What is religion?

What is religion? (your definition)

 



 

 

My daughter was asked in her world religions class to answer this question in two or three sentences. I am tempted to do the same. So I will, except that I will devote an entire essay, covering also questions like, What is my definition of religion? What is religion to me? What are the best definitions of religion I have found in my reading?

 

My slightly cheeky personal definition of my religion, the Baha'i Faith, is "people who sit around in a circle and read from books." This describes, physically, what we do in our meetings, at least 95 percent of the time. Admittedly, sometimes we sit around a table, which may be square, and read aloud from books. But still, this pretty much describes what Baha'is do. So, when we say "study circle," the emphasis is on "circle." Such is the importance of equality in our scriptures.

 



 

 

There has been effort recently to update this definition to "people who sit around in circles and recite." If we memorize enough from our holy writings we will not need to read aloud from books anymore, we will have it by heart. Maybe future generations of believers will memorize enough that my original definition will need to be revised. However, there is little sign that the sclerotic brains of believers of my generation can make such a change.

 

Facetious as my definition is, it is not without precedent in earlier religious teachings. According to the Qur’an, the definition of a believer is someone who hears the word of God (be it read or recited, be it read, intoned or chanted) and is changed and uplifted by the experience. The,

 

"true believers are those whose hearts are filled with awe at the mention of God, and whose faith grows stronger as they listen to His revelations." (Q8:3)

 

Or, as Christ put it, "The sheep knows the voice of the shepherd." Indeed, this reading aloud refers literally to what the word "Qur'an" means in Arabic, "dictation" or continuous recitation. It is what the Prophet or Manifestation does, and learn and follow is what we do.

 



 

 

The Qur'an furthermore emphasizes that once we are filled by reverential feeling by hearing the Word, it is not enough just to wave our hands in the air and say, "I believe," we must obey and enact what the Word says, "Do not say you believe, say you submit." Thus religion is not a belief or system of beliefs, it is what the word "Islam" means, submission to the Will of God. Earlier faiths taught the same thing.

 

"Not by might nor by power shall this be done, but by my spirit." (Zechariah 4:10 and 6)

 

Abdu'l-Baha, in a passage that many Baha'is have memorized, defines religion as a process that begins, yes, in submission to God, but also one that has a final purpose, to change conditions that lead to progress for the human race.

 

"Religion ... is not a series of beliefs, a set of customs; religion is the teachings of the Lord God, teachings which constitute the very life of humankind, which urge high thoughts upon the mind, refine the character, and lay the groundwork for man's everlasting honour." (Abdu'l-Baha, Selections, 52-53)

 

Benefits of the Consistory

The Right to Convert and the Free Market of Faith

By John Taylor; 2010 Oct 15, Mashiyyat 19, 167 BE

Nowhere is good governance more lacking than in religion. There is frightening diversity of opinion and beliefs. Faith groups have been isolated from one another for centuries, resulting in vast differences of expression. At the same time, the world desperately needs universal, eternal values that all can agree upon as working principles. Daunting as it may be, every thinking person has a duty to try to narrow the gap between religions. Otherwise, in everything that concerns the eternal aspects of existence, including the long term interests of humankind, we will be trying to count without numbers, as Comenius' put it.

Without detailing theology or philosophy, there is one sense in which everyone, no matter what belief they profess, is a person of faith. This, in one sentence, is a stepping-stone upon which all can tread:

Everybody who dares get out of bed in the morning to face the unknown dangers of the day is a believer and demonstrates a modicum of faith, hope and charity.

That is it. For this reason alone, each of us can consider ourselves a believer. As believers, we should consider it a sacred duty to participate directly in some way in some faith group, and, on a broader level, to participate in at least one consistory, or parliament of religions. If consistories are designed as both neutral and ubiquitous they will become an integral modality of institutions at all levels, without permitting meddling and interference by narrow minded leaders. As the consistory influences every center of power, from the family to the world government, it will change the ethical and spiritual landscape. It will narrow the gaps among beliefs and first principles.



Everybody has a basic right to believe. But we also need to exercise that right. We have a right to change our mind about what we believe, should conscience dictate. As believers we should uphold the right to convert -- a right that is implicit in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but which has yet to be implemented by the U.N. or any other international body. Once the law is affirmed everywhere individual adherents will no longer be subject to bullying or other arbitrary measures by leaders of their own religion. Just as companies are forced to compete with one another for customers in a free market, the right to convert establishes an open "marketplace" of beliefs and opinions. Religious leaders have no choice but to treat their adherents fairly, if only for fear of losing them to a more enlightened alternative faith.

As believers, we uphold our rights by voting in the members of the Consistory of Holiness. Beyond this, we also should support the consistory directly through voluntary donations, and also by regular payments, alms or tithing, above and beyond whatever charitable donations we contribute to our own religion. By thus upholding an umbrella institution, no matter what religion or lack of religion we profess, each one of us gains a say in the totality of religious expression in our locale.

Unalienable constitutional provisions would make the consistory wholly dependent for votes and funding upon the population it serves. This is a fundamental requirement of good government. By depending only upon the believers under its jurisdiction it is not beholden to any group, religious or otherwise -- including the other two wings of government, the political and scientific. It has the power to outlaw unfair or corrupt practices by faith groups under its jurisdiction. While upholding the freedom to believe, the consistory can lay down sanctions for harmful practices or wrong-headed dogmas that infringe upon the rights of others. It can prevent religious leaders from propounding hate speech, and even "holier than thou" attitudes. It upholds such standards, like any other government, through laws, required training and licensing. For example, it can use a faith group's tax exempt status as a condition of compliance.

Aside from law enforcement, the consistory can promote and amplify many of the positive benefits of religion. By encouraging universal involvement in interfaith activities it make service to others and all the health benefits that this gives, a normal part of life. A local consistory can sponsor service projects that encourage cooperation among faith groups -- in the same way that a local college of light will strive to involve workers and professional associations, and the dicastery will make citizens and political groups actively involved in broadening the bases of peace.

Consistory of Holiness

The Consistory, Why it is Needed and What Makes it Unique

By John Taylor; 2010 Oct 13, Mashiyyat 17, 167 BE

Times Out of Joint

We must be able to rely upon one another, but not overmuch. If we could somehow center our inner balance around a few fundamental principles there could be agreement upon principle by all. That way, peace and world government would come about easily and naturally.

