Maxime Touzel

This conversation is closed.

A "U.N." for Religions

I'm thinking of a way to bring the religious leaders of every religions, cults, sects or any other religious beliefs representatives together.

The goal behind this is to make them all agree on a term of mutual respect and to make them sign a contract saying that they agree to consider others beliefs in an equal way and not superior nor inferior to their own beliefs, to try and reach a true global religious brotherhood in order to bring a peaceful era, to end the religious wars and religious hatred and to end the possibility for political leaders to use religions as a tool to bring wars more acceptable.

Some of them might not agree to sign an agreement such as this, for fanatical reasons or any other reasons, but some would and that would make all the difference.

I wonder how many followers would still perceived themselves as being "higher" or "superior" from others by knowing that their own spiritual leader didn't agree to sign a "philosophical agreement" such as this, knowing that this agreement is meant to show the true Love and Compassion these spiritual leaders are teachings in their own way.

With such a philosophical agreement of fraternity, we could let go the differences, the first step toward a true global peace would be accomplished.

Religions are not suppose to be part in politics and many beliefs despite politics, but this "agreement" could signify the end of the fetal state of humanity.

An U.N. like Organization for Religions could mean a lot for our future. I consider this to be an essential asset in order to build a peaceful world.

Are you in favor of this ?
I would like to know.
Thank you.

  • Mar 2 2012: I fear that the hatred involved, when it comes to religion, isn't fueled by the religions themselves.
    On the contrary, the fuel is being forced down the throats of impressionable people who have no one else to trust.
    War in the name of God? War was never about God. War has always been economical. It's not about differences in belief systems, or differences in the names we have for intangible things, or taking a stand in the name of spreading the words of God. It's about land, oil, trade, resources, agreements, electricity, water, companies, and ulterior agendas. The hatred that's instilled in the population is merely about votes, about supporting corrupt, selfish leaders, and it always has been. Our hatred is being fueled, it is being fueled consciously and with purpose. I don't think a UN for religions is necessarily the right thing to do. I think that the problem is beyond petty disagreements over the "afterlife." Instead of a UN for religions, change the social pyramid. This is a very big topic. There is too much to be said.
    • W T

      • 0
      Mar 3 2012: "This is a very big topic. There is too much to be said"

      Yes, Crystelle, it is, and there is...........but you managed to say something very insightful. Thank you
  • thumb
    Feb 19 2012: I am always on favor of mutual respect and any organizatin whose mission is to foment tolerance ans acceptance.

    However, this reminds me of a debate I had watched some years back with several significant leasers of different religions, and about halfway through the programme the moderator, basically asked " you all believe each other has a bad end of it, why are you all getting along so well ?". And the answer was that, regardless of their differences in beleifs, they each had mutual respect for each other, because of their devoutness. They each reapected what it took to follow their religion, and live it with a rock solid faith every day.

    When people are comfortable in their faith, they can not be shaken. It is only those who are not confidentwho feelsthey have to impress it upon everybody.

    I would say that this idea is a very good one, in that we must each learn to live together in peace, but I would suggest that true religious leaders already have a code of mutual respect; it is the followers of any belief, and the leaders of nations who use religion as a tool to make those followers commit heinous actions who are the real danger and who need some sort of organization to help them - oh yeah, that's supposed to be the U.N.

    I believe also that a truly religious person does not feel themselves superior (maybe a bit lucky, and definitely blessed!) because knowing something is true is simply a fact that you would like to share, but nothing to gloat about.

    And frankly, if the leaders of my particular denomination didn't sign on? I know that they would just be frail, imperfect human beings, and it wouldn't shake my faith at all, becuase I know who I truly serve, and it's not these guys!

    Lasty, it seems as though you are trying to bind the human religious construct to the rules of a human secular construct, apparently to expose the weaknesses of the religious construct. There's no need: religion has already represented itself badly enough!
    • thumb
      Feb 19 2012: I know that religious leaders already have a code of mutual respect, but this code of mutual respect isn't known to many. Using a "U.N like" organization to arrange a gathering is to make this agreement public and official.

      The goal is not to impose rules, but to build a fraternity, to unify the people by first unifying the spiritual leaders of all the different faith system and to make this meeting publicly known as a symbolic "Act of Peace".
    • thumb
      Feb 23 2012: Nice contribution, there's only one problem.
      The Christian faiths have the order to safe all humanity and have them baptized.
      It is part of their faith.
      • thumb
        Feb 23 2012: It's also part of the Muslim faith and the Mormons faith, and probably part of others faith too that i don't know the name.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 24 2012: Yes the #4 is a good example of this recognition of other faiths to be equal.
      • thumb
        Feb 24 2012: Maxime,
        I agree with your concept very much, because I am in favor of anything that will help unite people, whether or not s/he embraces a religion.

        I do not agree that "rules" are the way to proceed with the process you propose. What we see on this thread, is probably a reflection of how religious leaders will address the idea. Yes, of course we will unite...under OUR rules....OUR OWN religious beliefs. So, in reality, they have not moved forward with your idea.

        I do not agree that #4 in Adriaan's "rules" is a "recognition of other faiths to be equal". To the best of my knowledge, all faiths do NOT believe that "each of us continues life as a complete person immediately after the death of the body". That is Adriaan's religious belief and does not reflect the belief of all others.

        Religious people would often like to "unite" under their own religious umbrella, and I do not percieve that to be what you are it? My perception of what you are proposing is to accept each other, and refrain from trying to impose rules on other people who do NOT embrace the same beliefs? Please correct me if I misunderstand your intent. In another comment, you state..." I not trying to impose rules over anyone", and yet, you accept a rule here? I'm confused about your intent.
        • thumb
          Feb 24 2012: My objective is not to bring a set of rules to which the many religious leaders would have to follow.

          My objective is to make the religious leaders acknowledge (accept) to live "peacefully" among people of other faiths, that's it. To stop the mutual condemning to hell that breeds hatred and war.

          If some religious leaders cannot acknowledge this, then they are invariably wrong, in my opinion, if they can't remain respectful toward another human being because of his faith, the wrong is not the one bearing peace and respect, it is the one who cannot bear peace and respect.

          Do you understand my point there ?

          I'm not trying to force people into believing what they don't want to believe, i want to allow the religions altogether to "give peace a chance". From there it will be their choice to choose peace or to oppose peace.
      • thumb
        Feb 25 2012: Awwww......I notice that what was once part of Adriaan's #4 rule, which you accepted Maxime, is now #5. There has been an edit....interesting!

        You ask..."do you understand my point there"? Yes, I think I understand your point much better now.

        While I believed you to be honestly trying to unite all religions, it appears that you are trying to promote one specific religion. I am not at all interested in your quest...especially when there seems to be a deception.
        • thumb
          Feb 26 2012: Here it is not my intend to promote any religion in particular, but to promote the idea of fraternity between religions.
  • thumb
    Feb 19 2012: It's called the "Interfaith Movement". A bit like all the football teams agreeing not to try & score any goals. Works fine for those who assume their faith has no basis in truth, or that their team is still relevant even if it doesn't play. Pointless window dressing by the political correctness brigade.

