In order to ever realize the creation of a one world government, it only makes sense that there would need to be a one world religion. It will be much easier to control us if we are all the same, therefore there is a push for the globalization of religion. Many believe that peace can only be achieved by uniting the world under one umbrella. Those who have called for a new world order include the late Pope John Paul II and the current Pope Benedict XVI. Throughout his papacy, John Paul II preached a message of peace, hope, and the bringing together of all religions. The United Nations and the European Union have also participated and sponsored interfaith meetings, very much paralleling this same theme. My intentions are in no way to bash or single out any religion, but rather to point to the fact that there is a movement, and an agenda by some to create a new religious order. Christian scholars point to a time in the Bible where the world will unite under a false religious and political system.
In the year 2000, the United Nations held its first ever Millennium World Peace Summit. It brought together thousands of the world's preeminent religious and spiritual leaders, thus marking a major step towards the creation of a global religious body. This was the first time such an event had taken place through the UN. A new declaration of peace created the beginning of an era of collaboration between religions, with the UN as its surrogate. All in attendance also pledged their support for the UN and then Secretary General Kofi Anan. The Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders was also spawned from this summit, which later led to some high-level international interfaith dialogue. New ager Robert Muller, former assistant Secretary General to the UN, states in his book New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality that he believes, “ If Christ came back to earth, his first visit would be the United Nations to see if his dream of human oneness and brotherhood had come true. He would be happy to see representatives from all nations.” He has also shared in a prior statement that world unity cannot be achieved without a one world government and religion. Could the United Nations be positioning itself to be the center of such a religious order? With the further convergence of the New Age movement, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Luciferian occultism, Taoism, Pantheism and Aboriginal Animism through the United Nations, it would be correct to equate the UN as a new modern-day Tower of Babel. By uniting the world under a new religious body, the people would then peacefully accept the UN's agenda and its goals, such as population control and the creation of a one-world government.
Many do believe that in order to achieve a world where there is no conflict, feuds, or wars, there will have to be a bringing together of all faiths. Can everlasting peace ever be achieved? Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, has called for the creation of a world body whose representatives are from all major religions. While addressing the International Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace in March of 2006, he stated that the idea of a “ United Nations of religious groups” could “bring a bridge between religions to help the bridge of the diplomatic way.” In June of 2006, the European Union held a high-profile series of interfaith meetings. It was attended by Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist leaders, including the Dahli Lama, as well as some influential European politicians. The late Pope John Paul II sought to draw representatives of all religions into a greater mutual spiritual understanding and a respect of shared values and beliefs.
Pope John Paul II has been praised for bringing a dialogue of friendship and understanding between Orthodox, Christian Denominations, and non-Christians. His mission was one of great reconciliation between all religions, visiting and praying with many, and even preaching in a Lutheran church. He was the first Pope to visit a Synagogue, and to visit a memorial at Auschwitz. Pope John Paul II is credited in further establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the Vatican, thus ending Catholic and Jewish estrangement. Not only did he reach out to Christian religions, he also engaged in dialogues with high priests and witch doctors of voodoo, taking part in animist rites in the Sacred Forest in Togo. In 1986, in Assisi, Italy, Pope John Paul II held prayers for peace, inviting spiritual leaders from 12 of the world's major religions. For the first time in history, leaders from all the major religions assembled in one place, bringing Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Unitarians, traditional African, and Native American religions. Side by side, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant religious leaders prayed for peace, with the Dahli Lama even placing a statue of Buddha on the altar. Pope John Paul II claimed that they were all praying to the same God for the same purpose, and that their spiritual energy was bringing about a new climate of peace. Catholic-Muslim dialogue expanded under John Paul the II's leadership, and he often spoke of a bond between Christianity and Islam, holding them in very high regard .
For decades, the Catholic church has been seeking a common approach toward Islam, evident by the 1994 Vatican publication “Recognize the Spiritual Bonds Which Unite us,” directed towards Muslims and Catholics alike. John Paul II was the first Pope to enter a Muslim place of worship, visiting the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria. He also visited Morocco at the invitation of some of its religious leaders, and in May of 1999, he kissed the Koran. At a later rally with thousands of Muslim youth in attendance, he said, “we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God.” In 1969, the World Council of Churches gathered with Christians and Muslims, setting the stage for future dialogue. There was the Tripoli Christian-Muslim Seminar in 1976, as well as open dialogue engaged through the Royal Academy for Islamic Civilization Research. Pope John Paul II addressed Catholics in Turkey saying, “I wonder if it is now urgent, precisely today when Christians and Muslims have entered a new period of history, to recognize and develop the spiritual bonds that unite us.”
