How major religions of the world have contributed to world peace-keeping
The five major religions in the world are namely, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. Religions do play a part in world peace-keeping, as religion is part of almost everyone’s culture. As such, similarities in these religions can assist them to come together and promote world peace.
Christianity has contributed to international peace keeping by its values. Churches regularly provide free counseling, not only to their members, but often to virtually anyone who desires it. Many churches have pastors or staff members who are trained in the art of listening to people, helping them understand their problems and offering advice. Obviously the more people who receive this care, the healthier a community becomes as they can resolve their problems. This will make everyone feel that they are valuable to one another.
Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) offers an organized, non-violent alternative to war and other forms of lethal inter-group conflict. CPT provides organizational support to persons committed to faith-based nonviolent alternatives in situations where lethal conflict is an immediate reality or is supported by public policy. CPT seeks to enlist the response of the whole church in conscientious objection to war, and in the development of nonviolent institutions, skills and training for intervention in conflict situations. As such, world peace can be established.
The organization of International conference is one of the major Islamic organizations in the world which mainly focuses on combating terrorism. The combative measures taken are to ensure effective protection of people working in the field of criminal justice as well as investigators, also ensuring effective protection of information sources and witnesses on terrorist crimes. Extending necessary assistance to victims of terrorism, arresting perpetrators of terrorist's crimes and prosecuting them according to the national law or extraditing them in accordance with the provisions of this Convention or existing Conventions between the requesting and requested States and Establishing effective cooperation between the concerned organs in the contracting States and the citizens for combating terrorism including extending appropriate guarantees and appropriate incentives to encourage informing on terrorist acts and submitting information to help uncover them and cooperating in arresting the perpetrators. Moreover the main preventive measure taken to combat terrorism is developing and strengthening systems relating to detecting transportation, importing, exporting stockpiling, and using of weapons, ammunition and explosives as well as other means of aggression, killing and destruction in addition to strengthening trans-border and custom controls in order to intercept their transfer from one Contracting State to another or to other States unless they are intended for specific legitimate purposes. Thus Islamic organizations are effective in international peacekeeping.
The culture of the Jewish is known as Judaism. It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions and was founded by Moses over 3500 years ago in the Middle East. Judaism also includes Christianity and Islam. Jews believe in one god and they also believe in following the lord’s commandments and laws. The Sabbath (a Jewish holy day) is observed by the Jewish people every week. It is said to be god’s gift for his people to make them feel special. On that day, people do things to keep their minds away from their stressful lives. For example, families gather together in a house in the presence of the lord and perform rituals. By doing so, families have an opportunity spending time together with a common focus. Hence, this helps to build understanding among the Jewish people and therefore creating peace and harmony in the society. Moreover, they have also participated in international peacekeeping by indicating their willingness to participate in the U.S. implementation of the ‘International Rights and Redress Campaign’. Thus they play their part to maintain world peace.
Hinduism, which is one of the oldest religions of the world, has a lot of similarities with the major religions of the world. Although there may be many deities worshipped by Hindus, the Hindu scriptures hold the fact that there is only one formless god, the Brahman. This similar believe itself can promote world peace. There are also various quotes in the Hindu scriptures promoting peace, empathy, compassion and mercy. Also every single living being is acknowledged to be the creation of god. Thus, this can bring about a sense of common identity as humans, where everyone is accepted regardless of their race or religion. These values can also be found in other religions too. Such similarities between religions bring about harmony, thus keeping world peace. Hinduism emphasizes on charity to a large extent. In fact, most Hindu scriptures hold that sins can be rectified if one is charitable and he must donate to the needy without considering caste or creed. Therefore, such qualities can bring about world peace as charity programmes for example, can conducted by various religions together.
Many Buddhist believe that to maintain World Peace, we have to start with establishing peace in our minds first. Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, said that “Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.” It literally means that anger and any other negative states of mind are the cause of wars and conflict and people might even lose wisdom in the process. Therefore, Buddhists believe that only by abandoning our negative emotions such as anger in our minds, we can cultivate positive emotions such as love and compassion. People will then be able to live in peace and harmony. An ideal compassion is a humane response to suffering as long as beings continue to suffer. They emphasized on the training of their minds to face facts, endure suffering and attain a more lasting state of happiness. Be objective and humble; realize that no party is always wrong. There can never be absolute equality but surely there can be a greater degree of equity. For the last 2,500 years, there has never been any serious discord or conflict created by Buddhists that led to war in the name of this religion. This is probably a result of the dynamic character of the concept of tolerance contained in the Buddha's teaching.
All the major religions of the world will be able to contribute to world peace and work together for the benefit of humanity if we put aside subtle metaphysical differences, which are really the internal business of each religion. Thus, world peace-keeping can be maintained if these major religions play their part with their similar values incorporated as one value.
A Project of 10S12
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
The Changing Place of Women in Traditional Religion
July 17th, 2009 ·
by: welmer
As women are becoming increasingly dominant in academia and the philosophically oriented professions, more and more are beginning to take on authority in matters of spirituality. It is not only in the more liberal Protestant churches and Jewish temples in America that we see this, but in the Catholic Church as well. There are even hints that women are beginning to step up and preach Islam. It appears that only Orthodox Judaism has held a very strict gender line; although I cannot say for sure that this is the case, it certainly seems to have maintained tradition to a greater extent than most other religions. As far as Hinduism and Buddhism are concerned, they are fairly inconsequential in America — at least for now.
Having been raised Catholic during a time of great change in the Church – the 1970s-80s – I never quite understood how consequential the changes the Church had gone through following the Vatican II Council were until I was an adult and read the history. I studied Latin in school, but heard precious little in church, and the role of the priest did not seem significantly different from the women who read from the lectern during most services. I later learned that my particular church had become a haven for lesbians, and was forced to curtail its activities following then Cardinal Ratzinger’s evaluation of the Seattle Archdiocese, which was sparked by some strange politics and practices in the early 1980s, including political support for Communist insurgencies in Latin America, gay activism and the widely ignored – and widespread – indulgence in pederasty.
These practices have changed, and the Church has taken on a more traditional demeanor, but the damage has already been done, and it seems that more and more men are fleeing religion, viewing it as an apparently hostile and inscrutable institution (this has some parallels with the male flight from higher education). So what we are seeing today is women defining Christianity from every part of the spectrum. We have women like Katherine Jefferts-Schori heading up the Episcopalian Church in the US and taking it down the path of outright, flaming heresy, and then we have a number of more conservative Christian women writing their own opinions about their particular church, coming close to preaching in their own right. Many conservative Christians celebrate the appearance of conservative female Christian writers, but they seem to forget that this upsets the entire notion of Christianity, which is that the Church shall be led, first and foremost, by men. There is really no argument about this in scripture.
What this says to me is that the decline of Christianity is by no means over. In fact, I would argue that even conservative women, if they take on authority in their particular religion, will only hasten the process. The truth is that it is demoralizing for men to have to listen to a female know-it-all preach to them about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and most young men will in all likelihood reject religion entirely, as they see it as offering no escape from the submissive role they must assume in all relationships with women in the secular world. Who could imagine that a shrill priestess could compel young men to get married, when they have been chafing under female authority from the time they first learned to walk on their own two feet?
The emergence in the mainstream of American women assuming authority in matters of religion is a clear indication of the impending collapse of the social norms that have sustained our society for centuries. It’s anyone’s guess what will replace them, but a growing number of people are suggesting Islam will ultimately prevail over a weakened, spiritually emasculated West, just as Christianity vanquished the tired paganism of the Roman Empire.
source: http://www.welmer.org/2009/07/17/the-changing-place-of-women-in-traditional-religion/
Nurulhuda Suhaila, Nurul Raqiah, Lee Xin Hui (10A07)
The Glass Mehitzah:
Women Breaking Through the Barriers
by Deborah Resnick (jdresnick@earthlink.net)
Throughout the ages, the Jewish tradition has survived, and often has thrived. This is due to many factors, not the least of which is the Jewish woman. And through all those centuries, Jewish women have maintained Jewish homes, raised Jewish children, and verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serifted Jewish values and beliefs, often in cultural atmospheres of hostility and persecution. In order to ensure the transmission of Jewish beliefs and customs to the generations to come, they have needed an extensive knowledge of Jewish practice and theology. Unfortunately, while they were responsible for the care and nurturing of future Jews, they were usually disenfranchised from mainstream Jewish communal worship and study.
The Traditional Jewish Woman
Jewish women have been saluted and slurred, revered and reviled. On the Sabbath, at the Sabbath meal, many Jewish husbands rise and praise their wives with verses from a prayer based Proverbs, A Woman of Valor. This prayer honors women with the words of an ancient prophet who compared a valorous woman to precious gems. Yet, that same woman who is so praised, in a traditional home will not be allowed to sing zemirot, Shabbat songs, at her own table if there are un-related men present. That same woman who tends children while her husband hurries off to shul, is not counted in the minyan, the required ten adult Jews (men) required to recite certain communal prayers.
The traditional Jewish woman are exempted from many time-bound mitzvot (commandments) because, according to the rabbinic courts that have established these laws and interpret them, women are not able to perform these time-bound mitzvot because of their child-rearing and household duties. It is true that traditional women have many more familial responsibilities than the men do. They are much more restricted in movement, particularly on Shabbat. In addition, traditional women are often not only raising their children, but also working to support husbands who are still studying, an occupation which brings the highest honor upon a man. This places additional demands upon a woman whose day is already too short.
Jewish women, however, have always found ways to gain the spiritual experiences they sought. Charles Silberman, in his book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, states that Orthodox women have always created opportunities to learn and to practice their religion. Many women, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, have had intense spiritual experiences when participating in rituals they were formerly denied. They have created prayer groups, where they recited the daily services (without the communal prayers, they don't consider themselves to be a minyan), read from the Torah (the first five books of Moses, part of the Christian Old Testament), and given each other aliyahs (opportunities to recite the blessings over the Torah before the reading).
