Improving understanding and cooperation between diverse faith groups, including those of no faith at all, has been one of President Obama's key messages since he first took office. In his Inaugural Address, he stated that "America's patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," and went on to describe America as "a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers." In his historic Cairo address, he committed his administration to building bridges of service between different religions.
Many politicians pay lip service to the importance of people from different backgrounds coming together. What makes the Obama administration's interfaith initiative unique is both a focus on concrete service projects and a commitment to achieving ambitious quantitative goals. Indeed, one of the recommendations in the report of the President's Faith Council (which I served on) is to scale and strengthen interfaith service initiatives in 40 American cities and across 500 institutions of higher education. White House officials have moved quickly on this agenda, hosting a convention of over 100 higher education leaders earlier this summer and announcing plans to launch interfaith service initiatives in eight to 10 U.S. cities beginning this fall.
Once considered a ceremonial activity reserved for leaders of religious denominations or experts in theology, interfaith cooperation is fast becoming a movement focused on social impact that involves everyone.
In the twenty-first century, faith can be a bomb of destruction, a barrier of division or a bridge of cooperation.
The stories of religion as a bomb of destruction are on the front pages of the newspaper every morning. The suicide attacks in Baghdad and Kabul are examples of religion as a bomb of destruction, as is the violent tension between faith groups from Northern Ireland to Nigeria.
Those erecting the barriers of religious division are less dramatic but still dangerous. Their work moves a diverse society in the direction of conflict instead of cooperation. The 'new atheists' like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens build barriers by claiming all religious believers are poisoned and intent on poisoning others. Those who hold with Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations build barriers by advancing the idea that different religions are inherently and inevitably at odds with one another. Those who draw a straight line between the violent actions of a few extremists and an entire religion build barriers by telling people that every Muslim -- their neighbor, their taxi driver, their friend from the PTA -- is a potential enemy.
The materials that make up the bombs of destruction and the barriers of division are not just physical; they are also theological and intellectual. They include advancing theologies that require believers to suffocate or marginalize those who are different; emphasizing the stories of conflict between religious communities instead of the stories of cooperation; holding up the worst examples of the other community and saying that these examples define the whole group; and paying heightened attention to the differences between groups while proclaiming that there is no possibility of common ground.
The forces building bombs and barriers are strong. If the idea of faith as a bridge of cooperation is to win out, interfaith work has to expand from a small niche of enthusiasts to a social norm that involves everyone. Indeed, just as it is now status quo for universities, cities, civic groups and houses of worship to "go green," so should it be the new norm for these entities to build bridges of interfaith cooperation.
President Obama knows the potential impact of interfaith cooperation, not just as a policymaker but also from his personal history. As a young community organizer in Chicago, Obama worked under a Jewish mentor to bring together Catholic, Protestant and Muslim groups to launch job training centers and educational enrichment programs on the south side of Chicago. He has lived the mission statement of the first Parliament of the World's Religions, which took place in his home city over a century before he became President: "From now on the great religions of the world make war no longer on each other, and instead of on the giant ills that afflict humankind."
Now he is calling on the rest of us to live it as well.
Follow Eboo Patel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EbooPatel
Conference on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace
Christian Leaders Seek Interfaith Cooperation for Peace Efforts ...
Views: Campuses and Interfaith Cooperation - Inside Higher Ed
Religion: Interfaith Cooperation - TIME
InterfaithNews.Net » Blog Archive » UN Conference on Interfaith ...
i mean look at india and pakistan . the only difference between them is religion, it is the same people.
no matter what is the message in the holly book , there are as much interpretation as believers.
so defenitly , religion is a barrier between men and need to be wiped out from the face of the earth.
The problem is that it divides. Read about the Star-Bellied Sneetches to figure out why.
The one thing all of these superstitions have in common is this: "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong."
Religion divides. This is why our Pledge of Allegiance has been absurd since "under god" was added; for you cannot be "under god" and "indivisible" at the same time.
"You are not worried god will give you a spot a disabled person who forgot to pray could better use?" I asked.
"God sees all his children and provides according to their needs" I was told.
"Then why pray?"