More recently, there was criticism directed towards Pope Benedict XVI for quoting a Byzantine emperor, who characterized some of Mohamed's teachings as evil and inhumane. To try and heal this rift, he later traveled to Turkey and openly called for further Muslim-Christian dialogue, preaching respect for the differences between both faiths, and emphasizing what they have in common. He became the second pontiff to visit a mosque, praying a silent prayer while the Muslim cleric prayed out loud as they both faced Mecca. The ongoing dialogue throughout the years has been aimed towards contributing to world peace. Under the late Pope John Paul II papacy, the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue was established, as he believed that the challenges of peace transcended religious differences.
Many key indicators suggest that we are on the path towards a one-world religion. The Dahli Lama, who preaches a message of peace, believes that it can only be achieved through world, political, and spiritual unity. Alice Bailey, one of the founders of the New Age movement, also envisioned a one- world religion. The World Council of Churches has stated that the practices and concepts from other religions must be introduced into the Christian faith in order to merge them. Former assistant Secretary General to the UN, Robert Muller, states, “The world's major religions must speed up dramatically their ecumenical movement and recognize the unity of their objectives in the diversity of their cults. Religions must actively cooperate to bring to unprecedented heights a better understanding of the mysteries of life and our place in the universe. 'My religion, right or wrong,' and 'My nation. Right or wrong' must be abandoned forever in the planetary age.” The late Pope John Paul II predicted that there would be a day when there would be a unity of faith, and that all religions would worship together. He made important overtures to non-Christian religions and believed in a multi-faith approach. It remains to be seen if all churches, faiths, religions, organizations, and individuals will conform and allow themselves to be co-opted, thus watering down their core principles, and even compromising some of their beliefs in the name of peace and security.
newworldordermustbestopped.com
"I do this for the love of my family and humanity. If it sparks debate and leads people searching for the truth then it is all worth it. Keep up the fight against the NWO."
It seems to me that Dana Gabriel's piece is an example of taking a good idea and carrying it beyond its useful application. To illustrate: "family values" (in its best sense, not the perversion of the idea that one usually encounters as rank hypocrisy and political pandering) means that the family can be a nurturing and empowering unit of society that enables each member to become his/her own locus of creativity and compassion, linked to other equally sound individual human beings. Does this mean that the ultimate, most valuable family is one that includes every human being? -- not necessarily. It may be that "family" operates best within the scale where each member can relate directly to each other member, therefore it is self-limiting to family units of from two to perhaps 20 or 30 members -- certainly not 500 or 5 million. Similarly, religion can be both unifying and nurturing, but we may find variations due to the cultural context in which it lives and thrives. The parables that Jesus uses may not "speak to" everyone. The multiple gods of Hinduism may not resonate for Westerners who have been imbued with Enlightenment scientism. And so forth.
Ecumenism, at its most successful, is like friendship in its most powerful manifestations -- each participant need not become exactly like the other, but can respect, support -- and sometimes challenge -- the other, in a relationship of love.
by
Patico (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 10:48:41 AM
Wow! Religious enslavement of the whole Planet Earth
Psychopathic wet dream. Spirituality is a direct connection. Religion is using THEIR pay phone. Rather than fill up the comment board, there is a commentary at the GreatRedDragon.com web site entitled "What is wrong with Fundamentalism? Hope it is of benefit.
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 210 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 11:19:38 AM
At the Parliament of the World's Religions Aug. 28-Sept. 5, 1993 in Chicago, 250 of the world's religious leaders signed "An Initial Declaration Towards A Global Ethic, developed by Father Hans Kung. The 6,000 word document is in two parts: a one-page declaration, and an eight-page elaboration of principles.
Since some people are so offended by the word 'religion', perhaps it is time to resurrect this 'Global Ethic'. Its four principles are:
1. Commitment to a Culture of Non-violence and Respect for Life. 2. Commitment to a Culture of Solidarity and a Just Economic Order. 3. Commitment to a Culture of Tolerance and a Life of Truthfulness. 4. Commitment to a Culture of Equal Rights and Partnership Between Men and Women.
