 |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Select language (help us) | Arabic | Azeri | English | Filipino | German | Malay | Persian | Russian | Spanish | S. Chinese | T. Chinese | Turkish |
|
Interreligious and Intercultural Dialog Guidelines by Dr. Lucien F. Cosijns Elucidation Summary Par. 1: Real dialogue is possible only in the presence of mutual knowledge and acceptance of cultural and religious values. Racism can be described as intolerance and non-acceptance of other cultures, with ignorance as its main cause. All opponents of racism argue for tolerance. However, tolerance implies discrimination, because one tolerates something that one wishes were not there. Given this, it should be replaced by acceptance of others in respect of the values inherent in their cultures, religions, and customs. Accepting others must mean more than tolerance—it should mean accepting them as members of the community without necessarily any loss of their unique identity. Such mutual acceptance should integrate both sides’ values into a culturally richer community. Where there is respect, there will be willingness and even readiness to integrate some of those values to enrich one’s own cultural and religious values. Such respect for others requires a certain knowledge of the others’ history, historical and cultural development, ways of life, and other factors. Thanks to developments in communication technology, such knowledge is now readily available. Par. 2: The recent trend of re-evaluating religion, spirituality, meditation, silence, and so-called soft human virtues can be considered in full agreement with the optimistic life-view of the Jesuit Father Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), as expressed in his main books on humanity’s slow but sure spiritualization progress, and with the Dalai Lama’s 1992 document “The Global Community and the Need for Universal Responsibility.” The growth in common knowledge and an ever-higher intellectual heritage passing from one generation to the next has brought millions of people into contact with different cultures and religions. Our world is becoming multicultural, while the formerly mostly unilaterally decided national borders are losing their importance, as in the European Union (EU). Regional identity and languages are becoming more important in bringing people together. One of the latest revolutionary trends is the political world’s overture to faith communities as partners and advisers in analyzing current problems. Jacques Delors, former president of the EU Commission in Brussels, has created inside the Commission a “Forward Studies Unit” to study the EU’s ethic dimensions. For the last 5 years, it has been organizing a yearly interreligious/interpolitical symposium in various European cities. Each time, some 120 people participated. The EU can be considered a forerunner in this field. Let’s hope that it will be followed by other governments. Par. 3: In the individualistic West, there is a growing tendency to place the individual in the foreground as the decision maker in moral matters based on his or her individual conscience. This explains the attractiveness of the New Age movement and of innumerable new religious sects competing for followers in poverty-stricken South American and African countries. Many faithful Catholics and other Christians have lost faith in their churches as institutions, mainly because the highest authorities are slow to adapt to current needs and trends. Guidance from above remains an essential and irreplaceable element in people’s moral behavior. Nothing can replace the world religions as institutions. The world religions, as institutions joining with the recent enunciations of free-thinking humanists that they also are a religious community, should unite globally in a union of collaboration to increase the effectiveness of their moral and ethical guidance in personal and worldly matters. Such a dream would receive the enthusiastic support of young people searching for a new ethical basis for their lives. The ethical basis for such a union is available in the global ethic declaration of the Catholic theologian Hans Küng and his colleague Karl-Josef Kuschel of Germany. This global ethic, after vigorous discussion, was received enthusiastically, approved tentatively, and declared publicly at the Parliament of World’s Religions meeting in Chicago in 1993, which was attended by 7,000 religious and spiritual personalities from all world religions and traditions. Its main ideas are summarized in following three catch phrases: • No human life without a world ethic for nations. • No peace among nations without peace among religions. • No peace among religions without dialogue among religions. A second important ethical document is the “Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities,” announced on September 1, 1997, by Tokyo’s InterAction Council and supported by the elderly statesmen of 28 countries. It can be considered an emanation of the Japanese and Eastern way of life, reflecting their cultural values and giving priority to responsibilities and duties above rights. It also is a most opportune addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Grassroots parish and social workers, peace promoters, and NGOs should be involved in this union. | |
   
| |||||||
 All rights reserved. Copyright 2005 |
|
