30 Apr 08
FAITH AND REASON ARE INTRINSICALLY NON-VIOLENT
VATICAN CITY, 30 APR 2008 (VIS) - Following today's general audience, Benedict XVI received participants in the sixth meeting of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation of Tehran, Iran. They have been meeting to study the theme of: "Faith and Reason in Christianity and Islam".
The participants in the meeting, led by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and by Mahdi Mostafavi, president of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation, agreed upon the following points:
"Faith and reason are both gifts of God to mankind.
"Faith and reason do not contradict each other, but faith might in some cases be above reason, but never against it.
"Faith and reason are intrinsically non-violent. Neither reason nor faith should be used for violence; unfortunately, both of them have been sometimes misused to perpetrate violence. In any case, these events cannot question either reason or faith.
"Both sides agreed to further co-operate in order to promote genuine religiosity, in particular spirituality, to encourage respect for symbols considered to be sacred and to promote moral values.
"Christians and Muslims should go beyond tolerance, accepting differences, while remaining aware of commonalties and thanking God for them. They are called to mutual respect, thereby condemning derision of religious beliefs.
"Generalisation should be avoided when speaking of religions. Differences of confessions with Christianity and Islam, diversity of historical contexts are important factors to be considered.
"Religious traditions cannot be judged on the basis of a single verse or a passage present in their respective holy Books. A holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method is necessary for a fair understanding of them".
OP/ISLAM CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE/TAURAN:MOSTAFAVI VIS 080430 (290)
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf I thought you would actually discuss the content of this text, I would raise a few questions.
FAITH AND REASON ARE INTRINSICALLY NON-VIOLENT
VATICAN CITY, 30 APR 2008 (VIS) - Following today's general audience, Benedict XVI received participants in the sixth meeting of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation of Tehran, Iran. They have been meeting to study the theme of: "Faith and R ...[text shortened]... erstanding of them".
OP/ISLAM CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE/TAURAN:MOSTAFAVI VIS 080430 (290)
But, it's really just spam for you.
Nemesio
07 May 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeSounds a lot like they are trying to pardon themselves for the past brutality, and distance themselves from any future brutality, by their religions.
FAITH AND REASON ARE INTRINSICALLY NON-VIOLENT
VATICAN CITY, 30 APR 2008 (VIS) - Following today's general audience, Benedict XVI received participants in the sixth meeting of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation of Tehran, Iran. They have been meeting to study the theme of: "Faith and R ...[text shortened]... erstanding of them".
OP/ISLAM CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE/TAURAN:MOSTAFAVI VIS 080430 (290)
I love, after several sweeping generalisations, the passage which says that generalisation should be avoided.
07 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot to be outdone, you also commence with a sweeping generalisation.
Sounds a lot like they are trying to pardon themselves for the past brutality, and distance themselves from any future brutality, by their religions.
I love, after several sweeping generalisations, the passage which says that generalisation should be avoided.
Actually, there's nothing in that VIS-paste that I disagree with. It's just that people have a hard time living up to the simple tenets of their faith.
07 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt does sound like a major hand-washing exercise. And, hey, I wasn't the one who generalised about not generalising!
Not to be outdone, you also commence with a sweeping generalisation.
Actually, there's nothing in that VIS-paste that I disagree with. It's just that people have a hard time living up to the simple tenets of their faith.
07 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think it's more about inter-faith dialogue. Not so long ago Papa Ben was saying that Islam was inferior to xianity, so it seems quite positive. Considering Italy's now a post-fascist state, at least the Popester isn't giving the boys a religious reason to get heavy with Muslim immigrants.
It does sound like a major hand-washing exercise. And, hey, I wasn't the one who generalised about not generalising!
07 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat, at least, does seem positive.
I think it's more about inter-faith dialogue. Not so long ago Papa Ben was saying that Islam was inferior to xianity, so it seems quite positive. Considering Italy's now a post-fascist state, at least the Popester isn't giving the boys a religious reason to get heavy with Muslim immigrants.
If they can't play nice, I'm gonna take all their toys away.
07 May 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeThats always a tough one:
Christians and Muslims should go beyond tolerance, accepting differences, while remaining aware of commonalties and thanking God for them. They are called to mutual respect, thereby condemning derision of religious beliefs.