As I mentioned in a recent chapter, my children have a toy which they call Raccoon, a vibrating hard plastic ball connected to a plush tail. Placed on a smooth surface, the ball's vibration and a built-in imbalance gives it a crazy wobbling motion. Like Raccoon, too many unbalanced individuals give a similar unpredictability to groups and organizations. Too many unstable leaders with stereotyped worldviews can put an entire government out of whack, pushing it towards tyranny, an inordinate concentration of power into the hands of a few. At the other extreme, the leadership may lose faith in the individual completely, causing over-reliance on bureaucracy, which is efficient but clumsy, faceless and heartless. In this way, officials and institutions sink into corruption, injustice, war, rumours of war, revolutions, reaction or upheaval.

The Enlightenment project of the 18th Century openly proclaimed universal human rights and wrote them into constitutional law for the first time. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment also saw a divorce. It tore apart the very idea of a complete human being. Formerly, it was expected that an accomplished seeker of truth would be a balanced, well rounded person. The Renaissance Man was named after that age and movement. After the divorce there could be no "Enlightenment Man." As a result, from then on close harmony among government, science and religion became all but impossible. Each struggled with the others, giving a wonky ride to all. John Amos Comenius described the result, which was already apparent in his day,

"For here lies the real difficulty, that most men, even if educated in the ordinary way, are like blind men judging between colours without first knowing what degree of truth there ought to be in anything so that they can judge whether it is there or not; and in so doing they are exactly like men attempting to count without number, to measure without a measuring scale, or to weigh something without a weight and a balance." (Panorthosia, Ch. 11, para 5, p. 176)

We now think of science, belief in God and political activism as separate activities, if not permanently antipathic to one another. Although higher education still takes place in institutions we call "universities," we no longer expect Homo Universalis to come out of them. Not even the most accomplished scholar attempts to balance all three. Even the invention of the Internet, which places virtually all human knowledge at our fingertips, has not raised our expectations.

As a result, it is a rare citizen who even tries to cultivate a broad outlook or cosmopolitan concern. Human faculties are so bifurcated that it is impossible to conceive of world government as anything but a nightmare. Even as the environment degrades and survival threats raise their heads by the dozen, the obvious solution of a strong, democratic world government remains out of the question.

The Need for a Consistory

A case in point was American newscaster Walter Cronkite. After he retired, Cronkite gave a speech to a group of world federalists. He announced that now that he was out of the public eye, he felt it his duty to throw aside his "objective" stance and side with advocates of world government. As we have seen, in doing so Cronkite was joining the global majority opinion. However, so virulent is the climate of suspicion in his country, spread largely by religious reactionaries, that he felt it necessary to declare openly,

"If being for world government means sitting at the right hand of Satan, then I am happy to sit right up there next to him." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inu9vKXsrFA)

This antipathy is not a recent phenomenon. Much of the blame for the Enlightenment split lies with petty leaders of religion who rejected anything that might diminish their parochial sway and refused to embrace a cosmopolitan outlook.

Faith leaders fought among themselves, meddled with politics, and initiated bloody wars and persecution. As a result, secular thinkers came to think of religion as inherently fractious. Issues of faith were either excluded or marginalized from the public forum. All this happened in spite of the majority opinion. As we have seen, most of the world's peoples desire order and a stable world government. And, then as now, the vast majority of the population believes in God. Thus science, religion and even democracy clashed among themselves. From the ashes emerged a monolithic nationalist state that by its very nature cannot satisfy the aspirations of most people.

This is why the voice of John Amos Comenius rings so true today, more perhaps than in his own time, over three hundred years ago. Comenius wrote just before the great split took place. His experience as an educator of broad, balanced individuals made it conceivable for him to envision a comprehensive world government resting on three equal pillars of science, religion and politics.

The Originality of the Consistory

Comenius put a great deal of thought into how each of the three representative institutions would rely upon one another to help build Homo Universalis, and how they would build upon what he or she stands for. In order to involve everybody in all three institutions, the religious, the political and the religious, each citizen could be enfranchised not with one vote, but three. Thus an aspiring Homo Universalis could vote in three elections, one for the philosophers of the College of Light, one for politicians whose goal is peace, and one for interfaith representatives on the Consistory of Holiness. Each expresses an essential part of the heritage of all humanity. All three councils are necessary not only in themselves but in order to balance out the other two aspects of Homo Universalis.

"It is not enough that Man should merely be set beside God by bringing him to his everlasting blessedness; we must have him likened unto God even here on earth. Pythagoras was quite correct in defining philosophy as likeness unto God, but he went too far in giving philosophy the whole credit for a result which it cannot wholly achieve by itself alone. Politics and religion must come to its assistance, playing their part in such a way that philosophy likens Man unto God through the light of his mind, religion through the purity of his heart, and politics through control of his actions. This will come to pass if Man has knowledge of good and evil, and wishes only the good and not the evil, and controls himself in his choice of the good and rejection of the evil with all possible zeal." (Comenius, Panorthosia II, Ch. 10, para 40, pp. 168-169)

The first challenge was to get over the egregious behavior of leaders of religion. Comenius himself, along with his church, the Moravian Brotherhood, had been forced to flee their homeland because of such persecution. But Comenius sought a solution not just for himself or his own church, but to all bullying among faith groups, for all time. It was also necessary somehow to make religion palatable not only to believers but also to the small but important minority of political leaders and scientists. In order to do this, Comenius proposed that we elect a parliament of religions that he called a "Consistory of Holiness." This interfaith parliament would be directly supported by all citizens and believers. It would act on behalf of God and all humanity, setting aside parochialism and sectarian loyalties in order to uphold the highest spiritual aspirations of all groups with a claim to truth, spirituality, ethics or piety.

The fact that this Consistory was elected by everybody would give it a higher moral authority than any one faith group, no matter how energetic, including the one whose members are in a large majority. A broader mandate allows it to restrain religious leaders from fractious or fanatical behavior, and from inciting followers to violence, parochialism or even "holier than thou" attitudes.

