Western church occurred around 1000 AD, the Protestant breakaway didn't really start until the mid-1500's. The revolutionary idea of abandoning the Catholic Church as the sole interpreter of the meaning of God and Jesus hasn't really even had a solid 500 years to work itself out yet.

There have been break-away churches far longer than the official Protestantism. Luther did not set out to start his own church; just to reform the Catholic Church. But he received so much opposition that when he was officially confronted by the RC and demanded to recant he could not conscientiously do so. He obtained the protection of powerful rulers who converted to his beliefs and thus the Lutheran Church was eventually started.

Calvin and Zwingli disagreed with him and with each other and also started their own churches, complete with the protection of their own rulers/princes. Right now I am reading of the Anabaptist movement which did not acquire state-santion.

In this way, the Protestant doctrine is a newly developing faith that hasn't had nearly the amount of time to develop as many other religions. Protestantism is still without a refined identity.

As for defining itself, every single Protestant group definitely defined itself. The defining mark of Protestantim may be said to be its appeal to the scripture alone for its authority. Because, as stated above, the Bible can be understood in so many different ways, the splintering of Protestantism has not stopped to the present day. The best antidote for the splintering that I see is interfaith and ecumenical movements.

Protestantism cast Christianity into the dark for a while, sacrificing easy acceptance of authority for the opportunity to find out for themselves. This is a very important development, I think.

You make it sound like Protestantism is a separate religion from Christianity. It's not. As part of Christianity is goes back just as far as any other segments of the Christian church.

To ostracise Protestants that embody your complaint, for instance, would seem to be the easy solution. They aren't being reasonable, "they are still in the Dark Ages", they won't cooperate...kicking them out would seem to be the best way to handle it. I just don't think that in the long run that would be the "clear" and obvious decision, because the best way to develop is by exposure to everything else. In the early days of all religions, I'm sure that there were plenty of fundamentalists.

Again, I don't know where you are getting your information. Protestants and fundamentalists are NOT the same thing. Anybody can be a fundamentalist regardless of religious persuasion. Very many Protestant Christians are NOT fundamentalists.

DrFree is much closer to reality in her/his thinking around fundamentalists than you are.

So, yes, you are right about what you say. Protestantism doesn't contain the only examples, either, it's just a particular take I had thoughts on. Many people are still considered to be somewhat fundamentalist in their viewpoints and their interest in what others say is blockaded from their beliefs. Nothing really sinks in. It is certainly frustrating at times, but removing them from inter-faith ventures is not nearly the clear-cut way of dealing with the issue as I think you are expressing.

I think if you carefully read DrFree's posts you will see that not participating in interfaith is the decision of the fundamentalists and NOT of the interfaith organization.

 

[bolo]

Re: Interfaith as a ruse to gain converts!

Thank you for all your various offering herein but although I admit that the history of a range of faiths is especially important we must ‘not’ lose track of the main point which is that fundamentalists become interested in interfaith for ‘one’ main reason and that is to seek new converts. I must reiterate that they see us as ‘Mission Targets’ not people of equal rights and no amount of pleasant friendliness from us will ever change this for they are acting out their doctrinal duties. They see this as their sacred duty and that is what they are all about. They firmly believe they do this for ‘our’ own good (and theirs to of course) – to save our souls as we are at least erroneous in our spiritual views or at worst working for the devil. They have absolutely mountains of books, courses, websites and a huge resource on how ‘best’ to tackle anyone who ‘challenges’ their faith, that is - has a different philosophy to theirs. They have ‘all’ the answers (and have heard all your questions a million times before) and all their seemingly good-natured actions and gestures are just a part of their greater game plan to get ‘you’ to sigh up to their brand of fundamentalism. Being acceptable, trusting and naïve are NOT sensible options with the rampant forces of fundamentalism. Moreover, keeping a door open for a historically proven theocratical ‘Mission Machine’ to abuse at their leisure is entirely absurd, dangerous and without any good sense. In such a situation they can be the only feasible winners - not us!

Yes history lessons are most interesting I admit but the plain truth is that we can certainly not ‘ever’ trust any theocracy which preaches (historically and still today) total religious elitist supremacy and moral dominion over others. Such intolerant ecclesiastical structures are expert (subsequent to centuries of practice) at either converting or suppressing whatever stands in their way. Anyone who fails to realise this hard truth is unhappily either incredibly naïve and dangerously trusting or I have to say a complete idiot. I dearly wish that this was no so but that is just the depressing reality of the situation!

think if you carefully read DrFree's posts you will see that not participating in interfaith is the decision of the fundamentalists and NOT of the interfaith organization.

