Article | Document Library | SMN Home Page | Email the Editor |
This paper is shown in its oral presentation style. The pages I am quoting refer to "A Global Ethic, Declaration of the Parliament of the Words Religions." The Continuum Publishing Comany, New York 1993
Who is Hans Küng? Born 1928 in Sursee. 1948-55 he studies philosophy and theology at the Popes University Gregoriana in Rome. 1954 Ordination. 1957 Doctoral Thesis. Parish priest in Luzern 1957-59. 1962 he becomes the official Counselor of Pope John XXIII. From 1960 to 1980 professor for fundamental theology and dogmatics, since 1980 for ecumenic theology in Tübingen. His positions against the infallibility of the Pope, his ideas about the church and God have led him into troubles with the catholic authorities. His is suspended from his job in 1979. The University created for him the institute for ecumenic studies where he was the dean until last year. Thanks to a gift of 5 Mio of DM he created the Foundation Global Ethic .
I will start read the four irrevocable directives that sum up the basics of Global Ethic to which most of the religions are ready to stick. Then I will widen my horizon by explaining the historical origin of these general principles transcending every religion: where do they come from and why it is necessary to have them? Last I shall try to discuss some issues related to general ethical rules. Without such a discussion, these rules, which we all here in this room and in the SMN network fully approve, are not exciting at all. I will also try show how difficult it is for integristic believers to accept theses rules. Finally I would also like to bring up whether these directives are compatible with the SMN guidelines. If Yes, why shouldnt we add them to the SMN-mission statement?
It contains four principles. They were worked out (as commitments) by Professor Küng for the Parliament of the Worlds Religions in Chicago in 1993. I quote them without further comment (they are also mentioned on the invitation for todays meeting):
1. Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life
Have respect to life, You shall not kill etc.
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
(Problems of presentation)
This parliament met for the first time in 1893 at the world exhibition which was to celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America. Christianity at that time had become the dominating and domineering world religion. Science, technology, industry and democracy came together in North America once again in an impressive way. Special exhibition places had been built to display it, which, with their tremendous striking glass and steel constructions, themselves represented the triumph of the most recent technology. At that time some people were also thinking beyond the material realm. It was the Swedenborgian Church who wanted something higher and nobler alongside the triumph of the material and the wonder of the technological. It organized a wide-ranging cultural auxiliary program to go with the World Exposition. A special building was erected which by the way became the Chicago Art Institute. Within this cultural program, forty-five different religions held their meetings. This, at that time, was unique and fascinating. It showed also what had happened to religion in the course of modernity. It had become one showpiece among others. Religion had lost the position in which it had penetrated and dominated all the spheres of reality like in the Middle Ages or during the Reformation period. In the modern paradigm, religion had become a partial sphere of reality, and the Chicago World Exposition merely gave visible symbolic expression to the late consequences of the process of modernity. But the initiators were also seized with the spirit of understanding among the nations through the religions . And this is a goal that has not changed in 1993, at the second session of this parliament one hundred years later. I quote one famous speaker of that time: I believe that the spirit of Paul is here, the zealous missionary of Christ whose courtesy, wisdom, and unbounded tact were manifest when he preached Jesus and the resurrection beneath the shadows of the Parthenon. I believe the spirit of wise Buddha is here, and of Socrates... -.
What is a parliament of religions? - As religious movements are not structured in a democratic way, how can they become a parliament? The initiators of the first parliament did not envisage the democratic form of a parliament, but aimed at the respect of a fundamental democratic principle. It is this: 1. The representatives of the world religions come together at the same time and place, stand side by side with equal rights and communicate with respect for one another. This does away with any claim to superiority on the part of one religion over another, at least for the time of the parliament. 2. The representatives of the religions come from the grass roots of their communities. They are not members of hierarchies, official delegates sent by their leaders our councils; they represent their religions each in an individual way. The parliament is not an institution but a movement, not a statutory diplomatic exchange but a spontaneous human encounter. Every man and every woman represents his or her religion in a unique, irreplaceable way. The religions were thus not officially involved, but they were present in so far as thousands of individual representatives reflected the millions upon millions in the religions of the world.