At the same time, unlike some interfaith churches and other faith groups that are active today, the Consistory would not allowed to act as a religion itself. It is a neutral regulatory commission with strict constitutional provisions to prevent it from competing with the organizations that it oversees. For example, Comenius envisioned the consistory operating at every level, including the individual and the family. Thus the consistory might see to it that every individual can make room in their dwelling for an alter or place of worship or meditation of some kind, and that every household have a room that can be used for group devotions at least some of the time. However, it should have no say over the form and content of these sacred places and ceremonies; this should left entirely up to the individuals and families involved, and whatever faith group they choose to affiliate themselves with.

Ultimately, the goal of all three institutions, the consistory (interfaith religion), the college of light (science) and the dicastery of peace (politics), is the same, single and utterly compatible object: to free us all from the tyranny of the material world. This, in Comenius' Biblical phrasing is the "one thing needful."

"If one could reveal to men the meaning of the saying 'One thing is needful' and the importance of partnership with God, they would quickly free themselves from the dizziness of the material world with all its darkness and terror. This would be a real possibility if we could find true philosophy, true religion and true politics." (Panorthosia, Ch. 1, para 16, 17, p. 50)

Similarly, Plato wrote that,

"all these branches of study will be found fair and becoming, if only by further laws and institutions you expel illiberality and commercialism from the souls of those who pursue them thoroughly to their profit; otherwise, you will be surprised to find that you have produced not a philosopher but a regular knave..." (Collected Dialogues, p. 1331)

It is true that Plato in the sixth book of his final major work, the Laws, made provisions for what he called "local gods and spirits," shrines to who which should be established by his ideal state. He would not have had a state religion replace or interfere with pre-existing religious groups, but where they do not already exist Plato wanted the state to set up its own religion roughly based upon the Delphic Oracle, the closest thing to a universal religion in the Hellenic world. This idea has some similarity to Comenius' consistory, and Comenius may well have read the Laws for all I know. In any case, the rise of Christianity and Islam changed the moral reflexes of humankind forever, making the faith expressions that Plato assumed all but unrecognizable to most people. For that reason we should pay attention to Comenius' consistory first.

Nonetheless, we should give serious consideration to several of Plato's suggestions for the uses of faith groups and holy places. For example, he held that votes should be held only in holy shrines (Laws, 753c), where presumably a meditative atmosphere would prevail during elections with greater attention to rules of reverence and decorum. He also suggested that voting be compulsory and that a democratic system be based upon a combination of democratic elections and, when that option is too clumsy or inequitable, random selection -- that is, drawing lots to determine who rotates next in filling a given post. Choice by lot, he said, is an appeal not to the will of the people, but to that of God.

Why we need a consistory

Whence the Wobble

By John Taylor; 2010 Oct 08, Mashiyyat 12, 167 BE

In the century after John Amos Comenius' death, a divorce took place in Europe between religion and politics. Decades of bloody sectarian war showed how deadly interference of religion and politics with one another could be. As an educator, spiritual leader and peace negotiator, Comenius strove all his life to prevent such a breakup, not only with politics but also of religion and science. He enthusiastically propounded Francis Bacon's arguments that the new science is sanctioned and inspired by the Bible. Had Comenius greater influence in France and the English speaking world, the 18th Century Enlightenment would have included religion, which as we have seen he held up as one of the three paths of the human spirit to enlightenment.

In enduring ways, this tragic parting of the ways stunted human potential. The worldview of educated people was permanently put out of whack. By and large, religion learned to exclude itself from the public forum. Increasingly narrow minded religious leaders gloried in triumphalism, exclusivism and vigorously opposed liberal principles. They chose disputation and sectarian rivalry over responsibility to the good of all. Thus secularism was born; anti-theists openly hacked at the pillars of belief. The wealthy and educated few parted ways from the poor majority of humanity, most of whom were and still remain heavily invested in God and religion.

At the same time, science remained to some extent excluded from public policy as well. Research and experimentation was restricted to private pursuits, the professions and, increasingly, the university. Even the government supported laboratories initiated by Napoleon tended to engage largely in research and development with military applications. Scientists themselves had and still have no direct say in public policy; the failure of governments to respond to global warming makes this glaringly clear.

Our True Center of Gravity

As mentioned, the preponderating majority of the population on a global level believe in God, in spite of being weighed down by extreme poverty -- or perhaps because of it. That was the majority opinion in the 17th Century, and it remains so today. As a result, when faith was removed from the public forum, most of humankind was marginalized. It opened up a gap in our collective worldview. Liberalism, belief in the prime importance of freedom, became the exclusive domain of a small, secular elite, in spite of the glaring fact that the very idea of liberation comes from the Bible. The exodus of Hebrew slaves initiated by Moses, and the brash declaration of a social outcast that "the truth shall set you free," are difficult to ignore.

The result? Without general agreement upon first principles, it was difficult to summon up concerted, consistent action in the interest of all. Omitting the concerns of faith from the concept of freedom introduced an eccentric bias not only to the liberal agenda but to its proudest product, democratic government. Crazily enough, by rejecting the conviction of the poor majority that God is relevant, liberals were doomed from then on to be inherently anti-democratic. Their popular support thus weakened, liberals were overly influenced by a cynical elite, whose only faith is in greed or absolute power. These secret partisans lobbied to set the agenda, applying ever more sophisticated tactics of divide and rule.

Thus was born in partial liberalism a predatory breed of democracy that gave a voice only to some, that allowed almost unlimited freedoms for a few while condoning gross inequality for most. On a world level, "democratic" governments tend to be the most vehement and violent opponents of freedom for the poor South. Immanuel Kant pointed out that there is a contradiction at the heart of majoritarian democracy,

"Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all," who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom." (Kant, Sketch of Perpetual Peace, First Definitive Article; The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican")

Even representative democracy encourages the general will to clash with itself. The inevitability of contradiction on a certain level is why questions of faith cannot be ignored or suppressed, for only in the sacred are opposites reconciled. Plato reasoned the argument like this: all good governance is ultimately the outcome of the moderating effect of many friendships actively changing society. Religious ceremonies promote varied and mixed relationships.