Orthodox and many non-Orthodox men were, and still are, uncomfortable with this, but have not been able to stop these practices, because they do not violate halacha (Jewish law). Among Jewish women, Orthodox women have the highest Jewish literacy rate, followed closely by Conservative women, but they have been the slowest to demand full partnership in all aspects of Jewish life. In this, Reform and Reconstructionist women have led the way.
The Changing Role of Women
Until the 1950's, Jewish women took a back seat (literally) in communal worship. The synagogue was frequently divided with a mehitzah, a partition, separating the men from the women. The reason given for this separation was that mixing the men and women would make it hard for the men to concentrate on their prayers. They would be more prone to less-than-prayerful thoughts, and would not concentrate on God.
The first groups to do away with the mehitzah were the Reform congregations. The Reform movement began in the middle of the 19th century in Germany. It was based upon the idea that it was not necessary to set us as Jews apart from the general population. Many Jews had already accepted many of the customs and practices of the goyim (non-Jews), and felt that their places of worship should be more in keeping with modern society. This led to a change in both the service and the synagogue. The service, previously in Hebrew, was rewritten to be read in English. The synagogue itself became modeled after the Protestant churches of the time, and the mehitzah was one of the first features to go. With the tearing down of one wall, was it so hard to know that others would soon follow? Reform Jewish women soon began to express their interest in more formal study and participation in the service. This met with great resistance. Already so much had changed, how could they possible retain their Jewish identity if all the barriers came down at once? So, the status of Jewish women remained virtually the same for another hundred years.
Late in the 19th century, and on into the 20th century, all women, including Jewish women, began to question their limited roles. They demanded the vote, they insisted upon equal employment laws; they demanded respect as women and as contributing members of society. And Jewish women demanded their place in the hierarchy of Jewish theological thought. Jewish religious life would never be the same as it was. Women had become empowered by feminism and an increasing self-confidence. They had begun to truly understand what they had been denied.
Although many men felt that feminism would have a weakening affect on Jewish life, exactly the opposite has happened. Sylvia Fishman Barach looked at the impact of feminism has had on the American Jewish community in her book, A Breath of Life: Feminism in the American Jewish Community, and found that there has actually been a very beneficial impact. Surprisingly, she found that Orthodoxy, potentially very limiting on Jewish women, has actually made the greatest strides in education of women. Orthodox women have been leaders in the quest for Jewish knowledge, and were among the first Jewish women to organize prayer groups and Talmud study for women. Ultimately, however, it was the Reconstructionist and Reform movements, which made the first forays into uncharted Jewish male territory - the rabbinate.
Women began taking for themselves the rituals and outward symbols of Judaism, including the tallit and the kipah, the headcovering traditionally worn by men as a sign of respect for God. Even these simple acts invited controversy. Many men felt that women were taking on these articles in a trivial manner, and not in a prayerful spirit. As April Witt reported in her article, "Yarmulkes for women meet growing acceptance", Congregation Samu-El Or Olom, a Conservative synagogue in Miami experienced an outcry when women began wearing tallit and kipot. Harry Milder, a congregant, expressed his indignation saying, "There are women in this synagogue who have taken over and want everything to be equal, that's not the way it is in the Torah.... Something significant is being trivialized. They are using it for show, and that's not what it is for." The implication in Mr. Milder's statement is that women are not interested in the spiritual and ritual attached to the wearing of ritual garments, they are only interested in making a fashion statement. For centuries, the tallit has been used to close one's self off from outside disturbances, in an attempt to achieve a one-ness with God in prayer.
Feminism and the Woman Rabbi
As Jewish women became aware of their ability to succeed in the male business world, they began to cast their eyes in the direction of religious vocations. The first female rabbi to be ordained was Rabbi Sally Priesand, in 1973, at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, in Cincinnati, Ohio. She was followed closely by Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso, a Reconstructionist rabbi ordained by The Reconstructionist Seminary in Philadelphia. These and other women found prejudice and apathy, sometimes even outright hostility in their pursuit of their vocations.
Objections to female rabbis and religious professionals included questions concerning their ability to raise families and cope with the often-impossible demands of the clergy. Their ability to "correctly" interpret texts was questioned, and their legitimacy as Jews suspect. Dr. Rachel Adler, in an essay published in The Jewish Condition: Essays on Contemporary Judaism Honoring Rabbi Alexander Schindler, wrote, "Our revolution was to affirm that we had a perspective on Torah that the tradition did not know and needed to learn, and to refuse to be shamed into silence by the magnitude of what we did not know". She goes on to say that "gate crashing" will not go far in "talking our way in," and that joining a discussion that is framed in interests and topics outside of the experience of women is difficult, but not impossible.
The Future of Judaism with Women as Full Partners
In the new millennium, women will continue to demand and receive their portion of both the secular and religious worlds. Not only Judaism, but all religions will see an increase in women as full partners in the practice of their faiths. Eventually, a day will come when no one will comment on a young girl's decision to become a priest, rabbi, or minister; just as now the surprise at a young woman's vocation of doctor or lawyer rarely raises eyebrows. The synagogue will be a place of worship, not gender-based conflict, with the victors being all Jews, not just the women.
Men come to ritual and worship with a perspective born of thousands of years of history and tradition. They bring to Judaism the uniquely masculine sense of strength and vitality that is inherent in male-based worship. Women bring to faith the feeling, the intuitive perspective that questions differently the base of our beliefs. These two views, combined, can make a whole of what is now divided. In Judaism, God is seen as both male and female. In Genesis, in the story of creation, the creation of human beings is told as God created humans in God's own image, male and female, God created them. God is seen as a male, the avenging father, and as the Shechina, the female essence. Both are combined to be a complete being. We, as humans, can only strive to attain what God has always had, the complete integration of male and female.
source:http://judaism.about.com/library/2_feminism/bl_mehitzaglass.htm
Jacqueline Tan, Brenda Chin, Evelyn Teo
10A07
Women Breaking Through the Barriers
by Deborah Resnick (jdresnick@earthlink.net)
Throughout the ages, the Jewish tradition has survived, and often has thrived. This is due to many factors, not the least of which is the Jewish woman. And through all those centuries, Jewish women have maintained Jewish homes, raised Jewish children, and verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serifted Jewish values and beliefs, often in cultural atmospheres of hostility and persecution. In order to ensure the transmission of Jewish beliefs and customs to the generations to come, they have needed an extensive knowledge of Jewish practice and theology. Unfortunately, while they were responsible for the care and nurturing of future Jews, they were usually disenfranchised from mainstream Jewish communal worship and study.
The Traditional Jewish Woman
Jewish women have been saluted and slurred, revered and reviled. On the Sabbath, at the Sabbath meal, many Jewish husbands rise and praise their wives with verses from a prayer based Proverbs, A Woman of Valor. This prayer honors women with the words of an ancient prophet who compared a valorous woman to precious gems. Yet, that same woman who is so praised, in a traditional home will not be allowed to sing zemirot, Shabbat songs, at her own table if there are un-related men present. That same woman who tends children while her husband hurries off to shul, is not counted in the minyan, the required ten adult Jews (men) required to recite certain communal prayers.
The traditional Jewish woman are exempted from many time-bound mitzvot (commandments) because, according to the rabbinic courts that have established these laws and interpret them, women are not able to perform these time-bound mitzvot because of their child-rearing and household duties. It is true that traditional women have many more familial responsibilities than the men do. They are much more restricted in movement, particularly on Shabbat. In addition, traditional women are often not only raising their children, but also working to support husbands who are still studying, an occupation which brings the highest honor upon a man. This places additional demands upon a woman whose day is already too short.
Jewish women, however, have always found ways to gain the spiritual experiences they sought. Charles Silberman, in his book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, states that Orthodox women have always created opportunities to learn and to practice their religion. Many women, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, have had intense spiritual experiences when participating in rituals they were formerly denied. They have created prayer groups, where they recited the daily services (without the communal prayers, they don't consider themselves to be a minyan), read from the Torah (the first five books of Moses, part of the Christian Old Testament), and given each other aliyahs (opportunities to recite the blessings over the Torah before the reading).
Orthodox and many non-Orthodox men were, and still are, uncomfortable with this, but have not been able to stop these practices, because they do not violate halacha (Jewish law). Among Jewish women, Orthodox women have the highest Jewish literacy rate, followed closely by Conservative women, but they have been the slowest to demand full partnership in all aspects of Jewish life. In this, Reform and Reconstructionist women have led the way.
The Changing Role of Women
Until the 1950's, Jewish women took a back seat (literally) in communal worship. The synagogue was frequently divided with a mehitzah, a partition, separating the men from the women. The reason given for this separation was that mixing the men and women would make it hard for the men to concentrate on their prayers. They would be more prone to less-than-prayerful thoughts, and would not concentrate on God.
The first groups to do away with the mehitzah were the Reform congregations. The Reform movement began in the middle of the 19th century in Germany. It was based upon the idea that it was not necessary to set us as Jews apart from the general population. Many Jews had already accepted many of the customs and practices of the goyim (non-Jews), and felt that their places of worship should be more in keeping with modern society. This led to a change in both the service and the synagogue. The service, previously in Hebrew, was rewritten to be read in English. The synagogue itself became modeled after the Protestant churches of the time, and the mehitzah was one of the first features to go. With the tearing down of one wall, was it so hard to know that others would soon follow? Reform Jewish women soon began to express their interest in more formal study and participation in the service. This met with great resistance. Already so much had changed, how could they possible retain their Jewish identity if all the barriers came down at once? So, the status of Jewish women remained virtually the same for another hundred years.
Late in the 19th century, and on into the 20th century, all women, including Jewish women, began to question their limited roles. They demanded the vote, they insisted upon equal employment laws; they demanded respect as women and as contributing members of society. And Jewish women demanded their place in the hierarchy of Jewish theological thought. Jewish religious life would never be the same as it was. Women had become empowered by feminism and an increasing self-confidence. They had begun to truly understand what they had been denied.
