Announcing The World Congress of Religions 2012, an International Interfaith Conference

[cbayer]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/08/4891750/announcing-the-world-congress.html

By World Congress of Religions 2012
Published: Monday, Oct. 8, 2012 - 7:31 am

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Institute of World Religions of the Washington Kali Temple, Burtonsville, MD and The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, announced the holding of World Conference of Religions 2012 in Washington, DC from 30 November 2012 to 2 December 2012.

Dr. Pradip Ghosh, an eminent educator, Philanthropist, and co-convener of the conference, announced that the event was being held to celebrate the 150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda, a great Hindu reformer of 19th century India.

-snip-

Jeffery D. Long Professor of Religion and Asian Studies at Elizabethtown College and speaker at the World Congress said, "It is an equal responsibility of all religions to promote the well-being of humanity. All faiths share humanity like they share the planet and must work together to eliminate the ills plaguing it. This conference is aimed at promoting this theme."

-snip-

The World Congress of Religions 2012 will explore the relevance of religion and spirituality in addressing the critical issues of poverty, the empowerment of women, human rights and peacemaking. The event is inspired by the message of the religious and social visionary, Swami Vivekananda, on the 150th anniversary of his birth.

more at link

[Thats my opinion]

1. This afternoon at our local seminary,

which trains clergy for Christian Jewish and Muslim traditions, there is a preliminary symposium on world religions as we look forward to the next Parliament of World Religions. Those religious persons who claim that only their groups holds the truth, are unsettled at the growing interfaith conversations. However, increasing numbers of religious persons are learning from each other. It is a remarkable development.

[trotsky]

2. Are non-believers part of this dialog?

Or are we shut out?

[Thats my opinion]

3. Hold on. In a day or so I want to deal with the quesion you raised. nt

[Thats my opinion]

4. Yesterday's interfaith dialogue was informative.

The following traditions were part of a three day conversation.
Bah'i
Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Jain
Native American
Hindu
Sikh
and others.. Most of the panelists were world-known senior academics at universities and theological seminaries and schools.
The question arose as to the inclusion of other important traditions, namely:
"spiritual but not religious" Humanists, Agnostics and Atheists.

It was agreed that traditional religion did not have a corner on the important concerns, and that it would be important to include these non-theistic traditions in future conversations.

As in all serious interdisciplinary discussions, there are recognized rules for dialogue:

No one assume that they are right and that others are wrong, but rather all listen appreciatively to learn from whomever speaks.
No one refers to any other as stupid, superstitious or ill-informed. The purpose of all questions is to learn and to clarify the perspective of one another.
The purpose is not to see who wins, but to share insights.

Here is the way it is also commonly understood:
The purpose of dialogue is to understand and learn from one another. You cannot “win” a dialogue
All dialogue participants speak for themselves, not as representatives of groups or special interests
Treat everyone in a dialogue as an equal: leave role, status and stereotypes at the door
Be open and listen to others even when you disagree; try not to rush to judgment
Search for assumptions (especially your own)
Look for common ground
Keep dialogue and decision-making separate (dialogue comes first)

There are obviously religious advocates who do not wish to meet these standards. Fundamentalists of any tradition are not to be included, neither would be those of the new perspectives listed above who are not willing to abide by the agreed-upon format.

I trust this report responds to your question.

[trotsky]

6. So the answer my question is no. Non-believers were not included in this dialogue.

Though there is the possibility they may be in the future, so long as they are "spiritual but not religious."

I don't consider myself spiritual or religious. There are lots of non-believers like me. Will we be included at some point too, or are our voices irrelevant?

Thank you for posting those line items - and I look forward to you honoring them. At many times in the past you've been guilty of pretending to speak for groups of believers, including at one point the religious participants of the Occupy Wall Street movement. You are also on record stating that atheists can only be ethical within a society that has a religious ethical foundation, which violates a number of those items.

I will also be anxious to see if your established pattern of starting a thread bragging about something a religious group took part in, then demanding to know what non-believers are doing to match those efforts, ceases.

Good luck. I hope you folks decide to let people like me join your dialogue someday.

[Thats my opinion]

7. I have learned another lesson again

Never to respond to you.
I wish you could read. My post includes in the groups to be invited agnostics and atheists.
There are many, some even in "Religion" who would be welcome.
Folks like you would never be welcomed at any rational conversation.Bye again. Don't bother to respond. I'll never see it. Get a life

[MineralMan]

8. "Folks like you..."

Nice. I'm a "folks like him..." I'm an atheist. Actually, no atheists or agnostics were invited. That is a fact. Will they be invited in the future? We shall see.

Those of us without any religious beliefs are ignored by those who have such beliefs. That is a mistake.