"A legislator should avoid the slightest interference with (sacred traditions); he should assign every district its patron god, or spirit, or hero, as the case may be ... His purpose in this will be that the convocations of the various sections may provide for the satisfaction of their various needs, and that the festivities may give occasion for mutual friendliness, familiarity and acquaintance." (Plato, Laws, 738d, Collected Writings, p. 1323)

Relationships formed in the rarefied atmosphere of reverent spirituality tend to involve the fortunes of the many with the few. They temper the diversity and truculence of human opinion -- for the same reason that we all adapt what we have to say to the person we are speaking to. Nobody speaks in the same tone to a boss as to an underling, to a mother as to a son or lover. Thus a vital religious faith is, in Plato's view, a prerequisite for democratic ways of thinking.

"There is indeed no such boon for a society as this familiar knowledge of citizen by citizen. For where men have no light on each other's characters, but are dark on the subject, no one will ever reach the rank or station that he deserves, or get the justice which is his proper due. Hence in every society it should always be the endeavor of every citizen, before anything else, to prove himself to all his neighbors no counterfeit, but a man of sterling sincerity, and not to be imposed upon by any counterfeiting by others." (Laws, 738e, pp. 1323-1324)

This essential duty of a citizen to other citizens can only be aided by broad recognition of an unknowable, loving God Who is willing to show us the way forward. This general recognition smoothes out contradictions and allows society to roll straight forward towards universally acceptable goals. Next time we will discuss the public institution, the Consistory of Holiness, that Comenius designed for furthering this purpose.

Chapter: The Composition of the Consistory

By John Taylor; 2010 Aug 09, Kamal 08, 167 BE


"Tres unu contudit ictu," -I have cut down three with a single blow.


In the last chapter we talked about an erratically gyrating "raccoon" toy with a built-in wobble. Like this toy, unbalanced individuals tend to tilt organizations every which way. Often they push it towards concentrating power into the hands of a few leaders with stereotyped worldviews. At other times they swing the other way towards huge, clumsy bureaucracies. We cannot trust ourselves. Any institution may sooner or later sink into corruption, injustice, war, rumours of war, revolutions, reaction or upheaval.

The reason we cannot center our balance lies in the Enlightenment project of the 18th Century. Although it openly proclaimed universal human rights, the Enlightenment also witnessed a divorce that tore Homo Universalis into three parts. We now think that belief in God, science and activism are in permanent antipathy to one another. We no longer expect even the most accomplished scholar to balance all three. As a result, it is a rare citizen who has a chance to cultivate a broad outlook or cosmopolitan concern. Worst of all, this bifurcation of human faculties made it impossible to conceive of world government as anything but a nightmare. Even in the face of the decline of the environment and other survival threats by the dozen, the obvious solution of a world government remains out of the question.

A case in point is American newscaster Walter Cronkite. After he retired Cronkite gave a speech to world federalist group where he announced that now that he was out of the public eye he felt he could throw aside his former objective stance and openly side with advocates of world government. In doing so, he was joining the global majority opinion. However, so virulent is the climate of suspicion spread largely by religious reactionaries in his country, that he felt it necessary to declare openly, "If being for world government means sitting at the right hand of Satan, then I am happy to sit right up there next to him." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inu9vKXsrFA)

Most of the blame for the Enlightenment split lay with petty religious leaders who rejected anything they thought might diminish their parochial sway. They refused to embrace a cosmopolitan outlook, in spite of the fact that most of the world's peoples want world government. In reaction to long standing wars and disagreement among faith leaders, secular thinkers came to think of religion as inherently fractious, and they either excluded or marginalized from the public forum, in spite of the fact that the vast majority believed in God, then and now. The result, the monolithic nationalist state, is a nightmare that can never satisfy the aspirations of most people.

This is why the voice of Comenius rings so true today. He spoke before the great split had taken place, when it was still conceivable to have a world government resting on three equal pillars of science, religion and politics. In order to do this, Comenius proposed that we elect a parliament of religions that he called a "Consistory of Holiness." This interfaith institution would act on behalf of God and all humanity, setting aside sectarian loyalties and implementing the highest spiritual aspirations of all religious groups.

Comenius put a great deal of thought into how each of the three representative institutions should rely upon one another, since all three councils are needed to balance the three aspects of Homo Universalis.


"It is not enough that Man should merely be set beside God by bringing him to his everlasting blessedness; we must have him likened unto God even here on earth. Pythagoras was quite correct in defining philosophy as likeness unto God, but he went too far in giving philosophy the whole credit for a result which it cannot wholly achieve by itself alone. Politics and religion must come to its assistance, playing their part in such a way that philosophy likens Man unto God through the light of his mind, religion through the purity of his heart, and politics through control of his actions. This will come to pass if Man has knowledge of good and evil, and wishes only the good and not the evil, and controls himself in his choice of the good and rejection of the evil with all possible zeal." (Comenius, Panorthosia II, Ch. 10, para 40, pp. 168-169)


In order to involve everybody, each citizen can be enfranchised not with one vote, but three. Thus Homo Universalis would vote in three elections, one for the philosophers of the College of Light, one for politicians whose goal is peace, and one for interfaith representatives on the Consistory of Holiness. Each is an expression of an essential part of the heritage of humanity.

The fact that this Consistory was elected by everybody would give it a higher moral authority than any one faith group, no matter how energetic, including the one whose members are in a large majority. This broader mandate allows it to restrain religious leaders from fractious or fanatical behavior, and from inciting followers to violence, parochialism or even "holier than thou" attitudes.

Not only would world citizens elect the consistory but they would also fund it directly through alms and tithing, that is, both voluntary and obligatory payments. This again makes it dependent directly upon the people, yet not beholden to any particular group, religious or otherwise, including the political wing of the world government.

In Panorthosia, Comenius envisioned Consistories of Holiness at every level of governance, each wholly dependent upon their constituents for votes and funds. That way, no particular religious group, large or small, could gain undue influence. There are consistories everywhere, from the family to the global level. So, beyond paying and voting, this ubiquity permits everyone to participate in some way in at least one consistory. No matter what religion or lack of religion we profess, we all still get an equal say in the deliberations of our consistory.

The only doctrine the Consistory of Holiness would openly profess is belief in God. This naturally is because, as global opinion polls repeatedly show, the vast majority of humans believe in God and hold to certain moral virtues and principles that arise from this reverential conviction.

