And Who is My Neighbor?

I think in answer to your basic question "who is my neighbor", the person or person we are relating to at any one time. Being genuine in personal and social relationships is a necessary part of social integrity. Unfortunately in the world today we are facing more and more people who are manipulative and controlling and these people do not relate in any genuine fashion. They are anti-social and threaten community all over the world, in every country. Many of them can also be found in religious organizations, appearing as devoute when their real aim is to make the different religions appear to be at fault. All religions fundamentally teach love and compassion and respect for others. We need to be able to identify those individuals within the various religions who distort the truth and look to use such distortion to cause disharmony and suffering in others. They have no place in any religious organization. It is for members of each religious group to be vigilant, to see beyond the false face that they present and to disallow these people to be spokespeople at the very least, because as spokespeople they influence others adversely. Really these people have no place within any religious group.

I agree with your perspective, except for its reference to Buddhism. Among other measures against the absurdity of war, most contemporary Buddhists advocate the total and effective abolition of nuclear weapons as a threat to all humans. But in what Shakyamuni predicted as the Latter Day of the Law—a time of widespread materialism, dehumanization, hatred and conflict—nations must be prepared to defend themselves. First, by words instead of weapons, but if wisdom and dialog fail, with force by default. Like you say, the best strategy to avoid and overcome external attack is to promote domestic peace and harmony, so that all citizens are ready to stand together. History has shown what Amilcar Cabral taught: “Um povo unido jamais será vencido.” When driven by compassionate spirituality and respectful unity, even as small a force as a single leader can overcome a great enemy driven by hateful and exclusionary ideals.

Well, I observe that the 'Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' is inadequately-respectful of others.

Too many believe 'If I were unfortunate enough not to agree with me, I'd want someone to come along and force me to comply.'

Much Dark Ages ensues.

Not good enough.

How bout respecting how *others* want to be treated?

Chappell:

When I began reading your response I felt complete agreement. I thought, "(s)he's right, 'tolerance' just isn't strong enough, as it suggests merely putting up with someone else's beliefs. 'Respect' is a better reflection of the level of mutual acceptance that would help the world to overcome its religious divisions." Boy, was I duped by my own understanding of the English language. The idea that "injustice" can grow out of respect or tolerance is such a warped, twisted view of what Jesus taught. Regarding "do unto others..." you conveniently left out the "as you would have them do unto you" part. The history of human interaction guided by the goal of "exposing and enforcing" the word of an absolutist god has led only to mistrust, disrespect, and unnecessary subjugation and bloodshed.

I actually think that may have been one of the more important moments in my life...

Cause I'll tell you, it was that time in history, and I was *scared* of the Russians. Scrawny Irish chick seeing who was to be my dear friend being smacked around by kids that may as well have been the Pittsburgh Steelers for all it mattered...

I don't know just what I said, but I toed a line in the loose sand of some blacktop, and I don't think I knew what I was about until the moment I realized I was doing it.

It said, 'America starts here. Right now.'

Forget about what's 'never been tried.'

We're still supposed to be trying *that,* and if that ain't good enough for any view of supernatural beings, well, they can stuff it.

Let's not give up on this.

Cause, you know, my best friend in young life, and surrogate family as a runaway were Russian Jews who escaped Soviet Russia without much of anything, and you know what?

They used to say the 'Never been tried' thing about Communism.

How bout we ease up on the theocracy?

"There is an old comment: The trouble with Christianity is not that it has been tried and failed, but that it has never been tried at all."

If that's so, figure you guys could let the world have America a while longer?

I think what religions need to teach is not "tolerance" but acceptance. We need to accept that others believe differently and accept that they have a right to do so. Tolerance implies that one is putting up with something which somehow is not right or is, perhaps, inferior.

The Amish and Mennonites have discovered that apartness in modern society is a delicate thing. The days when isolation from the world was possible are long-since past. At best, one can minimize the influence of worldly things. Moreover, the world sometimes intrudes in ugly ways. 18,000 conscientious objectors were jailed in Canada and the USA during World War I and more (mostly Jehovah's Witnesses) were jailed in World War II. The alternative service offered in WW II included, for some, service as guinea pigs in the American biological warfare program. Others found themselves beaten or stabbed for their non-violent stance.

Unless adherents to the world's largest religious groups learn and practice acceptance, those of us who belong to smaller groups will continue to suffer.

Tolerance is a big part of what's wrong with society. There is a fine line between respect and tolerance and I believe what you are describing is a need for respect among religions. To respect without judging is a principal that dates back to creation. Tolerance however means accepting "the other" while sacrificing our own beliefs. There are in fact tons of great principals established by a vast majority of religions, but to tolerate the belief that there are other "means" of getting to heaven, besides belief in the one true God of the universe and accepting His Son Jesus, is an injustice to "the other". If we tolerate existing religions that are contrary to the word of God, we are infact guilty of injustice and perhaps even heracy. As Christians, we are commanded to "do unto others...", to love as Jesus loved. And in order to "practice what we preach", we must love "the other" while exposing and enforcing the word of God.

This was a thoughtful and civil message; however, I do not agree that the world needs more religions. In fact, I think a number of the ones we now have should go away (I get to pick which ones of cours).

Most people seem to need a religion, and some of our current religions have probably done more good than harm in this world, but adding a few new religions to the hundreds (thousands) already existing will not result in more love, compassion, forgiveness, and tolerance.

There is an old comment: The trouble with Christianity is not that it has been tried and failed, but that it has never been tried at all.

Maybe this is a part of what is wrong with most "major religious traditions".

Aww... No talk?

How bout a pop song from the 80s, righteous people?

"Ive been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that youve seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

And theres a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs

On the radio talk shows and the t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the u.s.a. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally cant take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

Theres a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we cant even say the names

They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But theyre never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire"

--Jackson Browne.

So, hey, how you been doing there, Christians?

Just askin and stuff. Seems they're trying to scare you up for another one or two.

Wow, I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying there should be *more* religions. :)

Hey, these things take time. :) We're working on it. :)

I do think it's a great promise of pluralistic society, ....that there really is a strength in diversity, one which we often don't bring to bear on the world's problems because of major religions believing they are threatened by it.

Too often we see in history a pattern where powerful groups develop a narrative where anyone different is some kind of threat, ...the aggressor, and thus need to be suppressed.

We see it when fundamentalists claim to be 'persecuted' by minorities when they don't get exclusive access to government and public institutions and even a voice in the media... when it's treated as 'defending' something to persecute others, or try and extinguish tribal religions and others in the name of 'saving' people...

I certainly think that in a civil and secular society, religions don't have to have this posture toward each other, and to some extent we're having so many of these debates *because* we've had one and certain worldviews *don't like* the tolerance that comes about.

There's a richness to American cultural life that too often goes unappreciated... and as the world becomes more connected, perhaps it will be more global if we all let it.

I think one of the saddest things I hear sometimes is the rate of extinction of languages: with them, perhaps, as many ways of seeing the world.

Absolutist religious ideologies seem to be insisting upon a big collision of cultures, ...maybe there's something that could be done by a coalition of everyone else.

At the very least we could be keeping each other honest.