Before some reader says that this is all wishy-washy, I suggest that the reader 'google' Global Ethic and read the document in its entirety. The foundation for a global ethic is there -- and unless the reader is so set in her or his prejudices that she/he cannot perceive the value inherent in this document, it will give hope for the future that the world can come together -- without imposing a religious belief, denigrating a religious belief, or creating a one world order, whether religious or political.
by
Shirley Bianchi (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 75 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 12:13:33 PM
Your article is thought provoking, and I like it. The groundwork is laid, and it is only a matter of time before it is instituted is my take. Since most churches, etc. in the U.S. are licensed by the state or they do not receive tax exempt status, this makes them directly under the control of the state and accountable for every word that a preacher utters. Years of indoctrination brought to fruition through a one world state sponsered religion encompasing all beliefs everywhere. I guess this is the point where all means nothing.
by
Barbara Peterson (42 articles, 52 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 360 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 12:33:32 PM
I am not so sure I agree that we need one world religion. However, I do agree that we should be seeking peace. My thought is that religion needs to eradicated and replaced with HUMANISM, which is at the base of the Libertarian philosophy. Mankinds is the proper standard of value and we must seek to perserve LIFE on this earth. Our present day religions seem to add to much division and allow for violence in the name of GOD. CNN is doing a good show called God's Warriors, you should check it out!
by
Adam Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 2:32:31 PM
Coming together, religiously, means letting go of beliefs and dogmas, anything that advances an increase in doubt and a decrease in certainty is good for humanity.
by
Kent Welton (46 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 3:14:27 PM
If there is one thing that is for sure, it's the fact that we will never rid the world of dogma. It will always be: My God can lick your God. Humanisn sounds good but we all know that if you have four people in a room there will be four different ideas about religion.
I have always liked the Golden Rule, which occurs in almost all religions. That's how I brought up my daughter. It works. She is a terrific, loving person.
Anyway, keep the ideas coming. I'll listen or read them.
by
Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 177 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 3:21:11 PM
What is it that you're actually afraid of? ...as a concept and nothing more; that people will actually get along for a change and not murder each other over religious differences?
Dude, ....it'll neeeeeever happen! The masses are too addicted to each of their own brand of "truth".
A 'One World Government'? that's not all that bad,... it would simplify the task of who to blame.
by
chariotdrvr14 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 124 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 5:07:40 PM
I disagree with the author if is he (or she) is suggesting that all points to a future where there is one religion in the world. I also disagree that the work of the last pope was seeking such a thing. The examples he gives only support the idea that there are some in the various religions who are working toward an understanding among the various religions so that peace among religions begins, and where respect and understanding for each other's religion helps end fear and hatred. After that, there is no convincing evidence that the movement is toward ironing out the differences and committing to a universal religion accepted by all. The author states, "Pope John Paul II claimed that they were all praying to the same God for the same purpose" and within this group he includes the Buddhists. Buddhist teachings do not have a place for a creator god, at least not in the since that the theistic religions have, a permanent entity overseeing the world with interest and giving purpose to it. I believe if one looks at the change in history, it is not toward one religion but quite the opposite--toward no religion, at least in the conventional sense of the term. From the Renaissance, to the Enlightenment, to the present day, an expanded educated populace in the world has led to less religion. By this I don't mean less spirituality in its broad sense, but less religion in that the dogmas of religions hold less sway on the world as education increases.I believe that the movement toward less religion is a good thing. Better left behind the superstitions and hardened dogmas, better put aside the grand cosmic story telling that places mankind at the center of creation, better left aside the myth making of a next world and the sharp gulf between heaven and hell, reward and punishment.The movement is toward less religion, not more, and really only one religion can cope with the "real" world as it is in my estimation. That is Buddhism, which taken at what is expressed in the core teachings attempts transform how one sees the world and one's place in it without myth-making and the cosmic stories used to give solace to populations content with others telling them what to believe for fear of eternal damnation. I believe the author errs in that he is making grand conclusions based on those who seek to end the tension between religions (which is a very good thing indeed) and replace the fear and animosity with acceptance and respect.
As of yet I cannot see any great shift in each religions accepting the specific dogmas and tenets on another religion other than where they might come together in a more visceral way where compassion and justice are the thrust rather than blind belief and dogmatism.
Though the topic suggested by the author is of some interest in terms of suppositions, I don’t believe the evidence corroborates the thesis or major premise of the article, nor has the author cited anything to support such a premise.
Peace,
Michael
by
MichaelOhio (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 5:19:29 PM
There are only one hundred and twenty-seven different denominations of Baptist and most of them cannot see eye to eye; this does not count The Church of God and Church of God (please notice the "The"); over fifty groups of Pentecostals not counting the Assembly of God denominations; there are various groups of Methodist from United Methodist Churches to Cumberland Methodist and a host of other Methodist group between. We haven't even gotten to Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Episcopalians, Quakers, Mennonite, Modern Mennonite or Reformed Mennonite, Hutterites, Amish, Swiss Brethren, Hugenots, the Christian Church, the Church of Christ, Brethren Church, United Brethren Church, Reformed Church, Dutch Reformed; and we have not touched on the various denominations of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah Witensses which three groups the other groups do not consider Christian but cults in that they deny the diety of Christ. Now we could talk about the Orthodox Groups with the Roman Catholic Church leading the way and followed by Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, the Marionite Church and not even began to list them all; then we could go on the different Muslim groups, the different Hindu groups which are just as varied as Christianity.Then let go to Africa to list out all the animistic religions. I am sure they would love to give up their core beliefs for some far out world religion ideas.