Yes – this can be true, many fundamentalists refuse to participate yet those that do take an active part do it for the above reasons. It make good sense to realise that anyone who is committed in the belief that their faith is the 'only' genuine way to the godhead will never compromise that belief in any way, they will never water it down into something which is forbidden in their holy scriptures. Ergo again I reiterate that the only interest they have at interfaith liaisons is to tell others (albeit in perhaps an awfully polite fashion) how ‘their’ way is the only way worth following and that your way is wrong, bogus and spiritually dangerous.

All this is quite easy to appreciate when you abstract most of the superfluous baggage and focus on what history teaches us about how one fundamentalist supremacist culture always takes over others when ‘friendly’ missionaries start getting involved in ‘talking nicely’ to other ‘trusting’ faith systems. How many marvellous and beneficial earlier cultures, which could have taught modern man so much, and their ancient religions have been defamed, then either converted or crushed into extinction subsequent to Interfaithing with pleasant -sounding missionaries? You surely don’t need me to spell all that out herein.

So-called ‘trust’ in this particular instance sadly equates with gross gullibility or perhaps in a minority of cases a subconscious ‘desire’ and even attraction for what fundamentalism has to offer. Playing with fundamentalist fire (and brimstone in equal quantities) at interfaith may seem like fun (for ‘fun’ read – mistakenly ‘perceived’ progressive spiritual/social advancement) yet one’s fingers may get burnt if one is not vigilant. Numerous worldwide cultures have learnt this sad fact at their cost after it was too late to change things.

Methods of mission are still very effective and their holy writ is the same today as it was then. They are now in fact simply more expert at what they do and they actually rely on 'trust' to get in that open door!

Tolerance and especially 'acceptance' are the very best friends of fundamentalism everywhere!

 

[InLove]

Hi--Peace to All Here,

bolo--

In my view, there is an inherit danger in your words that could cause some to believe that anyone of the Christian faith with a desire for interfaith relationships is insincere or braindead. (I'm not going to go into the whole matter of fundamenatalists of other faiths, since I think it is safe by now to say you are referring exclusively to those who call themselves Christian.)

My experience tells me that when someone uses the terms "always" and "never" to evaluate social behavior, it usually means that haven't thoroughly investigated the situation they are describing.

As Always...
InPeace,
InLove

 

[wil]

Last night we had a Muslim Iman come and discuss the tenents of his faith at our interfaith service.

While if we were of a different bent we could have easily been distracted, annoyed, incensed at his focus on Islam, and his non acceptance of interfaith as an option, it was all quite enlightening.

He described the problem with those that are labeled terrorist is not that they are Mulsim, but that they are not Muslim enough. If they were to follow the teachings they would not be doing what they are doing. But instead of being raised in Islam, they are products of western influences in Arabic countries, where secularism was forced in as we drew lines in thier sands and created the countries...an interesting observation. So the blame is still on the west, for corrupting the young minds with secular thought and allowing them to become less of a Muslim and more opportunity for confusion. The Imam was of the same age, of the same schooling, and he to was confused with what he heard on the street v. what he was taught in school v. what he heard at the mosque.

We could have conversed for ours....discovering the nuances of our various beliefs.

 

[Dondi]

Interesting wil. If all the Muslims in a country were completely isolated and simply followed the teachings of the Qu'ran, do you think they would live peacefully amongst themselves?

 

[wil]

We didn't have the time to get that far....But until we do my current thinking is no. As the discussion I've had here is that there were to be 72 different sects, and only one would become the final sect....and all/most believe their sect to be that sect.

In addition as I understand it, the in fighting/killing between Muslim sects mostly has to do with political issues, not religious issues. Sorta like Christians fighting Christians...all over the globe.

But back to your question, and to me this includes the can Christians Kill? question...if we all were to follow the tenents of our faiths...there should be very little violence or none at all. Appears we are human though.

The discussion was extremely interesting...like discussing with one that insists that all who expect to see heaven must be saved, Muslims believe that the Quran spells out the latest word from G-d, but do also speak well of the 'people of the book', Christians and Jews.

We touched on terrorists, fasting, women, Mecca, prayers, pbuh, infidels (disbelievers)....it was only an hour...I hope to learn more, anticipate having to more opportunities to meet him next month.

