Ted Turner, the broadcast entrepreneur, was credited as initiating the summit, and he served as honorary chairman and delivered an upbeat address that highlighted interreligious openness. The general secretary of the summit was Bawa Jain, an India-born adherent of the Jain religion who has participated in various interreligious activities.

The assembly was also addressed by the United Nations secretary general, Kofi A. Annan, who challenged the leaders to struggle against poverty, conflicts, diseases, ignorance due to lack of education, and environmental degradation. Mr. Annan stressed the need to reinforce compliance with international treaties regulating the control of armaments, and to foster respect for human rights.

The president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Cardinal Francis Arinze, said the interreligious summit was a positive event. The cardinal offered one of the prayers at the opening ceremonies, reading a message from Pope John Paul II and delivering an address on August 29. When people of different religions meet and talk about working together for peace, “we should certainly be happy about that,'' he said. “It is wonderful for people to desire to walk together in peace. We may agree with some, and we may not agree with some,'' he said. “But we are listening and we must not be naive,” but test the talk about peace. “When Shintoists or Buddhists come to our office in Rome from Japan, or Muslims come from Turkey, we say, ‘Thank you for your visit, but the first step must be contact with Christians in your country,'” the cardinal said.

[Editor's note: See related article on Cardinal Arinze's visit to Sacred Heart University on p XX of this issue of the CCJU Perspective.] 

During the summit of religious leaders, the Chinese Communist government leveled harsh criticisms against the Dalai Lama's presence. Despite the fact that the United Nations did not invite him, the assembly heard a message from the Buddhist leader, read by his representative. “The world's religions can contribute to world peace, if there is peace and growing harmony between different faiths,” the Dalai Lama said. “It is also my belief that, whereas the 20th century has been a century of war and untold suffering, the 21st century should be one of peace and dialogue.” 

Rabbi Joseph H. Ehrenkranz said the “United Resolution for Peace'' that had been drafted in advance for issuance as a summit document was “a good start and will serve as a guide for people of good will.” He added, “Those of us who signed the document agreed to work together to promote the conditions that foster peace and to collaborate with the United Nations in the pursuit of peace. Most of all we want to condemn all violence committed in the name of religion.''

The text of Rabbi Ehrenkranz' paper distributed to the summit participants follows below: 

“Threat to Peace in Zones of Conflict”

Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders
August 28-31, 2000
United Nations, New York 

For too long, the world has endured religious conflict, so that the person in the street readily identifies war as a conflict created by religious strife. Ask the average American and he or she will testify that religions do, in fact, breed war. What is worse is that past history and the current state of affairs in the world gives credence to this assertion. Unfortunately, religion has become synonymous with suspicions, mistrust, hatred and violent conflict. 

For the most part, I would argue that some leaders in the religious community are responsible for that conclusion. Many individuals who are regarded by the community as being religious or pious people seem to be in favor of violent actions. I do not deny that in many cases they are so regarded. But what reinforces the opinion that religion is synonymous with divisiveness and war is that the peacemakers are generally not from among the religious leadership. Religious leaders are silent, and the politicians are in the forefront of the peacemaking process. 

On the other hand, many politicians and government leaders advocate what they call “holy war,” selectively quoting renowned religious leaders and religious texts to serve their political agendas. The only appropriate response by religious leaders to such violent machinations and misguided assertions is articulated well by Rabbi Rene-Samuel Sirat of Paris, “There is no such thing as a holy war, only peace is holy.” With few exceptions, the voices of religious peacemakers are muted. Despite this fact, I believe that the overwhelming majority of religious leaders hold that every human life is sacred and that the greatest sin is to take another person's life and that peace is essential. Peace is one of God's names—shalom, salaam—and must be spoken with reverence and lived with conviction. 

I applaud the proposal of the Millennium World Peace Summit to have religious leaders sign and support a “United Resolution for Peace.” A worldwide effort must be made to solicit supporters from every religious group, sect, order and community so that tens of thousands of religious leaders from all faiths would have the opportunity to affix their names to a document that emphasizes the sacredness and dignity of human life. It should bear the prestige and integrity of the United Nations. It could ultimately bring a feeling of shame and accountability for a religious leader's name to be omitted. The list should be updated annually with worldwide publicity and distribution. I would hope that this action alone would be a deterrent for religious leaders to be quoted as favoring war or violence, for to be quoted as favoring violence would highlight their hypocrisy. 

I would now like to focus on diffusing the threats to peace in areas of conflict, especially those conflicts involving the Abrahamic Faiths—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—which are found in such places as Northern Ireland, the Middle East, and the territory formerly known as Yugoslavia, to name a few. I mention those territories because they are representative of conflicts between faith communities. In the minds of the world, Northern Ireland is pitting Catholics against Protestants; the Middle East, Muslims against Jews; and in the former Yugoslavia, Orthodox Christians versus Catholics versus Muslims. While not an entirely accurate or complete picture, it is the popular and distorted image the world has of the conflicts as portrayed by the media. 

Let us for a moment contemplate what each of the Abrahamic faiths believes and holds sacred: 

There is only one God.
God created the universe, and human beings are the crown of creation.
God resides in every human being.
Every life is sacred and has dignity.
To take a human life is, therefore, a diminishing of God.
No one has the right to indiscriminately take another person's life. 