    • thumb
      Feb 19 2012: You are completely mistaking, religions are not what you think they are, they are not an entertaining sport, or teams fighting each other for points. They basically have the same message of love and compassion, it has nothing to do with wars and conflicts.

      Guys like you should not even respond to this thread.
      Especially if they link religions to sport. Or consider war to be an entertainment.
      • Feb 22 2012: I don't think you have looked carefully enough at religions. All those I know have mandates against other religions/gods. Peter is a deep believer, and you should think about it. Christians think that everybody will go to Hell if they don't believe in Jesus Christ's sacrifice. So they should be against a religious U.N. Otherwise they would be hypocrites about salvation. If they believe that Hell is awaiting everyone else, they can't but be worried about people professing different beliefs. That from the compassion point of view. But the Bible contains plenty of examples about rejecting other/false gods, about idols, about stoning family members who want to apart you from your god, about ...

        That all religions are about love and compassion is false.
        • thumb
          Feb 22 2012: Hi Gabo,
          I don't think it's accurate to make general statements about a huge group of people. There certainly ARE lots of religious people who seperate themselves from others with the misperception that everyone who does not believe as they do will go to hell. There ARE people who embrace certain religions who believe in something different. My mom was one of those people who devoutly practiced her faith and knew the bible from cover to cover, but did not think she was better than anyone else, nor did she believe that everyone who did not accept her belief was going to hell. She drew people to her BECAUSE of her unconditional love and acceptance, which I notice many who practice religions do.

          I do not agree that those who believe in "mandates against other religions/gods" are "deep believers", because it doesn't seem that they have honestly grasped the meaning of the verses in the bible. It seems restricted, limited, superficial and extreme in my perception. When one is limited to dogma that seperates human beings based on religious beliefs, I do not percieve that person as a deep thinker at all, but rather, one who is easily led. That, to me indicates a person who is NOT thinking, feeling, or making decisions on his/her own, and it is that hypocritical thinking that caused me, and many others to turn our backs on a religion.

          God, Jesus Christ, whoever, through the bible, tells us to love one another...embrace one another...accept one another, and yet extremists insist that we will go to hell if we do not follow THEIR beliefs and dogma? I fail to see any compassion in that belief, and how hypocritical is that! It simply doesn't make any sense, and it did not make sense to me even as a child. Thankfully, my mother's example made more sense, and although she was a devout catholic, she accepted everyone as part of the whole. I agree...all religions are NOT about love and compassion, and I also believe that some who practice religions, also practice compassion.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Feb 22 2012: Gabo :

          interesting ;) ; you know how to put in relation of contradiction many ideas ; the most important thing is however to solve this contradictions in my opinion , here you fail it seems .

          Why don't you try to solve them yourself ? it can be managed maybe not perfectly but good enough I think ; (understand the terms , .... you know all this stuffs)

          By the way, ''That all religions are about love and compassion is false.'' of course it is , they are all about love , compassion , righteousness , good , patience ............. they are all about everything what's good , the point is you certainly will find contradictions between this 'goods' because they are easy to be found, at the end of the day this is all what atheism is about if then will continue to exist atheists ;

          of course you don't think religion is only about the all 'goods' , however this is the axiom of religion (christianity), so again why don't you try to solve the contradictions from this perspective?

          Would be interesting to know your answer , I don't try to have a conversation , I don't have time;

          Anyway so far : you win (even though it wasn't a race :).
        • thumb
          Feb 22 2012: Eduard,
          Your comment is what I call "hit and run communication". You write a bunch of "stuff", then say you don't have time for a conversation!

          With your reference to atheism, it feels like you are trying to encourage a debate between theism vs. atheism, and that is not the topic of this idea, as it is presented.
        • thumb
          Feb 22 2012: What did Jesus say when the people in the town were ready to stone a woman to death ?
          Can you remind it to me please, Gabo ?

          To me, if you want to follow the teachings of Jesus, then read what he was teachings and apply this unconditional Love to everyone.

          This is exactly what i am talking about when i mentioned that some religions original teachings have been raped by institutional powers, to be used for financial gain and war.

          The catholic church is one of them, it is corrupt, it might be the one religion that would refuse to sign this agreement and would lose a big lot of followers by doing so.

          All religions have the same message of Love and Compassion, written in different language, for different people in different times, but the foundations of every religion has been the same, every single time.

          The problems often come a few centuries after the death of a prophet when reforms are made in order to change the meanings of the texts and teachings. This is often where the corruption is being done, and it often leads to financial powers which itself spread wars to grow it's finances, which is "always" a total contradiction with the teachings of the founder of a religion.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Feb 24 2012: Colleen :

          Maybe it is a 'hit and run comunication' ;

          I was interested to now a opinion , I didn't managed , it wasn't about a dabate.
      • thumb
        Feb 22 2012: Thanks Gabo, I couldn't have put it better myself. (exc. the stoning bit)

      • Feb 23 2012: Hey Maxime (And Colleen),

        The point was that religions are not about the same thing, nor are all of them about love and compassion. That's beyond arguing. Whether Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned does not mean Jesus advocated you to just shrug and not tell people about the way, the truth the life and the whatever I forgot, which is Jesus himself, not some other religion, not some other son of god, not some other prophet. I don't think it is corruption when people believe that Jesus is the way, and you expect them to just shrug about people believing "the wrong thing."

        So, I agree with both of you that today lots of people practice their religions differently, and that such can come across as religions themselves being about love and whatever else you said, but that does not mean that religions are such a thing. Some people might have actually, ahem, corrupted the originals, because the tribalism of most religions is quite evident. But we shouldn't mistake people's different takes on what their religion means with what those things are/were about. Most importantly if salvation is an issue. Right?

        Truly, read the sacred books and you will find those things. Or just think about the doctrines carefully. It is a natural consequence that if my religion is right, the other religions are wrong. It's that simple.

        • thumb
          Feb 23 2012: I agree Gabo, that religions are not all about the same thing, nor are people all about the same thing. So, even if there IS a core belief in religions that includes love and compassion, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who practices the religion will embrace love and compassion. I believe some do and some do not.

          I do not agree that it is a "natural consequence" that if my religion is right, the other religions are wrong. I see many people who believe their chosen religion is right for THEMSELVES, and they respect other people's chosen religion as right for those people. There are certainly extremists, who believe their religion is the one and only, everyone else is going to hell, and those are the people who cause the most discontent in our world regarding religions, religious rights and freedoms.
        • thumb
          Feb 23 2012: Dear Colleen.
          Think on this.....
          The bible is very clear on Hell. I believe in the reality of it, I hate It as you do, but I believe it.

          Now what is the more loving thing to do with this information ?

          1) Warn you about the potential danger, or

          2) Tell you it doesn't matter, & you'll be just fine. (lie)

        • thumb
          Feb 23 2012: Dear Peter,
          Maxime is very clear about the intent of this discussion:
          "The goal behind this is to...agree on a term of mutual respect and to... sign a contract saying that they agree to consider others beliefs in an equal way and not superior nor inferior to their own beliefs, to try and reach a true global religious brotherhood in order to bring a peaceful era, to end the religious wars and religious hatred...".

