A religion UN


Yona Metzger, the Israelist Chief Rabbi called for " a UN with representatives of religious groups"in the International Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace in Seville, Spain yesterday. The conference displayed promising prospects of the feasibility of such plan carried out as the Imams and Rabbis leaders were prepared for constructive criticism from each other. They all agreed that "politicians lied but religious leaders have a different objective- to work towards a higher good " (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4800194.stm). That was reflected in the conference's language which was decribed as "usually brutally direct" and not "polite and diplomatic ", unlike the cunning politicians (with their tails hiding while they lie with a wide graceful smile on the face lol). The good thing is, they all strongly opposed the notion of any killing in the name of religions.

Well, the intention sure is noble. Any shout out to end killing in the world is always needed. However, there are a few hurdles to world peace through religious re-empowerment movements.

I dun mean to sound sacrelegious or blasphemous, but the Religion UN(referred as RUN here onwards, not official as well, simply for my convenience writing here) will have to always maintain the good will of the leaders/representatives. I concurr that all mainstream(or probably non mainstream) religions propagate good. However, not all religious leaders are saints. Bear in mind that many terrorist-attacks are initiated by religious leaders when it's hardly the last resort at times, aside from all those reasons why secularism was born. Assuming that those who project massive threats to innocents are not real religious leaders, will it really be different from politicians when leaders around the world, each representing their own ppl, come together 2 discuss global issues. Will they not have to listen to the ppl when it's opposing their gut feelings and conscience as a leader? Is a leader still a leader when his follower dump him for some unpopular, but not neccessarily evil notion? Politic is inevitable when ppl r to work on something together. Noble systems always fall not because of the nature of the system, but the nature of human.Clearly some sort of mechanism or definition is needed as to how much ppl's sentiment is considered.

This is not to say that the proposal would neccessarily be a farce. Logically, respected religious leaders would be more considerate than self-interests based politicians. The general assumptions are that religious leaders are less self centered and hence more inclined to speak for the real interest of the ppl. But again, only time can give the answer againt power corrosion.Another problem is how to qualify a religious leader. Would the RUN welcome the religious leaders of a Voo doo master? What's is its attitudes towards minor sects within a particular religion? What about Jedi master? What about the founder of Fa Lun Gong?Who defines a religion? What about the proportion of representation's distribution in RUN? For instance, how many seats for a particular sect in a particular religion? Are the leaders transboundary (geographically)? How are they going to determine who represents who then? All these complications will prevail when one RUN were to be founded.

And we have to think about the dynamic change it brings to domestic and global political sphere too. With the religions of the world coming together, will it be able to accumulate sheer support from the ppl each religion carries to interfere in state's policies? Will it be able to dictate that homosexuality is a crime? Will it force the gov to halt any public or private research of cloning or GM food? Will it silent the gov's campaign of safe sex using condoms? Will it then lead to A non religious UN? a secular UN? Is that not gonna further divide the already divided world? Clearly, a very carefully defined RUN is needed.

While itz worrisome that the RUN is overly powerful, its limits are shown in certain environments. For eg, a country which is dictated and firmly controlled by a military regime. What the religious leaders think mite not make any changes there. Neither will the ppl's voices, after religious leaders' preachery, will really make any changes, unless they revolt. Similarly, those religious leaders in exile, will not likely to restall their sovereignty(for eg Dalai Lama) through RUN. Well it's pretty crazy to think a bout a clash between RUN and UN's big 5 and is victorious against big 5. It's equally scary to think about an extreme conflict between those two cuz both hav nukes :P

Despite all those negative pop ups i had in mind, i personally hope that it will flourish into a peaceful resolution powerhouse pertaining religious issues. All religious conflicts can then be referred to RUN instead of exchanging bombs. But, the pretext is that it needs untouchable religious credibility, so that a peaceful standard/ measure can be applied world wide, and so that ppl wont resort to some other channels.

well cross ur fingers for me pals, final's nearing, so is fyp submission and presentation, and the EIT deadline 2. really feel mentally tormented

c ye when itz all over

good luck 2 all my frens having finals out there