How to Make Coexistence into more than a bumper sticker?

[peopleb4money]

In an ideal world, it would be great if truth and the nature of reality was less nuanced and that people would be in agreement on that truth, but its not a perfect world. Everyone thinks that their beliefs are the truth, otherwise they wouldn't believe it, whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Socialist, Hindu, Republican, Democrat, Atheist, Capitalist, or whatever. We all have our own filters on reality, shaped by our personal experiences and the cultures we grow up in. Its difficult to truly ascertain who has the least tinted and who has the most tinted. Many assume that those in disagreement to their world view are the ones with the most distorted outlook, but that comforting, simplified view is too easy on the ego for it to be reality. I'm of the mind that the ego and attachments that go along with it need to be rigorously challenged and analysed in order to get anywhere near the truth of things

Group solidarity's a good thing, up to a point, but its bad when people view their group as intrinsically superior to other groups. This is the source of wars and a lot of injustice, and in the old days, this made sense, because of the language barrier. Now we live in a more interconnected world, we understand its geometry, and the dimensions of time and space between vastly far away places are being bridged and compressed through the internet. There's no excuse for holding 1 dimensional stereotypes about other people anymore. About every country has large cities that have diverse, immigrant populations that speak the local language, and the scientific and religious consensus vastly favours the view that all human beings originate from the same common ancestor. Were all cousins, essentially, and its stupid to fight each other, because we're all closely related. We all bleed, and we all feel pain. It shouldn't be an assumption any more that its any other way.

I don't think people are going to agree on everything, and it would probably even be a boring world if we were in lock step on everything. I think diversity of opinion needs to be respected, and cultures, in general, don't really have a platform to intermingle with people outside their own social group. I've been seeing the coexist stickers, and I think its a good message. However, I think it needs to be taken up a notch. I think there needs to be a movement in which love, openness, empathy, and the ultimate goal of peace are the ideology, regardless of what one's more intricate beliefs may be. It should be nothing more and nothing less. The less ideological baggage, the better. I'd like to see centers of coexistence that hold weekly congregations or yearly conferences, in which people of different faiths, political beliefs, etc attend, hold workshops and gain a working knowledge of one another. I don't think its good for people with ideological differences to only associate with people of their same ideology. There needs to be a neutral platform where people can gain a knowledge of each other, directly. ...not through the media, which has a strong tendency to reinforces one dimensional stereotypes of other nationalities and religious groups.

Members shouldn't even have to accept dogma about all religions being a path to god. It should simply be that if you love the idea of your ideological opposition burning in hell, then you shouldn't attend. If you believe your beliefs are a path to an agape, empathetic type of love for all people and believe it to be of the highest ideals, then you should attend. It could be seen as a type of family reunion for the human family. Are there any forums like this? I think this would be good for democracy, and peace, and the ultimate goal of coexistence. I wish this type of movement would spread like wild fire.

You could even just have an internet forum with different topics for different social interests, and people could have different symbols in their profile for their beliefs, etnicity, and nationality. You could find that the woman giving you useful parenting advice is a Muslim, Christian, or atheist. There needs to be a new approach to show that people are just ordinary people behind all the labels and categories. Anything that can transcend those labels and categories and show that people are just people would be a good thing. You could even have drug or alcohol rehabilitation groups offered through this organization, only to find out that the person who's helping you recover is a completely different religon than you are. There needs to be non-sectarian missionaries who's mission is nothing more than pure love and unity in the human race. To me, genuine love is a sense of connection, and hate's a sense of isolation.

[NoNothing]

1. Already done

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

[peopleb4money]

4. Yah, I know of the unitarians, but...

I think they're too dogmatic. They say that all religions are a path to God, and it just preaches to the choir. I'd like to see someone as fervent as the evangelicals in preaching the message of human unity and coexistence. ...well, maybe a bit less rude. I don't think yelling to unbelievers on the street about how they're gonna burn in hell is the best approach. Don't get me wrong, though. I don't really mind as much if the evangelicals are doing that out of a genuine love for humanity, and I think they should be accepted to the type of conference I was talking about if that's where the passion originates. I may not agree with evangelicals on some things, but that doesn't mean they should be excluded.

[cleanhippie]

5. Then you do not know unitarians at all.

They have NO dogma, none at all, or at least the one I attend doesn't.