Now let us go to governments; then again, let's don't. We cannot even get Barney Frank and Tom Delay to set down together and agree on anything.
The only time there will ever be a one world religion or a one world government willl be at the point of a gun for the vast majority of people living on Planet Earth.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 907 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 5:44:48 PM
The coments posted to date show why, for some people, they cannot concieve of a world religion. They have no tolerance and respect for the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of others. When all those on Earth actually practice the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted in 1948, we will have a type of religion - what the word "religion" used to mean before the meaning of that word was altered (as many words have been) to suit vested interests. Religion used to mean an obligation - a sense of belonging together through reading. Having travelled and met people from many different religions, they want to survive through their family, friends, groups and all those areas of life we share. They don't want war and intolerance.
by
Diana Madison (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 7:39:09 PM
One world religion? Which world ? Not one with humans!
One world religion = peace to all man kind. I don’t think so.
Your premise is fatally flawed. That all that divides man is religion. It simply isn’t. Man is not only fractious in large group he/she is competitive (this means winners and losers), selfish and at times belligerent. In fact put four people in a room and you’d not only get four versions of God (therefore religion) but a war over who would lead it.
Can you seriously imagine a white supremacist Christian giving allegiance to a black pope? Then there are religions that do not have a single God. Add to that those religions that are simply incompatible.
Up until the 1970’s there was a tribe that sacrificed and ate their dead as part of their belief structure. The accommodation that would be needed would be massive. Their beliefs are shamanistic…they believe that God(s) inhabit features in their environment. Inherent in there is a set of taboos. Coincidently many of these taboos help the clan to live with and in their fragile environment. e.g. The spirits protect and forbid hunting in a particular area at certain times during the year. (This coincides with breeding season of certain animals and birds who, they believe are embodiments of the spirits during this time.) Failure to honour these taboos would court disaster for the entire clan. These beliefs just wouldn’t fit in Christianity.
Many of the problems in New Guinea today are as a result of Christian blundering in earlier years trying to in their ignorance and arrogance to convert the people. The people are superstitious their languages are literal. Everything is viewed through this cultural prism often with horrendous consequences.
If that isn’t enough there are or were over 800 separate languages (not dialects that’s extra), cultures and versions of shamanism.
Then there are people like me I’m an agnostic/atheist. Are you suggesting that I and all these 800 religions conform to your version of Christianity or the one world religion? I can’t ever see the Pope ceding power to another religion either.
Personally I believe a one world council where all religions can come to talk through their conflicts is a good idea. If you could organize a structure.
I prefer to just accept everyone’s religion as valid for them and try to see issues from their perspective before I judge. Perhaps you might start with my lesser but achievable goal rather than from the position that religion particularly yours is unconditionally right for everyone.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 11:27:56 PM
Men have pursued and held power by fear since the beginning of mankind. What provokes more fear than hell, real or virtual? Hell is purportedly avoided by bribing the gatekeeper. As long as mankind is horrified by the thought of death and the hereafter, there will be gatekeepers. One world, one People, cannot exist until fear is destroyed. Replace faith, which treats symptoms, not causes, with rationality. No fear, no wardens.
by
Alden Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments)
on Sunday, September 2, 2007 at 6:14:46 PM
Easy. Let the middle east religions fight it out. The one that wins rule the world and become the single religion. They have been trying to do that for some 2000 years so this will take a while.
by
TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 185 comments)
on Monday, September 3, 2007 at 12:20:40 AM
One World Relgion --from a Catholic-Your article is untrue
Hello,
I can assure you that any close reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict -- will demonstate that we are not--I repeat not-- seeking a 'One Relgion' by combining Islam etc. While there are certain truths that we recognize in other religions (like a belief in one God etc) --we also recognize many errors! You cannot combine Islam, Buddhism, etc.
Here is a quote from an Audience of Pope John Paul II
"For the reasons mentioned here, the attitude of the Church and of individual Christians towards other religions is marked by sincere respect, profound sympathy and, when possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the one Mediator and Saviour of the human race. Nor does it mean lessening our missionary efforts, to which we are bound in obedience to the risen Lord’s command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). "
How can we just 'blend them all together' like you fear --if we want to evangelize them?!! Indeed we work together with those who want peace --but we still proclaim Jesus Christ as the Savior to them!
