Common ground for interfaith connections: considering the golden rule(s)
Photo by flickr user oooh.oooh
Not long ago, AnnArbor.com profiled a group of women crossing traditional boundary lines and navigating interfaith friendships. Many in that group began by rallying around common interests - children, family, career, or hobbies - and eventually realized that perhaps they weren't so different after all.
But anytime a conversation turns to religion or faith, things get sticky. We might assume the differences are vast and that it's too difficult to find common ground. It might be helpful to keep in mind some basic principles that are similar across many faith traditions, such as the good old-fashioned golden rule(s).
Here's a short list of how different faith traditions express this basic principle:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Â —Christianity (drawn from the Hebrew scriptures)
What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. That is the entire Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and learn. —Judaism
No one is a believer until you desire for another that which you desire for yourself. —Islam
Blessed are those who prefer others before themselves. —Baha’i
Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self. —Zoroastrianism
Be not estranged from one another, for God dwells in every heart. —Sikhism
In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, regard all creatures as you would your own self. —Jainism
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. —Buddhism
Perhaps, if we take note of some of the things we have in common, we can navigate our differences with more compassion and understanding. The golden rule is one place to start.
Pam Stout coordinates Faith and Home & Garden coverage for AnnArbor.com. She can be reached at pamstout@annarbor.com.
Comments
bedrog
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 3:01 p.m.
a relevant point is "who said it first"...interesting/ironic that the later versions ( new testament/koran)while,in effect, plagiarizing the old testament, have a history of demonizing those from whom they 'cribbed'... this is, sadly, an irrefutable fact of history...not one cranky person's opinion. if "theft of intellectual property" laws applied to theology what an interesting world it'd be ( and after the hypothetical lawsuit dust settled, maybe a better one!...or at least one more based in historical reality.)
Rork Kuick
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 10:09 a.m.
Well, the Humanist Manifesto III doesn't really contain language just like this. We are often killing folks in wars, so it seems that the exceptions to the rule would be interesting reading. That said, concentrating on common ground is often useful, so maybe this from the manifesto will help: "Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence" and "Humanists are concerned for the well being of all". Maybe an atheist who is not humanist would say something different. Not sure I know any.
J Ho
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 9:57 a.m.
Is it necessary to find common ground between religions? Yes, several religions have themes, beliefs, or even histories in common but ultimately their beliefs are not compatible with one another. I don't mean to say that people of different religions can't peacefully co-exist, I'm simply saying that, for example, Jesus's resurrection was either true or false, a matter of fact or fiction. Many of the main beliefs of religions are black and white like that. Another example: Comparing the three major monotheistic religions to something like Hindu, you can't agree to the common ground that there are both a single god and multiple gods. The point I am getting at is this: Why must we respect others' beliefs when we know that they are false? Of course it's important to respect the right to hold any belief and to speak your mind freely, but not the substance of the belief itself. Religious belief isn't like political opinion, where a belief in the superiority of something like free market capitalism has no ultimate truth or answer. Religious beliefs SHOULD be argued about. If for nothing else, perhaps it will inspire religious believers to defend their beliefs with a stronger argument than "because my holy book says so."
bedrog
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 5:26 a.m.
THE WASHTENAW JEWISH NEWS may issue has some interesting 'dialogue' between a spokesperson for the local quaker ( 'frtiends")congregation and several jewish responders, the latter objecting to the fact that some of those who have harassed a local synagogue for 7 years ( in the misguided name of the palestinians)have affiliations with the "friends". a spokesman for the friends objected to that fact being noted in a feb WJN article on the synagogue harassers, and in the may issue the writer of the article, and others, had some pointed things to say in response to that demurral. worth a look in the context of this article on interfaith communication.