What if we accepted each others Religion?

[CG Didymus]

And of course your faith is the one faith that “accepts” the “essence of all the messages” and exclusively so……..right?

Yes, and they tell us what that "essence" is... the virtues, to love one another. So, if we only take that "essence" and get rid of the rest, then all religions agree.

Now what we need is some good, updated spiritual laws and teachings... And where can we find those? Only if there was a new messenger from God that could tell us what to do and what to believe. Only if there was someone like that... a new messenger that had the new truth from God for today.

 

[CG Didymus]

That circular reasoning being:
Their relying on the information found within their scriptures to inform and bolster their beliefs that their scriptures are accurate and use that as their reason to believe the accuracy of their scriptures.
Furthermore, they find the information that they gleaned from their scriptures to be sufficient to convince themselves to believe that their scriptures are “authentic” (as defined above) because it is attested to within their scripture,
yet discount the beliefs of others that use the exact same method of determining beliefs using other scriptures.

Yes, and because theirs are "authentic" and maybe also being taken to be infallible and inerrant, those Scriptures can be used to "prove" that all the others are false.

But, if we start with the new religion and look back to the older ones, then things change. Christians to Jews... "They got it wrong. This is what was really meant by those Scriptures." And the Christians give their interpretation that clearly shows that Jesus was predicted to do exactly the things he did... get virgin born, ride in on a donkey, die on a cross and the rest.

Then Islam to Christianity, and the Baha'is Faith to Islam... all that has to be done is to reinterpret a few verses and all is good. All becomes clear and obvious. Or... it becomes clear and obvious that the new religion has to do some finagling to get the Scriptures of the older religions to support the claims of the new religion. Plus, it doesn't hurt to ignore some passages and verses that don't support their claims.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't have to since Baha'is do not believe believe that the Baha'i Faith is the 'best' religion.
We do not believe that any religion is better than any other religion. Religious are just different because mankind's needs are different in every age.

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288​

Baha'is also do not believe that the Baha'i Faith is the 'last' religion that will ever be revealed. Rather, we believe that Messengers of God will continue to be sent by God throughout all time.

Bahai dont say they are the "best" religion, they say they are the religion most suited to this age. They don't say they are the "last" religion, but they are the last allegedly revealed religion for a thousand years since Baha'u'llah.

To the rest of us - claiming there is a difference even if technically true probably just seems like splitting hairs, or at least it does to me.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Yes, and because theirs are "authentic" and maybe also being taken to be infallible and inerrant, those Scriptures can be used to "prove" that all the others are false.

But, if we start with the new religion and look back to the older ones, then things change. Christians to Jews... "They got it wrong. This is what was really meant by those Scriptures." And the Christians give their interpretation that clearly shows that Jesus was predicted to do exactly the things he did... get virgin born, ride in on a donkey, die on a cross and the rest.

Then Islam to Christianity, and the Baha'is Faith to Islam... all that has to be done is to reinterpret a few verses and all is good. All becomes clear and obvious. Or... it becomes clear and obvious that the new religion has to do some finagling to get the Scriptures of the older religions to support the claims of the new religion. Plus, it doesn't hurt to ignore some passages and verses that don't support their claims.

Simple really:
Start with a presupposition of a god,
add some credulity,
mix in a heaping portion of confirmation bias,
stir in some cultural influences,
bake in some circular reasoning from your favorite scriptures,
sprinkle in some perceived revelation to taste,
let stew,
smooth out with cognitive dissonance if necessary…..
And voilà, you have a member of a religion!
Always at the ready to defend theirs and point out where the others have failed to see the light properly.

What do you think…..
sounds like an excellent way forge a unity of humanity?
(as soon as all those “others” see the error of their ways and adopt the obviously proper way depicted in the “authentic” scriptures!)

 

[Secret Chief]

I don't know, but I was under the impression that anybody could become "enlightened" in the way Buddha had become enlightened. But it would take many "rebirths" for a person to finally reach enlightenment. Is that close? If not, could you explain it?