[GliderGuider]

8. Yep. Most dogless group of people I've ever run across.

"All religions are a path to god."
"No-religion is a path to God."
"All religions are a path to no-God."
"No-religion is a path to no-God."
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

Some dogma...

[peopleb4money]

10. I read on wikipedia that Universalism is the belief that...

"...broadly refers to a theological belief that all persons and creatures are related to God or the divine and will be reconciled to God (Universal Salvation)." ...and I'd actually agree with that, but I don't want to congregate with people who hold that same basic belief. I get the sense that most or all unitarians don't believe unbelievers are going to hell. I want the bible/quran thumping, fire and brimstone types too, as long as they believe in love and empathy as being the highest ideal.

[cleanhippie]

11. Most of the people that attent the fellowship I do are atehist/agnostic

the rest are new age woo-woo types, a couple of buddhists and a sprinkling of christians.

Our Sunday "services" consist mainly of themed philosophical discussions. Its quite bizarre sometimes.....

[peopleb4money]

13. I'll have to attend sometime. lol

What I basically want is a place where people of the faith can openly give their views in exchange that they hear other opinions. Its a leveled playing field. Yah, you can knock on my door and preach, but you have to listen to what I have to say, The reason why I stress love is I don't want it all devolving into shouting matches of "I'm right your wrong". I just want people of opposing views to get to know each other. Some want salvation for me so that I don't go to hell. I want everyone to realize that were all human so that we don't blow each other up over this stuff. Its getting really ugly.

[Goblinmonger]

15. That is the Universalist church

but the Unitarian-Universalist "church" is as described above. Unitarianism is a Christian root, too (they didn't buy into the holy trinity).

[peopleb4money]

9. Well that's cool. I haven't really researched them. I'll look into them more.

[cleanhippie]

12. See my post #11

or PM me for more info.

[Jim__]

2. I agree with your ideas on the potential benefical effects of people with diverse ideas meeting ...

... for discussion.

However, I have one major disagreement with your post. I don't accept your claim: ... when people view their group as intrinsically superior to other groups. This is the source of wars ...

The source of war seems to be human nature. Our very close cousins, the chimpanzees, fight wars similar to the wars fought by primitive people. The implication being that this tendency is deeply embedded in who we are.

That may sound like a pessimistic assessment of our chances for avoiding war. I think it's a more realistic assessment then the view that if we just change our "viewpoint," war can be eliminated. The problem with such an idealistic view is that it leads to unrealizable expectations, followed by disappointment, and disintegration of pacifist efforts. Note that I don't think war being innate to humans completely dooms such efforts. If the goals of these efforts are realistic, they can succeed. Setting realistic goals is a reasonable first step.

[peopleb4money]

3. The human behaviour I described is human nature

Identifying in groups and out groups is an aspect of human nature. There might even be a genetic basis for it. Simply saying its human nature isn't very specific and doesnt identify the source It would be like saying the car's acting up because of car nature. Its just circular logic and doesn't explain anything.

Modern society shows us that humanity can collaborate with each other on a much larger scale than what would have been thought possible in the hunter gatherer days. Chimpanzees have an excuse, because they don't possess the ability for existential, self awareness that we do, and they don't have the sophisticated level of communication that we have. They have absolutely no ability to even attempt making peace talks with the opposing chimpanzee society that they have to fight with over territory.

We have no excuse, not even biology. Were not just animals in the old, kill or be killed order of things. Were conscious beings with free will and a developed ability for shared consciousness (maybe a rudimentary form). That's really what language is, the ability to convey to another person that you're a conscious, self aware being like them. I think people just need to acknowledge the tendency for in-group, out-group morality and start viewing the whole of humanity as the in group and war, starvation, environmental crisis, etc as the new out group, the new, excluded foe to be defeated.

Just look at the common propaganda tactics from the wars

Its all about dehumanizing the enemy, making them look bloodthirsty and subhuman.

Whether its American, Austro-Hungarian, German,Japanese, etc, it doesn't matter. Here's some clips and pictures of propaganda psoters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFnce-4e74





Sorry for the sizing, but notice how the defenceless, American mother is drawn normally and how the German/Austro-Hungarian (Hun) looks like a stocky, fat, subhuman monster.







notice how the superhuman Samurai crushes the tiny, inferior American ship



In the crusades, one side called the other Heathens, and the opposite called them Infidels. They didn't call them human beings with families and aspirations.