"I believe that you are wrong, in fact so wrong that you are going to hell for eternity, your actions an beliefs are a heresy judged by God to be worthy of the worst punishment imaginable, but I will still respect your beliefs in the hope that you respect mine which you believe to be wrong etc etc."
Interesting also is that Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" argues that the above mutual respect policy is what leads to the tolerance of extremism and various religious practices that should not in fact be tolerated. For example, if a group of Christians decide that it is religiously correct to stone adulterers should the Muslims 'go beyond tolerance' and accept it? The recent happenings in some Texas religious group comes to mind... where even fellow Christians did not want to show much tolerance.
07 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, but they weren't REAL CHRISTIANS (TM).
Thats always a tough one:
"I believe that you are wrong, in fact so wrong that you are going to hell for eternity, your actions an beliefs are a heresy judged by God to be worthy of the worst punishment imaginable, but I will still respect your beliefs in the hope that you respect mine which you believe to be wrong etc etc."
Interesting also is that R ...[text shortened]... s group comes to mind... where even fellow Christians did not want to show much tolerance.
07 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou could apply the same critique to secular multiculturalism. Any judgement is considered cultural arrogance. Consider Tony Yengeni's ritual slaughter of a beast, which polarised South African society: animal-rights activists' protests were interpreted as white arrogance towards African culture. So, which moral standard do you recommend for universal application?
Interesting also is that Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" argues that the above mutual respect policy is what leads to the tolerance of extremism and various religious practices that should not in fact be tolerated. For example, if a group of Christians decide that it is religiously correct to stone adulterers should the Muslims 'go beyond toleranc ous group comes to mind... where even fellow Christians did not want to show much tolerance.
Ecumenism can yield good results, such as the insight that religions share the same core values to a surprising extent, differences usually being an aspect of culture.
Setting faith aside for a minute -- in terms of ethics, is reason 'intrinsically non violent'?
07 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNeither are Muslims. My point is that they were a different faith from the average Christian and no tolerance was shown let alone 'beyond tolerance'. Did anyone get a 'holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method' in order for 'a fair understanding of them'? I doubt it.
Yeah, but they weren't REAL CHRISTIANS (TM).
07 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThey were left alone for years; the police only intervened after a cry for help (which may have been a hoax). But it seems fairly clear that the practices in question entailed violence against women; it probably goes against the sect's own teachings (it certainly goes against mainstream Mormon teaching) and is morally indefensible. I'm quite confident that rational people, religious or not, would agree on that. The difficulty is in getting people to reason beyond their own interests.
Neither are Muslims. My point is that they were a different faith from the average Christian and no tolerance was shown let alone 'beyond tolerance'. Did anyone get a 'holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method' in order for 'a fair understanding of them'? I doubt it.
Do you deplore the actions of that sect? If so, why?
07 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think standards should be set universally irrespective of religion or culture. ie If Tony Yengeni can slaughter an animal for 'cultural reasons' I should be allowed to do so without giving a reason. We should not give extra tolerance just because a 'cultural' or 'religious' excuse is given. In Zambia people often get away with all sorts of things by playing the 'its my culture' card. In some cases it might even be true. Its just that the culture includes some despicable things. If someone claims he has a right to beat his wife, it should be judged on merit not based on whether it is his culture or religion or personal opinion that allows it.
So, which moral standard do you recommend for universal application?
Setting faith aside for a minute -- in terms of ethics, is reason 'intrinsically non violent'?
I wasn't sure in the original post whether it meant specifically anti-violence or merely neutral. I would argue that both faith and ethics are essentially violence-neutral and that specific beliefs and ethics may be either violent, or non-violent in nature.
07 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaybe standards should be set universally, but how do you go about doing that?
I think standards should be set universally irrespective of religion or culture. ie If Tony Yengeni can slaughter an animal for 'cultural reasons' I should be allowed to do so without giving a reason. We should not give extra tolerance just because a 'cultural' or 'religious' excuse is given. In Zambia people often get away with all sorts of things by pla ...[text shortened]... and that specific beliefs and ethics may be either violent, or non-violent in nature.
You are allowed to slaughter animals if they belong to you; Yengeni's method, not the act itself, was the focus of attention. Supposedly traditional slaughtering methods are 'cruel', while 'modern' (ie. Western) techniques are 'humane'. Yet the opposite could be argued, for a variety of reasons.