# The U.N. of Religions



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Is the United Nations going to get into religion now?

http://www.jta.org/2014/09/04/news-...s-discuss-u-n-of-religions-at-vatican-meeting

[h=1]Pope, Peres discuss ‘U.N. of religions’ at Vatican meeting[/h]September 4, 2014 11:03am
ROME (JTA) – Former Israeli President Shimon Peres met with Pope Francis at the Vatican and proposed a “U.N. of religions” to fight terrorism.
The Vatican said the pope and Peres held a “long” and “very cordial” discussion on Thursday.
During the 45-minute meeting, Peres described his idea to the pontiff about his organization of religions modeled after the United Nations. The motivation, Peres told the Catholic weekly Famiglia Cristiana, is that religion is the prime trigger for world conflicts today.
“The U.N. has had its time,” Peres said, according to Famiglia Cristiana. “What we need is an organization of United Religions, the U.N. of religions. It would be the best way to combat these terrorists who kill in the name of their faith because most people are not like them, they practice their religions without killing anyone, without even thinking about it.”
The Vatican news service said the pope “listened attentively and with interest” to Peres’ proposal.
Also Thursday, the pope met for 30 minutes with Jordanian Prince El Hassan Bin Talal and also discussed interfaith cooperation. The prince is the founder of the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies in Amman.
Francis last met with Peres June 8, when he hosted the then-Israeli president, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople at an unprecedented prayer meeting in the Vatican garden.



Read more: http://www.jta.org/2014/09/04/news-...of-religions-at-vatican-meeting#ixzz3CPmEhBIw


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

there aren't too many international institutions more useless than the fricking u.n. but a u.n. of religions would certainly fit the bill


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I find it ironic that whenever something happens that people immediately attribute to this religion or that, they will often whine about why the major religious figures aren't standing up to denounce it. "Why aren't there Imams/Rabbis/Bishops/Monks.... (denouncing repugnant act X)?". So, given that whether folks here heed the voice of clergy or not, we seem to at least have the impression that somebody _will_.

So why NOT have a multi-denominational body that can speak with one voice? I'm not saying it would solve everything, (or anything for that matter), but it couldn't hurt.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

I think it is a good idea and really addresses a problem that exists because of but also despite religion. High level religious leaders may be in the best position available to combat fanaticism and terrorism that ignores national borders.

And cheezy, the UN is not a totally ineffectual body, it has certainly prevented and contained many conflicts that would have been much worse without their influence and power. Not to mention the humanitarian and health arms of the UN. Literally millions of lives saved, made better and prolonged because of the UN. I don't know how you call that useless.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

I think that this could be bad.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

because it's a retarded idea, if you understand faith and religion, that's why. ever notice how guys in the political forum will argue over some obscure piece of minutia? they'll try their damnedest to convince the other guy that he needs to agree with whatever thing.
each religion is filled with various sects, who all think the others are a bunch of retards who don't get it, and they're they only ones who truly understand the truth. you think some political asshat can unite different religions, when the religions themselves can't unite their sects? not only that but the u.n as a model is the absolute worst. you sectarian guys maybe you don't see the impossibility of the idea, but those who have/had faith will right away see the futility of it. christians especially. in the bible, in revelations, they are warned against a leader who unites the world, and is a religious leader. so, right there, count out about what? 30% or so according to google. the muslims will not listen to anyone who isn't a caliphate, so count out about 20% more. now with at least half of the group not participating, how effective will it be?



mrmatt1972 said:


> And cheezy, the UN is not a totally ineffectual body, it has certainly prevented and contained many conflicts that would have been much worse without their influence and power. Not to mention the humanitarian and health arms of the UN. Literally millions of lives saved, made better and prolonged because of the UN. I don't know how you call that useless.


libya kidnapped and killed americans, the un did nothing. terror groups bombed a disco in berlin, killing americans, the un did nothing. saddam killed nearly a million kurds, shiites and iranians, and violated 17 u.n resolutions, and they did nothing. u.n was on the ground in rawanda while they hacked each other apart with machetes and the u.n. did nothing. i could go on and on, but i made my point.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

But Matt's point - and a valid one - is that the U.N. addresses a whole lot more than armed conflicts (which, you are correct, they tend not to do much or enough about, as Romeo Dallaire can confirm). Who do you think is out there fighting the Ebola fight?

I'm not Catholic, or even any sort of Christian, but I think Pope Francis has been absolutely kickass. A "Justice League" of him and a host of other prominent religious leaders holding a press conference and expressing their disappointment in a political leader or faction would be a good thing. Political leaders are going to criticize and blame, in a way that is partly intended for them to save personal face. Religious leaders are going to ask the question "Why are you not living up to the best in yourself?". Politicos express anger. Sometimes, expressing sincere disappointment is a more powerful thing. If someone puts their hand on your shoulder and says "You let me down", isn't that more powerful and persuasive than yelling "You're an out and out p***k!"?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I hope it would work better and do more than local "ministerial associations", but I have my doubts. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Ah, a room full of wizards, warlocks, magicians and seers. Surely the outcome will be grand.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Only time will tell what the outcome of this will be. One thing it does show is that the UN and some other governments are getting tired of religions and are now thinking about doing something about them. So much damage and killing has been done in the name of religion that many people have been turned away from God because of the hypocrisy they see. And who can blame them?