It can be! There's no party line on this. There are varying understandings, particularly between the two major traditions - Theravada and Mahayana. What you're suggesting is more the former than the latter I think. With the latter you can go down the route of bodhisattvas amongst other stuff. Sudden enlightenment, brief enlightenment, ongoing enlightenment, potential enlightenment... is sitting Buddha enlightenment? Should one even use the word enlightenment....? I should have been a JW...

- Divisions of Buddhism - Buddhist beliefs - Edexcel - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

- Buddha-nature - Buddhist beliefs - Edexcel - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

 

[Secret Chief]

I would have to agree.

Good, cause otherwise I'd have to shun you.

- Why I Left Bahai Faith – The Bahai Insider

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Baha'i Faith doesn't have too much to say in regards Hinduism and Buddhism. It does identify both Buddha and Krishna as real historical people and these individuals were extraordinary religious teachers who were Manifestations of God. That's about all there is within the Baha'i writings. It's up to each Baha'i to come to terms with how Buddhism and Hinduism are very different religions from their Abrahamic counterparts. I don't see it as being problematic for Baha’is but it certainly appears problematic for some Hindus and Buddhists.

 

[loverofhumanity]

False, as per Bahai. Bahai misrepresents those religions it considers to be "proper."


Yes, and they are unwelcome, misleading, disingenuous and misappropriated.


Once more with feeling: The Buddha was not a prophet. Buddhism is not concerned with creator deities.

I won’t argue with you but I believe you to be grossly misinformed and not approaching the topics with an open mind. For starters Buddha prophesied a future Buddha. A Prophet prophesies. He may not have been called a prophet but He did perform prophetic functions. Next Buddha never denied God. That does not mean He did not teach there was a God. By inference He did teach about God. He said that the future Buddha would teach the ‘same truths’ that He taught. If Baha’u’llah is Maitreya and He teaches the oneness of God then it’s abundantly clear to me that Gautama also taught the oneness of God but that these teachings were lost or changed.

Baha’is believe that the promises foretold by religions of the past have been kept by the coming of Baha’u’llah. So we are really believing in all religions because we are accepting their Promised One Who their scriptures tell them to turn to. Those who reject the Promised One are in effect rejecting their own scriptures.

 

[Secret Chief]

I won’t argue with you but I believe you to be grossly misinformed and not approaching the topics with an open mind. For starters Buddha prophesied a future Buddha. A Prophet prophesies. He may not have been called a prophet but He did perform prophetic functions. Next Buddha never denied God. That does not mean He did not teach there was a God. By inference He did teach about God. He said that the future Buddha would teach the ‘same truths’ that He taught. If Baha’u’llah is Maitreya and He teaches the oneness of God then it’s abundantly clear to me that Gautama also taught the oneness of God but that these teachings were lost or changed.

Baha’is believe that the promises foretold by religions of the past have been kept by the coming of Baha’u’llah. So we are really believing in all religions because we are accepting their Promised One Who their scriptures tell them to turn to. Those who reject the Promised One are in effect rejecting their own scriptures.

Yes, I'll refer to Buddhists if I want to learn more about Buddhism, not Bahais.

 

[Truthseeker]

I am fully aware of interfaith trends in the US and Western Europe on the rise on the coat tails of the rise of the “Nones”.

As per Hartford International;
(Changing U.S. Demographics and the Impact on Interfaith Dialogue)
“Part of that change can be attributed to cultural upheavals that started in the 1960s and 1970s, leading to a rise in those who call themselves humanists, agnostics, atheists, or just unaffiliated. That trend has only increased, and now one in three adult Americans has no religious affiliation.”
“The other slice of the pie represents a cornucopia of different faith traditions. While the country has been religiously diverse since its founding, much of the present-day diversity in the U.S. can be traced to the shifting demographics of new arrivals after immigration laws changed in 1965. That shift brought significant numbers of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others into the mainly Judeo-Christian mix.”

However, I wonder if you are aware of the fact that…..
“at the same time, large parts of the world now have low birth rates. This includes not only Western Europe and North America, but also China, where a majority of the world’s religiously unaffiliated population lives”
“Meanwhile, some highly religious regions are experiencing rapid population growth.”
“Differing fertility rates and other demographic data are factored into our population growth projections for the world’s major religious groups, which forecast that the percentage of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated will shrink in the decades ahead – in contrast with the trend seen in the U.S. and Western Europe.”

