Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 12, 1993 TAG: 9309150104
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 21 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cody Lowe
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The eight-day parliament concluded its work last Sunday in Chicago. About 8,000 people identifying themselves as members of more than 400 faiths, traditions and non-religions attended more than 700 programs.
That's a lot of diversity to satisfy.
So, before the parliament even began, its organizers - who represented 125 religious traditions - drew up the parliament's primary statement: "A Global Ethic."
It was offered to those assembled as a document that could not be altered or debated. Those agreeing with its positions would sign it, those disagreeing would not. Nothing about it is binding on anyone - even those who signed.
Because the point of the event was to encourage dialogue and cooperation among the world's religions, any action or statement would have to be inoffensive to as many people as possible.
In religion, as in most other areas of public life, that limitation inevitably means nobody will be really satisfied with the result. Some will even be offended at its inoffensiveness.
That the document was offered as something that couldn't be altered after parliamentary debate says a lot about the state of religious dialogue in the world - even in this place where there was a "love feast" of ecumenism.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the organizers knew that debate over the "Global Ethic" was bound to create dissention. Attempts to amend the document to strengthen deistic elements might create a nasty fight with those who reject the notion of deity.
The document does not contain the word "God" or "gods" anywhere. It focuses solely on the actions of human beings, though it appeals to religious traditions as supporting the principles the ethic advances.
The parliament's lack of deistic focus, in fact, led to the premature departure of representatives of some Orthodox Christian groups who protested that the event seemed to have more to do with humanism than religion.
Despite the inherent weaknesses in any attempt to draw up a statement of religious expression for so diverse a group, the "Global Ethic" is worth a look. While no religious group - Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other - is likely to be completely satisfied with it, it does articulate some common values.
For instance, the document defines the "irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families and communities, for races, nations and religions" thus:
"What you wish done to yourself, do unto others."
Sound familiar? This "golden rule" has been articulated in many religious traditions for thousands of years, but we've never gotten the hang of it.
The "Global Ethic" goes on to articulate four "irrevocable directives" - "broad, ancient guidelines for human behavior which are found in most religions of the world:"
First, is a "commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life." We should resolve conflicts without violence. We should respect each other and nature. We should be concerned about others.
Second, is a "commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order." Be honest with each other. Those who own or control resources have an obligation to help those who do not.
Third, is "commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness." This is where the media get taken to task when they "spread ideological propaganda instead of accurate reporting, misinformation instead of information, cynical commercial interest instead of loyalty to the truth." The contention here is that if "truth" prevails we will all be tolerant of each other.
Last, is a "commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women." This one concentrates on issues of sexual exploitation and dependence, both of which it rejects. It does not address the issue of homosexuality.
The major problem is that the document - and the parliament - didn't give us anything new to chew on. The ethic proposes no radical new methods for attaining its idealistic goals. It calls, rather, for a "transformation of consciousness" of the Earth's peoples to one of understanding and tolerance of others.
We all know that.
Most of us know that we should respect each other's religious beliefs, that we have no "right" to torture, injure or kill other human beings because of their behavior or religious beliefs, that the environment should be protected from excessive exploitation, that there should be justice.
What we - and the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions - haven't figured out is how to make this heaven on earth happen.
by CNB