I don’t see anything in the letter telling me to attempt to stick the knife in (figuratively speaking) to any way of thinking, religious or not, and I see a lot in my scriptures telling me not to.
OK - maybe my wording was a bit over the top, but the insistence - clearly stated in both the 2002 letter and the "One Common Faith" document - on the adoption of a particular theological position (i.e. "Abrahamic" monotheism) as a prerequisite for the success of the interfaith movement is immediately disrespectful of traditions that do not share that theology - those statements, in and of themselves, relegate any non-monotheistic ideologies to theological error - and given the "apocalyptic" language of both documents impute at least part of the blame for the ills of human society to the failure of the very religious traditions it purports to be seeking "interfaith dialogue" with. For example, on page 7 of "One Common Faith", we read:
"The world order, if it can be so described, within which Bahá’ís today pursue the work of sharing Bahá’u’lláh’s message is one whose misconceptions about both human nature and social evolution are so fundamental as to severely inhibit the most intelligent and well-intentioned endeavours at human betterment. Particularly is this true with respect to the confusion that surrounds virtually every aspect of the subject of religion."
And then, a couple paragraphs later:
"What all such differing conceptions have in common is the extent to which a phenomenon that is acknowledged to completely transcend human reach has nevertheless gradually been imprisoned within conceptual limits —whether organizational, theological, experiential or ritualistic — of human invention."
Clearly, the implication of such statements is that "religion" (read "non-Baha'i religion") is to blame for the problems Baha'is now have to tackle by attempting to understand (but certainly not embrace) the errors in other religions more clearly through "interfaith dialogue".
If paragraphs like that - and there are plenty of them - are not intended to be derogatory about other faiths, what is the purpose? How would a Baha'i read that last paragraph in any way other than to impute responsibility for the failure of religion to address human problems to religious traditions other than Baha'i?
Anyway, that is what I meant by "sticking the knife in". And on reflection, perhaps it wasn't such an overstatement on my part after all.
I don’t think it does have to be an exclusively religious thing.
Have you read "One Common Faith"? Is there anything whatsoever in it that makes any possible conciliation to non-religious modes of thought? Its opening salvo is a diatribe against "materialism" that either mistakenly or deliberately conflates the philosophy of materialism (that fundamentally only the physical world exists) and the "materialistic" consumerism of recent decades. But suppose there is no God - suppose the "spiritual world" is emergent from the physical - you would not be able to tell the difference. You have only "divine revelation" to tell you that this is not so. Suppose that is mistaken? What then? Surely, a genuine "interfaith dialogue" that purports to address the social and spiritual needs of humanity as a whole must take seriously what OCF (on page 2) calls:
"a materialistic interpretation of reality [that] had consolidated itself so completely as to become the dominant world faith insofar as the direction of society was concerned."
But no! The document goes on to detail the
"bankruptcy of the materialist enterprise" and the
"iron dogma of 'scientific materiliasm'" and how all that had resulted in
"the civilizing of human nature" to be
"violently wrenched out of the orbit it had followed for millennia" and the establishment of
"regimes of totalitarian control prepared to use any means of coercion in regulating the lives of hapless populations subjected to them."
In fairness, it does acknowledge the possibility of a more genuinely benevolent beginning for the "scourge" (my word not theirs) of "materialism" :
"Whatever humanitarian ideals may have inspired some of its early proponents,..."
But where in the document is there any opening for a fairer re-evaluation of those "humanitarian ideals" as part of a more inclusive "interfaith dialogue" that draws in also those whose "faith" is in the naturally innate human capacity for empathy, altruism and fairness?
That’s what it seems to you to be saying. I’m not objecting to you saying that. I’m glad and grateful for it, and I’m sure you aren’t alone in seeing it that way. What matters for my purposes is what it seems to Baha’is to be saying, and that’s what I’m hoping discussions like this might help improve.
Right so where are they? So far, with the exception of your good self, most of the Baha'i comments seem to be defending the Baha'i religious position - and that, it seems to me, is the overriding concern of the document taken at face value and assuming a mostly Baha'i readership. If that perception is incorrect I would like to see a coherent Baha'i response to my earlier three questions:
1. Should the aim of interfaith dialogue be "one common faith"? And if so why is it so important that we all believe the same things?
2. Does the Baha'i approach mistake religious "sameness" for spiritual "oneness"?
3. Should secular humanism be part of the interfaith dialogue? Why or why not?
So far, I don't see any answers.
Tony, look at that post of Unveiled Artist again. See what she suggested to do instead of attend large services. Think about it.
