In principle all religions accept that there is only one God, although each cult would naturally address God in their own way, as each national language translates the word 'God' its own way. There should therefore be no essential reason why God cannot be worshipped by people of different religions in one particular place of worship, or anywhere, for that matter.
Architecturally the requirement would be that the Basilicacathedralmosquesynagoguetemple (in alphabetic and not hierarchic order, nb) is appropriately situated, large enough, has the required facilities discreetly arranged for all religions, and is beautiful enough (a wonderfully inspired marriage of religious architectural styles to accord with all known cults) to command supreme international esteem and respect.
(The above joint name is really an incomplete abbreviation for all the religions of the world, which when united might read as : 'Baha'ibuddhismchristianityconfucianismdruidismhinduismislamjainismshintosikhismtaoismwiccazoroastrianism'.
Such a worthy project, the House of God for the whole of humanity, would be fairly financed by all concerned, naturally including the Vatican.
Should any leading religious authority reject such an idea however, this would indicate a requirement for exclusivity that might also suggest a lack tolerance towards other religions.
If the President of the USA wishes to generously demonstrate that U.S. democracy fully accepts the freedom of religion by allowing one particular cult to build a mosque near where 3,000 innocent people were massacred by Muslim fanatics, surely his idea would be more coherent if the terms stipulated that the religions of all the 11/9 victims, if not of all the world, should also be represented.
Thus the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Anglicans, Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, etc., etc., should certainly not be excluded.
The ground space required for so many places of worship for only one God would, however, be enormous. Far greater than was originally allotted for the Twin Towers.
The solution, therefore, would be the Basilicacathedralmosquesynagoguetemple for the united religions- 'Baha'ibuddhismchristianityconfucianismdruidismhinduismislamjainismshintosikhismtaoismwiccazoroastrianism', assuming, and it would be reasonable to assume, that all the world's religions only believe in one God.
If the 'moderate' worshippers of God rejected this solution, they would essentially be rejecting the very principle that the President of the USA is advocating for the nation he represents, ie- freedom of religion and tolerance of the religion of others.
Thus if those who wish to build a mosque near Ground Zero would reject the idea of allowing other religions to be represented in the same sacred precinct, then surely they would forfeit their right to obtain the necessary authorisation. Such exclusivity in such a sensitive and controversial area would be unacceptable. Should this be the case, indeed it could be interpreted as an insult, not only to all the victims and to all those who were actively engaged in trying to save them from the atrocious consequences of the WTC attack, but an insult to democracy, religion and humanity.
____
Text and modified image © Mirino (PW). August 2010
Posts
2 comments:
Is this supposed to be satire?
It's very interesting and very outlandish.
Sometimes satire is a useful way of highlighting ambiguity, incoherency and hyprocrisy. Like a spotlamp to shed light on reality in shady corners..
Post a Comment