However, in 1893, there was a latent Anglo-Saxon triumphalism. The situation of Christianity was extraordinarily favorable, both politically and socially. At the end of the nineteenth century, Christianity had captured a unique position in the world and had done so in the course of the colonialist, imperialist, expansionist policy which started from Europe. India was politically and economically under English control, China was economically and spiritually laid low. Japan was isolated and Africa colonized. The spirit of modernity was at the same time the spirit of Eurocentrism with a Christian stamp. The parliament was held at the same time when ecumenism within Christianity was beginning to gain a foothold, nurtured by the hope that Christianity would soon establish itself universally as the strongest world religion.
Nineteen years after the first Parliament of Religions the First World War had broken out and the position of the Christian Great Powers had been deeply shaken. The Second world War did the rest. With the Marxist revolution in China, a corrupt and spiritually rotten feudal system had been swept away. In the course of the non-violent liberation movement under Gandhi, in 1947 India gained its independence from Great Britain and the influence of Hindu culture and religion also increased worldwide. In the course of the Zionist immigration movement into Palestine, in 1948 Israel succeeded in founding an independent state. Thus almost nineteen centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple (by the Romans 70 CE) Judaism again had a central focus. Martin Buber. Hans Jonas. At the latest after the oil crises at the beginning of the 1970s the world public had to become aware of the social power of the Arab states shaped by Islam. Not only was the world not Christianized, at the end of our century on the whole other religions of humankind are stronger than they were at the beginning. In 1993, one hundred years later at the second meeting, Christianity is just one expression among other religions.
The post modern paradigm implies for the religions that they no
more attempt to push aside other religions by aggressive mission
strategies, that they no more make subtle triumphalistic efforts
to transcend themselves in attempts at a universal or even syncretic
mixing, with the aim of forming a single world religion. Rather
a peaceful co-existence of the various religions in mutual respect,
in dialogue and collaboration is now on the agenda.
Countless men and women in all religions pursue this ideal, but
by no means all. The scenes of this refusal are generally known.
Religious conflicts still exist all over the planet. I do not
want to dwell on the conflict in Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina
or the Middle East on which we read daily in our news paper. There
are less known religious conflicts such as the one in India between
the Hindus and the Siks, Hindus and Muslims, the one in Sri Lanka
between Hindus and Buddhists. A century after the first parliament
the statement of brotherhood of religions is more urgently necessary than ever.
The awareness of living in a changed historical era was reflected
in the second Parliament in the spectrum of groups which this
time were present or fully represented: not only Muslims and Zoroastrians,
Jains (Indian religion of non violence as old as Buddhism) and
Tibetan Buddhists, but above all native Americans and a broad
spectrum of the most varied cults, spiritual groups and religious
movements (give an idea p. 109). At the planning stage however,
evangelical and fundamentalist church groups refused to collaborate in the Parliament where neo-pagan groups
were allowed to hold a moon ceremony in Chicagos Grant Park. Also
some Jewish groups withdrew protesting against the presence of
the representative of the Islamic nation, which they described
as antisemitic. A speaker from Kashmir who condemned the fate
of his land as a psychological rape, was shouted down by a number
of Indians in the audience. Finally Professor Küngs Declaration
Toward Global Ethic was criticized as being to western. But the
Muslim proposal to grade down this declaration to the status of
a working paper was rejected and it remained the Initial Document Toward a Global Ethic . Some had doubts about the equal place given to men and women
and about the question of non-violence. Some did not agree with
the process of consultation. I come back to these critiques.
I think I must say a word about how Küng got his assignment and what kind of problems he met when he worked out and wrote down the four commitments.