          I don't want to think about your perspective any more Peter, because I have explored it in considerable depth throughout my life, and come to my own conclusions. I respect your beliefs as YOUR beliefs, and my experiences and information I have gathered throughout my life tells me that there is no hell.

          The "loving thing to do" with the information you believe in, is to keep it to yourself and respect the fact that others have different information and beliefs, unless someone askes you for your thoughts, feelings, opinions, and beliefs. That is what this discussion thread is about, and your constant preaching is me at least!

          You go from saying you need to save us all, to you're only doing it out of love, to chastising us for taking you too seriously. Do you have any idea what-so-ever of how often you contradict yourself?

          This thread is about coming together Peter. It's not about what you believe, it's not about what is, or is not in the bible... it's not about's about coming together...please stay on topic.
        • thumb
          Feb 23 2012: Gabo and Peter,

          There is a difference between saying one thing and knowing one thing. I doubt that you know everything about all religions, nobody knows everything.

          So how can you tell that all religions are not about Love and Compassion ? Wouldn't it be because your religion isn't all about Love and Compassion in your own eyes, since it has the habit of condemning others to hell so easily ?

          What if your religion would cease to condemn to hell systematically others belief, wouldn't that change this reasoning a little ? Wouldn't that help a little to bring peace to our world ?
        • thumb
          Feb 24 2012: Hi Maxime.

          I agree that the Hell thing is a big turn-off for most people . I hate the whole idea of Hell, & would love to deny it's existence . The problem is though that I believe it literally exists, so to bury my head in the sand & deny it would solve nothing. This is where the main problem is with your, very laudably, idea. You can easily get religious people to come together if they re-interpret their books to suit the preference of the day. Jesus himself came up against this problem, the leaders of the day didn't recognise Him for who He was because they didn't accept the plain teaching of their book. Jesus never harmed a soul, he did a great deal of good works, but He was killed because He refused to deny the truth.
          Christians today are in a similar position. We are called to live in peace, love even our enemies, & do good works. We are also called to speak the truth, so if we believe something is wrong, we say so. This is unacceptable in today's society, so while we will live in peace with others, that is not sufficient; we will not be accepted in any religious U.N. because we will insist on speaking what we see as the truth.
          There are others who see it as their duty to do harm to folks, but that's another story.

      • Feb 23 2012: Colleen,

        While I tend to agree with you, this time I have to disagree about what being op topic means here. If Peter can't come and tell Maxime, or you, why he does not feel like there is such unity among religions, then there is no topic. It would all be about posting only if you agree on the idea of a UN of religions. If so, I am off topic too. I understand, but how can anybody propose an idea and expect not to hear why the idea could be absurd. I think it is absurd myself, and I hold no religion. If religions evolve to the point of finding each other's beliefs equal, then they would have to agree that each person can be a Christian one day, a Muslim the next, and Jew next time, and long et cetera. Does not make sense then to hold to any beliefs. If all are equal, then why not forget about the whole construct all together, and make a UN of humanity instead? Wouldn't that be much better. After all, a UN of religions excludes people like me. I don't think Pete would disagree with me being a human being with equal rights, and equal whatever else. Nor would he discriminate against people holding different religions in those terms. It becomes a respect for people regardless of the impossibility of reaching them about what you or me or Peter might believe, but respect and peace and compassion and everything else without having to mess up with deep beliefs such as salvation and such. I would think that if you ask people to consider all religions equal while holding to just one is too much. But asking them to recognize that everybody has the same right to hold to their beliefs, or lack thereof, might be much easier.

        I hope that came out clear.

        Best as always.
        • thumb
          Feb 23 2012: Some good points Gabo,
          My only intent was to short circuit the arguments regarding what is, or is not in the bible, and Peter's ongoing intent to save us all from damnation in hell. Peter or anyone certainly CAN tell Maxime, me or anybody, why he does not feel like there is such unity among religions.

          Peter's comment clearly says he wants to "Warn you (me) about the potential danger".
          This feels to me, arrogant and superior, which the topic, as presented, clearly asks us to leave behind...
          "The goal behind this is to... agree on a term of mutual respect and... sign a contract saying that they agree to consider others beliefs in an equal way and not superior nor inferior to their own beliefs...".

          If you guys want to get into another long discussion about what is, or is not in the bible, so be it. I will bow out gracefully:>)
        • thumb
          Feb 23 2012: Hey Gabo.
          There is a strong movement of religious gathering at the moment. it is loosely called the interfaith movement. There is an interfaith pastor scheduled to speak on the radio this Sunday, can't wait to hear what that's about.
          There is something called the parliament of religions scheduled to meet in Brussels (where else ?) in 2014, so Maxime's vision is well under way.

          I don't see why there wouldn't be a space for guy's like you, you must have beliefs that grow out of experience, & are outside your direct scientific understanding. You & me in the same church; makes you shudder doesn't it.
          You are right though, folks who really take their "Holy Books" seriously will not sign up to such a charter, so I guess we will be back to the lions, burnings, etc again, we never learn. Many church leaders are falling into line already. Having long ago denied the virgin birth, floods, miracles etc.
          Jesus said "By their fruits you will know them". All religions are not the same. We should not pay so much attention to their words, but judge them by their fruits; or actions. I predict that we will have a nice fuzzy "World Church", but the bombings & the loving will go on unabated.

      • Feb 23 2012: Hey Colleen,

        No, I am not about to discuss with Peter what is and what is not in the Bible. I have read it, you have read it, he has read it. If we ignore one part or another we might get different ideas of what's there. But I rather not discuss it because my whole point was about incompatibility between beliefs and the idea of all religions begin equal to the eyes of believers. Most of them are equal to me. But that's another story.

      • Feb 23 2012: Hi Maxime,

        I think you might be missing the point. From Peter's point of view, his religion might all be about love and compassion, but that does not mean that he will accept that all religions are equal. That would be contrary to his beliefs about salvation.

        As of me, it is enough to read the sacred books to find that they are not about every religion is equal, and thus, that despite they might be about love and compassion within, they don't seem to be such without. I don't need to know everything about religions. It is enough to find a few examples to dismantle your statement that all of them are about such things. On the surface most might look as if they are about that. But I look beyond that. I also understand that these times have changed things, and most people are very shallow about their religions. They are quite committed to them and the belief in some god(s). But they have no idea about what's hidden in their sacred books otherwise. Fine if that's how you want to perceive it, but I shared what I know, however little. Nice that religions have been domesticated so that, for example, people with different religions can coexist around me and there is no harm to be expected. But domestication does not mean that the religions are about that to begin with. It means that people and society have evolved beyond the original tribalisms prevalent in their religious texts. A good thing for humanity. But the wrong perception of what religions are about in the first place.

        Best and I say good bye, since I have nothing else to add.
        • thumb
          Feb 24 2012: Religions are always about love and compassion, that is the essence of all religions, the name of the gods might be different, the prophets are different, but their teachings are always the same.

          The point is to make religious leaders acknowledge to an agreement of mutual respect and fraternity, not to bring every single human being, but the religious leaders.