Although many men felt that feminism would have a weakening affect on Jewish life, exactly the opposite has happened. Sylvia Fishman Barach looked at the impact of feminism has had on the American Jewish community in her book, A Breath of Life: Feminism in the American Jewish Community, and found that there has actually been a very beneficial impact. Surprisingly, she found that Orthodoxy, potentially very limiting on Jewish women, has actually made the greatest strides in education of women. Orthodox women have been leaders in the quest for Jewish knowledge, and were among the first Jewish women to organize prayer groups and Talmud study for women. Ultimately, however, it was the Reconstructionist and Reform movements, which made the first forays into uncharted Jewish male territory - the rabbinate.
Women began taking for themselves the rituals and outward symbols of Judaism, including the tallit and the kipah, the headcovering traditionally worn by men as a sign of respect for God. Even these simple acts invited controversy. Many men felt that women were taking on these articles in a trivial manner, and not in a prayerful spirit. As April Witt reported in her article, "Yarmulkes for women meet growing acceptance", Congregation Samu-El Or Olom, a Conservative synagogue in Miami experienced an outcry when women began wearing tallit and kipot. Harry Milder, a congregant, expressed his indignation saying, "There are women in this synagogue who have taken over and want everything to be equal, that's not the way it is in the Torah.... Something significant is being trivialized. They are using it for show, and that's not what it is for." The implication in Mr. Milder's statement is that women are not interested in the spiritual and ritual attached to the wearing of ritual garments, they are only interested in making a fashion statement. For centuries, the tallit has been used to close one's self off from outside disturbances, in an attempt to achieve a one-ness with God in prayer.
Feminism and the Woman Rabbi
As Jewish women became aware of their ability to succeed in the male business world, they began to cast their eyes in the direction of religious vocations. The first female rabbi to be ordained was Rabbi Sally Priesand, in 1973, at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, in Cincinnati, Ohio. She was followed closely by Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso, a Reconstructionist rabbi ordained by The Reconstructionist Seminary in Philadelphia. These and other women found prejudice and apathy, sometimes even outright hostility in their pursuit of their vocations.
Objections to female rabbis and religious professionals included questions concerning their ability to raise families and cope with the often-impossible demands of the clergy. Their ability to "correctly" interpret texts was questioned, and their legitimacy as Jews suspect. Dr. Rachel Adler, in an essay published in The Jewish Condition: Essays on Contemporary Judaism Honoring Rabbi Alexander Schindler, wrote, "Our revolution was to affirm that we had a perspective on Torah that the tradition did not know and needed to learn, and to refuse to be shamed into silence by the magnitude of what we did not know". She goes on to say that "gate crashing" will not go far in "talking our way in," and that joining a discussion that is framed in interests and topics outside of the experience of women is difficult, but not impossible.
The Future of Judaism with Women as Full Partners
In the new millennium, women will continue to demand and receive their portion of both the secular and religious worlds. Not only Judaism, but all religions will see an increase in women as full partners in the practice of their faiths. Eventually, a day will come when no one will comment on a young girl's decision to become a priest, rabbi, or minister; just as now the surprise at a young woman's vocation of doctor or lawyer rarely raises eyebrows. The synagogue will be a place of worship, not gender-based conflict, with the victors being all Jews, not just the women.
Men come to ritual and worship with a perspective born of thousands of years of history and tradition. They bring to Judaism the uniquely masculine sense of strength and vitality that is inherent in male-based worship. Women bring to faith the feeling, the intuitive perspective that questions differently the base of our beliefs. These two views, combined, can make a whole of what is now divided. In Judaism, God is seen as both male and female. In Genesis, in the story of creation, the creation of human beings is told as God created humans in God's own image, male and female, God created them. God is seen as a male, the avenging father, and as the Shechina, the female essence. Both are combined to be a complete being. We, as humans, can only strive to attain what God has always had, the complete integration of male and female.
source:http://judaism.about.com/library/2_feminism/bl_mehitzaglass.htm
Jacqueline Tan, Brenda Chin, Evelyn Teo
10A07
In early Christianity there was no separate roles prescribed for men and women and women were not distinguished separately from men. This was despite the fact that the society in
Women in Christianity: The early Christian prophets
From West Asia, Christianity spread to ancient
Women in Christianity: Development of the patriarchal thought
But the initial belief of the immediate "second coming" of the Christ did not happen. From hereon Christianity slowly started to evolve as a systemized religion with the churches enjoying enormous clout and power. This led to the development of the patriarchal thought in Christianity which abolished and discarded the earlier view that men and women should not be distinguished separately. The havoc of the power of churches continued for the next two thousand years during which women were not only treated as inferior to men but great atrocities were committed against independent women who were branded as witches and hunted down mercilessly.
Women in Christianity: Wave of change in twentieth century
Only in the twentieth century things started changing in Christianity. With the churches loosing much of their clout and power in the twentieth century, with democratic governments firmly established in many countries in Europe as well as in America and with religion getting separated from politics things.It all started with the early feminist movements and peaked with the second wave of feminism from the period of 1960s. This period saw a profound change in the status of women in Christianity as a religion. Women's rights came in the forefront.
Women in Christianity: Feminist Theology
Feminist theology was established as a branch of feminism to study the role of women especially in Christianity. The feminist theological movement influenced the development of the Wisdom literature that expressed God through a feminine image.
Women in Christianity: Women's liberation movement
The period of 1960s and thereafter can be considered as the beginning of the "women's liberation movement" in history which advocated social, cultural, political and religious equality of the gender. Though the women's liberation movement went full throttle in this period the patriarchal set up did not vanish as such and the concept of sexual dualism still existed. This concept not only viewed the differences between men and women in mere biological terms but it also ranked and applied values to these differences. For instance, men were considered to be more idealistic, spiritual, and psychic than women. On the other hand, women were thought to be more emotional, instinctive, and physical than men. This was a senario of absolute "gender stereotyping" and it existed from last two thousand years. In fact this kind of sexual dualism originated from the Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Christianity had adopted it since then. It was only the women's movement in 1960s that challenged these kind of thinking to some affect.
Women in Christianity: Marian devotion
The patriarchal Christianity surprisingly also witnessed another phenomenon that is the Marian devotion. Catholics were highly influenced by this whereas the Protestants rejected this phenomenon. Marian devotion even affected the feminist movement in both ways. One school of thought believed that the Marian devotion helped to offer the feminine view on God where as the other school of thought believed that the Marian devotion in fact harmed the feminist movement. They said that proclaiming Mary as Virgin Mary and worshiping her in fact in this form is damaging to the cause of women as "women and womanhood" are elevated to the "high pedestal of morality" and they are inhibited or discouraged to express or explore the more humane side of their nature. The sexual and cultural revolution of the 1970s and 80s precisely wanted to break free from this high pedestals of morality attached to women and womanhood.
Women in Christianity: The two parallel movements
After 1960s the emergence of two parallel movements took place in Christianity as a religion and the society in general. These two movements were the liberal and conservative movements. These two parallel movements exist till date. The more liberal feminist theological movement is influenced by the goddess worship, wisdom literature, Jesus' movement and Marian devotion. On the other hand the religious right within Christianity works on the principal of sexual dualism. The religious right tries to find values only within an established tradition and they resist change of any kind to an established order. The religious right opposes the liberal reproductive rights of women especially the right to abortion, it rejects cloning technology, it rejects homosexuality and it seeks reestablishment of traditional family ideals based on the patriarchal system. Initially the religious right was only involved with the faith but after the 1970s they have increased their presence in the matters of politics so that they can influence mainstream culture and society in a more profound manner. This is especially true in
However, from the viewpoint of feminists, gender roles are never absolute or essential. They feel that these were formed within society, and that the concept of "gender" was established to analyze and distinguish the differences in the roles of men and women.
Women in Christianity: The religious right and the liberal feminist theological movement
It is quite natural that the Religious Right criticizes feminists, who challenge the superiority of men. They in fact resist everything about the feminist movement. For example they even dislike the liberal welfare policies for women because under such policies, single mothers who need to raise their children and the economically destitute are assisted financially. The Religious Right view such assistance as preventing the establishment of traditional families. They also reject the relativism of human existence and therefore they are intolerant to other views, cultures and religions. They believe in the absolutism and purity of Christian values and tradition. For the religious right "Patriarchal Christianity" is the central core of all existence. Anything outside this central core has to be resisted and absolutely rejected.
In relation to the role of "women in Christianity" we can see that now we have two parallel schools of thought that exits within the religion as well as in the society. These are the liberal feminist theological movement and the conservative religious right movement. Though this being the current scenario it is not a static situation and there is a continuous evolution that is taking place in regard to the "role of women in Christianity" as it had happened in the last two hundred years or so.
By: 10A07; Teo Wee Shiuan, Liu Li, Neoh Jia Xin
More rights than one might think
Some Americans believe that Muslim women are oppressed by their religion, forced to cover themselves completely, denied education and other basic rights. It is true that Muslim women, like women all over the world, have struggled against inequality and restrictive practices in education, work force participation, and family roles. Many of these oppressive practices, however, do not come from Islam itself, but are part of local cultural traditions. (To think about the difference between religion and culture, ask yourself if the high rate of domestic violence in the United States is related to Christianity, the predominant religion.)
In fact, Islam gives women a number of rights, some of which were not enjoyed by Western women until the 19th century. For example, until 1882, the property of women in England was given to their husbands when they married, but Muslim women always retained their own assets. Muslim women could specify conditions in their marriage contracts, such as the right to divorce should their husband take another wife. Also, Muslim women in many countries keep their own last name after marriage.
The Quran explicitly states that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. Furthermore, the Quran:
forbids female infanticide (practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia and other parts of the world)
instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons
insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband
gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband
gives women the right to divorce in certain cases
gives women the right to own and inherit property (though in Sunni Islam they get only half of what men inherit. Men are expected to care for their mothers and any unmarried female relatives, and would, it is reasoned, need greater resources for this purpose.)
While polygyny is permissible, it is discouraged and on the whole practiced less frequently than imagined by Westerners. It is more frequent in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. Many Muslims cite the Quranic phrase "But treat them equally... and if you cannot, then one [wife] is better" and argue that monogamy is preferable, or even mandatory.
