|
Reply to the message of Jean-Marc FLAMENT
Germà PELAYO
Friday, November 22, 2002 4:34 PM
ººº Abstract: Personally I can consider myself as non believer. But in
outlining the personal choices, we are easily falling in the trap of comparing
beliefs or attitudes. I wanted to speak, instead of this, of whether
spirituality have a social, collective or public role to play, beyond the
individual one, and consequently also at a global scale. My opinion is that
religions have an evident public dimension, and that should be reflected
somehow. On the other hand I agree that religious institutions must abandon
their warlike and competitive character: as well as political and economical
institutions.ººº
Personally I can consider myself as non believer, nearer to Jean-Marc's
position rather than not to that of any religious belief. But I believe that
it was outside of our topic to outline the personal options, because that
supposed easily to fall in the trap of making comparison among types of
beliefs and of attitudes in front of this, and to say such a way (personal,
interior, reflexive, etc.) is * better * that such other (liturgical,
dogmatic, etc.). I believe that it is totally outside of topic such a debate.
On the other hand, I am convinced that believers will also have very good
arguments, and not necessarily based on their own dogmas, to rebut Jean-Marc's
point of view.
However, the topic that I proposed was other, simply * to outline if the
religious, spiritual, etc. (although religious and spiritual can be different
things, understood here only through what they have in common) it should have,
beyond a space in the sphere of the individuals, a social, collective or
public space, and consequently at the scale of the global society * I Outlined
that there were societies where religions had a central role in the symbolic
articulation of the political community, and others where this role was
reserved to the science. This way, at a global scale it would be necessary to
look for an agreement among these two models (here very schematized ones) of
political or public attitude in front of the spiritual thing, and such
agreement can be founded first through searching what these two worldviews,
scientific and spiritual, has in common.
I told of a possible representation of * religions * at a global scale, not of
current * religious institutions *, and I thought that the most important
difference are done among these two terms, instead of between spirituality and
religion. Religions at a whole could be understood as the * social and
collective * dimension of a religious community with many believers. The
dogmatic practice of a religion, on one hand, it doesn't impede the interior
reflection and the social commitment, following each one convictions, on the
other hand the reason of being of religious liturgies was historically giving
social cohesion to the communities, and it continues being a way, imperfect as
all the other ways, of collective commun(icat)ion around what is in the base
of what gives individual and social sense to its existence to many people, and
that I have called the *sphere of unknown *, just as a possible name.
Of course it is necessary a radical regeneration, opening, enrichment (without
necessarily to use the word democratization)... of the religious institutions,
but as non believer that I am, I won't interfere in it and I trust the
believers will be able to reach this change one day. Because it is better for
all. Of course current religious leaders shouldn’t be allowed in a world
parliament, in the same way that neither the high political representatives or
directors of multinationals. But we are not going to renounce, at a global
scale, to the whole politics or economy, isn’t?
Germà
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]