Religious Pluralism and the Struggle for Peace

[Chani]

Ok, this is some of my final thesis for my degree and I thought if any of you were feeling almightily bored you might fancy a read.. I think some people might find it interesting.. enjoy :)

Religious Pluralism and the Struggle for Peace

According to Hans Kung, “there can be no world peace without religious peace”. This seems a severe comment to make, in the light of the current multicultural society we live in, but it is becoming increasingly clear as we move further into the new millennium that Kung may have hit the proverbial nail on the head. In a society as diverse as the one we live in today, it may seem logical that everyone would be used to having people of different faiths to their own around. However, the problems between faiths in the world do not seem any closer to resolution despite efforts from every faith. Although there are possibilities to establish a dialogue between every world religion, it seems a lot of the problems are impossible to overcome.

Even within the last decade there have been innumerable incidents of violence between faiths. There have been wars and conflicts between Christians and Muslims, Muslims and Hindus, Protestants and Catholics, Hindus and Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus. In Israel, the conflict is highly volatile almost constantly. It is rare a week, or even a day can go by without reports of religious violence in the news. It becomes fair to say that religion is the cause of much violence and almost inspires war. Despite every single religion stating that bloodshed and war is not to be the way forward, and each religion having morals and ethics to follow this remains to be one of the largest causes of war in the world.

Hans Kung’s comment about world peace seems to be grounded strongly in reality, as the threat from fundamentalists of each faith grows. Recent examples of this include the terrorist threat that is currently endangering the UK and USA.

When faith becomes totalistic, people will follow the leaders and believe wholeheartedly their route to salvation is truly the only route. With almost propaganda-like leadership in some cases people can be lead to believe that with their own religion comes the perfect age where the everyone in the world is aiming for the same. With this kind of blind faith, establishing any links between faiths is increasingly difficult and may well result in holy war.

Of course it is the extremists of any faith or denomination that lead to this kind of conclusion and there are many people who are faithful and open to the kind of dialogue that is necessary in order to at least begin to establish a religious peace that Kung talks about.

Hans Kung’s comment about world peace could be solved by John Hick’s ideas about religious pluralism. Can religious pluralism and a global theology be the answer to Kung’s dilemma?

In order to establish whether religious pluralism will aid the bid for world peace it will be necessary to understand not only Hans Kung’s ideas on the subject but also those of John Hick and other theologians involved in the idea of pluralism and global theology. Also it will be necessary to establish whether religious dialogue is possible between faiths and how to overcome problems that arise from that.

Hans Kung is probably one of the most widely read theologians of the last century. He produced works on many subjects including the subject of a global theology. Hans Kung’s work is divided into three stages. He started by focusing on ecclesiastical questions, then moved on to Christian issues and finally he looked at the dialogue between Christianity and other world religions. This presents similar problems to John Hick’s case, as it is from a Christian viewpoint. This is the phase that applies to the issue at hand. Kung held that no one could presume they had the whole truth about God, and that to accept this humanity must learn about other faiths and beliefs. Kung began bringing other faiths into his writings. Kung’s ideological ideas about a global theology have only just begun and Kung himself holds that there is much to be done. Kung believed that the world's major religions can aid the fight for peace in the world if they can share their common beliefs and accept the differences. He blieved that in spite of all of the differences between religion, they also share some fundamental moral and ethical beliefs and all deserve and desire a mutual respect for life and their faith. He put together the Global Ethic, which consists of the need for religious peace, in order to gain world peace. There cannot be religious peace without dialogue and there cannot be dialogue without some understanding of the basis of each faith.

 There will be no peace among the nations until there is first peace among the religions. Then he  added that there will be no peace among the religions until there is dialogue among the  religions.#

Before Kung’s writings there were very few documents on the idea of a global ethic. There were many on human rights and the United Nations had it’s 1948 Declaration, but as far as ethics and religion were concerned Kung was the pioneer. Kung had found something vital to the idea of world peace and soon after his writing there were an influx of statements and commissions to back it up.

[Chani]

As for Kung’s idea that world peace and religious peace are one and the same, one only needs to look at the main causes for conflict in the present day. Wars are fought over fuels and land, but the most common and often most violent cause of war is religion. As it stands today, religious fundamentalists and their opposition pose the biggest threat of war. So can we achieve religious peace, and ultimately, world peace?

Kung’s statement on global ethics begins with a negative comment, which seems to set the scene for the positive ideas he follows it up with.