The Quran and the role of women
As the Islamic state and religion expanded, interpretations of the gender roles laid out in the Quran varied with different cultures. For example, some religious scholars in ninth- and 10th-century Iraq were prescribing more restrictive roles for women, while elite women in Islamic Spain were sometimes able to bend these rules and mix quite freely with men (see Walladah bint Mustakfi below).
Some contemporary women -- and men as well -- reject the limitations put on women and are reinterpreting the Quran from this perspective.
Before the arrival of Islam in the seventh century, upper-class women in Byzantine society and Sassanian women of the royal harem wore the veil as a mark of their high status. This custom was adopted by elite women in early Islamic society in the same region. Many nomadic women, however, maintained their traditional freedom of movement and less restrictive dress codes even after conversion to Islam.
Quranic rights for women were not always followed, depending on the strength of local patriarchal customs. Women in 19th-century Ottoman Egypt, for example, were often not given the full inheritance due them by law. If they challenged the family members who withheld their money in an Islamic court, however, they could win. This is still the case in family law practices in some countries.
Female political leaders in Muslim societies
Some women in Muslim societies have been prominent political actors. Female relatives of the Prophet Muhammad were particularly important in the early Muslim community because they knew his practice and teachings so well. Other women came to power through fathers or husbands. Still others wielded power behind the scenes.
Aisha, the favored wife of Muhammad, had great political clout and even participated in battle (the Battle of Camel).
Razia was a Muslim woman ruler of 13th-century India.
Amina was a 16th-century queen of Zaria in present-day Nigeria.
Shajarat al-Durr was briefly sultan in Mamluk Egypt, but was the power behind the throne for even longer.
The so-called "sultanate of women" in the Ottoman Empire during the 17th century was a period when several strong women had enormous power over affairs of state.
Huda Shaarawi, who became famous for discarding her face veil, also established a women's political party and worked for Egyptian independence from Britain in the first half of the 20th century.
Today there is a small but growing number of women in the parliaments of Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, and in the fall of 2002, the Moroccan parliament is hoping to bring women into 25 percent of its seats. Contemporary Muslim women heads of state have included Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Tansu Ciller of Turkey, and Khaleda Zia and Sheik Hasina Wazed of Bangladesh.
Women as religious leaders
Sufism is an important branch of Islam emphasizing mysticism and one's personal relationship with God. The tenets of Sufism were first articulated by a woman named Rabia, a freed slave who became a prominent scholar in the eighth-century city of Basra in Iraq. She refused to marry because she did not want any earthly distractions from her love of God. Fatima, the Prophet Muhammad's daughter, and Zaynab, the Prophet's granddaughter, are also very important role models of piety for women in the Islamic world.
Contemporary women are also important religious leaders. Zaynab al-Ghazali led the women's wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There are numerous women teachers, preachers, and Islamist leaders in contemporary Iran, one example being Zahra Rahnavard. In the United States, Riffat Hassan is a well-known American Muslim scholar.
The role of wealth and class
Wealthier women historically have had more economic and educational opportunities by virtue of their class. Many wealthy women were and continue to be highly educated, their money and intelligence giving them the power to ignore society's traditional expectations of women and to participate fully in the economic, political, and cultural life of their community.
Wealthy women, however, have often been more restricted in their clothing and movement in public, since keeping them covered and out of public life is a way to demonstrate status. Poorer and rural women have had relatively more freedom of movement but fewer educational opportunities. In addition, women in highly segregated Muslim societies sometimes created (and still do create) their own society set apart from the male world. Segregation does not necessarily mean isolation for women, though it obviously has many other effects.
Individual personality and abilities.
Whatever the cultural and economic background of a woman, her own abilities and personality greatly determine what she can achieve in her society.
Khadija, first wife of the Prophet, was a confident and shrewd businesswoman. She first hired the Prophet to lead her trading caravans, then proposed marriage to him although she was many years his senior. She was the first person to convert to Islam.
Walladah bint Mustakfi, a spirited noblewoman and noted poet of 11th-century Cordoba, gave parties with both men and women where she read her poetry. She declared, "I am by God fit for great things/And go my way armed with pride."
The contemporary singer Umm Kulthum, who came from a modest village background, was considered by many to be the voice and conscience of Egypt. Even today her memory and music have great appeal throughout the Arab world.
The "veil"
The veil is often seen in the West as a symbol of Muslim women's subordinate position in society, but its meaning and use vary enormously in Muslim societies.
The Quran directs both men and women to dress modestly, but the actual interpretation and implementation of this rule varies enormously.
Historically, the veil has been related to social class, not religion. The veil was first adopted from pre-Islamic Byzantine and Persian customs. In most areas, poor and rural women have covered themselves less than urban and elite women.
Within Islam, head coverings (hijab) vary by culture. They range from loose scarves to veils and full-length coverings, such as the burqa worn by many Afghan women. There is also a new style called "Islamic dress," in which a loose coat is worn with a scarf tied over the hair. Covering of the face was more common in the past than it is today, more so in some regions than others. Head covering is not solely a facet of Islam, however, and women of many cultures and religions cover their heads in different ways.
Veiling rules vary from country to country. In the modern period, strict laws about women's dress are often used to emphasize the religious orientation of a particular government, as in Iran or Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Turkey does not allow women to wear the veil in public offices or universities because the Turkish state is committed to a more secular identity. The veil is also discouraged in Tunisia. In all cases, many citizens are dissatisfied with the law.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/women/index.html
Robert, Wenjie, Deon and Yik ZhenSome Americans believe that Muslim women are oppressed by their religion, forced to cover themselves completely, denied education and other basic rights. It is true that Muslim women, like women all over the world, have struggled against inequality and restrictive practices in education, work force participation, and family roles. Many of these oppressive practices, however, do not come from Islam itself, but are part of local cultural traditions. (To think about the difference between religion and culture, ask yourself if the high rate of domestic violence in the United States is related to Christianity, the predominant religion.)
In fact, Islam gives women a number of rights, some of which were not enjoyed by Western women until the 19th century. For example, until 1882, the property of women in England was given to their husbands when they married, but Muslim women always retained their own assets. Muslim women could specify conditions in their marriage contracts, such as the right to divorce should their husband take another wife. Also, Muslim women in many countries keep their own last name after marriage.
The Quran explicitly states that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. Furthermore, the Quran:
forbids female infanticide (practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia and other parts of the world)
instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons
insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband
gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband
gives women the right to divorce in certain cases
gives women the right to own and inherit property (though in Sunni Islam they get only half of what men inherit. Men are expected to care for their mothers and any unmarried female relatives, and would, it is reasoned, need greater resources for this purpose.)
While polygyny is permissible, it is discouraged and on the whole practiced less frequently than imagined by Westerners. It is more frequent in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. Many Muslims cite the Quranic phrase "But treat them equally... and if you cannot, then one [wife] is better" and argue that monogamy is preferable, or even mandatory.
The Quran and the role of women
As the Islamic state and religion expanded, interpretations of the gender roles laid out in the Quran varied with different cultures. For example, some religious scholars in ninth- and 10th-century Iraq were prescribing more restrictive roles for women, while elite women in Islamic Spain were sometimes able to bend these rules and mix quite freely with men (see Walladah bint Mustakfi below).
Some contemporary women -- and men as well -- reject the limitations put on women and are reinterpreting the Quran from this perspective.
Before the arrival of Islam in the seventh century, upper-class women in Byzantine society and Sassanian women of the royal harem wore the veil as a mark of their high status. This custom was adopted by elite women in early Islamic society in the same region. Many nomadic women, however, maintained their traditional freedom of movement and less restrictive dress codes even after conversion to Islam.
Quranic rights for women were not always followed, depending on the strength of local patriarchal customs. Women in 19th-century Ottoman Egypt, for example, were often not given the full inheritance due them by law. If they challenged the family members who withheld their money in an Islamic court, however, they could win. This is still the case in family law practices in some countries.
Female political leaders in Muslim societies
Some women in Muslim societies have been prominent political actors. Female relatives of the Prophet Muhammad were particularly important in the early Muslim community because they knew his practice and teachings so well. Other women came to power through fathers or husbands. Still others wielded power behind the scenes.
Aisha, the favored wife of Muhammad, had great political clout and even participated in battle (the Battle of Camel).
Razia was a Muslim woman ruler of 13th-century India.
Amina was a 16th-century queen of Zaria in present-day Nigeria.
Shajarat al-Durr was briefly sultan in Mamluk Egypt, but was the power behind the throne for even longer.
The so-called "sultanate of women" in the Ottoman Empire during the 17th century was a period when several strong women had enormous power over affairs of state.
Huda Shaarawi, who became famous for discarding her face veil, also established a women's political party and worked for Egyptian independence from Britain in the first half of the 20th century.
Today there is a small but growing number of women in the parliaments of Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, and in the fall of 2002, the Moroccan parliament is hoping to bring women into 25 percent of its seats. Contemporary Muslim women heads of state have included Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Tansu Ciller of Turkey, and Khaleda Zia and Sheik Hasina Wazed of Bangladesh.
Women as religious leaders
Sufism is an important branch of Islam emphasizing mysticism and one's personal relationship with God. The tenets of Sufism were first articulated by a woman named Rabia, a freed slave who became a prominent scholar in the eighth-century city of Basra in Iraq. She refused to marry because she did not want any earthly distractions from her love of God. Fatima, the Prophet Muhammad's daughter, and Zaynab, the Prophet's granddaughter, are also very important role models of piety for women in the Islamic world.
Contemporary women are also important religious leaders. Zaynab al-Ghazali led the women's wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There are numerous women teachers, preachers, and Islamist leaders in contemporary Iran, one example being Zahra Rahnavard. In the United States, Riffat Hassan is a well-known American Muslim scholar.
The role of wealth and class
Wealthier women historically have had more economic and educational opportunities by virtue of their class. Many wealthy women were and continue to be highly educated, their money and intelligence giving them the power to ignore society's traditional expectations of women and to participate fully in the economic, political, and cultural life of their community.