"So god knows I worship him" was the reply.
Oh. So we did, in fact, get a nice parking space right in front.
"See?" he turned to me smugly, "god provides for his children."
"Nice to know. Today, while god was looking for a parking spot for you, fifteen thousand children, almost half of them christian, died. Starved to death. 15,000. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow. Enjoy your parking space, it's too expensive for me" was my retort.
"I simply don't believe it" he said.
We went inside and at a computer display inside I Googled the starvation statistics: I was right.
"They must have deserved to die" was all he could say.
And this guy was a pastor. As long as religions teach thinking and justification like this, it will be divisive, it will foment war, it will cause hate, fear, intolerance.
Is it any wonder that the great religious leaders of history Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed, Lao Tzu all started as insurgents AGAINST the established religions?
we are an interesting society.
we claim good while we kill thousands.
we killed one million vietnamese during their civil war; installed a puppet gov like we have in iraq and we think of ourselves as good christian people.
visit any church and find out how many of those folks support our endless wars for profits.
I was told by one of those folks that the reason this country is going down hill was because of the protestors during the nam war.
this person did not even know who the viet cong where.
here is the deal we are imperialists to the core and until we see that in ourselves these wars continue until we run out of money and those that will loan us money or the printing presses break from over use.
step outside your patroitism and nationalism for just one minute and you will see america in a whole new light.
But much of what you said is very true.
The question that remains is: will the inevitable divisions be benign, or malignant?
And that question is really more of a function of human nature, and how it weaves itself through any sort of institutional tapestry. Since human nature is clearly problematic - with or without the influence of religion - religions and their adherents will reflect that difficult mixture of light and shadow that defines and plagues us all.
Generally speaking, progressives don't care to hear that. They like to think that the glass is half full, that we can actualize any potential - that the Age of Aquarius is just around the corner.
I especially like your focus on this point: "...that question is really more of a function of human nature, and how it weaves itself through any sort of institutional tapestry. Since human nature is clearly problematic - with or without the influence of religion - religions and their adherents will reflect that difficult mixture of light and shadow that defines and plagues us all."
I have often said that, just because religion is the excuse for any number of atrocities, doesn't mean it is the cause. I believe the cause of most closed-mindedness and hate is rooted more deeply in human nature, and that if it did not find expression in religion it would merely find its expression in some other form. People who "blame" religion--and act as if the elimination of religion would eliminate closed-mindedness and xenophobia--quite miss the point.
Frankly we don't need religion, people live very well without it. There is no evidence that it is even correct. If it is so divisive, let's have nothing to do with it.
Yes, human nature is problematic. Why make the situation worse with irrational beliefs in deities? It is obvious that some good and intelligent people will do horrible things based on the idea that there is a God and certain things is his will. You can't say this is simply human nature and ignore the absurd religious beliefs leading to the actions.
The Age of Aquarius is absolutely not just around the corner. We should still strive to make our world a better place and not unnecessarily hold to unsupported beliefs.
Truth be told, in this day and age and with our current knowledge base it is incomprehensible how so many people are holding on to ancient mythology. It was understandable how the ignorant masses would believe such nonsense thousands of years ago---we didn't have the knowledge and understanding of science that we have today. But to hold on to a belief system filled with such impossibilities and absurdities in todays world, simply because it makes ones life seem a little bit softer and perhaps mentally easier is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. So when we, as a nation are encouraging such intellectual dishonesty, well, we will have such problems. We only need to look to countries that are fully theocratic to see what a country in "full tilt theocratic boogie" leads to.
If you look a the actual example of Jesus - unarmed, unconditional love, standing in solidarity with the meek - it is clear that at the very core of his teachings and his actions, is precisely the message that has been lacking throughout human history.
The real divisions in this world are not between race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, but between those who regard the dignity and worth of every life and those who do not.
Or do you really think the Mao regime encouraged the kind of critical thinking typical of actual atheism?
You see, for some reason, people can't seem to get past the idea that "we must be ruled by someone or something". Glenn Beck constantly espouses the idea that if people don't have a god to rule over them then the state becomes their god (and grantor of rights) by default.