To respect persons and their seeking God ...and the truths that they hold that are true--such as there is One God -- is very different than combining them all together in some new religion!!
And Pope John Paul II did not take part in anything contrary to the Christian Faith-- so your accusations are very misguided and wrong. You really need to check your sources!! Please do not put some spin on his actions or words. And funny how you do not note that after Buddhists placed a Buddha on the Altar --without permission--they were instructed by Vatican persons to remove it!! You are buying into hear-say! --Please please be a journalist who checks her sources and actually looks into what really happened! Your spin on things does not reflect the Church's attitude or the reality of what happened!
Oh--and perhaps you missed this quote from Pope John Paul II "it needs to be said right away that the doctrines of salvation in Buddhism and Christianity are opposed" (Crossing the Thresehold of Hope)
Or this one where he points out that: " Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection... For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity." (Crossing the Threshold of Hope)
We can recognize elements of truth in other religions--but we also recognize the errors....we can work together for peace ...but we do not embrace relativism!
Pope Benedict XVI --is constantly speaking out against relativism !!! And he got a lot of flack from news media when he was cardinal for the document that states Jesus Christ is the Unique Savior...
He wrote for instance:"As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:27); “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him” (Jn 1:18); “For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9-10)".(Dominus Iesus) "
Please, please, please-- actually read the works of these two Popes ...(and not just what some person told you was the case) and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc -- your fear is unfounded and indeed gravely mistaken about Catholics!
And I ask you to withdraw your article --for it is like me writing one saying that Billy Graham (whom I respect) --is out to make a world religion combining Christianity with Islam and Buddhism!! As Disciples of Jesus --who is the Way the Truth and the Life -- we need to follow and speak the truth --and now that this is shown not to be the truth in this case --please withdraw it.
Praised be Jesus Christ!
Kevin, BA in Catholic Theology
by
Kevin Lay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 10:40:30 AM
Your call for this article to be withdrawn is rather harsh. I do not condemn the Catholic church, but a reality check is in order. The Catholic church has a history of absorbing pagan practices. For instance, the Catholic church changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. This was due to a combination of hatred for the Jews and appeasement of the pagans. Easter, or Resurrection Sunday, is a combination of a pagan festival and a Christian festival. "In second century Europe, the predominate spring festival was a raucous Saxon fertility celebration in honor of the Saxon Goddess Eastre (Ostara), whose sacred animal was a hare." So your indignation regarding the insinuation that the Catholic church just might be involved in some sort of compromise in religious principles is weak at best.
by
Barbara Peterson (42 articles, 52 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 360 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 8:49:36 PM
I think this piece misses the main point about religion, that it operates primarily in the realm of the symbolic, and that its substance is mostly high moral rhetoric, symbolism and ritual -- not transformative actions in the "real world." Thus, despite its pretensions, history teaches us that religion is a follower of political reality rather than a leader. It has been a cosigner of all of the world's worse atrocities including what happened in Rwanda, Bosnia, and 911, just in our times – not to mention historically.
The idea that religion can and will have some transforming positive impact on the world's global political condition has always been a fanciful hope, but unfortunately has not been borne out by history. Arguably there are NO examples in history that would qualify. In fact exactly the opposite has been the overwhelming number of cases. There is no need to document them here, but just take the two political and religious giants of our time: GW Bush and Osama bin Laden.
Equally, and also without many exceptions, unified religions tend to fractionate and crumble, seldom coming together or combining on spiritual grounds alone. And while, the religious game is mostly rhetoric couched in high moral purpose and pretense, the historical evidence that any religions ever lives up to their own high moral standards is scant to the point of being almost non-existent.
I doubt raising this rhetoric, symbolism and ritual to the international level will likely change the game, resulting in any transformative changes in the world political situation. A cynic might suggest that it would only add to and raise religious hypocrisy and empty mystique to a new higher level. Maybe that in itself is worth something, but we need to see the results first before we can judge.
Also, one should not forget that the UN is mostly a" cut-throat political bureaucracy, and little else. It is perhaps the most cut-throat organization there is anywhere in existence. Maybe religion should be used to civilize the UN first. As one who spent many years negotiating there, now that in itself would be quite an accomplishment.
While it is a novel thought, the UN and Religion is Like Mixing Oil and water. I am frankly not optimistic.
by
Herbert Calhoun (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 1:48:14 AM