 

 Our world is experiencing a fundamental crisis: a crisis in global economy, global  ecology, and global politics. The lack of a grand vision, the tangle of unresolved problems,  political paralysis, mediocre political leadership with  little insight or foresight, and in general  too little sense for the commonwealth are seen everywhere. Too many old answers to new  challenges.#

He went on to discuss the problems facing most of the world today, including unemployment, problems between sexes and generations. He talked about the state of affairs as far as children are concerned, including the murder rate and the youths that are increasingly being found guilty of it. The way the planet is treated, threatening us with environmental disaster.

 

 Time and again we see leaders and members of religions incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and  xenophobia - even inspire and legitimate violent and bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused  for purely power-political goals, including war. We are filled with disgust.#

Kung then provides the ethic that already exists with world religions that could be the saviour of peace in the world. It is the idea that holds the moral foundations of all religions and if followed could break down religious conflict immensely.

The more positive follow up to the bleak picture Kung has painted is that the religions of the world already have common standards and morals. By focusing on these there is room for a new Global Ethic, which encompasses everyone, but without challenging any individual faith.

  In short, this Declaration seeks to emphasize the minimal ethic which is absolutely  necessary for human survival. It is not directed against anyone, but invites all, believers and  also non-believers, to adopt this ethic and live in accordance with it.#

The main claim of the declaration is that every human should be treated equally.

To do this, it would require a lot of work, as many fundamentalists will not be happy to accept other faiths. John Hick may have the answer to this problem, and in order to achieve a global ethic some common ground between faiths must be emphasised.

[Chani]

John Hick and Paul Knitter are pioneers of the idea of pluralism. This idea is based around the fact the most religions believe they alone hold the key to salvation, but in Hick and Knitters view they could ALL hold the key. Hick focuses on a numenal reality which affects all people, whether athiest, Buddhist, Sikh, Christian or any religion. This feeling, the Eternal one as Hick calls it is sometimes perceived as God, and other times as a feeling and other times as an ultimate goal. Whatever form this reality takes, it is common to all people in some form. If people can focus on this then it becomes much more possible to establish a global ethic of Kung’s description.

The idea of anonymous Christianity came from Karl Rahner and was at one time seen as an aid to the solution of Kung’s problem. This was the theory that if people were living a life towards God, as in moralistically and ethically then they should not be penalised for not being in the right country of culture to have been introduced to Christianity. This is a somewhat patronising view, although it was a radical idea in it’s time. Hick took this idea on board however, but noted that it was necessary to see people as “anonymous Buddhists” and “anonymous Muslims” and so on, in order to keep the equality of the religions level. Rahner’s theory made it clear that one religion was still more important than the others and this disagrees with the point Kung and Hick are trying to make.

John Hick argues that all faiths are interlinked in a “rainbow of faiths” to quote the title of one of his books. From a Christian viewpoint, Hick argues for a thoroughly pluralist view of world religion. Ideologically this view is one that holds a lot of hope for the future if only people of different faiths can come to accept it. There are many problems with this, nonetheless, not least the fact that, despite his pluralist intentions, Hick has a Christian standpoint. He addresses the issues, which are primarily Christian, such as the existence of Christ and the incarnation.

If Hick’s theory proves to be a possibility, has he found the way to world religious peace?

Firstly, it is necessary to look into what Hick has actually said on the subject of pluralism. In his book, “God Has Many Names”# he looks at a Christian view of other faiths. To start here further affirms that despite his pluralistic values, Hick is still strongly based in Christianity.

He splits the Christian outlook on other religions into three phases.

These are; the first phase, where other religions were totally rebuffed and according to the dogma of Christianity were condemned to hell.# Hick states that this view of the fate of other faiths is largely due to ignorance. By developing an understanding of other faiths, Christians could begin to accept that other views were a possibility. A main argument against this phase is that if the God that Christians worship has declared that all who do not worship Him and Jesus Christ must go to hell, then all the people who lived before Jesus Christ or in a place where the word had not yet reached would go to hell.

Christian faith describes God as gracious and forgiving, so it seems that in phase one; people were taking on a new, rather more hostile description of God.

Phase two, which is when the idea of being able to be of another faith but living with good, Christian values, whether intentionally or not would redeem a person enough for Heaven. This shows that gradually people were getting used to the idea that other religions existed.

