Interfaith Dialogue in Action
As many of you who attended the 2009 Parliament in Melbourne may have noticed, the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions has emphasized a more socially active approach to interfaith dialogue in recent years. Most of the Parliament’s panels from 2009 were focused on current regional and global social problems plaguing our world, viewing them from a variety of faith perspectives, and emphasizing the need for interfaith cooperation in addressing these issues. If you comb through past Parliament program books, or better yet attended past Parliaments, you will notice this has been a trend that has been increasingly emphasized with each Parliament.
We’d like to start a discussion around this idea of socially-engaged religions and their participation in dialogue. It hasn’t always been the case that interfaith dialogue occurs with a respect and appreciation for the other person(s) faith. In fact, one of the ironic and unfortunate realities of the original 1893 Parliament was that it convened under the auspices that it would serve as a platform to showcase the supremacy of Christianity as the universal religion (thankfully, faiths such as Hinduism and Buddhism were well represented by speakers, Swami Vivekananda and Soyen Shaku, respectively, who quickly proved false this assumption by the Christian organizers). We’d like to hear
your opinions and experiences as part of varying religious communities, and how, or if, you have seen your religion take an active role in addressing issues in the greater community. Additionally, how must these actions be adapted to take account of and respect communities of different faiths?
Another thought worth considering is whether religious leaders and communities have an obligation to take an active role in leading social-change efforts. Take for instance those traditions or sects within a larger religious framework that emphasize contemplative practices and social detachment. What voice do these religions have in a world that expects religious peoples to lead social initiatives?
Feel free to add any other questions or topics related to this issue you may have. We’re anxious to read what you have to say…..or type!
Tags: change, cpwr, interfaith, social
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Graeme Sharrock on -
Pleas see my posting today on peacenext main page: "Six steps to real interfaith work... from the Washington Post"
Graeme Sharrock
Parliament Media
-
Permalink Reply by Graeme Sharrock on
-
Graeme Sharrock said:Please see my blog post today on peacenext main page: "Six steps to real interfaith work... from the Washington Post"
Graeme Sharrock
Parliament Media
-
Permalink Reply by Devin O'Rourke on -
Dear Graeme,
Thanks for the great entry from the Washington Post. It's definitely relevant to the topic of this discussion.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts about the WP article and this topic in general, Graeme. I understood Bob Roberts to be offering a practical "blueprint", so to speak, that goes beyond the hopes expressed at interfaith panels and puts words to action. He seems to be writing from the assumption that interfaith work is compatible with religious beliefs, and, further, religious communities should be expected to engage in interfaith work.
In a way, I meant to challenge these assumptions with my questions. I'm curious about the differing motivations for interfaith work across the many traditions, as well as the potential conflicts that may arise when, or if, traditional religious values contradict emerging social pressures attached to an increasingly globalized community. In essence, I want to explore the potential pitfalls of inter-religious engagement in order to better navigate them when they inevitably occur.
Do you, Graeme or any other member reading this, think the article addresses the concerns I had in my original post?
Devin
-
Permalink Reply by Gola Wolf Richards on -
However good our thoughts about God may be, to some degree discordant influences continually spread from potentials for untimely habits in our perceptions. Consequently, understanding how change operates in consciousness is necessary to genuinely protecting clarity, from confusion.
Moreover, so long as principles to improve thinking are not contemplated, any perspective is subject to become an inadequate orientation to faith. Therefore, when individuals engage in disciplined contemplation to evolve global change, effective and efficient spiritual responsibility is assumed, for revolutionary human development.
In principle and in fact, conceptual deficits in understanding consciousness as a whole limit positive realizations. Therefore, contemplative education for peace must focus on fundamental principles for conflict-resolution; and creative unity, in theory and in practice (Mystical Humanism). In my audiobooks I put it this way: “Understanding the nature of Change, changes the nature of understanding”. [Therefore], “Never hold growth hostage to how you believe, but learn to believe, such that growth is insured.”
Rev. Gola Wolf Richards, www.GolaWolfRichards.org
-
Permalink Reply by Mystic Tourist on -
My background is Roman Catholic. The church itself as represented by doctrines, doctrine and dogma is a train wreck. Obviously that is a personal opinion. I have known and do know many Catholics. My own mother is by any standard, recognizable, a saint. She touched an influenced a lot of people who know no other way to consider her. It was not because she was she was a Catholic. She was devout but her devotion was true. It was through being Catholic that she new her devotion but had nothing to do with being Catholic. That sounds more complicated than it is. Her devotion was true and it would matter, not at all, whether or not she was religious or what religion happenstance presented her. I have no confidence in religion as I walk my own path and find my way without it.
As for the Catholics they are in many ways ecumenical in its true sense. Catholic Charities are the best example of this that I know of. They organize resources and reach out to people in need. There is no indication from where this assistance comes. There is no religious outreach. If you have a need that they would address, that is the only requirement. The only expectation of the persons in need is that their need is addressed. You can be a good person a bad person a religious person or not. It is true charity and good work.
This is the best example of working toward social change and being religious that I know of. It is a model that can be applied to any social initiative. The resources of the religious community are brought to bear in a personal and non-religious manner to affect positive results.
The active role, that best serves the community at large, and for which 'religious leaders' are responsible, is to encourage true generosity. Giving that expects nothing in return and is not intended to steer people into your camp. It is an activity that leaves religion at church where it belongs.
The Mystic Tourist
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Krumpos on -
In March of this year I responded to a statement by Glenn Beck which said we should run away from our religion when it speaks of "promoting social justice." In short, my comment was:
Supporting and promoting social justice are good Christian acts. They are also good Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, and Pagan acts. It should be obligatory for all of us if we are to be truly human.
© 2013 Created by The Parliament of Religions.
