Front PagePublic policy that will "concede that no single religion can claim a monopoly of Truth."
Submitted by Churched on Fri, 01/05/2007 - 06:04. public policy
If we are truly
“Committed to spirituality, compassion and respect for others: We cannot promote a public policy that will “concede that no single religion can claim a monopoly of Truth.” If that is the course we take, then we will eventually wind up having public policy that will force compliance.
Instead we must welcome all religions and understand that all religions claim a monopoly on the truth. Then promote public policy that protects the right of the individual religions to do just that.
God Bless you Today
Churched
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Lost In Translation
Submitted by reido on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 11:48.
Churched
I really don't understand this...
" If that is the course we take, then we will eventually wind up having public policy that will force compliance. "
How does the concession that no single religion has a monopoly on truth bring a public policy of forced compliance? Historically, hasn't it been the exclusivist/fundamentalist view that has attempted to dominate what the public can and cannot do?
reido
» reply
Public Policy
Submitted by K Prabhakar Rao on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 12:04.
Dear Mr Bill,
The site FC as stated is a forum where views of others are being heard on various issues particularly on religions. There are diofferent views aired by people following and believing in various faiths and the discussion is with open mind. Unless we hear others, how do we know the facts and figures from others. It is essential to have open mind for healthy and open discussion and there is nothing like any compliance on the issues.
Dr K Prabhakar Rao
» reply
Good Point
Submitted by bill on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 22:10.
Dr K Prabhakar Rao wrote:
It is essential to have open mind for healthy and open discussion and there is nothing like any compliance on the issues.
Dr. Rao,
You have made a very important point.
Too many religious people have been brought up in their religious traditions to believe that consideration of other ideas outside their own is tantamount to betrayal and blasphemy. But it is exactly the opposite that is true. How can we convince them to step outside of the prisons that their gatekeepers have built for them?
If indeed there is one truth and one God, then we will all find them as we search along, helping each other along the way. The only danger is if there is actually no single truth.
If there is no truth, then we are in danger of uncovering that terrible, unsettling fact by asking questions and talking to folks from other traditions. If there is no truth, then we need to hang on to the little threads of pseudo-truth that we now have for dear life, for fear of losing our grasp.
However, if there is one truth, then we will all find it as we bump into one another on our various paths, picking one another up as we trip and fall, and pointing one another to the better paths. I think the science of emergence and complexity shows that if there is something good, then we will all move toward it. Of course, there are many who say that most people are selfish and will seek out what is easiest, sweetest and best for them, and that that is the direction that most people will travel in. Probably so. However, I believe that those who seek truth will walk in the direction of truth, as best they can.
In my experience, those who truly seek truth, follow something similar to the rule that you listed: “It is essential to have open mind for healthy and open discussion and there is nothing like any compliance on the issues.” We will each make up our own minds and hearts as best we can. But we certainly cannot get there if we start off with limitations.
Very good point.
bill
» reply
Public policy.. Compliance
Submitted by K Prabhakar Rao on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 01:35.
Dear Mr Bill
After going through the comments on the topic, I remember a poem written by Saint Kabir Das who lived in 16 th century and he was a great secular teacher.He was a contemporary of Guru nanak who found Sikhism.He was found at the banks of a holy rived in India as an infant and was brought by Muslim couple.He grew up to be a great secular saint philosopher of India, He said
I went in search of a sinner in the world
And I couldn't find a place where he could be
I then searched my deep heart with in
And there was a sinner who was none than me
(trnaslated from the poem of Saint Kabirdas)
How true he said. We always think that we are the best of all and are not ready to hear others. But sadly we come to know our own limitations when we interact with others and know the things, This is relevent for all times.Unless we shed our ego truth can not be found. Ego among us is the biggest obstacle in the path of seeking God.
Dr K Prabhakar Rao
» reply
To Claim or Not to Claim the Truth
If you are referring to the “About” statement from the Globalization for the Common Good organization, then that is the policy of that organization. The weblink is included here as a potential interest to visitors here. Religion is either the excuse, or the reason for much pain and even bloodshed the world over. The pursuit of higher truth, on the other hand, has been very good for civilization. We must learn to tell the difference.
Faith Commons is many people with differing ideas. It is a place. It is Common Ground. It is not a movement, although I could imagine it a such. But its purpose is to provide a safe place for dialog, discussion and discovery. That is the objective of Faith Commons. Discussion, respect for others and their views (or truths), and the notion that we can attain more by listening to one another and working together is what Faith Commons hopes to promote.
So, yes, FC must consider every perspective as valid unless proved otherwise. And then, probably, consider it again. This site must consider everyone who is likewise considerate of others, as potentially holding some portion of truth. Otherwise, there can be no dialog. There can be no discussion until both (or all) parties are willing to have their minds changed. Unless those who enter into dialog are truly interested in considering the views of the other, there is no dialog, only impatient, momentary postponement of the giving one's own opinion. Then the “dialog” breaks down into multiple “monologues.” Which is what most religious discussion is, in my experience.
However, this does not mean that discussion about discussion is off the table. That would be really absurd—wouldn't it? To refuse to discuss whether an idea should or should not be promoted or considered. So I'm glad that you brought it up.
bill