          In my opinion, such an agreement cannot happen if every single human being would be to sign it, but religious leaders, yes. Ask your bishop or priest or imam or rabbi, they will all agree that every human being deserve love and compassion, despite their faith and belief system. That is why the idea i promote in this topic is meant to gather the spiritual leaders or representative of every religions and not the average follower that has his own personal interpretations of the texts, but the religious leaders, because they have a better understanding of their scriptures.
  • thumb
    Feb 19 2012: Howabout a U.N from critical thinking progressives who value reality..

    We spend far too much time already pandering to the needs of people who essentially believe that the disney film they're watching is a documentary.
    • thumb
      Feb 19 2012: I don't see your point there.

      Are you in favor of this ?
    • thumb
      Feb 20 2012: I'm not sure you read the article. He's not saying that there should be an organization of religious leaders trying to figure out what to do and how to make religion better. He's trying to come up with a solution to the problem of disagreement between religious sects by trying to convince religious leaders to be bound to an agreement of mutual respect.

      The point to the UN was peace between nations. His idea is peace between religions. And any idea revolving around peace should be met with the same kind of respect I've seen given on this board in many other topics, rather with militant and insulting wording.
      • thumb
        Feb 21 2012: I wouldn't use the term "to be bound to an agreement" but rather "to agree to an agreement".

        It's not exactly a contract, it's more of a "symbolic agreement" as to promote peace between the different belief systems, there would not be sanctions related to breaking the "acknowledgement" by a religions. So nobody would be bound to anything, because it's not a contract.

        It's basically like recording each signatory telling it's follower to Love and Respect other people like brothers and sisters in humanity despite of their religion or belief system so we can all live together in peace. Whoever is agreeing on this (which i think they all do) would be a signatory on this agreement, but it's not a contract.

        If any one of them decide later to resign on this for whatever reason, they can, there should not be anything imposed to them from the other religions who still remain signatory. But i don't see why anyone of them might resign after having signed, i can easily imagine that some might refuse to sign this but they would become the outcast and it will not help their cause.
  • Feb 19 2012: I in favor of a gathering with all religious leaders of religions, sects, cults... and whatever the name you might have for any belief (minority as well as majority), and ASK ALL OF THEM, TO SIGN A AGREEMENT OF VERIFYING THE CONFORMITY OF ALL THE HOLY BOOKS OF EACH RELIGION (BIBLE, KORAN...) TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ! I´m in favor of that kind of gathering, so that then we can have a mutual respect of each other´s religion!
    • thumb
      Feb 19 2012: This is a good point, however i feel like imposing rules right away is not best approach to take on this matter. This could be considered as a secondary objective.
      • W T

        • +2
        Feb 23 2012: Here are some points to ponder, it is what the Bible teaches:

        “HE WHO does not love does not know God; for God is love,” states the Bible. (1 John 4:8, New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible)

        Good religion, therefore, should promote brotherly love.

        Many religions do an admirable job of caring for the sick, the elderly, and the poor. They encourage their members to apply the counsel of the apostle John, who wrote: “Suppose someone has enough to live and sees a brother or sister in need, but does not help. Then God’s love is not living in that person. My children, we should love people not only with words and talk, but by our actions and true caring.”—1 John 3:17, 18, New Century Version.

        What happens, though, when nations go to war?

        Should God’s command to “love thy neighbour as thyself” be applied in times of peace but be suspended when a politician or a king chooses to fight a neighbor nation?—Matthew 22:39, King James Version.

        Jesus said: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35, New International Version)

        As you answer the following questions, ask yourself, ‘Do the members of any religion I know display love toward all men at all times not only with words but also with actions?’

        The Bible's teaching on WAR: Jesus commanded his disciples: “I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”—Matthew 5:44, NCE.

        When soldiers came to arrest Jesus, the apostle Peter drew a weapon to defend him. However, Jesus said: “Put your sword back in its place. All who use swords will be killed with swords.”—Matthew 26:52, NCV.

        The apostle John wrote: “You can tell God’s children from the devil’s children, because those who belong to the devil refuse to do right or to love each other. From the beginning you were told that we must love each other. Don’t be like Cain, who belonged to the devil and murdered his own brother.”—1 John 3:10-12, Contemporary English Version.

        continued below.................
      • W T

        • +2
        Feb 23 2012: Which religion teaches its members to overcome political, racial, and economic barriers that divide people?

        Jesus was a wonderful spiritual leader. What he did and what he taught was recorded in scripture.

        There are millions on earth today who make a concerted effort to live in harmony with his words.

        Not because they had to be part of some televised event with pomp and circumstance, but because someone lovingly taught them Biblical truths that moved their heart to change and dress with the new personality......the one that allows love to rule their life.....still imperfect, but not willing to do harm to others.

        And, they even make a concerted effort to teach others the way of love and peace.

        What you propose is already being done....You know Maxime, in many of the Bible's accounts of Jesus miracles he "ordered" those around him not to tell anyone what he had done. Jesus was not interested in promoting himself. He came to fulfill prophecy, he taught about the good news of God's kingdom, he showed that he had power from above by his miracles, and even though he caused no harm to anyone, and he preached love, he was put to death like a common criminal.

        Love is a message that incurs hate. Regardless of how much love you preach, there is this aura of hatred in the a veil that covers everything. The scriptures explain what it is.

        Please know that I am so impressed with your idea. It shows the desire in you to see understanding and tolerance in the world.

        It is what I most like about the talks and conversations here on TED. Everyone gets to see other's point of view, and come to an understanding of it, even though they do not agree.

        I already have made a decision to have love for my fellow human. I think many feel the way you and I do.

        I hope I have shed light on what I was trying to tell you earlier. I cannot always get my point across in an effective manner. But I try.

        Peace and love to you. Be Well.
        • thumb
          Feb 23 2012: Dear Mary,

          Nothing wrong with the teachings ascribed to a man called Jesus but Christianity as we know it is something different altogether. It serves many interests and they're not all divine, not now or in the past. About the same can be said about most other religions.

          Love is not to be preached but to be practiced. Lack of it is the core of all human difficulties whether religious or not.
        • thumb
          Feb 23 2012: "Love is a message that incurs hate. Regardless of how much love you preach, there is this aura of hatred in the a veil that covers everything."

          This is exactly what we have to remove, this veil of hatred, and that is what the religious leaders, spiritual leaders are here for.
      • thumb
        Feb 23 2012: I like the idea in that if the religious leaders give the example it will be easy for the masses to follow.
        • W T

          • +1
          Feb 23 2012: Dear Frans,

          Yes, you are correct. This is what I am trying to communicate. Religions follow men. Those of faith follow God....and they practice what they preach.

          I absolutely agree.....Love is to be practiced, not preached. It is no wonder that Jesus himself said at john this all will know you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.

          I guess what I am saying is that I follow Jesus' teachings, and not those of men.

          Even in his day Jesus said at Matthew 7 that religious leaders of that day had made the word of God obsolete because of the traditions of men.

          Over 20 years ago I walked out on the religion I was raised in because of the hypocrisy.