I'm aware of all that.

Or from the same Pew Research report:
“Overall, government restrictions on religion have been rising globally. As of 2020, 57 countries now have “very high” levels of government restrictions on religion, up from 40 in 2007, the baseline year of the study. These restrictions can take many forms, including efforts by governments to ban particular faiths, prohibit conversions, limit preaching or give preferential treatment to certain religious groups.”
“For many people in these countries, religion can’t be separated from the power of the state.”

So actual research (as opposed to an individual’s opinion) would indicate otherwise when considering on a global scale, at least for the short term. (Projection to 2050)

Yes, in particular, majority Muslim countries will heavily penalize people who convert to another religion, by that I mean, for example from Muslim to Christianity. They think that this is justified by hadiths that support this, and passages in the Qur'an where those who backslide from the Muslim faith are particularly condemned. At the same time I know of a particular passage that says "let there be no compulsion in religion". In other words while God (or Allah) frowns on people who backslide from being Muslims, the people are not to compel in any way those who do this. The Qur'an is much more reliable than hadiths which are transmitted orally from person to person over a couple of centuries. It has been recognized by Muslim scholars that there are plenty of Hadiths that are dubious in origin. Their task has been in the past to sort between reliable Hadiths and those who are not reliable. Those that are not consistent with the Qur'an are supposed to be seen as dubious Hadiths.

However in modern times it seems that attitudes have hardened based on hadiths that that I see as not consistent with the Qur'an, especially by those in power, as in the interests of their own power they think this is a good policy by them.

In India, in recent times a Hindu nationalism has arisen.

Hinduism - Wikipedia

In the 18th century, the European merchants and colonists began to refer to the followers of Indian religions collectively as Hindus.[34][35][note 12] The use of the English term "Hinduism" to describe a collection of practices and beliefs is a fairly recent construction. The term Hinduism was first used by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816–17.[25] By the 1840s, the term "Hinduism" was used by those Indians who opposed British colonialism, and who wanted to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Christians.[23][39][40][41] Before the British began to categorise communities strictly by religion, Indians generally did not define themselves exclusively through their religious beliefs; instead identities were largely segmented on the basis of locality, language, varna, jāti, occupation, and sect.[42][note 13]​

Anyway, before this, because of the people of India not categorizing themselves as Hindus, but people with diverse beliefs arising from Hindu texts, they were more tolerant of people of other beliefs. Indirectly calling themselves Hindus was the result of the Europeans, especially the British, categorizing people into different religions, and more directly the people of these diverse beliefs adopting this label as a way to assert themselves against the English rule in India. Distinguishing themselves more sharply from Islam especially helped lead to the persecution by the present government in India.

I know less, ironically since I live in a Christian majority country about the hardening of attitudes of Christians in non-Western countries. Perhaps it is the result of people of other religions hardening their attitudes towards them? In America itself, some of those who identify as Christians have adopted a Christian nationalism and are intolerant of people of other faiths coming into America, because they feel threatened by them.

So, in America, while at the same time interfaith groups are arising, there are also others which are intolerant of other religions, which has become more marked recently.

Sorry, you are right about all this and I painted too rosy of a picture. Overall, worldwide things are not getting better concerning religious tolerance. I indulged myself momentarily in short term optimism.

However, if I’m anything, I’m a realist and can envision it going either way.
I certainly hope that in the not too distant future we would be able to slip the yoke of religions, superstitions, and xenophobic tendencies and learn to work together for the mutual benefit of all of humanity.
I don’t envision it happening in the lifetime of anybody living today, and find it unlikely within the lifetime of my grandchildren, but perhaps one day…..in future generations.

I don't see the solution myself as "slipping the yoke of religions". Religion originally was beneficent and led to a rise in morality and gave the impetus, for a time, too short really, to beneficial civilizations.

In America, the dysfunction and lack of unity is getting worse, and a large reason for that is political polarization. So getting rid of religions will not solve anything in America. In Europe, there has also been movement towards political polarization within countries that have some influence from religion, but a lot of this polarization doesn't have this origin, especially since Europe on the whole is less religious than America.