Küng has been lecturing on No peace among the nations without peace among the religions ever since 1989, when he was contacted by the organization committee of the centenary celebration of the first Parliament of World Religions. Küngs basic convictions, which he also presented in a lecture in Geneva some months ago, are as follows: The survival of humanity needs a co-operation both of religious and non religious people. There must be peace among the religions. The politicians should include the religious concerns into their strategic thinking (Yugoslavia). Every religion should develop a sense of self-criticism . Positive solutions are necessary to give positive models to young generations. Finally, the new world order obviously cannot be achieved by diplomacy, armies, international law and I would add scientific discoveries. There must be a elementary consensus about values and ethics. This consensus is not only a matter of intellect and knowledge but also something concerning the heart.
Küng published a book on Global Responsibility together with UNESCO and the World Economic Forum in Davos. The discussion first was to compare the Universal Declaration of a World Ethic to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights . World Ethic would then be concerned by general obligations, the necessary complement of general rights, and the Parliament of Religions of 1993 would then be the opportunity to present this declaration.
There were other obstacles. Precise criteria for distinguishing between law and ethic, right and ethics were missing. Then, the establishment of a list of classical virtues would have been rather boring (Aristotle, Catholic Church) although there seems to be some renaissance for the discussion about virtues in todays French philosophy (may be only a fashion, but the SMN network also invokes virtues like humility, honesty and humor). Another issue: To concentrate on particular problems seemed too difficult. One could not propose concrete solutions to specific problems. Taking into account theses difficulties Kung drafted a preamble in 1992 which he sent to different competent scholars of different world religions. He developed his own network worldwide to get the feed back.
What else had to be avoided in a declaration on a global ethic? It should not become a reduplication of the Declaration of Human Rights., but it should provide support for it. Treaties, laws, agreements are observed only if there is an underlying ethical will really to observe them. It should not be a political declaration. However, it should have relevance at the economic and political levels and support efforts towards a just ordering of economy and society. It should not be a casuistic moral sermon. To enter into moral questions like divorce or euthanasia which are disputed in all religions and nations would be to torpedo such a declaration right from the start. However, it should make clear statements about uncomfortable truths and demands and should not leave out the sexual sphere. It should not be a philosophical treatise (comment on this shame for philosophy) . It should not be an enthusiastic religious proclamation invoking cosmic consciousness, global harmony, universal unity, all embracing love or hymn mother earth and in so doing not take sufficiently seriously the economic, political and social reality.
What should it contain? I should penetrate to a deeper ethical level, the level of binding values, irrevocable criteria and inner basic attitudes. It must be capable of securing a consensus, it must be self-critical, related to reality, generally comprehensible and it must have a religious foundation: even if all men and women are to be addressed, including those who are not religious, it should be made plain that for religions, an ethic has a religious foundation. For those with a religious motivation, an ethic has to do with trust in an ultimately supreme reality , whatever name this may be given and no matter what the dispute over its nature may be among the different religions.
Ethic is the translation of the Greek word Ethos and means a basic human moral attitude, whereas ethics denotes the philosophical or theological theory of moral attitudes and norms. Global Ethic should offer a minimal ethic, it cannot replace or generate lets say the Christian Sermon on the Mount, the Discourses of Buddha or the Sayings of Confucius. All these particular religions state a maximal ethic.
What style was to adopt? There were no historical models. The declaration had to be all of a piece, with no dry paragraph work, no colorful bouquet of quotations, no academic discourse, no diplomatic communiqué. The world has never been redeemed by a committee. Küng was therefore faced to a quite challenging task. The 25 pages of the Declaration Toward a Global Ethic contain an Introduction and the Principles of a Global Ethic. (Read some parts of the introduction).