Wealthy women, however, have often been more restricted in their clothing and movement in public, since keeping them covered and out of public life is a way to demonstrate status. Poorer and rural women have had relatively more freedom of movement but fewer educational opportunities. In addition, women in highly segregated Muslim societies sometimes created (and still do create) their own society set apart from the male world. Segregation does not necessarily mean isolation for women, though it obviously has many other effects.
Individual personality and abilities.
Whatever the cultural and economic background of a woman, her own abilities and personality greatly determine what she can achieve in her society.
Khadija, first wife of the Prophet, was a confident and shrewd businesswoman. She first hired the Prophet to lead her trading caravans, then proposed marriage to him although she was many years his senior. She was the first person to convert to Islam.
Walladah bint Mustakfi, a spirited noblewoman and noted poet of 11th-century Cordoba, gave parties with both men and women where she read her poetry. She declared, "I am by God fit for great things/And go my way armed with pride."
The contemporary singer Umm Kulthum, who came from a modest village background, was considered by many to be the voice and conscience of Egypt. Even today her memory and music have great appeal throughout the Arab world.
The "veil"
The veil is often seen in the West as a symbol of Muslim women's subordinate position in society, but its meaning and use vary enormously in Muslim societies.
The Quran directs both men and women to dress modestly, but the actual interpretation and implementation of this rule varies enormously.
Historically, the veil has been related to social class, not religion. The veil was first adopted from pre-Islamic Byzantine and Persian customs. In most areas, poor and rural women have covered themselves less than urban and elite women.
Within Islam, head coverings (hijab) vary by culture. They range from loose scarves to veils and full-length coverings, such as the burqa worn by many Afghan women. There is also a new style called "Islamic dress," in which a loose coat is worn with a scarf tied over the hair. Covering of the face was more common in the past than it is today, more so in some regions than others. Head covering is not solely a facet of Islam, however, and women of many cultures and religions cover their heads in different ways.
Veiling rules vary from country to country. In the modern period, strict laws about women's dress are often used to emphasize the religious orientation of a particular government, as in Iran or Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Turkey does not allow women to wear the veil in public offices or universities because the Turkish state is committed to a more secular identity. The veil is also discouraged in Tunisia. In all cases, many citizens are dissatisfied with the law.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/women/index.html
10A07
Surveys Show Many Americans Prejudiced Against Muslims
Americans like to think of their nation as a bastion of liberty and equality, and while America's political principles have certainly been based upon such ideas the truth is that Americans themselves have often been willing to abandon those ideals. Today, for example, many Americans are inclined to deny equality and liberty to the Muslims neighbors simply because they are Muslims.
Editor & Publisher reports on a recent survey which reveals the extent to which Americans are prejudiced against Muslims and would endorse official discrimination against Muslims:
Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some “prejudice” against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too “extreme.”
In addition, 34% believe that Muslims in America support al-Qaeda while just 49% believe that American Muslims are loyal to the United States. Almost a quarter don’t want Muslims as neighbors, but people who actually know Muslims are less likely to hold any of these prejudices. So, when a person actually knows Muslims, they are less likely to be prejudiced against Muslims — this isn’t surprising because prejudice is often the product of ignorance and fear.
At the same time, this indicates that all those who are so willing to see Muslims discriminated against probably don’t know any Muslims themselves. It’s easy to endorse discrimination when you don’t have to personally witness the harm it causes or when you don’t have toe feel empathy for those who must suffer because of it. Think about it: coming up on half of all Americans think that the religious views of American Muslims are too “extreme,” but most of these people probably don’t know any Muslims personally and so can’t claim to know what Muslims really do believe.
Where did they get their information if they don’t know any Muslims themselves? I think we can easily come up with examples of heavily biased “news” sources, both traditional media and web sites, which encourage people to developed biased perceptions of Muslims — and other minorities, too. Does anyone want to take a bet on how many in that 44% are regular readers of Ann Coulter and regular listeners of Bill O’Reilly?
Americans like to think of their nation as a bastion of liberty and equality, and while America's political principles have certainly been based upon such ideas the truth is that Americans themselves have often been willing to abandon those ideals. Today, for example, many Americans are inclined to deny equality and liberty to the Muslims neighbors simply because they are Muslims.
Editor & Publisher reports on a recent survey which reveals the extent to which Americans are prejudiced against Muslims and would endorse official discrimination against Muslims:
Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some “prejudice” against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too “extreme.”
In addition, 34% believe that Muslims in America support al-Qaeda while just 49% believe that American Muslims are loyal to the United States. Almost a quarter don’t want Muslims as neighbors, but people who actually know Muslims are less likely to hold any of these prejudices. So, when a person actually knows Muslims, they are less likely to be prejudiced against Muslims — this isn’t surprising because prejudice is often the product of ignorance and fear.
At the same time, this indicates that all those who are so willing to see Muslims discriminated against probably don’t know any Muslims themselves. It’s easy to endorse discrimination when you don’t have to personally witness the harm it causes or when you don’t have toe feel empathy for those who must suffer because of it. Think about it: coming up on half of all Americans think that the religious views of American Muslims are too “extreme,” but most of these people probably don’t know any Muslims personally and so can’t claim to know what Muslims really do believe.
Where did they get their information if they don’t know any Muslims themselves? I think we can easily come up with examples of heavily biased “news” sources, both traditional media and web sites, which encourage people to developed biased perceptions of Muslims — and other minorities, too. Does anyone want to take a bet on how many in that 44% are regular readers of Ann Coulter and regular listeners of Bill O’Reilly?
Drama in China
Origin of Chinese Drama: It is the opinion of modern scholars that drama was not native to China, but was introduced, probably in rather an advanced state, by the Mongols in the thirteenth century. During the one-hundred and sixty-eight years of the Kin and Yuen dynasties the most celebrated plays were written. During this period (1200-1368) the style of acting, the subjects to be treated, and the general conduct of the theater were determined. The Chinese stage at the beginning of the twentieth century was practically the same as that of seven hundred years ago.
Famous Chinese Plays:
· The Little Orphan of the House of Tchao
· The Story of the Magic Lute
· The Sorrows of Han
Religious Influence on Chinese Drama: One does not begin to understand the Chinese drama without some knowledge of the religious doctrines and the demonology of the Chinese people. Not only was the stage intercepted by religious rite but it has remained dependent upon Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism for theme and character and symbol.
Superstitions inherited from Buddhist principles frequently denude the stage of mortality and are the playwright's inspiration for extravaganza; he may create a mise en scène in terrestrial immortality and people it with nostalgic gods and provoking genii and find it more absorbing to an audience than the type of play that transpires on an earthly plane and presents the principles of morality that Confucius meditated upon. The playwright may even unite the two--and add a theme from Taoism--in his high romance.
Confucianism is based upon ancestor worship and teaches that the source of morality is in filial piety. Confucianism is so definite a theory of conduct that it cannot be expressed in many symbolic forms such as Buddhism furnishes, but it provides themes for numberless librettos. Buddhism teaches that release from one's present existence is the greatest happiness. The most common form of Buddhist drama is the fantasia or the buffoonery of deity and demon symbols through which Buddha is frequently worshiped. Taoism teaches that contemplation and reason, avoidance of force, and disregard of mere ceremony, are the means of regeneration. It may be said that Confucianism is based upon morality, Buddhism upon idolatry, and Taoism on superstition. Or, in another form, Confucianism deals with the dead past, Buddhism with the changing future, and Taoism with the evils of the present.
During the twelfth century Kaing T'ai Kung deified many soldiers, and in the fourteenth century the first emperor of the Ming dynasty appointed a great number of city gods. It was then only a short step from a "Great man to a little idol" and ultimately to become both a household and a stage deity. There seems a god for every occasion and a dozen needs for his favour every day.
Such fantastic and traditional imagination, and such deification baffle the "barbarian" and disqualify him to accept a stage performance with a tenth part of the intelligence and, in the beginning, almost none of the pleasure he will remark in every Chinese in the audience. But as he continues to study the Chinese drama he will not fail to perceive the virtue--and the attendant weaknesses--of ancestor worship, of the belief in recurrent life, and the earned privileges of another existence, which govern and satisfy the great majority of the Chinese people.
If it seems strange to find dogma in the theatre, the fear of evil demons and the respect for, and placation of, symbols, we have only to recall that doctrines and drama have developed concurrently. Any attempt to separate them might destroy the potency of both; and would certainly rob the Chinese theatre of many of its most popular characters.
Famous Chinese Plays:
· The Little Orphan of the House of Tchao
· The Story of the Magic Lute
· The Sorrows of Han
Religious Influence on Chinese Drama: One does not begin to understand the Chinese drama without some knowledge of the religious doctrines and the demonology of the Chinese people. Not only was the stage intercepted by religious rite but it has remained dependent upon Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism for theme and character and symbol.
Superstitions inherited from Buddhist principles frequently denude the stage of mortality and are the playwright's inspiration for extravaganza; he may create a mise en scène in terrestrial immortality and people it with nostalgic gods and provoking genii and find it more absorbing to an audience than the type of play that transpires on an earthly plane and presents the principles of morality that Confucius meditated upon. The playwright may even unite the two--and add a theme from Taoism--in his high romance.
Confucianism is based upon ancestor worship and teaches that the source of morality is in filial piety. Confucianism is so definite a theory of conduct that it cannot be expressed in many symbolic forms such as Buddhism furnishes, but it provides themes for numberless librettos. Buddhism teaches that release from one's present existence is the greatest happiness. The most common form of Buddhist drama is the fantasia or the buffoonery of deity and demon symbols through which Buddha is frequently worshiped. Taoism teaches that contemplation and reason, avoidance of force, and disregard of mere ceremony, are the means of regeneration. It may be said that Confucianism is based upon morality, Buddhism upon idolatry, and Taoism on superstition. Or, in another form, Confucianism deals with the dead past, Buddhism with the changing future, and Taoism with the evils of the present.