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2014)

[video=youtube;sSwG6MfiSqw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSwG6MfiSqw[/video]


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> One thing it does show is that the UN and some other governments are getting tired of religions and are now thinking about doing something about them.


Yeah, but they should start with a small region first. 

Lets say ... Israel and Palestine. Once they sort those out they can move onto bigger areas.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Mooh said:


> I hope it would work better and do more than local "ministerial associations", but I have my doubts.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Like most things, it's only effective in proportion to the effectiveness of the people involved, though ideally it will also be stronger than the sum of it's parts.

Our local ministerial association is strong and well-respected in our community, even (maybe especially) outside of the various religious communities. I have to admit though, it is a bit of an anomaly. 

I have high hopes and low expectations for a "religious U.N.".


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

..........


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Maybe this counsel is where he finally emerges


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

sulphur said:


> View attachment 10145
> ..........


That is true sulphur but when we see the example that most religions set then many people think that if the leaders of those religions can do it, why not the parishioners? It is similar to examples set by parents. When parents set a good example, the average is better for those children to grow up with good morals than children who grow up with bad moral examples set by the parents. There are exceptions. Perhaps you are one. You are to be commended for your good morals.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> That is true sulphur but when we see the example that most religions set then many people think that if the leaders of those religions can do it, why not the parishioners? It is similar to examples set by parents. When parents set a good example, the average is better for those children to grow up with good morals than children who grow up with bad moral examples set by the parents. There are exceptions. Perhaps you are one. You are to be commended for your good morals.


Steadfastly, you're adorable. I often wonder if you're one of those religous trolls, who acts "over the top religous style" to confirm the stereotype.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

well, somebody needs to do something

every religion pretty much by definition denounces every other religion, calling them heathen, unbelievers, whatever. I don't know of many religions that preach tolerance of others beliefs?

so maybe it's a start

killing in the name of...?

I do know many people, of different faiths, that I get along fine with. so where is the real source of the problem


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> That is true sulphur but when we see the example that most religions set then many people think that if the leaders of those religions can do it, why not the parishioners? It is similar to examples set by parents. When parents set a good example, the average is better for those children to grow up with good morals than children who grow up with bad moral examples set by the parents. There are exceptions. Perhaps you are one. You are to be commended for your good morals.


He just suggested that sulphur 'perhaps' had poor moral examples.

Steadilydooshy.


Seriously, the crap that comes out of churchy mouths.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

smorgdonkey said:


> He just suggested that sulphur 'perhaps' had poor moral examples.
> 
> Steadilydooshy.
> 
> ...


Ha! I missed that back-handed compliment. Nice catch. 8)


----------



## JeremyP (Jan 10, 2012)

Who cares about religion! Have you guys seen the new ESP's ?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

JeremyP said:


> Who cares about religion! Have you guys seen the new ESP's ?


My bud and I have been serious ESP fans since the early 1990s. We are both shaking our heads at what ESP has done to their product lines. It used to be a lot better with clear distinction between the lines. We also don't like their new logo or the E2 thing. 







Seriously, WTF is that??!!??

It's bad enough when potential clients interpret your product lines as unclear but why change things up so that the people who had it clear now wonder and would find it confusing to explain to someone?

The ESP Japan and the ESP USA have the same logo. We don't get why they would get a USA operation now after all of this time either. 

Too many head-scratchers there.

The company also does some strange things like suppress info about how they once had USA Custom shop(s) and the connection with Schecter. More head-scratching.

ESP signature guitars and LTD signature guitars...Ron Wood has 5 signature models - scratching the skin right off of my head.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

bolero said:


> I don't know of many religions that preach tolerance of others beliefs?



this statement embodies the exact problem with un beleivers trying to understand religion. it's a hard concept if you don't really buy it, in your heart. but try to imagine that you believe, absolutely in a few things. among them are 

this life goes by in a blink, but your next one is eternal. as in f-o-r-e-v-e-r 

what you do during the blink determines if your next life is totally awesome or totally teh suck.

there is one judge, his rules are specific, and there is no other way to properly do it. 