We will concentrate on the principles. Küng made a clear distinction between the ethical level and the purely legal and political level (Part I). By Global Ethic we do not mean a global ideology or a single unified religion beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the domination of one religion over all others. By a global ethic we mean a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes. Without such a fundamental consensus on an ethic, sooner or later every community will be threatened by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals will despair. Underlying the fundamental demand of ethics there is in all religions the Golden Rule Do not do to another what you would not want to be done to you (Part II).This fundamental ethic demand can be made concrete in four ancient directives which can also be found in all great religions: Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not commit sexual immorality (Part III)
Have respect to life, You shall not kill etc.
Social conflicts should be resolved without violence within a framework of justice. All religions are ready to be self-critical!
Young people must learn at home and in school that violence my not by a means of setting differences with others.
All living beings on this planet are intertwined together and dependent on each other. So lives of animals, plants and humans deserve protection, preservation and care.
Tolerance and respect towards minorities, whether they be racial, ethnic or religious.
This first commitment gave rise to controversy. Muslims in Bosnia felt that the right to self-defense (which is also affirmed by the United nations Charter) was not brought out clearly enough. Read p. 68-9.
It says: We live in a world in which totalitarian state socialism as well as unbridled capitalism have hollowed out and destroyed many ethical and spiritual values. A materialistic mentality breeds greed for unlimited profit and a grasping for endless plunder. These demands claim more and more of the communitys resources without obliging the individual to contribute more. The cancerous social evil of corruption thrives in the developing countries and in the developed countries alike (p. 27). I think that this statements are accepted by all SMN-members even if they are not expressively stated in the SMN-mission statement.
All religions and ethical traditions tell us You shall not steal! In positive terms: Deal honestly and fairly!
Where extreme poverty reigns, helplessness and despair spread, and theft occurs again and again for the sake of survival. A just economic order must by built up.
It follows from this aim that we must utilize economic and political power for service to humanity instead of misusing it in ruthless battles for domination.
Sense of moderation and modesty (SMN: humility, honesty an humor)
Problem for all religions: How far should they push social critique and by which means. I think that the gospel allows you to develop social critique. But this is not done very often.
Read the beginning of a, b, c, d, e and f p.33
This commitment gave rise to another controversy: This section presents a challenge not only to some Muslim and Hindus but also to more conservative European and American Christians. The Declaration deliberately says nothing about the role of woman in worship; the ordination of women to the priesthood is a highly controversial issue in most Christian churches and does not belong in any consensus document. But it should point out that now we cannot just repeat ancient directives from Holy Scriptures, including those relating to woman, in a sterile way, but have to translate them into present terms. Not least as a result of Dostoievskis perceptive legend of the Grand Inquisitor, Christians have become accustomed to asking: What would he (the Messiah Jesus) say if he were to come again? The same question could be brought up by Muslims: What would the prophet Muhammad say if he were to come again? Presumably both Jesus and Muhammad would have a good deal to say, particularly on the question of women.
There was also a general objection that the whole paper was too western. Keywords like cosmic consciousness, global spiritual harmony, bond with the universe and so on were not in the declaration. But the discussion revealed that such expressions were also problematic for Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus.
This guideline is directed against hypocrisy, ideology and demagoguery. Wouff!
The religious traditions say You shall not lie! Speak and act truthfully!
As for the SMN we know that it upholds open-mindedness, experimental rigor and the search for truth. In science in general, the search for truth is the dominant value. Global Ethics becomes thus relevant also for both religion and science. Let me now investigate this issue.
I start with a problem concerning religions: how can you be tolerant if your religion tells you that it represents the truth and that within this truth it tells you to spread its dogmas all over the globe? If you really believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, which you will not submit to discussion, how can you think well of the other religions? How is it possible to accept other religious contents and dogmas while not qualifying them as idolatry or as diabolic temptations ? And what is truth? Who is entitled to deal that question: Natural science, philosophy, religion? When Jesus was once (in the gospel of John) asked what truth is, he did not answer. So Christians do not know precisely the rules of truth governing language, but they know that truth is the attribute of a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. This is a dogma, i.e. an unquestionable truth for Christians, to which they stick mainly by faith and not so much by reason. Reason is free to find out a lot about truth through scientific investigation, but it will never grasp the ultimate truth which can be approached by an act of faith. This would mean that when it comes to absolute truth, science is also tied to faith for the best and for the worst. I will come back to this tricky issue.