          Today I have faith, it is totally different. And again, I repeat what I have very often said on TED. There is a big big difference between credulity and faith.

          Most that profess a religion have can tell because their actions do not reflect scriptural principles. If they had faith, they would have compassion, and know that godly devotion is a way of life which allows you to put other's interests ahead of your own in many aspects of your life.

          When the religious leaders tell their perishioners that scriptures are man's word, not God's. How could the perishioners possibly reflect love in their life, since the teaching of love your enemies, and treat others as you would like others to treat you are scriptural principles??

          See the dilemna, and the vicious circle? This site is filled with excellent ideas coming from individuals that have not found satisfying answers to life's most complex questions. They see "religious people" being hypocrites, and scoff at religion. All the while, there are many of us people of faith who are attempting to educate those world wide who really want to learn how to put in practice godly principles spelled out in scripture.

          Frans, I admire very much the fact that you see religion for what it is. I do to.

          Thank you for your comment.

          Be Well.
      • W T

        • 0
        Feb 23 2012: @Maxime..."This is exactly what we have to remove, this veil of hatred, and that is what the religious leaders, spiritual leaders are here for."

        In theory yes. In practice, that is not what is happening. Again, because people are following "HUMAN" religious leaders.

        We as humans have to turn to the Creator and look for his elevated standards of human interaction. This is easier said then done. Why, because noone feels that scriptures are worth applying in our day and age. They see it as "old-fashioned"...

        Again, I will tell you Maxime, that there are millions of individuals who at this very moment have found such a fraternal brotherhood like you speak of....people in over 200 lands, united in love, and living their life with godly devotion. It is possible.

        But, considering there are over 7 billion people wordlwide, who like to govern themselves, I seriously doubt that the majority will allow anyone else to dictate who they should and should not love or tolerate, even if it comes from a so called "religious leader", and it is televised and on the front page of all the newspapers.

        I've pretty much said all I can on the subject. I will continue to follow the conversation and see what else I can contribute that is worthy.

        Thank you for replying to all my comments.

        Be Well.
        • thumb
          Feb 24 2012: I not trying to impose rules over anyone, i want to show to everyone who doubt about the possibility of Peace that Peace can be handle, even from the most unexpected, which are for many the spiritual leaders from all the different faith system, because they think they are so different.

          We are being told that the other is not like us, that they are dangerous, that they are threatening us. I want to show the world that it is not true.
      • W T

        • 0
        Feb 24 2012: Maxime, I understand why you want to do it.

        I honestly agree with you, we are told that those different from us are dangerous...because if you divide, you conquer. It happens in business, it happens in families, it happens in an elementary classroom among the children....divide and conquer.

        To bring about Peace, you have to get to the root cause of the hatred.

        This is what is the solution. This is what changed my life. This is what will change the world.

        Have a good weekend Maxime. Please, go back and read carefully what I wrote....with an open mind, and see if you perceive what I am trying to show you.

        Be Well.
        • thumb
          Feb 26 2012: So from your opinion, following "HUMAN" religious leaders would be the root cause of the hatred.

          But to me, it is not this simple. To me, the main cause of hatred is the division which brings assumptions of differences, of wrongness, that is what causes this hatred.

          Religious leaders are not all evil men, most of them are peaceful being only willing to bring peace around them. If the world would see a unity taking place among these particular persons, the assumptions of difference would fall for many people.

          The results would be astonishingly good.
  • thumb
    Feb 26 2012: In John Paul II's book, he stated very clearly the following:
    The Catholic Church recognizes the true and holy aspects in all religions [p. 46]
    Hinduism is another means of taking refuge in God [p. 46]
    Buddhism is a relgion of Salvation [p. 48]
    Islam worships the One True God [p. 52]
    The Holy Spirit is present in every religion [p. 47]
    (See Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, 1994, ISBN: 0-679-76561-1)

    Quote from Maxime 3 Days ago
    "This is exactly what i am talking about when i mentioned that some religions original teachings have been raped by institutional powers, to be used for financial gain and war.
    The catholic church is one of them, it is corrupt, it might be the one religion that would refuse to sign this agreement and would lose a big lot of followers by doing so."

    How do you expect to foster a UN for religions when you have written-off the one religion which appears to have the same vision ?

    • thumb
      Feb 26 2012: To use Pope John Paul II book which states the same thing as i'm trying to promote; against me, in order to discredit my idea is quite pathetic.

      You stated yourself that you were against this idea, that your own religion was against this equality, now you're using the former Pope's book against me.

      As you might know, the current Pope is very different than Pope John Paul II as the current pope was part of the Nazi regime's army during his youth. He sent his corrupted blessings to the war against Terrorism held by the USA and England, this is not the same mind set as the one from Pope John Paul II.

      And as you may forget, John Paul II book is not part of the Catholic Doctrine principles, it is his personal ideas, and like me, he did see good in every religion, he did, not the institutional Catholic church.

      Today, Ben 16 doesn't recognize what John Paul II did.

      But today's affairs have nothing to do with the corruption of the Catholic church, this corruption happened long time ago, when Roman patricians started to practice Catholicism and made reforms as changing the original symbol of Christendom for the Cross, and forcing the priests to chastity vows so they don't have children who inherit their riches and to make the Catholic church a financial Institution, so that they would keep the same control over this religion like they did with their many pagans cults, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, etc. that is when the Catholic church corrupted it's own teachings in building a financial Empire to instill wars over the land, to enrich the Patricians.
      • thumb
        Feb 27 2012: Hi Maxime.
        On a human level, I am very much with you, although to have any hope of success, it would have to include the Roman Catholic church.

        My misgivings stem from the fact that the bible foretells exactly the scenario you have in mind. Preparations are already under way, as I previously alluded to. The result will not be good, especially for dissenters, namely Christians & Jews. So, you see, for me to be enthusiastic about this idea would be a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas. It will happen regardless though.

  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    Feb 24 2012: I think tan good way to bring people together is to make up a top of the best religions on which we all to agree , we think on what criteria to evaluate the religions , we compare them , we try to find out what religons contains the biggest amount of truth ....... in this way maybe we all be less ingnorant about what religons are about , we understand better the others .... I think so the probability to reach an agreement is bigger .
    • thumb
      Feb 24 2012: No this is not a good way at all. That means many religions will be destroyed.

      This topic is not about which religion is right and/or which one is wrong to anyone. It's about gathering all the different faith beliefs etc. altogether to bring Peace, despite their differences.

      Not anything else than that.

      Eduard you are free to make your own topic with your own idea if you want, nobody is stopping from this.

      I want to add something here that i missed to mention, but in my opinion, an invitation will also be sent to an official representative of the evolutionism atheist, which i would consider to be Richard Dawkins, he would receive and invitation also, even tho he is not a "religious" leader, he still bears a belief that he call Evolutionism, Darwinism, i don't know.

      But representative of atheism will also be invited to sign this agreement, so to speak because a part of the population is atheist, so they too must be represent.

      Every faith system, including the "non-religions" would be part of this, not "only" the major religions, all faith, including the non-faith. We are all humans, there is no reason we keep bashing the neighbor for his/her thoughts, whatever they might be.

