Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uicsl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!gmk From: gmk@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: A Good Example of Religious Toleranc Message-ID: <26400002@uicsl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Nov-84 21:45:00 EST Article-I.D.: uicsl.26400002 Posted: Sat Nov 10 21:45:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Nov-84 04:04:19 EST References: <732@ihuxj.UUCP> Lines: 102 Nf-ID: #R:ihuxj:-73200:uicsl:26400002:000:5252 Nf-From: uicsl!gmk Nov 10 20:45:00 1984 In reponse to a letter from Steve Aldrich, I sent him a long note clarifying my "missionary mentality" comments. Since the letter turned out to be a better exposition of my thoughts on the subject than my original comments, I thought I would post it to the net. ********************************************************************* Dear Steve, Thanks for your reply to my response. I didn't miss the point of your posting. Rather, I found it ironic that an article intended to call for religious unity by demonstrating the mutual respect and admiration(?) of the Pope and Vasana-Tera for each other and their religious beliefs failed to achieve its goal by inadvertently revealing the Pope's (true) condescending attitude toward other religions. (A free users guide to the previous sentence is available upon request. :-) ) It's apparent from the Pope's remarks that he does not view Buddhism as a valid path, but merely a stepping stone to Christianity. He was simply being diplomatic in his encounter with Vasana-Tera. One cannot reasonably expect the leader of a religion (who claims spiritual infallibility) to acknowledge that a "competing" faith has any shred of validity whatsoever. Notice that John Paul said he rejected nothing in Buddhism that is "true" and "holy". In other words, any aspects of Buddhism that happen (by sheer coincidence) to agree with Catholicism are OK. Everything else is heresy. I'm sorry if I sound overly cynical or bitter. I was raised a Catholic (10 yrs. in parochial schools!) but rejected Catholicism and Christianity a long time ago. I still harbor deep suspicions of the Church and organized religion, in general. It seems that most people (including the most devout) inherit their faith from their parents and are perfectly willing to accept it without question. They insist that their religion is the "right" one, since they were lucky enough to have been born into it. Never mind that they have never investigated alternative religions. Why should they? They've already found "truth". This arrogance is not limited to religion: How many parents will let their schools teach courses on Marxism, for example? Mustn't poison our minds with "furren" thoughts. It's easier to hate it when you don't know anything about it. The old adage that religion and politics should never be discussed among friends sadly appears to be true. The nature of religion and the manner in which it is taught (indoctrination from an early age) tends to make people inherently intolerant of others' beliefs. We're talking about people's most deeply held beliefs, here, any challenge to which is seen not only as an attack on their faith and world view but as a personal insult. This is the main problem with net.religion. The second problem is the strong Christian bias of all the traffic in this news group. This is a product of the dominance of Christianity in our society and the afore-mentioned religious arrogance. Even the atheists/agnostics/humanists concentrate their fire power on the Christians, rather than on religion in general. With a few exceptions, any attempts to inject some diversity into the discussion are quickly shouted down as "proselytizing". I fail to see how fundamentalist Christians can submit Bible quotes of copyright-violating length without receiving any complaints, whereas an informative article about a little known path is the object of intense verbal abuse. Perhaps the atheists believe that Christianity is the only path in contention for validity, and therefore the only one worth disputing. Having said all of that, Steve, I'll agree with you that there is a common thread running through most of the world's major religions in spite of their extremely diverse beliefs, teachings, and superficialities. In fact, I am currently struggling along a path that teaches that all religions are derived from a common, divine source. Through the ages small aspects of the teachings have been selected by prophets and tailored to the culture and understanding of the people of that time and place. Religion is the result of the institutionalization of these teachings by ambitious disciples of the prophets. Although I believe that ECKANKAR (see the article by Grant Rostig a couple of months ago) is the one true path, ECKANKAR teaches that all paths (or religions) are valid, except that some may be slower than others. Since reincarnation is a fundamental principle of ECKANKAR, this is no problem. Some religions may increase your spiritual unfoldment and prepare you for accelerated development in a later life. Obviously, the direct practice of ECKANKAR is the ultimate spiritual "short-cut", provided one is ready for it. Well, this letter is too long already. The bottom line is that I agree with you--and I don't. I believe in religious unity--at a fundamental level, at least--but I think that the LA Times article confirms my observation of the religious arrogance, condescension, and intolerance extant in the world. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Koob ...!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsg!gmk "The preacher trained in all to lose his name, The teacher travels asking to be shown the same." - Jon Anderson