During the twelfth century Kaing T'ai Kung deified many soldiers, and in the fourteenth century the first emperor of the Ming dynasty appointed a great number of city gods. It was then only a short step from a "Great man to a little idol" and ultimately to become both a household and a stage deity. There seems a god for every occasion and a dozen needs for his favour every day.
Such fantastic and traditional imagination, and such deification baffle the "barbarian" and disqualify him to accept a stage performance with a tenth part of the intelligence and, in the beginning, almost none of the pleasure he will remark in every Chinese in the audience. But as he continues to study the Chinese drama he will not fail to perceive the virtue--and the attendant weaknesses--of ancestor worship, of the belief in recurrent life, and the earned privileges of another existence, which govern and satisfy the great majority of the Chinese people.
If it seems strange to find dogma in the theatre, the fear of evil demons and the respect for, and placation of, symbols, we have only to recall that doctrines and drama have developed concurrently. Any attempt to separate them might destroy the potency of both; and would certainly rob the Chinese theatre of many of its most popular characters.
Religious leaders gather for their own UN Summit, also pledging to work for peace and tolerance
The images, broadcast around the globe by CNN and other major news networks, were compelling in their pageantry: some 1,000 religious leaders, representing every major world religion and resplendent in an array of saffron robes, purple vestments, white turbans and black cassocks, were gathered together in the stately General Assembly Hall of the United Nations.
Yet more significant than the imagery of the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders, held 28-31 August 2000 at the UN and at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, was the substance of what was said - and the great symbolism of saying it at the United Nations.
"This is very different than any interfaith meeting that has happened before," said Professor Lawrence Sullivan, director of the Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions, who attended the Summit as an observer. "If you hold an ecumenical meeting in a church or synagogue or a mosque, that is not common ground. But the United Nations is a global common ground. It changes the nature of the conversation."
And the essence of the conversation was this: that it is time for the world's religious communities to stop fighting and arguing amongst themselves and, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, to begin working together - in cooperation with secular leaders at the United Nations and elsewhere - for peace, justice, the eradication of extreme poverty, the protection of the environment, and social harmony.
"Humanity stands at a critical juncture in history, one that calls for strong moral and spiritual leadership to help set a new direction for society," states the preamble of a declaration issued by the Summit. "We, as religious and spiritual leaders recognize our special responsibility for the well-being of the human family and peace on earth."
More specifically, the declaration condemns all violence in the name of religion, calls for the protection of the environment for future generations, urges religious communities to respect the right to freedom of religion, and recognizes "that men and women are equal partners in all aspects of life…"
A "Galaxy of Leaders"
The Summit was organized by a wide range of interfaith groups, non-governmental organizations, and private foundations, including Ted Turner's UN Foundation / Better World Fund, which gave US$600,000 to the event. It drew, in the words of former UN Under Secretary General Maurice Strong, a veritable "galaxy of leaders" from all of the world's major religions, including the Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism, as well as indigenous religions from nearly every continent.
"This summit of religious and spiritual leaders is without doubt one of the most inspiring gatherings ever held here," said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in an address to the Summit. "Whatever your past, whatever your calling, and whatever the differences among you, your presence here at the United Nations signifies your commitment to our global mission of tolerance, development and peace."
Among the leaders in attendance were Francis Cardinal Arinze, President of the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue; Meir Lau, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel; Abdullah al-Obaid, Secretary General of the World Muslim League; Konrad Raiser, Secretary General of the World Council of Churches; Metropolitan Pitrim of the Russian Orthodox Church; Eshin Watanabe, Patriarch of Tendai Buddhism; Hindu spiritual leader Sri Mata Amritanandamayi Devi; Jain scholar Dr. L.M. Singhvi; Sikh leader Jatehdar Joginder Singh; Firoze Kotwal, High Priest of Zoroastrianism; and Albert Lincoln, Secretary General of the Bahá'í International Community.
In all, some 50 "preeminent leaders," as Summit organizers termed them, were present. Together with hundreds of other delegates and representatives, many came from regions of significant religious conflict, including the Middle East, East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Eastern Europe. A good number of the Summit's participants had not been significantly involved in interfaith events previously, according to Summit organizers.
"I've gone to many, many global interfaith gatherings, and what is unique about this gathering is many of the leaders are meeting face-to-face for the first time," said Bawa Jain, Secretary General of the Summit. "This is going to have a major domino effect. I think you will see the global interfaith movement really evolving from this Summit."
One goal of the Summit was to develop an "International Advisory Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders" that would offer "support to the United Nations and the United Nations Secretary General in peacemaking and peacekeeping efforts." Such an advisory council, it was proposed, would also have counterparts at the regional and national levels.
In an interview six weeks after the Summit, Mr. Jain said that religious leaders had indeed begun forming national level councils in a number of countries, including India, Japan, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
Summit organizers are moving slowly, however, on putting together the proposed international advisory council, according to Mr. Jain. "There was a lot of pressure on me before the Summit to actually declare the formation of the council at the Summit," Mr. Jain said. "I was opposed to that. I think we need to engage in an extensive process. Otherwise people feel they are not consulted with."
Mr. Jain said he will now head up a small steering group to develop a "mission, purpose, criteria and structure," for the creation of an international advisory council. Any proposal would be widely circulated, he said, "to all of the delegates to the Summit and to religious communities for their input."
At the UN, formal engagement with world religions outside of the traditional consultative status offered to religious groups as non-governmental organizations is controversial. Some governments are wary of involvement in policy-making by religious leaders and the United Nations Secretariat has been careful to heed their concerns. Although the August Summit was held at the UN, UN officials and Summit organizers took pains to state that it was not an official UN event, but rather an event organized by non-UN groups which was allowed to take place at the UN.
As well, Mr. Jain was not invited to address the Millennium Summit, which was held a week later. He said several governments had blocked such a presentation.
Mr. Jain said, however, that he received supportive comments from many government delegations during the Millennium Summit and that he intends to proceed with the creation of the international advisory council. Such a council, he said, would be "autonomous and independent," with a focus on being "available as a resource to the UN." "We do not want to replicate the work of any of the other interfaith organizations," he said. "The focus is to help support and strengthen the UN."
While some governments want the UN to keep its distance from religion, many UN agencies recognize the importance of working with religious organizations.
On the final day of the Summit, a panel of UN officials - including Nitin Desai, Under Secretary General for the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Juan Somavia, Director General of the International Labor Organization - was nearly unanimous in acknowledging the spiritual dimension of the UN's work and the need to work more closely with religions.
"The unprecedented depth and breadth of participation at this event, bringing together leaders from nearly every faith and every corner of our world is a tribute to the extraordinary congruence between your shared goals and our own," said UNDP Administrator Brown.
The Declaration
Summit organizers said virtually all of the religious leaders present signed the Summit's main declaration, titled "Commitment to Global Peace," which acknowledges that religious beliefs have sometimes been used to "create divisions and fuel hostilities" but states firmly that "there can be no real peace until all groups and communities acknowledge the cultural and religious diversity of the human family in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding."
"[N]o individual, group or nation can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our interdependent world, but rather all must realize that our every action has an impact on others and the emerging global community," states the declaration.
The declaration calls on religious leaders to do more to "awaken in all individuals and communities a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family as a whole and a recognition that all human beings regardless of religion, race, gender and ethnic origin have the right to education, health care, and an opportunity to achieve a secure and sustainable livelihood"; to "promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations, eradicating poverty and reversing the current trend toward a widening gap between rich and poor"; and to "educate our communities about the urgent need to care for the earth's ecological systems and all forms of life and to support efforts to make environmental protection and restoration integral to all development planning and activity."
A number of smaller meetings among religious leaders dealt with regional issues, such as relations between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East and relations between Christians and Hindus in India. Mr. Jain said those meetings yielded several specific agreements and understandings.
A group of Hindu and Christian leaders, for example, negotiated and signed an "informal working understanding" on "Freedom from Coercion in Religion." That agreement states that "the free and generous preaching of the Christian Gospel is welcome in India" but also condemns "the use of coercion and religious proselytism," specifically rejecting "the exploitation of the issue of poverty in religious outreach and missionary work" and stating that "no altruistic work will be a means for conversion."
Theme of Unity in Diversity
In their speeches, religious leaders stressed many common themes. Perhaps foremost among them was the idea that the world's religions can work together if they emphasize their essential commonalities while respecting their diversity.
Dr. Lincoln of the Bahá'í Community, for example, called on the gathering to work for a "global community based on unity in diversity." That could be done, said Dr. Lincoln, by working to identify the "core values that are common to all religious and spiritual traditions."
Others echoed this call. "The spirit loves diversity," said Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, a Hindu leader. "The time has come to love each other's religions as one's own."
Rev. Nichiko Niwano, President of Rissho Kosei Kai in Japan, said: "We are members of one family. Our lives are sustained by one great light."
Even secular leaders who addressed the Summit made similar points. "We are all one race, and there is only one God who manifests himself in different ways," said Better World Fund's Ted Turner, also the founder of CNN (Cable News Network), who was the Summit's honorary chairman. "So maybe what we ought to do - what we have to do now is we have to work together."
The Summit's opening day began with several hours of prayers, one aim being to "spiritually prepare" the hall for the Millennium Summit.
"Above and beyond a remarkable maturation in interreligious dialogue, this meeting of spiritual leaders in the Chamber of the United Nations General Assembly, on the eve of the Millennium Summit of the world's Heads of State and Government, marks an historic and vital step forward in creating the necessary mutual respect and cooperation between religious and political leadership, conditions without which world peace and the prosperity of humankind are probably unattainable," said Dr. Lincoln of the Bahá'í Community.
"Our disordered world is in desperate need of a moral compass that is above passing fashion and untainted by the pervasive materialism of the modern era," said Dr. Lincoln. "The convening of this summit suggests that the world has become aware of this need and of the capacity latent in the world's religious traditions."
Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of England, said the Summit was historic for its focus on peace among the religions. "We have just completed a millennium in which people too often killed other people in the name of God," he said.
"In my view this meeting was one in which we crossed a threshold," said Rabbi Sacks. "We can never again go back to where we were, because the leaders of 70 different faiths have come together in public assembly at the United Nations to commit themselves with their faith communities to an agenda of mutual respect and peace."