 

[bolo]

Hi--Peace to All Here,

bolo--

In my view, there is an inherit danger in your words that could cause some to believe that anyone of the Christian faith with a desire for interfaith relationships is insincere or braindead. (I'm not going to go into the whole matter of fundamenatalists of other faiths, since I think it is safe by now to say you are referring exclusively to those who call themselves Christian.)

My experience tells me that when someone uses the terms "always" and "never" to evaluate social behavior, it usually means that haven't thoroughly investigated the situation they are describing.

As Always...
InPeace,
InLove

InLove

I am rather surprised that you seem to find me the enemy when all I have done is express a fair desire for others to be made aware of the clear dangers of interfaithing with fundamentalism as you appear to be promoting herein. I feel the "danger" lies in your words - not mine and this is supported by examining the history of how fundamentalism actually works!

You have not in any way given us any feasible reassurance of how you plan to rewrite the holy books of any sort of fundamentalism and remove the parts which demand the adherents of those faiths to convert or oppress others. Do you actually ‘deny’ that is what is asked for in these assumed sacred scriptures? Can you not appreciate this truth? You appear to accuse me of not ‘investigating’ the situation, yet by your own admissions it is undoubtedly ‘you’ that is acting in a most naïve and dangerous manner by urging other good and trusting people to interfaith with absolutist faith systems that are only interested in seeking new converts. You go on to allude that I am also only referring to the Christian branch of fundamentalism. This is simply not true as I deplore all forms of absolutism. It must however be realised that we in the West we do see a greater influence for Christian-type fundamentalism as this is of course the historically governing structure that we have been largely brought up with and live under in general. Do you also deny this?

Terms like ‘always’ and ‘never’ that you draw attention to me using are especially fitting for the theocratical (and not only social) - based behaviour that is displayed on a weekly national basis by all fundamentalists. I am very surprised that you appear now to be some sort of ‘apologist’ for such radical factions.

You declare that you will not go into the whole matter of fundamentalists yet here you are in fact blatantly urging us to open doors to these rampant faith systems that have always believed that anyone who fails to share their brand of religion is bogus, misled and inspired by evil forces in spiritual matters. How in their right mind could anyone advocate such a ridiculous thing?

Do you actually think that 'you' can change their ancient holy scriptures/doctrinal basis and somehow eradicate the ground origin of their beliefs? Do you think that they will somehow just turn around and say – ‘Oh dear we were so wrong all this time - our god and our faith are wrong because InLove says so’ – is that really what you are telling us on this particular thread?

Do you not realise that fundamentalism has been intimately monitoring, analyzing, researching and infiltrating other faiths for numerous centuries? Trusting faith systems that the fundamentalists now know ‘more’ about than the majority of actual adherents to those faiths know? You give the distinct impression that you are altogether uninformed of the fact that across the globe, cultures that at first ‘welcomed’ (i.e. interfaithed with) seemingly friendly missionaries with open arms have been later subjugated by these great experts in worldwide religious conversion. Have you never heard of ‘Evangelisation’ or pondered on the significance of this term and considered how it actually applies to the interfaith situation? Do you know how much they spent of their so-called 'Decade of Evangelisation' or have any idea of the ramifications?

You ought to also realise that the ‘ordinary’ everyday Christians, Muslims etc who only pay lip-service to their given faiths have been inadvertently towing the line for the more fundamentalist leaders for many centuries. This is frequently done in an innocent fashion and without clear knowledge of what lies under the thin veneer of religious respectability, supposed tolerance and social concern. A

A vulgar analogy may be with how many nice ordinary German families supported the national political regime in the last world war whilst it was busy murdering millions behind the scenes due to a core belief that if was 'superior' in some way. The families where yes very nice yet they were perhaps largely unaware of what exactly lay behind the main thrust of their supported beliefs!

Fundamentalism, either religious or political, is the 'real' enemy (not I my friend) that you should be watching out for, as it is anti-freedom, anti-democratic and anti-human!

 

[arthra]

I think Bolo that your reaction to what you perceive as fundamentalism only will shut down any kind of valuable exchange or possible dialogue.

To me your view is extreme... Inter-faith by its very nature is an open system..

Intrinsic in my Faith is the following admonition:

"Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship." Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished.

______________________________________

And in our history we have dealt with the most virulent of fundamentalists, Nazis and communists and survived.

- Art