These basic and fundamental convictions of faith and dignity point to two kinds of love that we find in our Scriptures: Love of God and love of neighbor. It seems that most religious laws can be followed, although sometimes with great difficulty. For example, dietary laws that govern observant Muslims and Jews are difficult to adhere to. Nonetheless, there are many religious Muslims and Jews who are strict in their observance and find the means to observe their respective laws. It is certainly possible to arrange one's life to adhere to the law. But a law that attempts to mandate emotions and feelings is beyond our ability to follow. If I genuinely find someone repulsive, one whose personality is a clash with my own, one whose behavior may be reprehensible, it is likely that, try as I may, I cannot bring myself to emotionally love that person. Does the edict to love my neighbor attempt to dictate my emotions? Is it possible? Am I in violation of words I deem holy? Am I in perpetual sin if I try to avoid being with people I find difficult to emotionally love? 

I would like to suggest that Scripture is not necessarily attempting to regulate my feelings, but rather my actions. “Love your neighbor” speaks more to how I should behave toward my neighbor, rather than how I should feel about my neighbor. There are countless people in distant lands, whom I do not know and will have little opportunity to ever meet. This is no excuse to desist from extending aid to those who are hungry, for if I emotionally loved that person, I would do all I could to save that person from hunger and poverty. The desire of the One God is not so much to develop an emotional tie to those who suffer, but to extend a helping hand as if there were already an emotional love. 

I would like to carry this a step further. The words that dictate Love of God are equally engaging. A parent, a sibling, a spouse, these are flesh and blood whom one can caress and speak to lovingly. It is relatively easy to react with another human with whom one can share pleasant experiences. You can exchange kindness, gifts, words of encouragement, appreciation and praise. With continued interaction and trust, feelings between people may grow to affection, intimacy and in some cases, passionate commitment. Human contact—touch, sight or even sound—can arouse in us sensations that translate into love and loving actions.  But an unseen God, whom we cannot touch, see or hear poses a more difficult, if not impossible, challenge to our ability to love Him. Is the human being to despair because one cannot develop this reciprocal feeling of love with God? Is one in violation of a commandment? Are those who do not emote with love to be called sinners? I would like to propose another approach that would allow us to comply with the biblical injunction to love God. 

Beginning with the belief that there is one God who is the creator of humankind, it would be useful to focus on why God created us. When God says to His newly created creatures in the Scriptures, “Fill the world and subdue it,” He is saying to make it work! In the Garden of Eden—Paradise—humans are placed there to work the garden and watch over it. We are the guardians of the world God created. That is our purpose in life. God creates humans in His divine image, and people, in turn, are called to be creative, to subdue the earth, make it flourish, watch over it, and prevent the violence of pollution—pollution of the air, the water, the ground (earth), the mind, the heart. Our task is to partner with God who constantly improves the world through the people He created. If one country is depleting its resources and destroying the environment, then this is a global problem, and we need to come together financially and technologically to challenge and assist that country to the benefit of everyone on the planet. We are God's instruments and we have the responsibility tirelessly and lovingly to improve the world. Can we do it? Have we done it? 

In many ways, humanity has carried out God's wishes. We have made it easier to traverse oceans and continents. A replenished earth, properly fed, produces more food than we can consume. But we have not yet devised a means of distributing the food so that no one is hungry. Additionally, the strides we have made in medicine have eliminated a host of deadly diseases, and continued research, no doubt, will produce new vaccines that will eliminate many more. Also, because of modern technology, many a country, devastated by earthquake or flood, has been helped to overcome its disaster by people who rallied around those who took the lead to bring relief. Increased communications via the Internet or satellite means that everyone is our neighbor. If we want peace, then we must have equity and justice—we should not have abundant prosperity in the United States, and poverty somewhere else. 

I return to the point that I believe that God created us for a purpose. It is not God who is charged with eliminating hatred, it is the humans He created who are given the role of “partner.” It is in the hands of humans to right the wrongs of the world. Just as I would like to be in harmony with any person I love, just as I would like to satisfy the desires of the people I love, so too can I express my love of God by doing His will, by doing the job for which He created me. Some fulfill this mission by researching methods to conquer disease, some by administering justice, some by educating for peace, some by doing righteous acts of loving kindness. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, religious leaders, elevator operators, scientists, garbage collectors, astronauts, farmers, each in our own way carry out the mission of partnering with God in making a better world. 

I would like to suggest two steps in bringing peace to regions of conflict through the leadership of religious people who hold to the sacredness of human life. First, we must teach love of God and love of neighbor as a fundamental religious and political value that, when properly understood, enables people to coexist and prosper in peace. The “United Resolution for Peace” must incorporate the idea that we are God's partners, and His purpose for each of us is to bring about a peaceful world for all humanity. 

Second, every person who considers himself or herself a religious leader should be invited to sign this resolution. This must have worldwide distribution and participation for two reasons: 1) to publicize even to those who propose violence, that the vast majority of religious leaders have signed on and oppose violence, and they have declared violence as against God's will; and 2) the absence of a religious leader's signature would indicate that a particular leader has chosen to be outside the pale of peace makers and should be held accountable as such. The body of the International Advisory Council should include those voices most prominently renowned for peacemaking and whose names are associated with its goals of peace. There should be a periodic review and upgrading to these prestigious positions. 

Rabbi Joseph H. Ehrenkranz
Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding
Sacred Heart University
Fairfield, Connecticut 06432 USA