One topic that comes up repeatedly among the seminary students is how to achieve a mutually respectful dialogue with any group of people who are certain of their rightness. Intensely religious people are often of such a type, which tends to make ecumenism a singularly oxymoronic effort.
ec·u·me·nism
A movement promoting unity among Christian churches or denominations.
A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.
ox·y·mo·ron
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.
"Is an oxymoron better or worse than a regular moron?"
How can there be a respectful dialogue, when one member is invested in recruiting the world to its mind set? There is an inequality in the approach.
About six months ago, Larry King had a panel of religious leaders on his show to discuss varying religious teachings about life after death. Apparently it quickly broke down into a squabble over The Rules, and Who Would be Saved and Who Wouldn't, and was far from a mutually curious and celebratory information exchange on our various heritages and their differences and uniqueness.
What is it that makes us do this?
How do I feel mutually respected when there isn't mutual respect? How do I find respect for someone who is so invested in trying to save ME according to THEIR rule book, that I can barely stand to be in the room with them?
Let's say the People of the Superiority of the Supreme Ectoplasm (POSSE) have decided that they have latched on to the One, True Religion. AND, even though the Supreme Ectoplasm has emitted sacred writings about tolerating other religions, there is still a certain tendency among the followers that bar them from appreciating all that is good and precious about, say, the followers of the Great and Loving Glob, or the believers in the All-Encompassing Goo. (Not to mention the Disciples of the Almighty Amoeba! They are the Anti-Ectoplasm itself!)
Now, let's say the greater part of the planetary population has discovered certain patterns of behaviour that are beneficial to all planetary beings, and certain patterns that detract from planetary good will and peace. But POSSE (see above) in its certainty of rightness and superiority, doesn't stick to the beneficial patterns, because it "has a mission from God to educate the world to follow God just like POSSE." This recruiting mindset precludes mutual respect, because there is such a heavy agenda in the way. The non POSSE member is, by definition "wrong," and won't be "right" until they become a member of POSSE too.
"Fundamentalist" is the popular name to call any religious individual or group who is so certain of its rightness that it is above the rules. Though the broader population may be doing its best to establish and live by broadly accepted group rules that promote peaceful co-existence, fundamentalists tend to forget the "Thou shalt not kill" part of these group rules, and the "Trust God to handle the salvation of the other" part as well. Fundamentalists don't see much point in peaceful co-existence with different religions, if their JOB, as they see it, is to obliterate all other faiths, because they are WRONG.
It is a puzzlement. The United Nations, though flawed, has as its goal mutual respect and peaceful co-existence. But many Fundamentalist Christians have decided that the United Nations is the Anti-Christ---I kid you not---which lets them decide they don't have to abide by UN rules. They are "above" them.
Sigh.
Fundamentalists tend to have a certain notion of entitlement. They are entitled to pick and choose which UN rules they'll stick by. And they are entitled, even obligated, to charge across other people's religious boundaries and trash their faith systems "to save them."
I see no way to have an open respectful dialogue with someone who is not open nor respectful.
What are we to do?
http://www.rk-world.org/peace/wcrp.html
No comments:
Post a Comment