I want to speak about something else before. The commitment to truthfulness and to truth brings up another problem which is not debated by Küng. How does a specific religion relates to the general ethic level of Global Ethic? Do we really need any religion at all to discuss the Global Ethic? The answer first is no . When I presented Global Ethic at our SMN meeting in Berne, Brendam showed me a one page paper proposing, what it calls, a Universal Ethos . He asked me: Which one is the better: Global Ethic or the Universal Ethos? In fact, after having read this Universal Ethos paper whose authors are anonymous, I can tell you that neither is better. Both stick to the same the ethical principles. (Read some rules set up by this A4 Universal Ethos). However, the premises are different. Whereas it is unquestionable for Küng that his GE does not exclude religious congregations, hierarchies, institutions etc. unless these structures prevent self-criticism (which is precisely the case of the Pope), the UE holds that no churches, memberships and script composing are acknowledged, no priests, no authorities, founders or scriptures are accepted, nor does UE prescribe any rituals, dogmas or idols.
The underlying debate is well known to everyone: Do we really need religious institutions and leaders in order to grow spiritually? Cant we do this all alone by reading books, listening to spiritual, Krishnamurti-like leaders and so on? The result of this leads to the spiritual eclecticism which is widely spread today in all social spheres, even among the SMN-members. But there is an opposite view which precisely holds that spiritual progress is possible only if you stick to a religious community with its rules, leaders and rituals. It is better, from this point of view, to be a good Buddhist or a good Christian or whatsoever than picking out whatever you like from the latest religious fashions. The argument says that if you want to grow spiritually, you need a channel, and this channel is an established religion with its leaders. So shop around to spot your favourite religion, but once you have really committed yourself to spirituality, stick to the religion you have adopted, at least for a certain time. During this period, use the other religions to enhance the understanding of your own choice.
Personally, I think that is the way we should do. The attitude towards religions is then very close to the pluralism professed by Sheldrake. This brings me back to the discussion about truth and faith. I would like to sum up some of Sheldrakes findings. In one of the last chapters of his book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World he shows that the search for the so called objectivity is but another way to be dogmatic. Scientists not only tell you but they believe that the search for truth can be done solely on the grounds of reason, logic and experiment. The problem with many scientists is that they do not reflect their beliefs, as a consequence, their faith becomes a taboo. And this is an attitude that anthropologists observe in gurus of archaic societies.
As we from the SMN all know : even if experiments and reason are necessary, they always reflect some unspoken expectations of the experimentator. The scientific standards with their idealized self images are made up by a community which has its own problems of hierarchies and power. From a sociological point of view, religious and scientific priesthood do not so much differ. As soon as a scientific community sticks dogmatically to one way of truth, it runs into intolerance, manipulation and abuse of power. But what I said for spiritual growth is true as well for scientific improvement of knowledge. We have to integrate into a community (thats what I did when writing a doctoral thesis), to expose ourselves to the criticism of that community, to commit ourselves to a set of methods and to a special discipline in order to do the job; we cannot practice it on our own. The problem in both science and religion is the lack of self-criticism of those who handle the power, it is the reluctance towards plurality which necessarily breaks up power positions. Power is in itself a necessity, but it has always had the tendency to erect new idols, things you firmly believe in like short term market competition or unconditional money making. From this point of view, Global Ethic also concerns science. Scientific and religious communities, yes, but under the condition that they dont create intolerance or even worse, exclusion and repression, that they remain open to dynamic changes, which is unfortunately very seldom the case.