The third phase that Hick refers to is the present time, and the past half a century. The concept of anonymous Christianity has been accepted and has a strong place in the idea of salvation now.

According to Hans Kung, “A man is to be saved within the religion that is made available to him in his historical situation”.# In this Kung and Hick agree that it is not the religion that determines salvation, but the acts of the man.

Accepting the idea that there is only one God, known by many names as Hick suggests, would mean accepting that revelation, when it happened had happened to many people all over the world, thus creating the basis for several faiths. Faith is not a remote part of people’s lives. It is concerned with history and culture also. The geography of the place where the faith is based, or born actually has a lot to do with what is believed. For example; in agricultural groups, women were the objects of worship because of the symbolism of fertility. Faith was geographically dependent like this, throughout the world and this in turn affected the culture of each area.

Hick developed the idea of a “theocentric revolution”#, which was based around God, rather than the church or around Jesus. This presented problems as far as non-theistic religions were involved. In order to give his theory, or “revolution” credibility Hick had to account for this.

He used Immanuel Kant as an example to help distinguish between divinity and theistic religions. He referred to “the Eternal One”, which was the world according to our consciousness as humans. In this way, Hick included Nirvana alongside Allah and also included Atheism as well.

 

[Chani]

This deliberately draws upon two sets of associations. - on the one hand the ineffable One of  the mystic traditions, whether it be the One of Plontius or the One without a second of the  Upanishads, and on the other hand the Holy One of Israel or of Indian Theistic worship.#

Through this is becomes possible for Christians (and indeed other faiths) to see God/ The Eternal One as one.

Each religion thinks of itself as the foremost and most important world religion. This presents yet further problems for Hick, because not only does each faith have a strong sense of self-importance but also every faith has a varied history within which it has changed and at times possibly contradicted itself. The changes in the history of faiths can be explained with relation to this theory, or revolution with the idea of The Eternal One, because each change would be seen as a step closer to realising the truth. However, overcoming the fact that every religion believes it is right is something that can only be solved or at least addressed by the dialogues referred to by Hans Kung.

Hick has noted the extreme similarities between the way people worship and the belief they have in The Eternal One. Each religion sees God as the maker and the creator of earth. Each religion worships God with prayer and even many of the rituals have similarities.

It seems impossible to accept that there can be many different gods, one for each faith because it would contradict each religion’s basis. Selfishly, each faith could assume there was only their own God and no other, that all other faiths worship something meaningless and false. This is probably the attitude of many people nowadays, though the third option is increasingly becoming a popular belief. This is that the one God is seen in many different ways, or has chosen to be revealed in many different ways. Fundamentalists of any religion would dismiss this idea as false, but as humanity develops and communities are increasingly integrated it is becoming almost necessary for more people to take on this train of thought.

Hick attempted to predict, or make and educated prediction about what world religion may be like in the year 2000, which we can analyse better now, having been there. Hick stated that the chances of there ever being one world faith were very small, but that religions would be more accepting of one another and would not see each other as rivals.

 ...it is not necessary... to assume that if God is being truly worshipped by Christians, he cannot  also be truly worshipped by Jews and Muslims and Sikhs and by theistic Hindus and Amida  Buddhists.#

For this to happen, it takes us back the issue of knowledge. If knowledge of the world faiths were increased then it would be easier for people to accept them with understanding. A constructive dialogue needs to be undertaken between all of the world faiths, but is this even a possibility? This could be the key to Kung’s theory of global theology, and Hick has also addressed the idea of dialogue.

It is necessary to ask at this point whether religious dialogue is even a possibility, because some fundamental issues between faiths seem irresolvable. How can religious knowledge be discussed, when each religion claims to have different things, such as how they experienced revelation, and these things are so different and varied that they cannot be compatible? It appears at times to be entirely dependant on the place in which a person was born, and the place they grew up in, rather than whether they had the chance to explore all of the options.

 Not the arrogant domination of a religion claiming an exclusive mission and despising freedom.  This danger, although unintended, arises as a result of the dogmatic repression of the problem  of religion by Karl Barth and “dialectical theology”. We do not want a narrow-minded,  conceited, exclusive particularism which condemns the other religions to toto, a proselytism  which carries on unfair competition and takes too restricted a view not only of the religions,  but also of the Gospel.#

Kung’s point here is that one cannot presume their own importance over another religion, but at the same time may retain pride within themselves.