"This is no quick fix," Rabbi Sacks added. "Hatreds that have been inculcated for centuries are not going to evaporate overnight. But the commitment of religious leaders to religious pluralism here has been a momentous event that will send a signal of hope to the world."
Yet more significant than the imagery of the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders, held 28-31 August 2000 at the UN and at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, was the substance of what was said - and the great symbolism of saying it at the United Nations.
"This is very different than any interfaith meeting that has happened before," said Professor Lawrence Sullivan, director of the Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions, who attended the Summit as an observer. "If you hold an ecumenical meeting in a church or synagogue or a mosque, that is not common ground. But the United Nations is a global common ground. It changes the nature of the conversation."
And the essence of the conversation was this: that it is time for the world's religious communities to stop fighting and arguing amongst themselves and, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, to begin working together - in cooperation with secular leaders at the United Nations and elsewhere - for peace, justice, the eradication of extreme poverty, the protection of the environment, and social harmony.
"Humanity stands at a critical juncture in history, one that calls for strong moral and spiritual leadership to help set a new direction for society," states the preamble of a declaration issued by the Summit. "We, as religious and spiritual leaders recognize our special responsibility for the well-being of the human family and peace on earth."
More specifically, the declaration condemns all violence in the name of religion, calls for the protection of the environment for future generations, urges religious communities to respect the right to freedom of religion, and recognizes "that men and women are equal partners in all aspects of life…"
A "Galaxy of Leaders"
The Summit was organized by a wide range of interfaith groups, non-governmental organizations, and private foundations, including Ted Turner's UN Foundation / Better World Fund, which gave US$600,000 to the event. It drew, in the words of former UN Under Secretary General Maurice Strong, a veritable "galaxy of leaders" from all of the world's major religions, including the Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism, as well as indigenous religions from nearly every continent.
"This summit of religious and spiritual leaders is without doubt one of the most inspiring gatherings ever held here," said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in an address to the Summit. "Whatever your past, whatever your calling, and whatever the differences among you, your presence here at the United Nations signifies your commitment to our global mission of tolerance, development and peace."
Among the leaders in attendance were Francis Cardinal Arinze, President of the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue; Meir Lau, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel; Abdullah al-Obaid, Secretary General of the World Muslim League; Konrad Raiser, Secretary General of the World Council of Churches; Metropolitan Pitrim of the Russian Orthodox Church; Eshin Watanabe, Patriarch of Tendai Buddhism; Hindu spiritual leader Sri Mata Amritanandamayi Devi; Jain scholar Dr. L.M. Singhvi; Sikh leader Jatehdar Joginder Singh; Firoze Kotwal, High Priest of Zoroastrianism; and Albert Lincoln, Secretary General of the Bahá'í International Community.
In all, some 50 "preeminent leaders," as Summit organizers termed them, were present. Together with hundreds of other delegates and representatives, many came from regions of significant religious conflict, including the Middle East, East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Eastern Europe. A good number of the Summit's participants had not been significantly involved in interfaith events previously, according to Summit organizers.
"I've gone to many, many global interfaith gatherings, and what is unique about this gathering is many of the leaders are meeting face-to-face for the first time," said Bawa Jain, Secretary General of the Summit. "This is going to have a major domino effect. I think you will see the global interfaith movement really evolving from this Summit."
One goal of the Summit was to develop an "International Advisory Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders" that would offer "support to the United Nations and the United Nations Secretary General in peacemaking and peacekeeping efforts." Such an advisory council, it was proposed, would also have counterparts at the regional and national levels.
In an interview six weeks after the Summit, Mr. Jain said that religious leaders had indeed begun forming national level councils in a number of countries, including India, Japan, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
Summit organizers are moving slowly, however, on putting together the proposed international advisory council, according to Mr. Jain. "There was a lot of pressure on me before the Summit to actually declare the formation of the council at the Summit," Mr. Jain said. "I was opposed to that. I think we need to engage in an extensive process. Otherwise people feel they are not consulted with."
Mr. Jain said he will now head up a small steering group to develop a "mission, purpose, criteria and structure," for the creation of an international advisory council. Any proposal would be widely circulated, he said, "to all of the delegates to the Summit and to religious communities for their input."
At the UN, formal engagement with world religions outside of the traditional consultative status offered to religious groups as non-governmental organizations is controversial. Some governments are wary of involvement in policy-making by religious leaders and the United Nations Secretariat has been careful to heed their concerns. Although the August Summit was held at the UN, UN officials and Summit organizers took pains to state that it was not an official UN event, but rather an event organized by non-UN groups which was allowed to take place at the UN.
As well, Mr. Jain was not invited to address the Millennium Summit, which was held a week later. He said several governments had blocked such a presentation.
Mr. Jain said, however, that he received supportive comments from many government delegations during the Millennium Summit and that he intends to proceed with the creation of the international advisory council. Such a council, he said, would be "autonomous and independent," with a focus on being "available as a resource to the UN." "We do not want to replicate the work of any of the other interfaith organizations," he said. "The focus is to help support and strengthen the UN."
While some governments want the UN to keep its distance from religion, many UN agencies recognize the importance of working with religious organizations.
On the final day of the Summit, a panel of UN officials - including Nitin Desai, Under Secretary General for the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Juan Somavia, Director General of the International Labor Organization - was nearly unanimous in acknowledging the spiritual dimension of the UN's work and the need to work more closely with religions.
"The unprecedented depth and breadth of participation at this event, bringing together leaders from nearly every faith and every corner of our world is a tribute to the extraordinary congruence between your shared goals and our own," said UNDP Administrator Brown.
The Declaration
Summit organizers said virtually all of the religious leaders present signed the Summit's main declaration, titled "Commitment to Global Peace," which acknowledges that religious beliefs have sometimes been used to "create divisions and fuel hostilities" but states firmly that "there can be no real peace until all groups and communities acknowledge the cultural and religious diversity of the human family in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding."
"[N]o individual, group or nation can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our interdependent world, but rather all must realize that our every action has an impact on others and the emerging global community," states the declaration.
The declaration calls on religious leaders to do more to "awaken in all individuals and communities a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family as a whole and a recognition that all human beings regardless of religion, race, gender and ethnic origin have the right to education, health care, and an opportunity to achieve a secure and sustainable livelihood"; to "promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations, eradicating poverty and reversing the current trend toward a widening gap between rich and poor"; and to "educate our communities about the urgent need to care for the earth's ecological systems and all forms of life and to support efforts to make environmental protection and restoration integral to all development planning and activity."
A number of smaller meetings among religious leaders dealt with regional issues, such as relations between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East and relations between Christians and Hindus in India. Mr. Jain said those meetings yielded several specific agreements and understandings.
A group of Hindu and Christian leaders, for example, negotiated and signed an "informal working understanding" on "Freedom from Coercion in Religion." That agreement states that "the free and generous preaching of the Christian Gospel is welcome in India" but also condemns "the use of coercion and religious proselytism," specifically rejecting "the exploitation of the issue of poverty in religious outreach and missionary work" and stating that "no altruistic work will be a means for conversion."
Theme of Unity in Diversity
In their speeches, religious leaders stressed many common themes. Perhaps foremost among them was the idea that the world's religions can work together if they emphasize their essential commonalities while respecting their diversity.
Dr. Lincoln of the Bahá'í Community, for example, called on the gathering to work for a "global community based on unity in diversity." That could be done, said Dr. Lincoln, by working to identify the "core values that are common to all religious and spiritual traditions."
Others echoed this call. "The spirit loves diversity," said Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, a Hindu leader. "The time has come to love each other's religions as one's own."
Rev. Nichiko Niwano, President of Rissho Kosei Kai in Japan, said: "We are members of one family. Our lives are sustained by one great light."
Even secular leaders who addressed the Summit made similar points. "We are all one race, and there is only one God who manifests himself in different ways," said Better World Fund's Ted Turner, also the founder of CNN (Cable News Network), who was the Summit's honorary chairman. "So maybe what we ought to do - what we have to do now is we have to work together."
The Summit's opening day began with several hours of prayers, one aim being to "spiritually prepare" the hall for the Millennium Summit.
"Above and beyond a remarkable maturation in interreligious dialogue, this meeting of spiritual leaders in the Chamber of the United Nations General Assembly, on the eve of the Millennium Summit of the world's Heads of State and Government, marks an historic and vital step forward in creating the necessary mutual respect and cooperation between religious and political leadership, conditions without which world peace and the prosperity of humankind are probably unattainable," said Dr. Lincoln of the Bahá'í Community.
"Our disordered world is in desperate need of a moral compass that is above passing fashion and untainted by the pervasive materialism of the modern era," said Dr. Lincoln. "The convening of this summit suggests that the world has become aware of this need and of the capacity latent in the world's religious traditions."
Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of England, said the Summit was historic for its focus on peace among the religions. "We have just completed a millennium in which people too often killed other people in the name of God," he said.
"In my view this meeting was one in which we crossed a threshold," said Rabbi Sacks. "We can never again go back to where we were, because the leaders of 70 different faiths have come together in public assembly at the United Nations to commit themselves with their faith communities to an agenda of mutual respect and peace."
"This is no quick fix," Rabbi Sacks added. "Hatreds that have been inculcated for centuries are not going to evaporate overnight. But the commitment of religious leaders to religious pluralism here has been a momentous event that will send a signal of hope to the world."
An end to religion as a cause of violence
Buddhist, Christian (Old Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic), Jewish and Muslim religious leaders held a meeting Geneva Switzerland during 1999-OCT. Also present were heads of secular groups: the President of the Red Cross, UN High Commissioners for Human Rights and for Refugees, and the General Director of the World Health Organization.
Many conferences have been conducted in the past to discuss how religious groups could ameliorate human suffering, and reduce conflict. However, this was one of the first to dwell on religion as a cause of violence and discrimination.
On OCT-24, they signed a document "The Geneva Spiritual Appeal." They ask political and religious leaders and organizations to ensure that religious faiths are not used to justify future violence.
