No doubt the Institute is doing interesting work, theologically, but are they getting too big for their boots campaigning on how other faiths teach their faith?

i think they’re being quite practical and pointing out that faith traditions have a responsibility to wider society to get on with other faith traditions. someone should certainly point it out – and it is certainly one of the things that government intends by “community cohesion”.

They recommended that academic standards be raised in Islamic seminaries, but it didn’t cite such recommendations for Rabbinic schools on the grounds that the Islamic seminaries were in greater need of them. In the report, however, no mention was made of any Rabbinic college that had academically recognised courses, while there were three Islamic colleges sited that offered academically recognised courses, and four if you include the Islamic College for Advanced Studies that made the headlines a few years back because of one 13th century text it taught which said that an unbeliever was ritually impure.

the leo baeck college, which is accredited by the university of london, which trains “progressive” (non-orthodox) rabbis has interfaith work as a core part of the curriculum and are widely recognised as experts in this field. the london school of jewish studies (an orthodox institution, also i believe accredited by the university of london) has an interfaith curriculum and is currently putting together an even more challenging practical programme, as theologically they don’t have much to discuss. certainly the people that i know who are studying for semihah (rabbinic ordination) under the auspices of the montefiore foundation (sephardic) certainly has one module on interfaith stuff, although it’s not a massive part of the training.

I don’t think anyone would dream of telling a Yeshiva what to teach

i bloody would and so should the government. the problem is that religious education is a global market and it is perfectly feasible for UK students to get taught religious intolerance abroad at present, whether we are talking about israel, pakistan or saudi arabia. however, the UK government is perfectly entitled to demand that UK institutions support the aims of community cohesion.

@sid:

Intra-faith inititatives? If that were true, there would be no confessional supremacism and good stuff like syncretism and a disavowal of doctrinal law would be the order of the day.

that’s your opinion, sid. syncretism is a pretty bad thing in my book. i agree with you about confessional supremacism, but you can’t legislate the contents of people’s minds – all i can say is that it shouldn’t be being taught in jewish institutions and that, if it is, it is 100% mistaken.

The best we can hope for is *inter*-faith initiatives which are nothing more than talking shops for bearded men all convinced of their own faith’s perfection and the utter falsity of the others.

hmm, a little bit cynical if you ask me. you should actually try one some time and see how wrong you are. or you can come over and visit us at http://www.comparative-religion.com if you fancy. and, besides, there’s already something going on that might interest you – it’s called the alexandria process.

Buddhism doesn’t require a godhead. It isn’t based on a central figure of a man on whom hangs the fate of humanity in the same way Christianity and Krishna worship does.

and judaism does – except this central figure is each one of us; i think buddhism has a certain sympathy with this point of view.

@sunny:

I have a problem with most inter-faith dialogue anyway because its very fluffy and doesn’t get to the nitty gritty of why people have disagreements and how to resolve them. Its just sitting around singing khumbaya, and I speak from personal experience.

you have a good point here, although i don’t understand what singijng about mushrooms and nannies have to do with it. practical conflict resolution, networking and facilitation skills are what are needed and by focusing on what are very often insoluble problems, theologically speaking, opportunities have, historically, been missed.

I like Buddhism the most, especially because Buddha says (according to my interpretation) that the existence of God is irrelevant. You have to spend more time reforming yourself and understanding reality.

judaism, surprisingly, agrees about this – not that we suggest that the existence of G!D is irrelevant, G!D Forbid, but that you don’t need to appeal to G!D every two seconds in order to know how to behave correctly; we maintain that all jews have a responsibility to work for peace and understanding in the place that we live and uphold the law of the land.

@persephone:

prospect of shariah law being introduced in the uk

oh, dear me, not this again. shari’ah is already *here*. it is permitted under existing UK law on “alternative dispute resolution” – but it cannot be used as an excuse for complying with statutory obligations.

@justforfun:

But that is what religion is. It is codified spirituallity; codified by people to either gain power or maintain power.

what a load of typical marxist nonsense. i suppose you think religion and science can’t co-exist, either. tchah!

b’shalom

bananabrain

Mmmm… I disagree of course. I haven’t read much Abrahamic stuff, spending a lot of my time reading religious philosophy loosely defined as belonging to Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism.

Of this I like Buddhism the most, especially because Buddha says (according to my interpretation) that the existence of God is irrelevant. You have to spend more time reforming yourself and understanding reality.

My feeling is that a lot of the Gurus, teachers etc, including Buddha, had a different perspective of reality. Whether that be through hardcore meditation or in some cases drugs (some of the early Hindu preachers indicated using the drug Soma) or through Yoga – they all want to indicate that there is more to the universe than we can normally perceive.

