It never made sense to me, that people would fight for a reason that is supposed to bring them together. A wise friend of mine once told me that as humanity evolves and matures, it will come to realize what religion is really about, and will learn to use it as a tool to bring us together rather than to separate us.
My experience, however limited it might be, has shown me that Generation Y and the younger Generation X living in Canada don’t quite understand why people from different backgrounds and beliefs can’t coexist. The most striking image happened in the last year. Quebec held its Reasonable Accomodation Public Consultations. Its purpose was to determine how people from such different backgrounds can coexist. After about two hours of people walking up to the microphone and telling each other off (the Jews this, the Muslims this, this French Québécois that), a young gentleman, probably around 20 years of age, stood up, walked up to the microphone, and basically told that the only way he could see an answer to this question was if all people over 30 would follow the lead of younger people, that he and his friends, who were of seven different cultural backgrounds and 4 different religious backgrounds never had any problems.
But apparently the world isn’t ready to accept such an obvious reality; and so the need to officialise things remains. And, although alone its not enough, that work is coming along splendidly,
UN interfaith conference has rejected what it calls religious terrorism
November 13, 2008 – 22:21
Edith M. Lederer, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
UNITED NATIONS – Countries attending a UN interfaith conference have rejected the use of religion to justify acts of terrorism and other violence that kills and injures innocent civilians.
A declaration by 80 nations expressed concern at what it saw as serious instances of intolerance, discrimination, expressions of hatred and harassment of minority religious communities of all faiths.
It promoted dialogue among nations and called for understanding and respect for diverse religions and cultures.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon read the declaration near the end of the two-day meeting which was initiated by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
It brought 14 world leaders to New York including President Bush, the heads of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Israel’s president.
Ban lauded King Abdullah’s initiative which he said comes at a time when the need for dialogue among religions, cultures and civilizations has never been greater.
Many speakers spoke out against religious extremists, while defending tolerance and freedom of religion.
President Bush, who likely delivered his last address at the UN, echoed this theme saying: “We believe God calls us to live in peace – and to oppose all those who use His name to justify violence and murder.”
Bush said expanding democracy is one of the best ways to safeguard religious freedom and promote peace.
“People who are free to express their opinions can challenge the ideologies of hate,” he said.
“They can defend their religious beliefs and speak out against those seeking to twist them to evil ends. They can prevent their children from falling under the sway of extremists by giving them a more hopeful alternative.”
Among the leaders brought together, at least in the same room, were the Saudi king and Israeli President Shimon Peres.
Peres had rare praise for the Saudi monarch, saying Wednesday his initiative to end the Arab-Israeli conflict inspired hope that all countries in the Middle East could live in peace.
But Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal expressed disappointment Thursday that Peres only talked positively about parts of the Arab peace plan – and didn’t mention others.
The plan calls for Arab recognition of the Jewish state in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from all lands captured in the 1967 Mideast war.
Israel objects to relinquishing all territory and the right of all Palestinians to return, and it wants to keep a unified Jerusalem as its capital.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stressed the importance of peace in the Middle East, telling the conference Thursday that the creation of a Palestinian state side by side with an Israeli state “can be achieved by goodwill.”
Saudi Arabia has been criticized by Human Rights Watch and others for refusing to allow the public practice of any religion other than Islam and restricting those who do not follow the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.
In light of its sponsorship of the conference, Saud was asked whether Saudi Arabia would now allow the freedom of religion and tolerance called for in the final declaration.
The Saudi minister said this was “an important question” for his country but indicated that the process must be gradual.
“If you bring people together so that they understand that they have the same ethics, they have the same values, this will open the hearts and minds of people for further progress,” Saud told reporters.
“But to say from the beginning you have to transform yourself into something which you aren’t now or nothing else can be achieved is, I think, carrying the argument too far.”
In the declaration, “participating states affirmed their rejection of the use of religion to justify the killing of innocent people and actions on terrorism, violence and coercion, which directly contradict the commitment of all religions to peace, justice and equality.”
Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari called terrorism, discrimination, and violence against women “un-Islamic.”
He urged world leaders to support the moderate Islamic principles advocated by his assassinated wife, Benazir Bhutto – dialogue, tolerance and opposition to extremism.
He urged all countries to unite behind an international agenda in which “hate speech aimed at inciting people against any religion must be unacceptable (and) injustice and discrimination on the mere basis of one’s faith must be discouraged.”
2 thoughts on “No more excuses: Religion doesn’t condone terrorism in its name”
Thought-provoking post and blog. Relevant to your comments is the fact that many experts have argued these days that there are five, not four generations in the U.S., including Obama’s generation: Generation Jones…the heretofore lost generation between the Boomers and Generation X, now 42-54 years old.
I’ve noticed quite a bit of buzz about GenJones in the context of this election; I saw several discussions on national TV about Obama being a Joneser, as well as about GenJones voters being a key swing vote.
You may find this link interesting, my friends and I have been linking people to this page because we think it matters: it has a bunch of print excerpts and videos of big time publications (e.g. The New York Times, Newsweek, etc.) and pundits (e.g. David Brooks, Clarence Page, etc.) all talking about Obama’s identity as part of Generation Jones: http://www.generationjones.com/2008election.html
Thank you for your comment – I have taken a look at the URL you posted, and it’s very interesting. I am most probably going to be inspired to writing something about it in the near future 🙂
I also have come to notice that while a large part of each defined generation does identify with academic definitions given to them, the thinkers, movers and shakers then to span these generations a lot more, whatever their age.