      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Feb 25 2012: I understand , I didn't mean by what I suggested to label the religions ; but it's not the topic talk about that as you said .
  • Feb 23 2012: there are religions or rather paths wherein on one side the Buddha says... "dont follow this just because i say so, find the truth of ur own life...witness your own life..." n then there are those who have even mandated how n what animal to eat what not,how to beat wife who doesnt agree with you etc.In such diverse band of so called religions there r these clear observations that i see across the world...1)the spread of the religions has been more or less inversely proportional to element of spirituality actually put to practice(i may quote a master"religions are: spirituality gone wrong" 2)ideally all religions should have been "spirituality adapted to the geography",so they would have been absolutely harmonious despite behavioural differences...had this urge to outnumber, outgrow, not been there 3)when that animalistic urge became dominant in religious systems,religions started to go beyond the adapted geography, n hence behavioural conflicts today religions i feel have lost their truth even in behavioural aspect n its core that is universal brotherhood,spirituality,etc had turned virtual way back
    so challenges ahead of such UN of religions 1)Even if we discard "mine is superior" attitude,show mutual respect (that has been theoretically always there so whats new actually?)we will not progress truely untill certain absolute behavioural rubbish r trashed for once n all from all religions 3)atleast for the sake of idealistic guideline the united nation of religions may declare any act of violence or killing for religious propagatory purpose as punishable in its court.4)concrete steps to protect "the minorities" we need to understand,certain paths that remained nearer to the word 'religion'-"reconnect to GOD" never felt the need to propagate, as they practised all inclusiveness 100%, they are on the verge of extinction.we ought to protect them. High time that religions start to reconnect to being human at the least if not reconnect to GOD
    • thumb
      Feb 23 2012: The idea i promote does not include a court for religion neither imposing rules over them.

      It is meant to be a gathering for all the religions representatives to agree on a mutual respect and work together fraternally. The goal of this is to succeed to reduce the amount of fear and hatred that one religion might get from another.

      I feel like imposing rules over is not the right way, even though parts of texts should be remove, it's not by forcing their ways that we will reach a state of world peace, if one religion feel that a passage of their texts is to be removed, it is their own choice, if this event can help bring to this reasoning, good. But i'm not sure that imposing rules will be met with better openness on their part.

      First let's build a Peace treaty, then we'll see what are the outcomes.
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2012: no i was saying i CAN see the good in the idea, but its not realistic and naive to think that just because people sign an agreement to peace all of sudden thats going to be the end of war. its obviously deeper routed than that and more complex, otherwise it would already be in place.

    as for organisations trying to ILLUMINATE the sufferings of people to the rest of the world, erm UNICEF. you misunderstand, they are not imposing rule over religion. but it is an organisation that respects humanitarianism whether they believe in god or not. religion for some powerful people is a pawn in order to give reason to their chaos. of course im not saying religion breeds war, im just saying leaders can use it as a means to their personal ends. if all the religions held hands and promised never to fight, there would emerge another catalyst of war and then you would say why cant all these other people hold hands and agree to disagree. it doesnt work that way, although everyone wishes it would.

    my idea? destroy the banks. get rid of money. make us reliant on each other and our relationships with nations for trade, but not money. but this comes with its own host of problems. war is just one of those things that as terrible as it is, exists. we wont get rid of it. people are fanatical and extreme, religion breeds extremism, but then so does everything. i like your conversation, my opinion is that war is always necessary so that we appreciate peace and strive for it. balance. its disgusting, but life isnt perfect.
    • thumb
      Feb 23 2012: I agree that it won't "all of a sudden" bring an end to war, but i think it could be a good start toward that objective.

      I know that it can't solve everything by itself, it's merely a philosophical truce. My hope is that it helps reduce to amount of fanatical extremism, i know it won't stop "all" of them, nothing really can, but if it can reduce the fear of a foreign threat everywhere, it would be a success, at least for me.

      To get rid of money and banks altogether will be necessary one day but the world in which money is not necessary anymore has not been built yet. We need to build this world first with a monetary system to eventually get rid of it.

      Automation is the key to build this world, not enough people are ready to work without some sort of advantage over others, and this is simply unacceptable, we can't force people to work just so they can eat and have a roof over their head, because that is a form of slavery.

      The best choice is to automate all the system so nobody "has" to work but can still live in abundance. If we can't agree to build this world then there will always be lack of abundance somewhere and a surplus of abundance somewhere else and nothing will be done to change this situation.

      But this project can only see the day after an agreement to world peace between nations. Because such a project will require acknowledgement from everyone, without exception. And that is way harder to do than the idea from the topic. It would require a big lot of support and effort from the people of the different nations to be applied, which is very unlikely in the current state of mind where nations are so much divided.

      We need another state of mind in order to build this world, which is what i'm trying to figure out.
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2012: Why must it have anything to do with religion. You mentioned fraternity. why must religion come into it? I think agreements on a global scale between nations now respect the rights of every man, woman and child. humanity. there already exist so many organisations that try to illuminate the sufferings caused by religious differences or political oppression, and seek to end them. Those that dont respect humanity are seen as malevolent.

    By highlighting the need for certain religious organisations to have to come to some agreement on respect just proves the close-mindedness of organised religion. organisations that do not show respect to humanity in all it forms should not be invited to sign agreements, but condemned. this is the way it would be for anything else. Its got nothing to do with believing in god or not. being a 'spiritual' leader does not make you closer to god, but it gives you power. I dont think these are powers that leaders are willing to sign away in the name of peace. Gaza anyone?

    Not that i wouldnt like all the leaders to shake hands and call it all off, but i think it only scratches at the surface. It might be a symbol to the world, but it would not solve the inherent problems. it would only take a stupid act of killing to make the treaty/agreement null and void. and that stupid act would probably have been thought up by the most powerful leaders as a way to get a war back on the cards, how else will they make money?
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2012: I think religion is an important part of cultural richness. You mentioned that many organizations are trying to "eliminate"(illuminate) the sufferings caused by religions differences or political oppression, and seek to end them.

      Can you name a few ? Because i'm not aware of such organizations, i would like to know in which way are they trying to impose their rule over these religions outside of political wars.

      We can't stop wars with more wars, the only way out of this mess is Peace. I think religions are a particular part of cultural differences that would all agree to build peace between the people, religions usually go beyond nations borders, it's a basis to every culture, if we make the religions agree to promote peace between people, it cannot do harm.

      If you can't see the good out of this idea, what is your idea ?
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2012: People imitating successful organizations (such as Church) will invariably create similar orgs.
    Ie. Why not just join us in Church??

    Ah, a Believer! you say.

    Not everyone gets Church. Not everyone needs it.
    Not everyone got school either. I guess what I'm trying to say is: there's no instant-pudding!!
  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    Feb 22 2012: We don't have consensus within any fields of human activity and lesser than everywhere in religion , something general we can do but I don't know of how much use it will be .

    However, I think I'm in favor of a rational determined movement for an agreement between the religious leaders .
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2012: To me, it would lessen the hatred and intolerance between different belief systems, just by having an official agreement between the official representatives of each religions and belief systems.