Also, even within one religion, such as Christianity, people worship different aspects of God. For example, some Christians see God as loving and forgiving, whereas other view Him as stern and judging. This is a small implication that there is potentially one God who is the Lord of all people, but is so great that humans cannot grasp more than one aspect of Him.

To basically describe pluralism, one could say that each religion is complementary to the other, and if basic differences can be overcome or put to one side, then pluralism is a possibility. Hick is not advising that there is one world religion, thus forgetting about all of the religious traditions and histories in the world. It is important for each faith to continue following their doctrines and traditions, but at the same time accept that there are other ways, that are equally respectable. It is time for each faith to step down from the belief that their own faith is the only way. If people realised that each faith is a valid way to salvation and peace, it could be a step in the right direction.

The notion of religious pluralism is ultimately that one magnificent ultimate “One“, has been shown through many different cultures.

However, it must to be considered that religious pluralism can only be thought of seriously when discussing the main world religions. To assume that the smaller sects and tribal religions can be included with the major religions that have been building over hundreds of years, gathering many followers and set traditions would be too much though. Religious pluralism can apply mainly to the major religions only.

The idea of religious pluralism may seem a very attractive one, but it is not without it’s criticisms. It has been put forward by Don Cupitt that Hick’s “Eternal One” or “Real” is almost redundant because it has to become so vague in order to encompass all faiths.

According to Hick this “Reality” is not a personal subject, which means that it must be impersonal. In order to mean anything to people of different faiths, it would need to be, at some level, personal. In order to be realised by religions where people have received messages from God, this would have to be addressed because it would be hard for a Muslim for example to accept that this message if not personal.

For example, in Christianity, Jesus is seen as a manifestation of God, God’s only son, a divine human so to speak. It could be very offensive to a Christian to describe Jesus Christ as just another channel through which the One chose to show itself. This would be a major stumbling block when trying to establish a multi-religious dialogue to promote the idea of religious pluralism.

It is not only Christianity that would find it’s main characteristics to be somewhat discarded within the idea of religious pluralism. Muslims would be unlikely to take to the idea of the Prophet Muhammad being equal to any other “enlightened” person. Neither would a Buddhist be pleased with the notion of forgetting about their opposition to a “creator god”. Any faith would not like to see their Holy books as just another scripture in a world with many.

In many eyes, religious pluralism only appears to work if everyone accepted one faith, and one revelation. This probability is close to impossible as it takes us back yet again to the fact that each faith will not be willing to discard their core beliefs and traditions.

Dialogue is an absolute necessity when negotiating world peace and religious peace. To find the courage to address issues and begin to understand is the main thing stopping this from happening. Religious fanaticism is the source of the main problem with religious dialogue in this day, but aside from that people of all faiths are in a position to try.

 

[Chani]

Productive dialogue can help realise heavenly peace on Earth, and protect the holiness of life  and man’s dignity. Religions do not enforce peace, but can mark out the man of peace, and  adapt his mission to the needs of his time.#

 

This quote, taken from an essay by Petros VII, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, is comprehensive of what Kung says. Kung focuses more on the religious part of dialogue, but all forms of dialogue are necessary.

There are various positions within religious dialogue which one can take. This can include the exclusivistic position, which would be the position taken by fundamentalists of any religion, which is that their way is correct, for example in Catholicism the only way to salvation would be through the church.

Then there is the inclusivistic position, which is where Hans Kung stands. Also Karl Rahner and his ideas about anonymous Christians falls into this category. In theory it seems to be a good stance towards dialogue, where other religions are considered, but it will always become the dominant faith. It is difficult to have a dialogue without the belief that the opposition is inferior in some way.

The final position being the pluralistic position, which we have already looked at in some detail. It would be vital for this position to be taken in order to take on Kung’s global theology and Hicks religious pluralism.

There are also certain “rules” which need to be abided by in order for dialogue to work. Though attempts can be made without these points, it will not often be a fruitful discussion and will not bring about any positive result. Any meaningful dialogue must be between equal partners or groups. This would be necessary because of the exclusivist and inclusivist positions mentioned earlier. It would be impossible to have dialogue with two different faiths, or indeed two strands of any one faith if they were unwilling to step back and accept the other side as a possible truth.

Absolute claims and ideas of each faith must be seen as personal and/or based in a reality known to the individual. Nonetheless, acceptance of what is absolute to another person is a vital step towards a global theology. It is necessary to respect every faith in it’s own right.