To conclude I will show that religion can be more clever scientifically speaking than science itself. I quote Sheldrake: The cases of fraud uncovered in the great unpoliced hinterland of science are rarely brought to light by the official mechanisms of peer review, refereeing of papers and the potential for independent replication. and even if attempts to replicate an experiment fail, this is usually ascribed to a failure to reproduce the conditions of the experiment precisely enough. There is a big psychological and cultural barrier against accusing colleagues of fraud - unless one has strong personal reasons to suspect their integrity. Most known cases of fraud come to light as a result of some personal grievance. When this happens, the typical response of laboratory chiefs and other responsible authorities is to try to hush the matter up. But if the charges of fraud do not blow over, if allegations are made persistently enough, and if evidence becomes overwhelming, then an official enquiry is held. Someone is found guilty and dismissed in disgrace.
Most professional scientists deny that these incidents shed doubt on institutional science as a whole; rather, they are seen as isolated aberrations by individuals who have become temporarily unhinged under pressure, or who are rare but inevitable psychopaths. Science is purified by expulsion. They are scapegoats in the biblical sense. On the Day of Atonement the high priest confessed the sins of the people while laying his hands on a goat. The guilt-laden scapegoat was then expelled from the community into wilderness, bearing away their iniquities (p. 160-1).
It is true that the expulsion described by Sheldrake reproduces
exactly the scapegoat mechanism. But unlike the Jews, scientists
are not really aware of what they are doing and what is going
on in their community. If they were, they would indeed organise
an academic Day of Atonement once a year and bring up the multiple
aberrations and irresponsibilites within their realm of activity.
They are of course scared of doing something the like, because
self-questioning is practised as long as it does not compromise
their position. Finally, they would tell you that scape goat like
rituals are unscientific. For this reason they would not want
to integrate a scientific atonement day into the other academic
rituals. But this of course denotes a moral incoherence since
they are still ready to use the scape goat whenever it serves
and not as they say exceptionally. At least political, anthropological
or even theological science could brake up the taboo of this so
called exception and investigate this very common phenomenon in
a scientific manner. But nothing the like happens. In this sense,
faith in its negative form has the last word. It is a superstitious
faith that leads to a taboo, a faith that tells us about the blindness
of science.
Let me just propose a hint of a solution. It would indeed be a
bit awkward to organize a secular academic Day of Atonement even
if it is taken for granted that in todays Jewish Jom Kippur day
no goat is sacrificed any more. Prayer and pardon are the sacrifice
now for Jews and Christians. For a Christian, the meaning of the
cross is the definite overcoming of the Atonement ritual. It means
that we can thoroughly offer pardon and self-criticism any time
without a special ritual thanks to the expiation of the cross.
I could therefore imagine that a genuine Christian critique of
society, although not very popular in the past, could help understand
the absurdity of measures that seem to be scientifically necessary,
but in reality are nothing but archaic scape goat mechanism. Just
think of the 5000 people that some megalomanic boss of Credit
Suisse now wants to put out of work. Obviously for some people,
this is not bad news since it has already tremendously increased
the share value of that bank.
The conclusion of the declaration insists on the transformation of individual consciousness. It is not so much a new theory or a trifling discovery that will solve tomorrow problems, but a transformation of ourselves. Earth cannot be changed for the better unless the consciousness of individuals is changed. We pledge to work for such transformation in individual and collective consciousness, for the awakening of our spiritual powers through reflection, meditation, prayer, or positive thinking, for a conversion of heart. But this change of consciousness does not automatically lead to a universal consensus on many disputed ethical questions (from bio- and sexual ethics through mass media and scientific ethics to economic and political ethic). Therefore as many professions as possible, such as those of physicians, scientists, business people, journalists and politicians would develop up to date codes of ethics.
Communities of faith should also formulate their specific ethic: what does each faith tradition have to say about the meaning of life and death, the enduring of suffering and the forgiveness of guilt, about selfless sacrifice and the necessity of renunciation, about compassion and joy.