suddenly, YOU have the only correct answer to the most important personal question there is. you now bear the weighty responsibility of trying to hook up as many bros and babes as possible during the blink of your first life. your new mission is now to rob that ol' dickhead legba of his prized souls. you want everyone to be on your side, the "winning team" in a coming war between the righteous and the fallen. you have to really believe that you are here in the now, for this purpose. imagine the impact of that on your life. imagine how that would affect your behavior in the most mundane of daily situations. until you can grasp that, you'll never "get" it. sure believers regardless of faith always fall short of the ideal they set for themselves. but that's beside the point here. the idea that one religion could be tolerant of another is ludicrous because it means that you would be endorsing someone's damnation. that's enough to damn you. any so called religion that could be tolerant of another isn't really a religion. it's a philosophy.

anyhow, that's the best explanation i can give for the core point in all my previous posts in this thread. i'm not against what it seems people want to accomplish with this council, i just think the u.n. model is the wrong way to go about it, and i think maybe one shouldn't expect too much in the way of effectiveness, or longevity. sometimes i forget that some knowledge is not common because not all experiences are shared by all people. right away, the very first thought i had when i saw the idea of the u.n. council for religions was "only a non-believer could have come up with this idea".


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

The reason that the current U.N. has failed is that there are countries which have a veto. It should have, from the start, been majority rules. Look at the stuff that China and Russia have vetoed...therein lies the problem. It isn't political, it's logical.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

maybe not the only reason, but certainly one of biggest.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

sulphur said:


> Ha! I missed that back-handed compliment. Nice catch. 8)


I suggested no such thing, Sulphur. I merely commended you for your good morals. What I was pointing out is that it is easier when we have good examples and more difficult when we don't have good examples.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> I suggested no such thing, Sulphur. I merely commended you for your good morals. What I was pointing out is that it is easier when we have good examples and more difficult when we don't have good examples.


I doubted that you implied that Steadly, but in your own wording,
I'm an exception that has morals, therefore, my examples growing up didn't.
It may have came out wrong, but it can be interpreted that way.

I do see what you mean and agree that setting a good example goes a long way.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I love it when he takes me off of 'ignore' long enough to see my posts.

He's so fake.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I quoted you smorg, he probably saw that.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

sulphur said:


> I quoted you smorg, he probably saw that.


Could be...I need you to quote every post that I make so it is just like I am not on his ignore any more.



Striving to make the world a better place!


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

smorgdonkey said:


> Could be...I need you to quote every post that I make so it is just like I am not on his ignore any more.
> 
> 
> 
> Striving to make the world a better place!


8)

I'll be the mediator/interpreter.


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

> [10] No political or religious related threads. Topics that create a combative atmosphere may be locked and or deleted by GC moderators.


I don't come here to talk about this guys, please.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

sulphur said:


> I doubted that you implied that Steadly, but in your own wording,
> I'm an exception that has morals, therefore, my examples growing up didn't.
> It may have came out wrong, but it can be interpreted that way.
> 
> I do see what you mean and agree that setting a good example goes a long way.


I appreciate your post, Sulphur.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> The reason that the current U.N. has failed is that there are countries which have a veto. It should have, from the start, been majority rules. Look at the stuff that China and Russia have vetoed...therein lies the problem. It isn't political, it's logical.


....and certain countries ie the US that only abide by UN rulings when it is in their favour.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

When it comes to a great many other issues, that are broached by the various UN agencies and institutes (and you can see the list here: http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/index.shtml ), the UN often does a much better job of representing the best in us. When it comes to the General Assembly, though, political self-interest (which, in that context, is national self-interest) and grandstanding tends to interfere with making the sorts of decisions intended to benefit the globe, or areas of it in conflict. And, while I may be mistaken about this part, my sense is that member nations have standing contributions to the various agencies and institutes, whereas the decisions made by the General Assembly represent financial and/or military commitments of an ad hoc nature that member states may be squeamish or reticent about.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

wait a minute.... how many times have the blue helmets been accused of rapes and other sex crimes? more times than you have fingers and toes. in fact, the un has a rep. for ignoring these incidents. and these are supposed to be the good guys? ever looked at the members of the un counsel for human rights? it changes all the time but just look at the members for the past decade. even ray charles could see that the group is largely made up of abusers, more than anything else.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Don't fall prey to the availability heuristic.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> wait a minute.... how many times have the blue helmets been accused of rapes and other sex crimes? more times than you have fingers and toes. in fact, the un has a rep. for ignoring these incidents. and these are supposed to be the good guys? ever looked at the members of the un counsel for human rights? it changes all the time but just look at the members for the past decade. even ray charles could see that the group is largely made up of abusers, more than anything else.


I honestly haven't heard of that, but even if it was true, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Look how many times cops get caught acting inappropriately (or worse)...but do we really think the world would be a better place without them?

My thought is, the concept of the UN is a good one...one that should be greatly expanded on...but in order to do so, I think it, and its charter needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> My thought is, the concept of the UN is a good one...one that should be greatly expanded on...but in order to do so, I think it, and its charter needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.


They did that when the League of Nations was replaced with The United Nations. Maybe they could name the next one _The Nations That Will Never Be United._


----------