I’m interested in religious philosphy for that reason. Anyway, it’s difficult to explain what I mean here. The Mahabharata for example is a good guide to what should be morally right or not, and its interesting to absorb even if you don’t believe in the central premise.

Incidentally, as far as I’m aware, in Hinduism God is simply energy. And we know energy exists… so its not difficult to take more seriously. I do balk at modern interpretations of Hinduism though, where they start taking seriously this idea that God is sitting up there, watching, chilling, and listening to prayers. That’s just lazy thinking.

You have provided one. Yes, people have spent a lot of time on it. They might have been more usefully employed elsewhere, but they have perforce spent a lot of time on it. Conceded.

Theology, in the sense we are discussing, has not formed part of the general conversation of mankind since history began. That just isn’t true.

And I am not uninterested, I’m unconvinced.

I’d never dispute that theology was an investment in human thought. Only that it is a wise investment.

No, it’s an inaccurate and therefore completely useless description of what theology is.

Indeed – but I think you are, along with the Dawkins fraternity, missing the point when it comes to theology. There are a number of reasons why it’s worth paying attention to and this has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not. It has to do with the fact that it represents an investment in human thought – nothing more, nothing less. For better or worse, it has formed part of the general conversation of mankind since history began. Anyone uninterested in this subject is uninterested in history.

But that is what religion is. It is codified spirituallity; codified by people to either gain power or maintain power.

Why be suprised if the government want to influence religion. Afterall that is the price religions have to pay if they want a non – secular state.

If religions stayed out of politics – then governements would stay out of religion.

justforfun

“theology which did not assume the truth of the central premise (God is) and then devote its energies to reconciling observable fact to that assumed truth. Which can result in some wonderful intellectual gymnastics but also much grotesque tomfoolery.”

That’s a pretty good description of what theology is, Don.

“I have a problem with most inter-faith dialogue anyway because its very fluffy and doesn’t get to the nitty gritty of why people have disagreements and how to resolve them. Its just sitting around singing khumbaya, and I speak from personal experience.”

What kind of disagreements do you feel need to be sorted out between religions? My feeling is that we need is more khumbaya between religious leaders to signal more openness to religion diversity in a secular environment. In my view, disagreements happen within a religious community, between liberal and conservatives forces (witness the Anglican church) – not between faiths who in principle are not obliged to sort out differences.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTuo0gObAqB8_0SQuVwXQM-Yx-Xg

Is this the way to go?

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTuo0gObAqB8_0SQuVwXQM-Yx-Xg

Is this the way to go?

No doubt the Institute is doing interesting work, theologically, but are they getting too big for their boots campaigning on how other faiths teach their faith?

I have a problem with most inter-faith dialogue anyway because its very fluffy and doesn’t get to the nitty gritty of why people have disagreements and how to resolve them. Its just sitting around singing khumbaya, and I speak from personal experience.

So if anyone says – let’s be more proactive in trying to tease out what the problems are, then I’d welcome it. Not sure if that’s the case here.

And to add to my flippant response earlier… I say this because I’ve spent a bit of time trying to read old philosophical/religious texts that underpin Hinduism and Buddhism, and I have to say its bloody good stuff. This is why I don’t call myself anti-theological.

Most anti-theologicals just don’t read around to criticise theology on that basis. Those who simply say they don’t believe in God, and that’s it – I don’t have a problem with.

As for theology being bad, if a belief system were true, would it need theology – and so much of it? I can’t claim to have read either widely or deeply on the subject, but I’m not entirely ignorant either and I can’t bring to mind any theology which did not assume the truth of the central premise (God is) and then devote its energies to reconciling observable fact to that assumed truth. Which can result in some wonderful intellectual gymnastics but also much grotesque tomfoolery.

But if you don’t assume that truth, all that ingenuity is rather pointless.

Intra-faith inititatives? If that were true, there would be no confessional supremacism and good stuff like syncretism and a disavowal of doctrinal law would be the order of the day. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The best we can hope for is *inter*-faith initiatives which are nothing more than talking shops for bearded men all convinced of their own faith’s perfection and the utter falsity of the others.

“I know many people who attend ICAS. I can’t say I see eye to eye with them, but I doubt that such a text can produce suicide bombers. They attend ICAS for religious learning like any Jew attends a Yeshiva. I don’t think anyone would dream of telling a Yeshiva what to teach and surely Islam is not the only religion that still incorporates medieval texts.”

All Abrahamic texts are based on works written over a few millennia. They have inspired good and evil, so it is suffice to say that texts don’t produce suicide bombers – but the people who teach and give a context to those texts do. It is unfortunate that religion all too often is a cover to hate, and I hope these intra-faith initiatives do help moderate and inspire a new generation, and also help them learn to live within a secular and diverse society.