People will fair much better when they realize that they are FREE and it is not necessary to be ruled by an entity and one does not need to have rights granted to them by some entity in order to be worthy of rights.
The Family Research Council has decided that banning homosexuals from all of America's trains is absolutely vital for the common good because being in close contact with these degenerates poses a real threat to young impressionable minds.
The Family Research Council is a protector and upholder of all Christain values, laws and principles.
When I was a child I was told that God was love and his son also loved me so imagine my surprise when I realized this love didn't include everyone including me because I was a Lesbian so I was banned from the way, the truth and the life and was sent out into the dark, lonely and frightening world to wander all alone and defenseless and luckily I stumbled onto a spiritual path that led me to enlightenment and the most important truth of all; THAT ALL THINGS ARE ONE and the 4 main obstacles that blinds humanity to this most important of all spiritual truths is the rigid, soulless dogma of the 4 sky gods of the dark side; Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.
Good Day Fellow Homo Sapien...(sigh)
fanned and favored
I know the Bible (and I suspect the Qur'an but do not know) was written by hundreds of authors, each with different intentions and beliefs. Without knowing these intentions, and only a student of theology would be educated on this, we can't know for sure what part of the Bible is God's message and what part was corrupted.
Muslims consider the Bible a book of god, but a book which has been "corrupted" as of a result of -- as you pointed out correctly -- being written by (at least) dozens auf authors. Contrary to the Bible, Muslims believe that the Qu'ran is the direct und uncorrupted, irrefutable word of god, written exclusively by the "prophet" Mohammed.
Claiming that the Qu'ran was written by various authors would violate every Islamic blasphemy law, and THAT is what muslims believe. Not radicals, not fundamentalists, not terrorists, but ordinary muslims. Sure there are also muslims who believe that Islam is in need of reform, and sure there are those who believe in Allah without advocating every single surah, but next time you ride in on your horse to defend something, you might want to check your facts first.
It is absolutely ridiculous that we now have at least three people making essentially the same comment about how treating all of religion as extreme. There are real problems concerning religion in the world and all such a comment does is avoid the issue. Probably the strongest criticism against religion is against the taboo against criticizing religion, a taboo that prevents any really discussion of the issue. Moderates and some people of non-Abrahamic faiths are quite guilty in upholding this taboo.
You accept science, reason, and logic? Good for you, that isn't the point. Certainly there is concern over evolution being taught in the schools, but that just one issue of many, many other issues.
But let me get this straight. It seems that you accept science, reason, and logic except when it comes to that "much more to life than we know and see". I've seen elsewhere you post how you belief in a cosmic spiritual energy which you suggested was dark energy. Lovely to see religious folks combine their religion with science in some sort of bogus, non-scientific woo woo. Some acceptance of science and reason.
As for my views on things that have yet to be explained, do you know how many things now have scientific names and scientific proof that were once thought of as just "magic"? Just because it has not yet been discovered or proven by science yet doesn't make it non existent. It is only a matter of time before more of what is around us is proved and classified. So, no, I am not just taking some piece of science, combining it with my religion and making it some bogus, non scientific woo woo. I am piecing together what I know of the world, making my own hypothesis, and waiting for answers to be revealed. I believe many scientists take that approach when searching for the undiscovered.
You said: "There are real problems concerning religion in the world and all such a comment does is avoid the issue"
This is tantamount to saying there are problems with mexicans or black people in the world. Race, religion, ethnicity are quite vast, and to use the terms so loosely is problematic. During the french revolution fraternity, liberty, and equaltiy became rallying cries that lead to the death of hundreds of thousands. Bush used the concept of freedom to support his misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan also. The problem is not with these concepts; the problem is with people who use any form of group identity as a tool to differentiate between lives they deem more and less valuable. The problem is those who use religion or freedom or equality as codewords and tools for their destructive aims.
Simplicity is not suitable for analyses of complex phenomenon
It does no good to lump to Martin King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer in with Osama Bin Laden. Not every atheist is like Mao.
Do you suggest to build bridges with this religion? Did you check up whether they are ready for peaceful co existence? Name one muslim, country which has comfortable borders with a non muslim country.