Things will get worse before they get better. My belief that it will get better eventually has its origin in my religion in part. In part, logically, if things get really bad people will wake up to the realization that if we don't unite, we will live very miserably or even extinguish ourselves. I will leave alone the possible role of religion in this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is yet hope for atheists and agnostics to become believers since at least they have rational minds and they care about humanity, unlike Christians, who only care about being saved, and to hell with everyone else.

That's a nice sentiment, but if by believers you mean believers in the god of Abraham through any of the religions derived from Judaism, it's those rational minds of which you speak that will prevent that from happening. There is no rational argument that ends, therefore God. One can only get to that belief through faith, and many people including me (aren't you glad I didn't write myself rather than me?) understand that that is an undesirable way to decide what is true about the world, and are unwilling to commit what they see as the intellectual "sin" of belief by faith.

Respectful is very good but I prefer being as brother's. There’s things we understand differently but the basic commandment to love one another encompasses all religions and eliminates all boundaries between us.

You've just erected a barrier when you excluded the irreligious. And what does being as brothers mean beyond simply treating others respectfully when interacting with them? You imply that you see yourself as my brother. What does that mean for me? Nothing, I think. I treat you as you treat me, and I don't feel like we're brothers if that means that I owe you more than being courteous to you.

I am unable to see how unity can take hold until the councels of the Pen of the Most High are embraced, this is a prerequisite to unity.

And here's another barrier to getting along. Many have no interest in your religious beliefs and never will. You will always see them as opposing unity as you envision it.

That is the Message God gives us, we could all place our trust in the One God. The greatest reconciliation possible.

And another. You keep putting space between us. With every comment like that one, I think less of your religion's ability to do anything for mankind.

I see the mindset of the Athiest will not allow unity to unfold within their own mind. Unity has to be based on the oneness of humanity and the realisation of that Oneness is that we are all created from the same dust. It needs the realisation of a animating creative force.

And another.

You probably saw the comment quoted above about being brothers versus being respectful. You're neither regarding atheists. And the feeling is contagious, dontchaknow. I resent that your religion teaches you to think like that and find it off-putting. The most I can offer you is tolerance and politeness, which is respect in the weak sense, the strong sense being admiration. You are seemingly unaware of how divisive your comments are.

the world needs a new approach to find the oneness of humanity.

We have one, and it works if allowed to: humanism. Humanists labor to repair the discord caused by religions, wealth and power concentration, and authoritarianism. And it does it with action using government and action in the daily life of the humanist, not merely chanting kumbaya or issuing position papers.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bahai dont say they are the "best" religion, they say they are the religion most suited to this age. They don't say they are the "last" religion, but they are the last allegedly revealed religion for a thousand years since Baha'u'llah.

To the rest of us - claiming there is a difference even if technically true probably just seems like splitting hairs, or at least it does to me.

If Baha'u'llah is the latest and newest messenger from God, then all is good. The Baha'i Faith has the new teachings from God for today. And all the other messages from the past religions have been replaced with this new message.

But... is it the true? Is Baha'u'llah the return of Christ? But we also have to believe that the Bab was a "return". Baha'is say he was the return of Elijah, but they say he is also equal to Baha'u'llah and Jesus and is a "manifestation" of God. And going back to Muhammad, was he sent from God and also a return of Christ?

Then we have Jesus, the one we call "the Christ". Was he really the Messiah to the Jews? If the Baha'is are correct, then Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are all "The Messiah". Just how many Messiahs were the Jews expecting?

Then, for the Baha'is to be right, we have to find a way to include Zoroaster, Buddha and Krishna. But Baha'is also include several people along with Moses from the Hebrew Bible as being "manifestations of God." They include Adam, Noah and Abraham. Part of the definition of being a "manifestation" is that they perfectly reflect the light from God. Then that they bring new teachings and bring a new book and start or "found" a new religion. What religion did they "found"? What new book and teachings did they bring?

I liked a lot of things about the Baha'i Faith, but I just can't believe all of their claims. Like the claim in this thread... that they believe in and accept all the other religions. Only in "essence", not in reality.