Otherwise, the consistory cannot favour any single belief, dogma or faith group over any other. It represents everybody and is tasked with upholding the rule of law, especially the divine law of love. Its members are sworn to protect minority rights, even those who deny the convictions of the majority. Its only criterion of a good religion over bad is its ability to promote the Golden Rule, according to the principle that, "By their fruits ye shall know them." If a belief contributes to the Golden Rule and the common good, it is praised and encouraged by the Consistory.

In dealing with corrupt religions, the religious parliament would not be without teeth. It can lay down sanctions to limit the harm of those who would put wrong-headed dogmas into action. Like any other government, it can use licensing to uphold standards, most often using a group's tax exempt status as a condition of compliance.

::

The Composition of the Consistory

By John Taylor; 2010 Aug 08, Kamal 07, 167 BE

A rewrite of Chapter Three of the first section of People Without Borders


Raccoon Motion

When my children were young one of their favorite toys was a yellow plastic ball with a fluffy "tail" connected to it. They called it their "raccoon." When they placed it on a smooth surface and flipped a switch, it vibrated and wobbled erratically, to their unending delight and the consternation of our cat. It was impossible to say which way it would roll next. After a while I deduced that its strange unstable motion came about because inside a motor was gyrating around an off-center counterweight. When I opened it up it had an ordinary electric motor pushing its batteries, which were the counterweight.

That, it seems to me, is a perfect metaphor for how our inner world is rolling right now. Our center of balance and our motive force are out of whack, working hard against one another in a crazy spin. Our education is unbalanced. Like the "raccoon" we want our thoughts and action to roll straight but our design makes us wobble. Our schooling trains us as specialists, very sophisticated in some ways but clueless in others. Is it any surprise that our lives become unbalanced? We end up as wobbly toys whose gyres and gimbles, in Hamlet's words, "make the unskilful laugh ... but make the judicious grieve."

The Source of the Wobble
The century after John Amos Comenius' death saw a divorce among science, religion and politics. As an educator, a spiritual leader and peace negotiator, he had striven all his life to prevent this from happening. If Comenius had his way, the 18th Century, which arrogantly called itself the Enlightenment, would have included religion as one of the three main lights of the human spirit. Instead, it rejected religion out of hand. This was not without reason, of course. By and large, most religious leaders themselves rejected liberalism and embraced exclusion. They gladly chose disputation and rivalry among themselves over the good of all.
After this sad parting of the ways, human potential was stunted and our worldview permanently put out of whack. Secularism was born as educated elites parted ways from the rest of humanity. The fact that religious leaders were too narrow-minded to participate did not change the fact that the preponderating majority of the human race believe in God. They did in the 17th Century and they do today. This made liberalism, belief in the importance of freedom, the exclusive domain of a small number of non-believers, in spite of the glaring fact that the very idea of liberation comes from the exodus of Moses and a crucified poor man who declared that "the truth shall set you free."

Our True Center of Gravity
Crazily enough, this eccentricism made the liberal agenda, whose proudest offspring is democratic government, inherently anti-democratic. With the religious consensus of opinion banished from the public agenda, most of humankind are marginalized agreement upon first principles is impossible. All that remain to set the agenda are a cynical elite whose only faith is in absolute power based on ever more sophisticated divide and rule tactics.
The result is that established democracies offer limited freedom to a few and accept gross inequality. On a world level, these democracies have become the most vehement and violent opponents of freedom in the world. To point only to the most recent example, a US military spokesman this week issued an open threat to Wikileaks, which exposed its campaign of assassination in Afghanistan. As early as Immanuel Kant the contradiction at the heart of the secular liberal democratic agenda was exposed,
"Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all," who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom." (Kant, Sketch of Perpetual Peace)
Only an unknowable, loving God who aims to teach us the way can smooth out these contradictions and allow the ball to roll straight to a universally acceptable object. In Hamlet's words, his censure is most judicious and "must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others." The fact that most humans accept that God's will comes first would make governance based upon that more democratic than any system now calling itself a democracy.

::

World Religion Day Celebration

Ron Speer put on a great show for world religion day on Sunday. Here is the report in our local newspaper.

Dunnville Celebrates the Joy in Religion

By CATHY PELLETIER , Dunnville Chcronicle

http://www.dunnvillechronicle.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2268403

19th Annual World Religion Day

19th Celebration

WORLD RELIGION DAY
January 17th, 2010 - 2 p.m.

"Celebration of Joy in Religion" is the theme of this year's celebration.

Representatives of the various religions will make a brief introduction, and through Singing, Instruments, Dance, Artistic Expressions, Traditional Religious Festivals will portray joy as it
is experienced in their religious or cultural backgrounds.


GRACE UNITED CHURCH. DUNNVILLE


Refreshments from different cultures

 

::

What might have been in Copenhagen

The Founding Father of the World Parliament of Religions

By John Taylor

In early December of 2009 the seventh major session of the World Parliament of Religions (parliamentofreligions.org) took place in Melbourne, Australia. It is not well known that its founding father was the 17th Century Czech educational reformer John Amos Comenius. In his 1671 work "Panorthosia, or Universal Reform," he proposed a world parliament with three chambers, one each for politics, education and religion. In other words, he proposed not an interfaith parliament in name but a real legislative body elected by secret ballot by all people, fully capable of writing binding resolutions in its sphere of influence. The rules it devises would apply not only to all religious groups but also to every individual on earth, no matter what their beliefs, affiliation or religious background may be. It would be responsible not only for interfaith worship but also for artistic and moral expression on the world level. As such, it would embody the faith, hope and spiritual aspirations of all humans.

In this series of essays, I have been attempting to demonstrate that Comenius's proposal for a three-pronged world government is of far more than historical interest. Comenius insisted that bringing religion on board is the only way to involve the entire human race fully in the reform process. This consideration is as pertinent today as it was when he wrote Panorthosia 338 years ago.