The Appeal followed the 1949 Geneva Conventions by 50 years. It followed by 100 years the 1899-MAY Hague Peace Conference which the leader of the U.S. delegation termed, "the first conference of the entire world ever."
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Text of the Appeal:
Because our personal convictions or the religions to which we owe allegiance have common a respect for the integrity of humankind.
Because our personal convictions or the religious to which we owe allegiance have common a rejection of hatred and violence.
Because our personal convictions or the religions to which we owe allegiance have common the hope for a better and more just world.
Representing religious communities and civil society we appeal to the leaders of the world, whatever their field of influence, to strictly adhere to the following three principles:
1) A refusal to invoke a religious or spiritual power to justify violence of any kind,
2) A refusal to invoke a religious or spiritual source to justify discrimination and exclusion;
3) A refusal to exploit or dominate others by means of strength, intellectual capacity or spiritual persuasion, wealth or social status.
Grounded in the Genevan tradition of welcome, refuge and compassion, our appeal is open to all whose convictions are in accordance with these three demands.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Two weeks before the signing of the Appeal, a service was held at St. Peter's Cathedral. It commemorated the annual Festival of Geneva. That year, it had the Tibetan people as their special guests. The Dalai Lama was guest preacher. He said that those who waged war in the name of religion had failed to look beyond their religion to other faiths which they opposed. If they did examine other faiths, they would recognize the same desire for transformation as in their own. He said: "It's not enough to belong to a religion. You have to experience it. Spirituality is like a medicine. To heal the illness, it is not sufficient to look at the medicine and talk about it. You have to ingest it." He continued that in spite of their differing methods, the great religions shared a common goal – to make people better. He advised the congregation to follow seriously "your own spiritual path".
The Appeal was signed on Sunday, 1999-OCT-24. It coincided with an interfaith religious service that was also held in St. Peter's Cathedral, Geneva on United Nations Day. The service was "organized in close cooperation with the World Council of Churches (WCC) and [was]...attended...by representatives of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha'i communities, and other religious congregations present in Geneva."
According to Ecumenical News International, delegates claim that 56 current conflicts, civil disturbances, wars, etc have significant religious elements. Protestant theologian William McComish said: "Religion is part of the identity by which one ethnic group sets itself against one another."
Many conferences have been conducted in the past to discuss how religious groups could ameliorate human suffering, and reduce conflict. However, this was one of the first to dwell on religion as a cause of violence and discrimination.
On OCT-24, they signed a document "The Geneva Spiritual Appeal." They ask political and religious leaders and organizations to ensure that religious faiths are not used to justify future violence.
The Appeal followed the 1949 Geneva Conventions by 50 years. It followed by 100 years the 1899-MAY Hague Peace Conference which the leader of the U.S. delegation termed, "the first conference of the entire world ever."
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Text of the Appeal:
Because our personal convictions or the religions to which we owe allegiance have common a respect for the integrity of humankind.
Because our personal convictions or the religious to which we owe allegiance have common a rejection of hatred and violence.
Because our personal convictions or the religions to which we owe allegiance have common the hope for a better and more just world.
Representing religious communities and civil society we appeal to the leaders of the world, whatever their field of influence, to strictly adhere to the following three principles:
1) A refusal to invoke a religious or spiritual power to justify violence of any kind,
2) A refusal to invoke a religious or spiritual source to justify discrimination and exclusion;
3) A refusal to exploit or dominate others by means of strength, intellectual capacity or spiritual persuasion, wealth or social status.
Grounded in the Genevan tradition of welcome, refuge and compassion, our appeal is open to all whose convictions are in accordance with these three demands.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Two weeks before the signing of the Appeal, a service was held at St. Peter's Cathedral. It commemorated the annual Festival of Geneva. That year, it had the Tibetan people as their special guests. The Dalai Lama was guest preacher. He said that those who waged war in the name of religion had failed to look beyond their religion to other faiths which they opposed. If they did examine other faiths, they would recognize the same desire for transformation as in their own. He said: "It's not enough to belong to a religion. You have to experience it. Spirituality is like a medicine. To heal the illness, it is not sufficient to look at the medicine and talk about it. You have to ingest it." He continued that in spite of their differing methods, the great religions shared a common goal – to make people better. He advised the congregation to follow seriously "your own spiritual path".
The Appeal was signed on Sunday, 1999-OCT-24. It coincided with an interfaith religious service that was also held in St. Peter's Cathedral, Geneva on United Nations Day. The service was "organized in close cooperation with the World Council of Churches (WCC) and [was]...attended...by representatives of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha'i communities, and other religious congregations present in Geneva."
According to Ecumenical News International, delegates claim that 56 current conflicts, civil disturbances, wars, etc have significant religious elements. Protestant theologian William McComish said: "Religion is part of the identity by which one ethnic group sets itself against one another."
Do God and Christianity hold a place in the EU constitution?
Overview:
The European Union is preparing its first constitution. Terrence Murray of the Christian Science Monitor wrote: "How the question of religion is handled could have serious legal implications once the EU's constitutional text comes into force, officials say, possibly influencing the outcome of future court rulings on such issues as euthanasia, abortion rights, and human cloning. 'This debate is not just an academic one,' says EU spokesman Jonathan Faull. 'In 10 years', 15 or 100 years' time, it could have important implications in interpreting the text'."
The debate:
Pro God: Germany, Italy, Poland and Slovenia and others.
Anti God: France, Spain and the Netherlands and other secular states.
There has been strong pressure from religious conservatives and the Vatican to recognize God and Christianity. They speculated that these references were left out because of sensitivity to the wishes of Islamic immigrant populations.
All current members of the EU have either a majority of its citizens, or a significant minority, who identify themselves with a Christian denomination. Most have implemented the principle of separation of church and state. Most do not refer to their Christian heritage in their own constitutions. However, many of the countries which are expected to join in 2004 want "Christian values" to appear somewhere in the EU constitution. This is particularly true of Poland, which has a large Roman Catholic majority.
Other countries with a growing secularist tradition, led by France, assert that pluralist modern Europe is beyond the need to reference religion in the EU constitution. Some political leaders feel that a reference to "Christian values" would make it more difficult to expand the EU in the future to include mostly Muslim countries such as Turkey.
Some comments favoring the inclusion of God and Christianity:
| Polish bishop, Cardinal Jozef Glemp, has said he supports EU entry "but only with God." | |
| Hungary bishop, Monsignor Peter Erdoe,: "Without Christianity, the heart of Europe would be missing." | |
| Bishop Joseph Duffy of Clogher, Ireland, referring to a meeting with the European Commission president, Romano Prodi: "Religion is part of our identity. You can't understand the history of Europe without acknowledging the impact of religion, which has made an enormous contribution to the identity of Europe. Prodi was trying to impress on us that we are at a very, very significant juncture, which means a new Europe. He is sympathetic to the Churches and sees that they have a contribution to make on the question of EU identity. The question of God would be a matter for the preamble, rather than the text of the constitution. We would be looking for an invocatio Dei (Reference to god in a legal text, but we would not be looking for a reference to Christ because we respect those who are not Christians." | |
| Pope John Paul II lobbies: "a clear reference to God and the Christian faith to be formulated in the European constitution." | |
| Former Irish Prime Minister, John Bruton: "a greater reference should be made to the fact that many Europeans derive something beyond humanity - this would apply to those who believe in all the major religions." | |
| The Catholic Bishops’ Conference in England and some Jewish, Muslim and Protestant faith groups have also advocated inclusion of Christianity and God. | |
| Elmar Brok, a European deputy from Germany, chairs the caucus of the conservative European People's Party (PPE) at the convention. He believes that reference to a Christian God would strengthen European identity. He said: "Europe as a whole is based on a Christian heritage." Some comments opposing the inclusion of God and Christianity: |
| In an editorial, Scandinavia's largest daily newspaper, the Swedish Aftonbladet, said referring to Christian values in the constitution and placing them above other values would be a 'huge mistake' because it would 'exclude groups and raise new walls'." | |
| Terry Sanderson, vice president of the UK's National Secular Society: "We are very glad a reference to God has been left out, it would have created unnecessary barriers in Europe...Europe has to be secular for it to be really unified." | |
| A British gay-positive group, the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA) stated that because of "increased secularization of morality and public life," they consider it pointless to include God in the new charter. Spokesperson Terry Sanderson said: "We are not opposed to a clause that would establish the freedom to practice religion. "What we don’t want to see is religion moving out of the area of freedom and becoming predominant right there in the beginning." He alleges that: "religion is dying throughout Europe." He blamed "the church" for the suffering of gays and lesbians "over the last millennium." GALHA wrote: "To include references to God or 'our Christian heritage' would be to start turning back on our 500-year journey from the Enlightenment. Instead, we should be proud of our progress, and growing humanity." | |
| Socialist French deputy Olivier Duhamel suggested that mention of Christianity and God is "absurd," because it would exclude Muslims and others of non-Christian faiths, as well as citizens who do not believe in God. | |
| Linda McAvan, a British Labour MEP, argued that a specific mention of Christianity "would offend those many millions of people of different faiths or no faith at all." | |
| A Humanist Convention member from Ireland, Dublin MEP Proinsias De Rossa, suggested that the inclusion of God would be divisive: "It would be a mistake; it's a serious mistake." |
Some suggest an inclusive approach:
| Louis Michel, the Belgian Foreign Minister, said the EU should be inclusive. He said. "Europe is not mono-religious" | |
| Jean-Luc Dehaene, vice-president of the Conventionand a former Belgium prime minister, said the any religious reference would have to be general and pluralist, like that of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights which states that "the Union shall respect cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity". | |
|
| Les Semaines Sociales de France, a French Christian policy group, and some Christian lay groups from Germany and Poland suggested an inclusive statement based on Poland's post-communist constitution, which had to accommodate communists as well as Catholics. The proposal says: "The [European] Union values include the values of those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good, and beauty, as well as those who do not share such a belief but respect these universal values arising from other sources." |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)