      It's no wonder that so many are doubting the success or fail to see the possible benefit outcomes from such an agreement, we live in this kind of world, or should i say, we're being told we're living in this kind of world. So doubt is "incorporated" into our minds from our youth. Nothing is possible and nothing is good, until we see that it's good, therefore we are told not to try anything, because it "could" fail.

      but i'm opposing this kind of mind set, i think it's not healthy, that it's like a poison, this is my idea on this omnipresent negativity, such mind set is not present in every culture, we must use their untouched peace and let ourselves be touched by it, so we see it's good and that what we're being told was nothing but lies.

      Then a new era may finally rise, this is the dream i wish to see.

      Think about it, we're being told that out of every human organization, the religious are the less able to make peace with each other and live together in fraternity and love, i believe it's the easiest lie that can be broken and it can be one awakening for many people living in fear. If we can make all the spiritual leaders to agree to build a peaceful mind set of Love and mutual respect and peace.

      From this point we'll say "if they can do it, everyone can".

      No wars would ever make sense anymore, the house of cards of lies and manipulation will finally be blown away peacefully, the financial empires of wars will collapse on their own for good. Not instantly, but gradually.
  • thumb
    Feb 20 2012: I'm not sure this is a feasible idea. National identity isn't as stubbornly rooted as spiritual identity, and the UN has only achieved so much success in establishing global peace and respect between nations. Why would religious leaders bind themselves to a contract when their central contract is whatever religious scripture they believe? Why would any religious person respect a politically drawn contract over their perceived contract with God?

    I'm all for global religious peace. But I believe there is more validity in ideas which diminish religious authority than those which enhance/compliment religious authority. If we were able to launch a global initiative to deconstruct 'organized religion' and leave faith to personal interpretation, I feel like the world would be better off. Religion is about ones personal relationship with God, not ones personal relationship with ones church's relationship with God.
    • thumb
      Feb 21 2012: However, if we don't try anything, nothing will be done.

      Your idea of religions is your own, but i doubt that launching a deconstruction campaign over "organized religion" would be taken lightly, i consider this option as "WAY" more threatening to a world peace possibility than a building campaign for respect and fraternity.

      In my opinion, if the followers see their spiritual leader acknowledge to a mutual respect with other religions and people, then they will follow their leader in this idea; but if we break the "organized religions" some people might become very much more fanatics and be ready to do much more violence towards other religions and people.

      The whole idea is not to give them political power over anything, but to officially promote an idea of fraternity and cooperation between the different religious beliefs system. I believe that every single one of them has the exact same message of love and compassion, but that message has been raped in the majority of these religions, only the leaders of those religions know the true basis of their teachings and i'm sure they will be glad to show their Love to the whole world.

      What better way than to sign a "symbolic" agreement to official their message, most religions are being used by political power to spread war and mostly to justify wars. This madness has to cease, and the religious leaders are wise enough to do the first move toward global peace, they all preach it.

      A religious leader preaching war over the "enemy" is merely a puppet of the political power they serve, if they serve God then they must serve peace. An event like the one i would like to see would bring a good lot of weight in the Balance for Peace, the religions that would not sign an agreement of peace and mutual respect, would inherently bring the shame upon themselves and their house of cards would collapse on it's own.
      • W T

        • 0
        Feb 21 2012: "...if the followers see their spiritual leader acknowledge to a mutual respect with other religions and people, then they will follow their leader in this idea"

        Are you saying that all people of faith follow their religion's human leader? All faiths??

        "...if they serve God then they must serve peace". Well, this has never happened, has it?? Or do you know exceptions?
        • thumb
          Feb 22 2012: Not all people or all faith, but many.

          I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say Mary.

          It looks like you are saying that religious leaders never serve peace. Is it right ?

          As i am not omniscient, i can't say that they always served peace, neither that they always served hatred, but i think they are suppose to represent peace.

          I think that today we are ready for such a move, i can't speak for every single human being, i can only speak for me. I think the technology that we have today especially in the sector of communications, allows us to do things we could never have done before.

          In parallel to this i think there are things that can no longer be done without notice and "this" is a good thing because it allows us to move forward.

          The religious leaders are merely symbolic icons of philosophical power, none of them has real power anymore, otherwise it would make scandal for sure. I mean they can't promote war without being regarded as monsters, and that's a good thing.

          Now why would we want to make them agree on a religious peace on global scale, well, because we can, today, it is possible to do this and broadcast this event everywhere.

          I believe we need to see some unusual positiveness giving a little hope for the future. I think we need that.
  • W T

    • 0
    Feb 20 2012: I kept a copy of the following from a magazine:

    "ASSISI, ITALY, January 24, 2002—Representatives of the world’s organized religions were gathered to pray for peace, a peace threatened by terrorism, intolerance, and injustice. The meeting was announced by the pope some two months after the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York City. Many religious leaders accepted the Vatican’s invitation with enthusiasm.

    On two earlier occasions—once in 1986 and again in 1993—the pope had called for a day of prayer in that same Italian town. More than a thousand journalists from all over the world came to monitor the 2002 meeting. Many religions were represented in prayers for peace—those of Christendom (Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, Methodists, Baptists, etc)), Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Jainism, Tenrikyo, Buddhism, Judaism, traditional African religions, Shinto, and Zoroastrianism. Delegations from other religions, as well as a representative of the World Council of Churches, were also present.

    —A dozen delegates, each in distinctive religious garb, made solemn declarations in favor of peace. The following are some examples.

    “In this historical moment humanity needs to see gestures of peace and to hear words of hope.”—Cardinal François Xavier Nguyên Van Thuân.

    God “is not a God of war and conflict but a God of peace.”—Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeus I.

    “Religious differences should not lead [people] to ignore, or even hate, those who are different.”—Dr. Setri Nyomi, World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

    “Justice and fraternal love are the two indispensable pillars of true peace among people.”—Chief Amadou Gasseto, rep. of traditional African religions.

    Some delegates acknowledged that religions bear a serious responsibility for fomenting intolerance and war."

    Now, why has God not answered the prayers for peace uttered by the leaders of the world’s various religions??

    While your idea has merit, it might be difficult to implement...We'll see
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2012: But this proves that the representatives of the world's organized religions are indeed, all brothers of one great family.

      I know that the representatives of religions are peaceful and know that we must respect and fraternally love every human being, despite their differences of faith. They know that, but a lot of people don't that, maybe they would understand by an official public agreement.

      I'm not sure how many people have been aware of this event, but there should have been more coverage of this event by the media, every time an event like this occur, the whole world should know, that would reduce tensions for many.

      But that is a good thing to know that these meeting are occurring.

      Now i can't speak for any God(s) what i know is that we must take care of ourselves, not ask for divine interventions whenever we want. We are living altogether and we must take our responsibilities and not destroy our lives for whatever reason.

      I think we must take care of each other, now. I think it is a pressing matter, we must not fall into the madness of fear of the unknown to the point of non return. We can grow up and leave the childish fights behind, only when we all agree to live altogether in peace.

      I think each one of us wants that, but we're stopped by the thought that "someone somewhere does not want that", i think everyone has this reasoning and therefore fall into the fear that a threat is there and we need to protect ourselves. It is the same reasoning that affects everyone and plays against the whole.