Comenius held that without clear and distinct roles for each of these three bodies, scientific, political and religious, they could never work together without interference and conflict. However, at the same time he did not interpret separation of church and state to mean that they should have nothing to do with one another. In fact, like a three legged stool, each is needed to uphold the entire structure. Indeed one of the greatest advantages of religion from the point of view of all kinds of leaders is its ability to instil the virtues of respect and obedience among the populace. Religion will,

"offer their services to the other two orders in the cause of our Lord, by granting them the authority of God's Word which they hold in trust, and constantly sustaining them in it, and praying for them in the presence of all the people, for example, that all men should appreciate teachers and schools as leaders and factories of light, and duly respect magistrates and courts or tribunals as the visible presence and power of God Himself. It will help them to obtain this effect from others if they themselves conscientiously submit to the political authorities and respect the servants of light who are in charge of school education as their colleagues. (Panorthosia, Ch. 18, para 15, p. 243)

Clearly, under a Comenian world government the climate summit taking place in Copenhagen this week would have been very different. As it is, scientists met with government leaders, not only national leaders but mayors of cities too, to forge action plans to halt rising global temperatures. Religious groups sat in, but were relegated to the periphery. Rather than restricting it to politicians and climate experts, the Comenian parliament of religions would also participate at all levels, including organizing the conference.

With this third element, deliberations would surely have been more open, comprehensive and free ranging. The interfaith body would also enlist the prayers, hopes and aspirations of humanity to legitimize and support the resolutions at Copenhagen, and perhaps offer spiritual counselling when sacrifices are called for. The religious parliament might at sponsor and coordinate artistic expressions concurrent with all sessions, allowing for a fuller cross-section of humanity to participate, if only by listening to the music and viewing the works of art. They might bring in an ethical element as well. For example, the religious parliament might sponsor a simultaneous gathering discussing the moral dimensions of climate change.

As I mentioned yesterday, the greatest need shown up by Copenhagen is for reform of democracy. Its entire agenda was made up by and for wealthy elements who have corrupted the democratic process. The opinions of the peoples of the world get short shrift. This happened in large part because religion itself is weak and corrupt.

One of Comenius's most important suggestions for changing this is that we are incapable or unwilling to use God as common ground among us all. Setting all factionalism aside, religion, or to speak more exactly, God, has the potential of becoming the populist spirit behind world democracy. In the consultations of a democratic world government,

"There is no need to appoint a special judge to settle disputes. The people themselves, being the whole of God's church, will act as judge, provided that everything is resolved to bear witness to the truth (of God) itself, avenging itself upon the power of darkness by its clear light, since the main premise will then consist of the threefold law of God, i.e., the natural world, the world of God's creatures, and holy scripture, the minor premise will be the conscience of all mankind, and the conclusion will be the applause of all the people." (Panorthosia, Ch. 25, para 10, p. 137)

::

Being a Baha'i in Today's World

 


Interview with Natalie Mobini at the Parliament of World Religions in Melbourne, Australia. From the Patheos blog:

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Voices-of-Faith.html

This blog has an interesting video introduction:
"What do different religions really believe? You might be surprised... Crazy B------s":

 



 ::

 

Compassion Charter

Compassion before being right or wrong: the essence of religion...

http://charterforcompassion.org/

Gerald Filson on panel about religious evolution

Media rep of Canadian NSA speaks on Ontario's public television network, TVO.

The Agenda - Broadcast - Religions: Old, New, Borrowed and Blue | David Hlynsky

The Agenda - Broadcast - Religions: Old, New, Borrowed and Blue | David Hlynsky

Freedom and the Ecumenical Consistory

Liberty from a Religious Point of View

By John Taylor; 2009 Sep 01, Asma 13, 166 BE

Absolute freedom, like all absolutes, is only possible for God in relation to Himself. This understanding predates monotheism, as evidenced by Aeschylus, who wrote: "For know that no one is free, except Zeus." Human freedom, then, is relative to our nature, which is both physical and spiritual. The physical requires us to compromise spiritual aspirations to some extent. Every religion teaches that we often must choose animal freedom or freedom born of Spirit. Christianity, for example,

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Cor 3:17, KJV)

Islam emphasizes that higher knowledge offers a paradoxical freedom in which submission to a higher Will is the highest ideal. "Indeed, man transgresseth in thinking himself his own master: for to your Lord all things return." (Qur'an 96:1) Justice and righteousness are the outcome of absorption in the Will of One Who knows all.

"Amongst us are some that submit their wills (to God), and some that swerve from justice. Now those who submit their wills - they have sought out (the path) of right conduct." (Qur'an 72:14, Yusuf Ali, tr.)

This is also the essential spirit of Judaism, which has Satan, in guise of a serpent in the Garden of Eden promise Eve that, "Ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) Freedom on the spiritual level comes of admitting that we can never know what is good or evil on our own, or control what is inherently beyond our nature in a world of materiality. Instead, spiritual freedom is imitation of the deity, who liberates selflessly by nature and by example.

"Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Set free, and you will be set free." (Luke 6:36-37, WEB)

Animal liberty is purely physical and therefore based on rule of the strong over the weak; the former fight their way to the top with force and violence. It is not free but only a masked form of slavery. Even the top dog expresses his freedom by indulging bodily desires and appetites that have only ephemeral results. Spiritual freedom is the fruit of imitating an all-loving God, who inculcates virtues like benevolence, wisdom, independence and moderation. These virtues raise the human spirit above violence and the contradictions inherent to carnal leanings.

Immanuel Kant correctly recognized that we will never attain this higher liberation completely or be rid of the damaging freedom of a bestial nature unless and until national governments submit their sovereign authority to a world government. Then the individual will finally be free of injustice, inside and out.

"However fantastical this idea (a league of nations) may seem -- and it was laughed at as fantastical by the Abbe de St. Pierre and by Rousseau, perhaps because they believed it was too near to realization -- the necessary outcome of the destitution to which each man is brought by his fellows is to force the states to the same decision (hard though it be for them) that savage man also was reluctantly forced to take, namely, to give up their brutish freedom and to seek quiet and security under a lawful constitution." (Kant, Cosmopolitan History, Seventh Thesis, p. 256)

Such is the nature of religious freedom. It has implications that we have hardly begun to explore on the international scene. For example, any future world government that is not a tyranny would have to recognize a universal right to convert from one religion to any other religion. This right would only be tolerable to faith groups when it is widely recognized that there are features -- and not peripheral ones but essentials -- of all religions that are part of a faith heritage common to all thinking humans. This emerging entity let us call the One Common Faith, or OCF.