In order to understand faith as a personal and individual thing one must not try to convert the other to their way of thinking. Dialogue is about understanding and not conversion. Faith needs to be seen as an approach to something we can never fully comprehend. In this way it is necessary to accept that messages and revelations are a transitory phase. If people engaging in religious dialogue could see the result as a compatible and complementary thing, religious dialogue would be very fruitful and rewarding from the perspective of a pluralist.

To sum up these rules, it is of great importance that the concepts of acceptance, understanding are held in the forefront of the mind when engaging in dialogue with a hope to acheive some kind of pluralist result.

A main issue in dialogue is truth. How can two people or two groups of people compromise if they both think they have the absolute truth?

According to Hick, the nature of the absolute is eternal, beyond space and time and is also perfect peace.# It is a spiritual goal of the mystic religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and of little concern of religions such as orthodox Judaism. To look at the nature of God, however brings forth the fact that He has common ground with the absolute. God is more than good and evil, and is the creator of all. God is love, anger, fear and compassion.

The way man himself is viewed by the religions of the world is varied. The mystical religions view man as spirit and physicality. However spirituality of man is seen as far more important than the physicality. Man is seen as merely a collection of sensations, rather than as a being with individual personality. The necessity to overcome the physical aspects of human life is a core aim of many mystical faiths.

Faiths such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity see man as created by God, and has the capacity to be good or evil, but can be rewarded or forgiven by God for his deeds.

Christians may take upon dialogue with the firm belief that God came to earth incarnate as Jesus Christ, but this is not going to ever be agreed upon by a Jew or a Sikh.

There is the issue that communities may simply not trust one another, the past can leave scars upon any faith.

 Most of my community distrusts yours: not because of what you are saying, but because of  what your fellows have said, and done. #

To take the example of Christianity and Islam, would it be possible to establish a constructive dialogue between them? There seem to be points that simply cannot be overcome, such as the fact Christians believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Muslims see him as a prophet, but no more than that. Although both Christians and Muslims believe in what could be described as the same God with different names up to a point, due to the fact they use the same texts, but Muslims have the Qur’an also. A Muslim may have great respect for the other religions, but will always believe that Islam has received the final revelation. There is likely to always be an underlying tone of conversion in dialogue between two different religions and this is likely to be a major downfall in the plight for a global ethic, and ultimately world peace.

Despite the potential for serious disagreement between these two faiths, there is also opportunity for empathy and some understanding. It would require both faiths to be willing to understand, and although they would not have to drop any their own beliefs and ideas they would need to be open to new ones. This presents problems in itself. Take Judaism for example, which has the belief that the people are God’s Chosen ones. It seems it could be impossible to establish a dialogue between Judaism and any faith because any other faith would be seen as not Chosen by God, which will always give the Jewish a feeling of superiority to the other religions. This will make any dialogue impossible.

To bring in another issue of a specific faith, how would the caste system of Hinduism relate to the other faiths and people of the world who believe that such a system is wrong? Many people would not accept the idea of a caste system in any form, and in this way dialogue would be greatly hindered. For Kung’s argument that all humans should be treated equally, it seems there is at least one faith that disagree with this theory. However, upon closer inspection it could be seen that it is not a case of discriminating against people, but part of the cycle of life that Hindu’s believe in. It comes back round the issue of understanding rather than agreeing with the ideas from other faiths.

Hick refers to the idea of the picture that could be either a rabbit of a duck:

He puts forward the idea that there is a culture somewhere that has only ever seen rabbits and not ducks, so of course, they perceive this picture as a rabbit. Another culture exists that has never been exposed to rabbits, and so they see this picture as a duck. Many people are only exposed to one view of God, and it is not that they necessarily will only accept one view, it is simply they do not know more. For people who have a basic understanding of many faiths, the picture can represent either a duck or a rabbit, and this is the kind of acceptance needed for Kung’s philosophy to work. However, upon first inspection, the people from the opposite cultures would be surprised at the others view of the picture and would tell them vehemently that they were wrong. It would take explaining and patience to establish that in fact both cultures were looking at the picture and merely seeing different perspectives of it.#

However, there are main points such as this in every religion, that set them apart from the rest. The key to making it work is acceptance. The attitude of not agreeing, but putting aside the major difference between faiths would be the only way to make it work.