[cleanhippie]

6. The solution is easy: Keep religion in the churches and at home....

and your opinions of how others want to live their life to yourself and VIOLA! Instant coexistence.

[peopleb4money]

7. Some religious people want to get politically active because they feel...

that all the liberals, socialists, muslims, Christians, Jews, whatever want to corrupt their values. I think when some of these congregations talk amongst their selves about what liberals are or muslims are, they maintain their 1 dimensional views of them. The same could apply to a liberal person's views about conservative Christians. That's why I think there needs to be a more interactive platform where people get to know each other, in person. Politics in America is really nasty right now, and I think its because people isolate their selves too much from people with different world views from them. They begin to think the caricatures from the media are real. There definitely needs to be an active movement that openly encourages people of all stripes to interact with one another. In a muti-cultural society like America, I think this type of thing is vital for democracy and its continued existence into the future.

[Nihil]

14. Damn good post - well done!

FWIW, Theists can get part way there ...

> I think there needs to be a movement in which love, openness, empathy, and
> the ultimate goal of peace are the ideology, regardless of what one's more
> intricate beliefs may be. It should be nothing more and nothing less.

Such movements do exist.

Upthread you have people pointing out the benefits of UUs - a group that
I have heard nothing but good about (and not just on DU either).

For an alternative, I'd suggest finding out more about Freemasonry.

I admit that I don't know how it "behaves" in America but, in the UK, it
matches up to your goals stated above: "love, openness, empathy, and
the ultimate goal of peace are the ideology, regardless of what one's
more intricate beliefs may be. It should be nothing more and nothing less."

Brotherly love, relief (=charity) & truth.

I gather that in France (and some other areas), Freemasonry is open to
atheists too but that isn't the case for UK Masons (OK, pedantically,
"for Freemasons who are in the United Grand Lodge of England or one of
the aligned Masonic bodies") so I can't speak for any of their views,
just (as ever) for my own.

I am a Freemason and have been to meetings with Christians, Jews, Deists,
Muslims and Hindus along with a host of lesser known variations on the
Theist theme. I have been with right-wing Tories and left-wing Socialists.
We all know that our personal spiritual & political views are effectively
left at the door of the lodge so that we are equals within. I know it sounds
trite but it works (for sure in all of the lodges that I've visited).

It doesn't tick all of the boxes in your wish-list but it definitely
makes a move in the right direction!

:hi:

[skepticscott]

16. That's all well and good

but what happens inside the lodge isn't really the point, now is it? It's what happens out in the real world, once the controlled atmosphere of a lodge meeting is left behind, that really matters. If you pick up all the stuff you've left at the door when you leave, nothing much has been accomplished.

[peopleb4money]

17. Yah, I don't really want the beliefs to be left behind at the door, nor do I want it to be a club

I want people to face other beliefs head on and acknowledge that they're coming from rational human beings like them. I think Freemasons have their place though, and they have an interesting history. They get a really bad rap from the conspiracy nuts though.

[Nihil]

18. True enough but it's a start ...

> It's what happens out in the real world, once the controlled atmosphere of
> a lodge meeting is left behind, that really matters. If you pick up all the
> stuff you've left at the door when you leave, nothing much has been accomplished.

I agree but I found that, much as any other kind of "practice", it became
much easier to extend the "inside the lodge" behaviour to the outside world,
not because it was enforced by any "control" but because I was changing my
inner attitudes, found I preferred the change and decided to continue it
beyond the context in which it was introduced.

For one thing, it revitalised an interest in different religions, beliefs,
traditions & philosophies that had been dormant for many years and that,
in turn, helped me to appreciate & understand more about the people, places
and attitudes that I live around than I had done previously.

(Again, this was just intended as a personal view rather than a statement
of "how things are": I know that some people do exactly the "picking up again
as you leave" and that some do just regard it as a dining club. I don't and so
I thought I'd comment as I found it applied to the thread.)

[wookie72]

19. How about Deep Ecumenism?

It's a movement by Matthew Fox (no, not that one). He also calls it Creation Spirituality (an unfortunate name that evokes ID for some, but what have you) http://originalblessing.ning.com/