An increasing awareness of our OCF heritage would do more than just give a new human right, the right to convert, to every citizen in the world -- even those who live in regions where compulsion in belief is traditional. It would also enable a world parliament of religion -- an institution that Comenius called the Ecumenical Consistory -- to come into existence. This parliament would do just what the word "consistory implies. It would take the values, ideals and features that are consistent across major religions through the ages, principles like love of one's neighbour and the Golden Rule, and put them into effect on the personal level in order to enable progress on the local and international levels as well. Comenius pointed to this as the common purpose of liberation for all religions:

"For the goal of this first individual reform is that everyone should release himself from the powerful grip of external things and be restored to himself and God, for the purpose of asserting his freedom of thought, will and action upon things which make for his welfare here and to all eternity." (Panorthosia, Ch. 20, para 7, p. 22)

The very existence of a right to convert, an OCF and an Ecumenical Consistory would force all religious groups to raise their standards in order to compete with others. This would benefit all by canalizing the same competitive forces that made the modern business so potent, influential and efficient. As Kant perceived, this restraint on the baser urges of religious groups would, paradoxically, free them to attain higher levels of excellence; it would act on the social aspect of faith like the restraints that train an individuals animal nature to submit the soul to the Spirit, the true and universal liberator. 

::

Why are X so?

Here is something I just stumbled across, on the options Google gives you when you type in "Why are x so ...?"

http://positivesharing.com/2009/04/google-loves-denmark/

I tried Canadians, and it was complementary, then I tried why are Baha'is so... and there was nothing at all. Why are Christians so... and Muslims, and atheists were not complementary at all.

Any further suggestions?

I tried out, "Why is John Taylor so...? and got nothing. It must mean either that I am a Baha'i, or just off the radar.

World Religion Day, Part I

18th Annual World Religion Day

Held at Grace United Church

Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity

Dealing Recklessly With God

The Teaching Worldview of Comenius

The Real Oldest Profession

A snide saying says that the world's oldest profession is prostitution. This is utterly wrong. The oldest profession is teaching, if only because there have to be teachers applying a regularized curriculum in order for professions to exist in the first place. But there is more to it than that. God Himself offers the primal example as to why teaching must be the true "world's oldest profession." God rules over nature directly, by force of Might,

"He shall have dominion also... unto the ends of the earth." (Ps 72:8)

But God gave us a transcendent gift, that of reason. Arbitrary measures are not appropriate for creatures capable of reasoning. Therefore the divine method with intelligent beings is not to force but to teach. God instructs us how to rule over the lower orders of creation in a duly benevolent and responsible manner. In order to do this, God turns stewardship of His garden over to human hands,

"I shall give thee... the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." (Ps 2:8)

God cedes sovereignty, albeit temporarily, because that is how you teach. A good teacher does not just pontificate; he or she assigns active exercises to allow students to learn by doing. When we doctor and order the lower levels of creation we learn through our mistakes. When we finally do learn how to take our rightful place in the divine order, then,

"All the ends of the world shall turn unto the Lord." (Ps 22:27)

Comenius in the Panorthosia often refers to these three citations from the Psalms. In the above I tried to string them together so as to sum up very briefly his worldview. In short, teaching is not just a job for Comenius; it is the very purpose of creation. As we attune ourselves to the divine teaching method we will learn to do what every good teacher does for his students, show them how to pay attention to essentials and cast aside whatever might distract or confuse.

"... the ultimate changes which we seek through this Reform of the World should be necessary, not frivolous; that is to say, we must cut out the countless side-issues in our affairs and pre-occupations which obsess and divide and strangely perplex all the orders of human society, economic, political, religious, and educational, and even involve individual men in a thorny tangle of useless theories, ambitions and intrigues. ... This way to Universal Reform warns us that the world must be recalled from multiplicity to simplicity, and bids us to regard all side-issues as snares and nuisances." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 10, para 14, 157-158)

This reminds me of my favourite definition of a teacher: someone who saves his or her students' time. Teachers save time by doing just what Comenius describes here, by showing an example of being well organized themselves, by eschewing wasted time on dead ends, and by demonstrating how to organize the mind and the world for effective practice. Comenius was indisputably one of the greatest educators in history; he is often called the "father of modern education." As one would expect, he was supremely well-organized. His reform program in Panorthosia compresses all areas of knowledge into three simple parts.

God provides humanity, he says, with three "books" which in combination are sufficient for all purposes, the book of the physical world, the book of the human mind and the book of Revelation, the direct "thought" of God. (Pampaedia 6:2, Panorthosia, pp. 111-2, Introd. p. 9). We read these "books" by means of three disciplines, politics, philosophy (science) and religion. These three are not to be confused with the narrow subject areas that politicians, philosophers and priests are experts in. Rather everybody with a trade or calling in life has to "read" the three books and teach lessons from them effectively before their apprenticeship is complete.

Unlike dogmatic theologians, Comenius did not place the "book" of divine revelation over everything, discounting the lesser books of mind and of the world. Although scripture holds the thought of God, the other two books, the mind and the material world, are there for good reason. But he did place faith first among them, as does the Baha'i Faith, I think. This is axiomatic: every real change has to start with a change in worldview. For Comenius religion must be the fundamental impetus behind reform, as taught by a verse he often cites, "Behold, I make all things new." (Revelations 21:5).

The Comenian reform program looks forward to the prophesied Second Eden where all believers in God, Christians, Jews and Muslims, will come together in harmony and agree upon a common platform of beliefs. That is, he envisaged what Baha'u'llah called "one common cause, one universal faith" for the entire human race.

"... it would be most desirable ... to make the whole world (1) a School of God, whereas the hidden schools of the world, the flesh, and the devil are everywhere made to perish; (2) a Kingdom of Christ, including particular kingdoms and states converted to the cause of Christ; (3) a single Temple of God, and a single worship of one God under one Universal Religion, (4) finally, that the whole world should become a house accessible to all, and all the inhabitants of the earth one family of God, linked by the common bond of a universal language, with particular languages either ceasing to be spoken or blending with the common language.." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 5, para 21, p. 96)

Christian triumphalism aside, this proposed goal of Comenius is startlingly similar to the Universal House of Justice's recent book "One Common Faith," which aims at establishing common ground among all major world faiths so that basic religious teachings will be common knowledge. That is, one day the true fundamentals of religion will be taught in all schools from primary on up in the same way that certain basics of mathematics and science are already taught.