 

[CG Didymus]

It can be! There's no party line on this. There are varying understandings, particularly between the two major traditions - Theravada and Mahayana. What you're suggesting is more the former than the latter I think. With the latter you can go down the route of bodhisattvas amongst other stuff. Sudden enlightenment, brief enlightenment, ongoing enlightenment, potential enlightenment... is sitting Buddha enlightenment? Should one even use the word enlightenment....? I should have been a JW...

- Divisions of Buddhism - Buddhist beliefs - Edexcel - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

- Buddha-nature - Buddhist beliefs - Edexcel - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

Thanks, I was just wondering. Because like too many people, I hear a few things about a religion and what it teaches and assume that is what it is all about.

I asked because if anyone can get "enlightened" like the Buddha, then he wasn't a special creation, the thing that Baha'is call a manifestation. The Buddha was an ordinary man and found a path that got him to a place where he became enlightened, or whatever happened to him. And was able to teach that path to other, so they too could become like him.

Anyway, the Baha'is can't have just anyone becoming like the Buddha. Their manifestations are an exclusive group. The Buddha the Baha'is need has to have taught about this one true God of the Baha'is and not to have taught about any such things like rebirth.

So, no matter how sincere LH might be, Baha'is in general, don't accept a lot of things about Buddhism. And, if like me, a Baha'i doesn't know what the teachings of some sect of Buddhism teaches, how can they say that they "believe" in it and "accept" it?

 

[CG Didymus]

Simple really:
Start with a presupposition of a god,
add some credulity,
mix in a heaping portion of confirmation bias,
stir in some cultural influences,
bake in some circular reasoning from your favorite scriptures,
sprinkle in some perceived revelation to taste,
let stew,
smooth out with cognitive dissonance if necessary…..
And voilà, you have a member of a religion!
Always at the ready to defend theirs and point out where the others have failed to see the light properly.

What do you think…..
sounds like an excellent way forge a unity of humanity?
(as soon as all those “others” see the error of their ways and adopt the obviously proper way depicted in the “authentic” scriptures!)

Yes, even Baha'is believe their religion is "The Truth". I really don't think they can say that about any other religion. I've even asked Baha'is to tell me when, if ever, did Christianity have and teach "The Truth" as believed by the Baha'is?

And it's not like I believe Christianity. But I don't go around claiming I do, and then gut the religion beliefs and doctrines until it fits my beliefs.

 

[Secret Chief]

Thanks, I was just wondering. Because like too many people, I hear a few things about a religion and what it teaches and assume that is what it is all about.

I asked because if anyone can get "enlightened" like the Buddha, then he wasn't a special creation, the thing that Baha'is call a manifestation. The Buddha was an ordinary man and found a path that got him to a place where he became enlightened, or whatever happened to him. And was able to teach that path to other, so they too could become like him.

Anyway, the Baha'is can't have just anyone becoming like the Buddha. Their manifestations are an exclusive group. The Buddha the Baha'is need has to have taught about this one true God of the Baha'is and not to have taught about any such things like rebirth.

So, no matter how sincere LH might be, Baha'is in general, don't accept a lot of things about Buddhism. And, if like me, a Baha'i doesn't know what the teachings of some sect of Buddhism teaches, how can they say that they "believe" in it and "accept" it?

You're spot on.

Siddy first of all sought answers to his concerns (disease, ageing and death) by associating with other seekers. From this he sought "enlightenment" through extreme asceticism, nearly starving himself to death as a result. Hardly the actions of a Prophet from God.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha'i Faith doesn't have too much to say in regards Hinduism and Buddhism. It does identify both Buddha and Krishna as real historical people and these individuals were extraordinary religious teachers who were Manifestations of God. That's about all there is within the Baha'i writings. It's up to each Baha'i to come to terms with how Buddhism and Hinduism are very different religions from their Abrahamic counterparts. I don't see it as being problematic for Baha’is but it certainly appears problematic for some Hindus and Buddhists.

Of course, the problem is... how do we achieve peace and unity? One way to do it would be to get rid of our old beliefs, including our old religious beliefs, that keep us separated and believing we are better than someone else.

Dumping all religions would work. But that would include the Baha'i Faith. Now if we all believed in the Baha'i Faith as being true and from an all-knowing, invisible God, that would work too. We would move away from our old religious beliefs and towards the new beliefs of the Baha'i Faith.

