|
Reply to the message of Germà Pelayo
Jean-Marc FLAMENT
Monday, November 18, 2002 11:25 PM
ººº Abstract: I don't consider France as an atheistic country. Otherwise, I
define myself as layman but it doesn't stop from asking me what sense I must
give to my life so that it was in line with the plan of the universe, the
evolution or God as you will please to call it. Germà used a very just term
while saying that the atheists and the believers have in common to bring an
answer to the sphere of unknown. However, when measuring the number of deaths,
the hate provoked by religions along the history, it is necessary to be
careful of not to let the manipulators of masses to compete in a world
parliament. On the other hand, there would be very constructive a * community
of ideas * avec the banner "freedom of cult" or "freedom of opinion". ººº
Hello Germà, and hello all,
Here is my personal feeling about the expose of Germà, below.
I am not convinced that Germà has an exact knowledge of the statute of
religions in France. Me nor I have not otherwise, because I am Belgian. The
state is also a lay one but the most important religions (Catholicism,
Protestantism and Islam) are subsidized and taught in the public schools
according to the choice of the parents. It seems me enough close to the
pancasila that Germà describes us.
I let to our French friends the care to react but I believe that France is not
very distant of Belgium in this matter and I don't consider France at all as
an atheistic country. The liberty of cult is considered there, merely as an
evident fact and public management is not confounded with inquisition of the
individual consciences.
To make the difference between spirituality and religion
I don't believe that we could write: laicism = materialism or religion =
spirituality.
I define myself like a layman, but I feel myself as close to the religions
when they transport some values as the fellow’s love, the sense of sharing,
the respect of life, the sense of forgiveness, solidarity or tolerance (which
is rarer).
I define myself like a layman but I believe in a superior intelligence from
which we don't detain, each one, more than an small parcel. We can call this
intelligence, “God”, "Yahvé", "Allah" or simply "Universe" without disturbing
me in no way.
I define myself like a layman but this doesn't avoid me from to ask myself
what sense I must give to my life in line with the plan of the universe, the
evolution, God or any word you will please to use for calling it.
If I sincerely wonder about this point, if I accomplish some acts merely in
the sense of the stated values higher, without believing that I will be
rewarded in an ulterior life or in a possible paradise, if I remain in contact
with this superior intelligence, while praying it without pretending to know
it, while considering like an indication of God's will the demands from others
or the given opportunities to help other humans, then, I think to reach a
superior level of spirituality to the one that I could reach if I believed in
the dogmas of the religions.
To accept the unknown, and at the same time to refuse a tribune to the manipulators
Germà used a very just term while saying that the atheists and the believers
have in common to bring an answer to the sphere of unknown. Thus it is about
unknown that we are talking about indeed! The diversity of the beliefs is so
big, that the unknown, far from moving back, remain whole.
Who dares to speak in the name of God? Who pretends to say the Truth? Do you
believe that God, if he had wanted to be known, would have held speeches
susceptible of different interpretations to some men rather than to address
directly at the heart of each one?
While measuring the number of deaths, the hate provoked by the religions
historically, when we remember that the Nazis exclaimed "God mit uns ", that
Bush punctuates his militaristic speeches with a "God bless America” and that
the militants of Al Qaïda lead their terrorist operations to the scream
of "Allah Akhbar", I prefer to believe that God is not mad but that men who
dare to speak in his name are impostors!
Yes, sphere of unknown exists. Even the science have not answer their own
questions on this, but it has at least already demonstrated that the so-called
holly texts that constitute a common belief of Judaism, Christendom and Islam,
texts to which their supporters supposed as "hard as iron", are just histories
like those that we use to tell to the children, in the evening, to help them
to find a restful sleep.
Since sphere of unknown exists, let's accept it. Let's accept our limits and
let's make proof of humility but overall let’s refuse to give a tribune to
those that manipulate the masses and increase their influence or their power
while pretending to have the answer to the questions that all the humanity
still are looking for.
I wrote in my first intervention that if we conceived a world Parliament like
a representation of various cultures, we would see the dominant cultures
crushing the weakest whereas our goal is precisely to preserve the diversity
of our cultures.
In the same way, if we allow the religions or philosophies as the atheism and
the Buddhism to be represented at the world Parliament, we put them more than
ever in competition and we will go toward confrontations.
On the other hand, a community of ideas with the banner "freedom of cult"
or "freedom of opinion" is very constructive because it is a fundamental
aspiration of all human beings and also because the believers of different
religions will finally be united in the same demand.
Regards to all participants
Jean-Marc Flament
WP21 Alliance Forum on a World Parliament for the 21st Century
E-mail : world-parl@forums.alliance21.org
Fax 1 717 264 5036
Information, inscriptions, désinscriptions: germa@alliance21.org
|
|
|
english
[FORUM]
[DISCUSSION]
[SYNTHESES]
[DOCUMENTS]
[CALENDAR]
[PARTICIPANTS]
[SUBSCRIBE]
[CONTACT]
[HOME]