It's probably good that you will be ignoring someone. Nice of you to call him names as you do, too. I'm sure the poster reads just fine, as do I. I can read what you wrote without any problem. It's not a pretty thing to read, frankly.

You're welcome to write us off, but it's really not a good idea.

[Thats my opinion]

11. The symposium to which I referred was part of the "Parliament of World Religions."

This not an open group, but world scholars and leaders of religion who talk together about how to understand each other, and who listen appreciatively to each other. Part of their recent symposium suggested that "spiritual but not religious" agnostics and atheists be invited to join the conversation, because the rest of the group might listen and learn. IT WAS AN IMPORTANT STEP TAKEN BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THERE ARE NON-RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS ON MEANING THAT NON-THEISTS HAVE AND WHICH THEISTS OF ALL SORTS NEED TO HEAR. It was and is a bold move--as bold as if atheists would invite theists in because they thought theists had something atheists needed to hear.

I mentioned it to T under the false impression he might be interested. My invitation was in response to his asking about it. Read his reply as if you were me. What I got back was another diatribe in which he didn't accurately read what I had offered and accused me of saying things I never said. It is about the 300th attack I have gotten from him and one of his friends--neither of whom will appear on my screen ever again. There are plenty of people in "religion" who do not agree with me but who are willing to state their positions without ranker and with whom there is the possibility of mutual growth. He has demonstrated again that he is not interested in anything of that sort. There is too much serious conversation of importance to bother with the sort of sarcastic and demeaning stuff he has continued of spout.

"Religion" can be an open communication for those seriously interested in offering information and receiving information about important issues. T apparently is not such a person, and will never be welcomed anywhere in a serious dialogue with people searching for fresh insights and listening to each other.

You are not ignored because you are an atheist. We hear from lots of serious atheists. We need to hear from you if you are willing to take on the rules for all rational conversations.. But we do not and will not listen to a continual sarcastic spurning of all things religious. That is not dialogue.

[trotsky]

12. If you truly had me on ignore, you wouldn't see this subthread anymore.

There's something very important that YOU NEED TO HEAR, that you have ignored from your very first posts on DU. Your belief that atheists can't be ethical without a religious ethical foundation (either in themselves or in the society in which they live) is BIGOTED. Instead of addressing this problem, you lash out and attack those who are trying to point it out to you.

You say you want an open dialog, to understand and learn from each other, but your actions indicate otherwise. No one can take you seriously, Charles. It is not dialog to hear you berate and insult the non-believing community.

[Thats my opinion]

13. Correct, I do not put anyone on ignore, not even you.

I just never respond. I manage to totally ignore without using any machine to do it.
Once and for all: I never said and do not believe that atheists cannot be ethical without a religious foundation. You cannot read my postings in this thread or elsewhere and come to any other conclusion, unless your prejudices just have gotten in the way of our capacity to read.

[trotsky]

14. Here are YOUR EXACT WORDS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121849438#post117

In those cultures with solid ethical norms growing from a religion basis, others, who are not part of the religion, often are attracted by the non-violent posture and adopt that ethic while not adopting the religion. So the religion has an impact far beyond its own borders. Nevertheless both among the religious and non-religious, without some institutionalized ethical system it is easy to turn to violence, revenge, conquest and all the rest. Where else do to these noble norms come from? Certainly not from human nature.

That, coupled with your old and infamous quote that "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith," makes your feelings on this subject CRYSTAL CLEAR.

You don't think atheists can be ethical without a religious ethical foundation, either in themselves or in the society they live in. You have cemented your commitment to this belief time and again. I remember one of your posts when you got back from your trip - you made a comment about the peaceful and progressive yet highly atheistic Scandinavian societies having been based on their old religious structures.

That you can sit here now and deny you've said any of this just boggles my mind. They're your words. You own them. I've given you multiple opportunities to apologize and retract, but you've just thrown insults my way every time.

[cleanhippie]

9. "Folks like you" Wow. Just wow. Just come right and and say it, your bigotry is already apparent.

And you end with "get a life"?


You sir, are a hypocrite of EPIC proportions. You talk out of both sides of your mouth at every turn.

[trotsky]

10. I'm sorry you don't like being called on your hypocrisy, but I don't regret it one bit.

Until and unless you acknowledge and remedy it, you will fail again and again to achieve any kind of dialog with anyone else. And to think you pretend yourself to be a paragon of liberal Christian tolerance. What a joke you've turned out to be, Charles. Your idea of a "rational conversation" has been, from the outset, a one-sided soapbox sermon in which you bray about how wonderful your version of Christianity is, and the only response you'll tolerate is fawning adoration. I'm sorry you didn't find the adulation and worship you wanted here. It's obviously too late for you to learn real tolerance or understanding, but there's still hope for others.

Take care and good luck.

[hrmjustin]

5. this is a great idea.