And what would be so bad about that? Well, the Baha'i Faith is still a religion... with lots of claims that some of us just can't accept as true.

If we all accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior like the Born-Again Christians, we could all, maybe, live in peace and unity too. But can all of us accept those teachings and beliefs as being true? (And even the Baha'i Faith tells us some of those beliefs aren't true)

Religions just got too many things that we've got to believe and take on "faith". Even the Baha'i Faith.

 

[CG Didymus]

I won’t argue with you but I believe you to be grossly misinformed and not approaching the topics with an open mind. For starters Buddha prophesied a future Buddha. A Prophet prophesies. He may not have been called a prophet but He did perform prophetic functions. Next Buddha never denied God. That does not mean He did not teach there was a God. By inference He did teach about God. He said that the future Buddha would teach the ‘same truths’ that He taught. If Baha’u’llah is Maitreya and He teaches the oneness of God then it’s abundantly clear to me that Gautama also taught the oneness of God but that these teachings were lost or changed.

Baha’is believe that the promises foretold by religions of the past have been kept by the coming of Baha’u’llah. So we are really believing in all religions because we are accepting their Promised One Who their scriptures tell them to turn to. Those who reject the Promised One are in effect rejecting their own scriptures.

Which book of Buddhist Scriptures prophecies about Maitreya? What does it say? How do we know these prophesies came from Buddha?

Buddhism came from India. Why would the Buddha have been teaching about the one God as believed by the Abrahamic religions and not the many Gods of Hinduism?

Then, of course, there is rebirth. Baha'is deal with that like they do with the resurrection of Jesus and just say it was "symbolic". But why symbolic? Why not just wrong? That is to Baha'is. Why not a belief and concept that made sense to the people in those times and in that culture? Why make it something that was misinterpreted to mean actually getting reborn into a different physical body when the Buddha, supposedly, was only talking symbolically?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Of course, the problem is... how do we achieve peace and unity? One way to do it would be to get rid of our old beliefs, including our old religious beliefs, that keep us separated and believing we are better than someone else.

Achieving peace begins at home with our families, friends, neighbours, workmates and whatever other social space we inhabit. If religion helps us in our day to day lives then well and good. If it doesn't then best to be without it.

Dumping all religions would work. But that would include the Baha'i Faith. Now if we all believed in the Baha'i Faith as being true and from an all-knowing, invisible God, that would work too. We would move away from our old religious beliefs and towards the new beliefs of the Baha'i Faith.

Marxism type communism is an example of an atheistic movement where religion was actively suppressed and discouraged. I don't see that it worked very well.

On a personal level if a newer belief system such as the Baha'i Faith works and the an older belief system doesn't work then go with the newer system. If an older belief system works then there needs to be something better about the new system to change.

And what would be so bad about that? Well, the Baha'i Faith is still a religion... with lots of claims that some of us just can't accept as true.

That is fine. Muhammad is recorded in the Quran as saying "Let there be no compulsion in religion". Its up to each of us to work out what works best.

If we all accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior like the Born-Again Christians, we could all, maybe, live in peace and unity too. But can all of us accept those teachings and beliefs as being true? (And even the Baha'i Faith tells us some of those beliefs aren't true)

I can't see everyone accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour any time soon.

Religions just got too many things that we've got to believe and take on "faith". Even the Baha'i Faith.

Who is asking you to become a Baha'i or join any religion for that matter? Being outside the realm of religion is where you have been most comfortable for many years. Why change?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And another. You keep putting space between us. With every comment like that one, I think less of your religion's ability to do anything for mankind.

The unity of humanity will commence with a joint effort by all Nations, from the ruins of a godless age, it will not be the Baha'i directly instigating this process.

That is just the plain simple truth, it is not having a go at any individual, just the mindset of an age where materialism, predudices religious disunity and conflict dominate the minds of humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

We have one, and it works if allowed to: humanism. Humanists labor to repair the discord caused by religions, wealth and power concentration, and authoritarianism. And it does it with action using government and action in the daily life of the humanist, not merely chanting kumbaya or issuing position papers.

Good on you.

Regards Tony