Kenneth E. Bowers, a Baha'i Faith represenatitve and an On Faith panelist wrote the blog post linked above on Tuesday the 17th. I did not notice it until today but I am glad I did. While its a short peice, I like allot of what Bowers has to say. Also, I really like a represenative of a somewhat obscure but popular religion being featured as well. Beyond a few powerful yet controversial statements that Bowers makes, statements that we will get to in a moment, reading this post gave me an intellectual itch to scatch, so to speak. Not, knowing much about the Baha'i faith, I spent a little time familarizing myself with it and found a religion with a rich heritage and a great way of looking at the world.
Rising up within nineteenth century Persia, the religion has a modern flavor. Monotheistic in essence, it accepts the world's mutilplicity of religious faiths as reflections of a single divine force or power that uses these seperate faith renditions as a chorus of a single composer. Such as the symphony is made up of its various parts and musical instruments, it all works together to present a unified musical ensemble. So, the world's main religions reveal a single truth about a unified and singular divine; at least, that is what I understood the Baha'i religion to say and I must admit that the approach is very appealing and refreshing.
Equally refreshing is that many of the values and social principles of the Baha'i faith call for justice and a complete elimination of predijuce and inequality. Humanity is called upon to live in peace and unity, both religiously and politically. World peace is a prominent doctrine. The equality of man and woman as well as a harmony between religion and science are both fundamental beliefs as well.
Given the time this faith was born it is amazingly progressive. While its monotheistic emphasis or its theism in gneral may turn many people off, its unlying principles are very in tune with post modern notions of justice. I see in it a wonderful opportunity and platform for religions to meet on equal footing and engage in respectful dialog. It is no wonder to me that millions follow this faith worldwide and that many see it as the answer to religious plurality.
As promised, there are several statements in the above mentioned blog post that I would like to briefly comment on. First, Bowers sees globalization and the free and exhaustive exchange of information in today's world as an antidote to religious fanaticism and dogmatism. He states the following:
"It is natural that, exposed to an array of choices, many would either change religious identity, opt not to commit to any one religion, or even abandon religion altogether."
I wish that he would have elaborated on his source here for these powerful projections. I suspect that there is some truth to his proposals, although I certainly would not take his word for it. Two of his statements here assume prior religious understanding/belief: changing religious identity and abandoning religion altogether. I'm not so sure that his certainity here does not overlook the power of one's native faith or religious system. Opening one's mind to other religious ideas and systems will no doubt challenge a person, but it often has the opposite effect in that it can threaten one's ideas and thus invoke a departure from religious sampling. Additionally, doing research on the religious faith and ideas of another group of people or culture does not always mean that a person is searching for an alternative religious system or theory. So, while I like his statement and am inclined toward it, I am not convinced that the current information age is going to overcome fundamentalism or that the existence of religious pluralism will necessarily render the "my faith is right" mentality obsolete. I think this is more wishful thinking than rational thought.
Here is another statement that Bower makes that I think demands attention:
"...many have not so much abandoned faith as the narrow definitions of faith that often come with membership in a specific religious tradition. They see something universal and common to all religious expereince, and are therefore ready to accept such divesity as a necessary, even desirable, aspect of life. They appreciate faith and spirituality, but choose not to confine themselves to one particular choice."
Once again, I like this statement. But, one has to wonder if Bower is looking at the world through the eyes of a religious historian or an echatalogical prophet of his own doctrinal beliefs. Religion is being redefined here but is it not being redefined toward that which is consistent with the beliefs and eschatology of Bower's Baha'i religious belief system? Certainly, this religious mentality is consistent and conducive with Bower's beliefs but I am not sure that the world's religious population is becoming more tolerant and on a path to merge ecumenically anytime soon.
There are some merits to Bower's thoughts here so I am not trying to dimisss him altogether. Obviously, I am a proponent to religious pluralism or this site would not exist. But, I am not sure that I am as optimistic that the world is on the verge of getting along in spite of religious differences or that the Baha'i faith, although fascinating in itself, is the absolute platform for unity that the world is going to simply adhere too.
Perhaps, the day will come that the world operates under a single dictum or religious mandate. Even Christianity has such a persuasion in its eschatalogical view of the world. If religious harmony is to ever be achieved, it will definitely take some unifying force or require some platform or system of belief to triumph emphatically to the absolute exclusion of all others. Perhaps, and hopefully, a syncretistic logic similar to that porposed by Bower will eventually be the answer. It's a lofty ideal and would definitely stop all the killing and religious wars and bigotry that even today, in this post modern age, characterize such a large portion of religious faith. I nodd my head with Bowers in hope that he and his ideas are at least headed in the right direction.
