TruthBook Religious News Blog

Wednesday, 25 July, 2007

Muslims around the world increasingly reject suicide bombings and other violence against civilians in defense of Islam, according to a new international poll dealing with how the world's population judges their lives, countries and national institutions.

A wide ranging survey of international attitudes in 47 countries by the Pew Research Center also reported that in many of the countries where support for suicide attacks has declined, there has also has been decreasing support for al-Qaida leader Osama bin-Laden.

The 95-page survey found that surging economic growth in many developing countries has encouraged people in these countries to express satisfaction with their personal lives, family income and national conditions, said Andrew Kohut, the center's director.

"It's a pro-globalization set of findings," Kohut said.

Most notably, the survey finds large and growing number of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere rejecting Islamic extremism. Ten mainly Muslim countries were surveyed along with the Palestinian territories, as well as five African nations with large Muslim populations.

For example, the percentage of Jordanian Muslims who have confidence in bin Laden as a world leader fell 36 percentage points to 20 percent since 2003 while the proportion who say suicide bombing is sometimes or always justified dropped 20 percent points to 23 percent. Other countries where support for bin Laden declined are Lebanon, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan and Kuwait.

The report said support for such bombings and terror tactics has dropped since 2002 in seven of the eight countries where data were available. In Lebanon, the proportion of Muslims who say suicide attacks are often or sometimes justified fell to 34 percent from 79 percent while just 9 percent of Pakistanis believe suicide bombings can be justified often or sometimes, down from 33 percent in 2002 and a high of 41 percent in 2004.

But support for suicide bombings is widespread among Palestinians, the report said, with 41 percent saying such attacks are often justified while another 29 percent say they can sometimes be justified. It found that only six percent of Palestinians - the smallest in any Muslim public surveyed - say such attacks are never justified.

Amid continuing sectarian violence in Iraq, the survey found there is broad concern among Muslims that tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims are not limited to that country and represent a growing problem for the Muslim world more generally.

Eighty-eight percent of Lebanese and 73 percent of Kuwaitis _ along with smaller majorities or pluralities of Muslims elsewhere in the Middle East _ said Sunni-Shiite tensions represent a growing problem for the Muslim world, the report said.

Globally, Pew's survey shows a clear linkage between economic conditions and views of national conditions.

This trend is particularly evident in Latin America and Eastern Europe, but China and India also stand out, the report said.

While Africans now express a greater sense of personal progress than in 2002, personal contentment remains low in all African countries relative to other parts of the world.

In Western Europe, Swedes and Spaniards express broad satisfaction with national conditions as well as with their governments and leaders.

"In contrast," the report said, "people in France and Italy, which have experienced little economic growth since 2002, are critical of their nation's course and their governments."

The French were polled before Nicolas Sarkozy replaced Jacques Chirac as president in May and gave jobs to several opposition Socialists in his Cabinet.

In China, where per capita gross domestic product, has increased 58 percent since 2002, its people expressed much more satisfaction than in 2002_ 83 percent now compared to 48 percent. The Chinese also give near universal support for the national government, 89 percent, and say the government has a very good or somewhat good influence on the way things are going.

But the pollsters in China were not able to ask respondents to express opinions about President Hu Jintao.

The polls _ with a sampling error of 2 to 4 percentage points, depending on the sampling size _ were taken in various countries from mid-April to the end of May, and involved about 1,000 samples in most countries. More interviews were conducted in India and China while fewer than 1,000 were carried out in European countries.

Source: Washington Post

Labels: Islamic, Muslims, Pew Research Center survey, religion, suicide bombings, terrorism

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, July 06, 2007

Reason, sympathy and human relations

Posted Jul 6, 2007
By Ishtiaq Ahmed

Can one agree on a principle that can serve as the basis for the establishment of genuine peace and harmony in the world? Some people think that if the whole world became good Muslims or good Christians it would create true brotherhood and sisterhood.

Now, considering that both groups comprise more than a billion each (Islam in its various sectarian forms is given as 1.3 billion and Christianity 1.9 billion) converting one to the other may take a very long time.

Also, we would still have 650 million Confucians (mainly Chinese), 700 million Hindus (including the upper castes, the other backward castes and the scheduled castes and tribes), 400 million Buddhists, 20 million Sikhs, 13 million Jews and then smaller groups such as the Bahais, Ahmadis, Jains, animists (if any have been allowed to survive) and others who have no specific religious affiliation or who choose to denounce their religious beliefs. To make humanity as a whole adhere to one comprehensive religious faith with its doctrines and dogmas is impossible.

One need not be very clever to realise that we will have to find a principle that does not require total conversion of people to a particular belief or detailed code of conduct in order to establish mutually respectful relations among all groups and individuals within them.

We very often tend to believe that within groups strong emotional bonds and ties of solidarity exist. This is a myth and has always been a myth. Except for very small communities comprising a few households close contact between people does not take place and when it does it is not always friendly and deeply loyal. We therefore need a principle which is simple and practical and one that everyone can accept as fair on the basis of which the foundations of mutual respect and peace can be laid.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) proposed the ‘Categorical Imperative’ as the overarching principle that can serve such a purpose. The categorical imperative says that one should act only on those rules of action that one wants to be made universal laws. It would declare as immoral a rule of conduct that implies that one person may do something but another, in similar circumstances, may not. In other words, it demands consistency. In other words, what’s alright for me is alright for you if our relevant circumstances are similar.

Therefore, one cannot legitimately demand a ban on one religion without demanding the same for other religions, but one is perfectly justified in demanding that human rights violations should not occur in the name of religion and that should apply to all religions. Similarly if I can occupy someone’s home then it is alright for the other bloke to try to do the same. But of course I would not want him to do that, so it would be wrong for me to do the same.