      We need to break that reasoning in order to elevate ourselves to an higher level, i think the religions are symbolic enough to start doing that and i believe they can.
  • Feb 20 2012: No religion can keep you from dropping dead and almost every religion promisses eternal awakening in an altered realm many religions were establised to affect the purple and green shakra points of the human body religious leaders selling point is unity and respect but live off division amoung the human race that is fact we are capable of far to much animosoty cleverness and ignorance to truly abide by any thing whether treaty or unity forced to exsist by the law of birth and sold to the buisness of death Google Deadpoolmak90s
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2012: "religious leaders selling point is unity and respect"

      this is what i'd like the world to see.
  • Feb 19 2012: Veto,
    Attempts to force religions to get along better are likely to cause even more friction. Separation instead of unity may also cause new, just as bad conflicts.
    • thumb
      Feb 19 2012: Imposing or forcing them is not the way around, it's not the way i have in mind. They would receive invitations to this conference, this invitation would explain in detailed the subject of this meeting, explaining the goal and the possible outcomes.

      In no way would they be forced to present themselves there nor send a representative, they would be invite to do so, the invitation would also include the list of all the beliefs system to which the same invitation was sent.

      The goal is to build a solid base from which global peace can be accomplished, starting with the religious leaders or an official representative.

      They would choose to send a representative or not, i think most of them would agree to sign this agreement and many would be pleased to do so, a few might not send a representative which would be considered a refusal to sign the agreement and therefore would probably cause a separation.

      But those who will sign couldn't be considered a threat anymore, even by those who refuse to sign this agreement. The only threat could come from those who refuse to sign it, the goal is to make them all sign this agreement.

      To oppose an attempt to build peace from an argument that say "it could not work out therefore we must not try it because it could keep things as they are" is invalid to me.

      Daniel if you have a solution in mind, i would like to know. Otherwise, rethink and try to give peace a little more credit.
      • Feb 21 2012: The same way UN soldiers have been using rape against civilians, a "UN of Religions" could give birth to other types of monstrosities. If peace is the goal then all the focus, attention and energy should be directed to undermining conflicts instead of creating new tools of authority and new arenas in which they can thrive.

        If you still think your idea is solid, then I'd like to see something to back up that idea, that UN has created a more peaceful world.
        • thumb
          Feb 21 2012: Forget the UN it's not about the UN at all.

          The "UN like" term is used to define this conference, nothing else.

          The goal has never been to make a united religious power. It's only a symbolic way to show publicly that the world's religions leaders can agree on a mind set of fraternity. In other words, that they oppose altogether the acts of war against each other and that they can respect each other difference in faith.

          Forget the "U.N." term, if you like, call it something else, i don't know if it can help you understand the idea.

          It's funny to see that you seem to force the idea into something it is not only because i used the term "UN". I used the term "UN like" because it's a gathering of different faiths, "like" the real "U.N." is to gather different nations leaders. No further similitude then that.
      • Feb 24 2012: No, see the idea builds on a few structural points that still would be shared with UN, that I strongly disagree with.

        First, the religious representatives will be assumed to have huge power, a thought that may be realized via this.
        Second, if any non-religious person attempts to force this the situation can quickly turn awkward as people who do not have religious beliefs and values are attempting to impose something on religious people. This is according to me a big risk that doesn't justify the goal.
        Third, it will split religions between "Fraternity religion" and "Non-fraternity religion" if no force is applied, creating a separation that may be hard to heal and regenerate if implemented, and if we use force we can potentially feed ideas that we are trying to destroy.
        • thumb
          Feb 24 2012: Either you are not reading my respond or you don't want to understand the meaning of it.

          What makes you believe the representatives will be assumed to have huge power ?
          What power is it ?

          I thought i was clear when i said that i'm not trying to impose or force anything to anyone, but you obviously missed that point.

          The separation that you are speaking of, will happen only on one side of this and that is from the side of what you call the "non-fraternity religions" because the religious leaders who choose to respect the others won't do harms that is the "main" point of this.

          You're assuming so much that force is to be used, that i wonder if you actually read the first respond i gave you. Maybe you have no idea what Peace means after all, that is sad.
      • Feb 25 2012: "What makes you believe the representatives will be assumed to have huge power ?
        What power is it ?"
        Like the Pope has huge power, making someone a representative for a branch of religion will make that person in a position of power. Now, do we want to create "more popes", or simply let them fade out with time so that we more easily can reach out to the people under them?

        "I thought i was clear when i said that i'm not trying to impose or force anything to anyone, but you obviously missed that point."
        Yes, but even the slightest initiative is forceful. If we are to truly make peace, we need to spread harmony and a sense of freedom, not binding contracts and peer pressure.

        If you want to get close to a wild squirrel you may try to feed it closer and closer to you in a successive way until it eventually may trust you enough for you to even touch it. That is fine, but in this scenario it will be like attempting to get two squirrels to get along, a process that we will have to force upon the squirrels.

        "The separation that you are speaking of, will happen only on one side of this and that is from the side of what you call the "non-fraternity religions" because the religious leaders who choose to respect the others won't do harms that is the "main" point of this."
        Do you really think so? Is that why USA is "spreading democracy and human rights" in the middle east? Giving people who naturally have a tendency to believe in dogmatic ideas a position in which then can condemn others is a very bad idea.

        "You're assuming so much that force is to be used, that i wonder if you actually read the first respond i gave you. Maybe you have no idea what Peace means after all, that is sad."
        Force would be the only way to include everyone. For the reason stated above I do not believe that your idea when not enforcing it will be something positive. Conflicts happens, that's a fact, so from my point of view the only way to deal with it is to turn the other cheek and let them fade away
        • thumb
          Feb 26 2012: Ok i heared your opinion and i disagree with it.

          You want thing to solved themselves on their own, that is not what i intend to do, i know which direction the world has taken, i am trying to change this direction.

          Stay in your comfort zone if you please, and one day these "facts" will knock on your door by themselves.

          If you can't give peace a chance, you can leave this conversation to those who do. The goal, once again, is not to force anyone to sign a contract, but they will sign it even though they don't have to, they will for the symbolic gesture of it, to official their standing towards other people.

          This topic has nothing to do with the USA or the UN, i chose the term UN to represent the idea in a term everyone could understand, but i realized it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.

          My idea is to bring all the religious leader and/or representative to agree to a mutual respect and mindset of fraternity toward the whole humanity. Nothing in this includes giving them power of some sort, or organizing a Unity of Religions that would resembles to the UN, no, it's all about mutual respect and fraternity, to give them the chance to agree on this altogether, to make this event, an official mainstream media broadcasting priority, this event is a "one time event".

          Now if you can't understand that last sentence, go back to school and learn english or use another translating software Daniel.

          I'm tired of your constant non understanding.
          I will not respond back to you. So try to make an effort and understand the idea as it is this time, not as your own interpretation of what it seems to be.
  • thumb
    Feb 19 2012: Great idea... Probably won't happen. Religious institutions are too powerful now... And, power corrupts.