Unfortunately these three "books," faith, science and politics, have been divorced for centuries. The inclination of reformers since Comenius is to leave religion aside as a lost cause and take a secular approach that excludes the "book" of scripture completely from reforms. Since 9-11 there has been wider recognition that we cannot get by just with the two "books" of the mind and the physical world. People of faith are needed to be actively involved in solving the crises that threaten our future. If that is ever to happen, sooner or later the world's religions must bury the hatchet and come together to form a world parliament of religion very like the "Ecumenical Consistory" that Comenius proposes in the eighteenth chapter of the Panorthosia.

Why is such an institution so necessary? Because even those who reject religion still live on faith and end up speaking in religious terms, albeit in a degraded form. That is because every world embracing issue is framed by our view of the world. So, if faith is unavoidable why not make sure that we all have access to the best that religious thought can offer? A religious parliament would do just that. Comenius explains the problems of confusion that such an institution would solve at the end of the seventh chapter of Panorthosia,

"Therefore we must abandon all the labyrinths of our own wisdom, will, and intrigue, and we must abolish every counterfeit that falsely pretends to follow the wisdom, will and works of God. Finally we must stamp out all the stupidity of disregarding God and His thoughts, purposes, and works, or in a word WE MUST UNIVERSALLY CEASE TO DEAL RECKLESSLY WITH GOD. And then at last we shall have removed the supreme obstacle and hindrance to true reform of ourselves and our affairs." (Comenius, Panorthosia II, Ch. 7, para 15, p. 108)

--

John Taylor

email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/

Purpose of Principle

The Purpose of Principle and Religion

More on the Master's Explication of the Principles in Paris; BPS III



By John Taylor; 2008 Nov 25, 3 Qawl 165 BE



We have looked in earlier parts of this essay series at the first two Baha'i principles, search for truth and oneness of humanity. We have seen that together these twin principles act as a pivot around which all the other principles revolve. It is the intimate connection between them, their close togetherness and reflection of one another, that makes these two into principles. Without this, none of the Baha'i principles would be principles, and the methodology of principle would not be unique as it is.



Think of it.



Most educated, liberal-leaning people today agree with either of these two principles. They think it would be great if more people became seekers of truth and forgot old traditions and superstitions; at the same time, they could hardly fail to acknowledge that all humans are one, and that we should treat every underprivileged member of the human club with kindness and compassion.



But, and this is a big "but," they would not see one leading naturally into the other. After all, if everybody became in independent truth seeker, pounding out their own personal views of reality, who is to say that this will not lead to more differences rather than less? Is it reasonable to expect human variance to just go away on their own? Would not unification require tremendous effort, even elaborate indoctrination and expensive propaganda campaigns designed to persuade the masses to think alike? And even then, what reason do we have to think that conflicts will be spread even more by all this effort? Yet that is exactly what Abdu'l-Baha said must happen, effortlessly, smoothly, as a natural outcome of the nature of truth, God and the universe. He wrote,



"... the nations of the world have to investigate after truth independently and turn their eyes from the moribund blind imitations of the past ages entirely. Truth is one when it is independently investigated, it does not accept division. Therefore the independent investigation of truth will lead to the oneness of the world of humanity." (JWTA, 35)



The reason truth will not admit of division is simply because there is One God Who Personifies Truth, and, like all great artists, He creates the universe in His own image, according to his own, single vision. He wills oneness and makes it our deepest, inner nature to agree with one another in all that matters most.



Oneness cannot accentuate conflict, it by nature dispels it, without any direct human effort, like snow melting under a hot sun. The more ardent and sincere our investigation of reality, the great the heat, the more clearly our similarities to other seekers is made clear before our eyes. At the same time, we will perceive diversity, but we will know that it is a condition of this world, and particularity is only of secondary importance in the greater scheme of things. "Put the kingdom first, and all will be added unto you." This is a spiritual reality that all great spiritual teachers have spoken of, but only today are we ready and able to respond to it as the entire human race.



For example, Jesus often said, "It is written," and, "So it was from the beginning..." At such times He was speaking of the nature of spiritual principle. By "beginning" He did not mean a temporal, worldly provenance, much less some primitive Golden Age lost to history. He was referring to existential purity, to a thought or condition where the mind relates to the One True God as its direct Origin. Such is principle. Again, the dozen or so Baha'i principles are prophesied in the Book of Revelation,



"...the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:2)



According to this vision, the twin pivotal principles would be the trunk of the tree, the several spiritual principles its roots, and the leaves -- the tree's vivifying link to the sun and air, the principle of universal peace. Peace on earth is the ultimate goal of all principle. The rest, the supporting branches and fruits of the tree of principle, would be the several other principles that we are examining in the order given in the address Abdu'l-Baha gave to the Theosophists in Paris, 1911.



Our next principle, then, is that "Religion should be the cause of love and affection,"



"Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart."



The traditional view of religion -- accepted by fanatics and scholars alike -- is that religions are mere traditions, sets of belief without purpose other than their own self-perpetuation. Of course this should be anathema to anyone who believes in God, since only He, and no set of doctrines, however basic, is the "be all and end all," beyond questioning or change. Abdu'l-Baha pre-supposes that the world's faiths are there to benefit mankind, and this places religion in line with science as a tool or appliance for the general good. He continues,



"If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion."



This is a radical definition. Religion is anything that brings about love and unity. But the same is true of the Baha'i principles. If principles do not result in peace on a universal level, they are not worthy of the name. We would be better off going back to ideology and imitation as ways of pacifying, organizing and indocrinating large numbers of people.



"All the holy prophets were as doctors to the soul; they gave prescriptions for the healing of mankind; thus any remedy that causes disease does not come from the great and supreme Physician."



It is ironic that the half dozen or so large religious traditions in the world today all can look back on many centuries of successful integration of the societies they influenced. This is a great fruit, and proof that the "doctors" who started them prescribed a worthy remedy for the world as they found it. Nothing can take that away from them. But the irony is this: those who imagine they are upholding their faith tradition by opposing their remedy to those of others, as exclusive and final, are in reality betraying and destroying the best of the past, not to mention any hope we may have for a peaceful future. Baha'u'llah very emphatically forbade any such negation of "rival" faith traditions by followers of His Faith and its principles,



"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God." (Gleanings, 216)


--

John Taylor

email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/

::

Karen Armstrong A Charter for Compassion