The categorical imperative also states that one should treat humanity or rational beings as an end and never as a means only. Human beings are uniquely capable of reasoning about their choices and therefore are inherently valuable and worthy of respect for this reason. For human beings to realise their inner worth it is important that they enjoy meaningful autonomy vis-à-vis state and society. Autonomy makes it possible for us to make rationally and morally correct choices, which according to Kant is all about protection of our basic interests.

If such a principle were to be made not only on the basis of conduct between human beings but also states then the occupation of Iraq by President Bush and his allies would not take place. On the other hand, it would be perfectly correct to wage war on those who are responsible for 9/11.

But others argue against rationality alone as the basis for claiming and enjoying rights on grounds that there are human beings who are not able to reason in accordance with a conventional understanding of rationality. These include children and those suffering from impairment of their reasoning abilities. Also, not very long ago women, working people, and some ethnic and racial groups were also considered incapable of acting like rational human beings.

The emphasis on rationality is, therefore, not the true basis of rights. It can confine the right to enjoy rights arbitrarily to some groups or class of people. Therefore, it is asserted, that the true basis of peace among human beings has to be human sympathy and solidarity, or in other words, the human conscience.

Proceeding along such lines some argue that the right to rights should not be confined to the Homo sapiens: animals and nature should also be embraced because specie-ism (that is privileging one’s own species) is irrational and immoral. Moreover, it is argued, from a practical point of view that humankind’s supremacy over other forms of nature is untenable in the long run. We have to learn to live as part of nature and in communion with it.

Some people go further and urge that we have to start working on this principle now. Global warming is the wakeup call we must heed and change our lifestyles to recognise that human beings, animals and nature in general have to live in communion and harmony with each other.

Thus, the age of rights has to be re-defined in the light of the objective reality around us.
The philosophers are extending the theoretical horizons and frontiers of discussion on rights in directions which are as yet unclear, but I would argue that concern for the rights of human beings and the organisations and institutions that represent their interests should remain of paramount concern because even if a paradigmatic shift from the rights of human beings to the all-inclusive idea of the rights of different forms of nature may be on the way, it need not be seen as a mutually exclusive arrangement.

Whatever we think about who should and who should not have rights is after all dependent on the human conscience because neither animals nor other forms of nature are burdened with the problem of being at ease with one’s conscience. It is a human predicament and not a predicament of all living things or for that matter of nature.

The writer is professor of political science at the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: Ishtiaq.Ahmed-@statsvet.su.se

Labels: categorical imperative, Christian, harmony, human rights, humanity, Immanuel Kant, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Islamic, peace, principles, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Religious leaders urge action on warming

Mon May 21, 5:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are urging President George W. Bush and Congress to take action against global warming, declaring that the changing climate is a "moral and spiritual issue."

In an open letter to be published on Tuesday, more than 20 religious groups urged U.S. leaders to limit greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy sources.

"Global warming is real, it is human-induced and we have the responsibility to act," says the letter, which will run in Roll Call and the Politico, two Capitol Hill newspapers.

"We are mobilizing a religious force that will persuade our legislators to take immediate action to curb greenhouse gases," it says.

The letter is signed by top officials of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America and the political arm of the Reform branch of Judaism.

Top officials from several mainline Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, African Methodist Episcopal Church and Alliance of Baptists also signed the letter, along with leaders of regional organizations and individual churches.

Rev. Joel Hunter, a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals, also signed the letter, though that group has not officially taken a stance on global warming due to opposition from some of its more conservative members.

Labels: Christian, church, global warming, Islamic, Jewish, responsibility

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Finding simplicity and beauty

by Interfaith Works or The Olympian.

It has been reported that when Albert Einstein was asked about the secret that holds the universe together, he replied, "When we discover it, the answer will be simple and beautiful."

We are bombarded by the complexities of life everywhere we turn; we are exposed to more information in a few years than our ancestors 100 years ago ever had to contend with. It seems like we are drowning in knowledge and thirsting for wisdom. The Rev. Richard Rohr noted that we can put a man on the moon, but fathers don't know how to talk to their sons.

The great commandments are simple - love God and each other with the same passion - yet it seems that such simplicity asks too much of us, so we build nuance upon commentary, and in so doing, free ourselves from the obligation to love.

We are entering a holy season for many and it invites us into a period of reflecting upon the wisdom of our faith. In April alone, we will be celebrating Passover, Holy Week, Easter, the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Buddha's birthday.

Faith traditions offer simple guidance that shimmers across the spiritual landscape, but there is something within us that resists such wisdom. Perhaps it's because we don't like the challenge that such simple words offer to our sense of sophistication.

To celebrate this season of rebirth and renewal, I would like to offer a few words from the major faith traditions, hoping to entice each of us to return to our roots and know the joy that wisdom brings.

In Buddhism: "Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is it healed." The Dhammapada, Chapter 1, verse 5

In Christianity: "Love your enemies and pray for those who hurt you." Matthew 5:44

In Judaism: "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

In Islam: "Those who act kindly in this world will have kindness." Qur'an 39.10

Can you imagine what human history would look like if people of faith had taken these simple injunctions seriously? My prayer is that for these days of April, each of us, regardless of our tradition, would return to the sources of our faith and see what simple words would nourish our souls if we would but let them. Then, from that wellspring, may we come together to create a world that is simply beautiful.

The Rev. Canon David C. James is rector for St. John's Episcopal Church in Olympia.

Labels: Buddhism, Christianity, Islamic, Judaism, simplicity