 Through Islamic patterns God across the centuries has been participating in the life of Muslims;  through Buddhist patterns in the life of Buddhists; through Hindu modes in the life of India;  through Jewish forms, also after the first century, in the life, individual and social, of Jews; and  some of us know, through Christian forms in out lives. It is through His participation in the  religious history of the world (and in the Western case, also history of the Graeco-Roman  tradition) that He has chiefly entered human lives to act in human history. Right now, He is  calling us to let Him act through new forms, continuous with the old , as we human beings  across the globe enter our strange new age.#

This is an obviously Christian viewpoint, but if it were to be taken by people of each faith, by applying it to their own faith it is a healthy attitude towards a global ethic that makes it seem possible.

Ultimately, it appears that a global theology is feasible in the world today, and that if humanity can take on board Hick’s ideas about God, religious peace is a possibility. It will require a lot of work and will possibly get a lot worse before it gets better, as in the present time the world situation is volatile. However it is worth noting that a lot of conflict is down to fundamentalist leaders, not populations and that no matter what the country, the people as a rule do not want conflict with anyone. Unfortunately this is not enough, and even if constructive religious dialogue could be set up between the entire world’s general public, the leaders that control it are less likely to back down. I believe Hick does hold the key to Kung’s global ethic, because if all the religions were based upon the same entity, and also had the same basic morals, in theory that would be enough to counteract any friction.

Sadly, this is not to be the case at least not in the near future. As positive and encouraging as these theories are, the world is simply not yet ready to put them into practice.

[Navaros]

although it's a common practice, i don't like how you use the words "fundamentalist" and "extremist" as derogatory terms

fundamentalist means someone believes his Holy Book is fundamentally correct. i'd argue that these are the only true followers of the faith because anyone claiming to follow a faith who is not a fundamentalist is not really religious at all and "picks & chooses" the parts of the Holy Book he likes, while dismissing the rest (we have several "so-Called Christians" of this nature on this board). anyone who is not a fundamentalist yet claims to be religious is a lying hypocrite in my view

on a similar note, what's wrong with being extreme? all Holy Books state that God is supreme and His Will is to be carried out to the fullest extreme regardless of any other considerations. therefore, extremists are the only true followers of any religion. anyone who is not extreme about his religion does not really care about it very much and hence is not following the Will of his God; hence non-extremists are likewise hypocrites because they are wishy-washy, half-baked, and un-committed about obeying their God: things which all major religions condemn. these so-called believers do not represent their faith, all they represent are evil sects of anti-religious hypocrites masquerading as men of faith

your essay would have been more interesting if it was about why you think you and society is justified in bastardizing words of praise and honor into "dirty words" . although i don't think a rational thesis about *that* can be argued

[DukeLeto]

your essay would have been more interesting if it was about why you think you and society is justified in bastardizing words of praise and honor into "dirty words" . although i don't think a rational thesis about *that* can be argued

On the same coin, you could argue that "liberal" has had the same thing happen to it; the conservatives have degraded it to a general insult. Indeed, many such adjectives have been altered as such: "Communist" and "Socialist", for instance, as well as "radical". Even as far as "moderate" has been turned into a generals insult these days. Society has changed, and it isn't always for the better. *Sigh*

[Davidu]

THAT'S A LOT! Chani, could you make a resumee? Something shorter? PLS! I don't have the patience to read all of this...

[Chani]

Nav, I actually never looked at it that way before. You have a very good point.

In my personal opinion there is nothing wrong with believing in the extreme or being a fundamentalist, but for the point I was discussing, which was acceptance and agreement within religions it is true to say that the fundamentalists would be the least likely to take part for precisely the reasons you stated, they believe wholly in their Holy Books and their own doctrine so chances are religious pluralism would not work with the extremist sections of each religion...

I am sorry however if I offended you with that, I never thought of it those words before.

Though what you say actually tallies with what I want to say, so in some way I guess I had.

xx

[exatreide]

Post Limit is 2000 Characters a post You could have put some of those together, :P

but very well done.

[Egeides]

Concerning religion and peace, I would propose the following points as being of great importance:

1- The religious fundamentalism element of a person or group of persons tends to determine its capacity to accept other religions

2- Fundamentalism tends to be fueled over non-acceptance of others, a separation that is sharper between "us" and "them".

3- Conflicts tend to bring a sharper difference between "us" and "them".

Consequently, conflicts between persons or groups of persons tends to facilitate religious fundamentalism.

I define fundamentalism here as being the interpretation of a religion that accepts the less exterior elements exterior to given schemes of this religion.