The Fight Against True Believers: Pope Francis = The United Religions Initiative

Proponen-a-Papa-ONU-de-las-religiones

– 29 September 2015 –

Janus:

Janus-smallIn light of my recent repudiation of Pope Francis, I’ve been looking further into the recent history of interfaith activities around the world, and I stumbled across some other examples of Pope Francis or Cardinal Bergoglio holding interfaith services.  I also found some credible articles about Pope Francis’ work with the globalist United Religions Initiative.

It seems that, in my wish that Pope Francis was the real deal, I’ve been naive about him for the past few years.  Wool over the eyes and all that.

The most instructive article was posted over a year ago at Catholic Family News:

Isn’t it extraordinary how something long in existence can be suddenly re-proposed as a brilliant new idea? Politicians and educators, hoping we have memory problems, often do this to fool us into thinking they are working hard to improve a situation. Another audacious example of this strategy was recently provided by the Holy See’s support of a proposal for a “United Religions”.

The proposal came from former Israeli President and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shimon Peres. At a private audience with Pope Francis this September 4th, Peres “proposed the founding of a United Religions organization — modelled after the United Nations — to fight terrorism”.[1]

In an interview with the Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Peres said he wanted to establish an international body representing the world’s major religions, as “an unquestionable moral authority” able to intervene in conflicts, “a UN of religions”.

Like the UN Charter, he added, there should be a United Religions Charter. “The new Charter would state on behalf of all faiths that slitting people’s throats or carrying out mass slaughters … has nothing to do with religion”.

Furthermore, he said, Pope Francis would be the best leader for the United Religions Organization because “perhaps for the first time in history the Holy Father is a leader who’s respected, not just by a lot of people, but also by different religions and their representatives”.

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, indicated that Peres’ proposal was a new idea for Francis. “The pope listened, showing his interest, his attention and encouragement”. But, “the pope made no personal commitment,” telling Peres that the Pontifical Councils for Interreligious Dialogue and for Justice and Peace are the offices “suitable” for supporting or following such initiatives. Their presidents would “consider this proposal carefully,” said Fr. Lombardi.[2]

The problem: Mr. Peres proposed something that has been running for fourteen years, promulgated by the UN itself, with a signed Charter, and with the same goals he’s promoting! The only difference is that the existing Charter does not mention beheadings or slaughters.

Pope Francis should have reminded him of this, especially since the UR is not a new idea for Francis. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires he invited its founder and head to an interfaith service in his cathedral to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the UR in Latin America. Furthermore, the Holy See has been aware of the United Religions from its conception, and has been working for its goals through its founding partners. . . .

. . . Patterned after the UN, the UR is meant to be for religions what the UN is for nations: a “permanent gathering center where the world’s religions engage in daily prayer, dialogue, and action for the good of all life on this earth,” and where they will make peace amongst themselves and “work together for the healing of the earth.” Using the “light” of paganism and occultism, it aims to solve the usual social issues.

But more importantly, it’s also “an attempt to bring accountability to the religious forum”. As the world’s religious authority, it aims to wipe out “fundamentalism,” which is blamed for wars and conflicts. Teilhardian Robert Muller, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and New World Order designer, declared that fundamentalism’s “inflexible belief systems” “play an incendiary role in global conflicts.” “Peace will be impossible,” he said, “without the taming of fundamentalism through a United Religions that professes faithfulness `only to the global spirituality and to the health of this planet.'” This is also the basic theme of the Peres proposal.

Wiping out fundamentalism, hmm.

Just a few weeks ago, Pope Francis spoke on this very topic, as he has apparently done at other times:

Religious fundamentalism keeps God at a distance, and keeps believers from building bridges with others, Pope Francis reflected on Sunday during a radio interview.

“Our God is a God who is close, who accompanies. Fundamentalists keep God away from accompanying his people, they divert their minds from him and transform him into an ideology. So in the name of this ideological god, they kill, they attack, destroy, slander. Practically speaking, they transform that God into a Baal, an idol,” he said in a radio interview that aired Sept. 13.

“No religion is immune from its own fundamentalisms,” he said. “In every religion there will be a small group of fundamentalists whose work is to destroy for the sake of an idea, and not reality. And reality is superior to ideas.”

The Pope said that no religion is immune from the possibility of fundamentalism. He said fundamentalism, instead of creating a bridge, creates a wall that blocks encounter with another person. It seeks ways to disagree. With fundamentalism, he said, “you can’t have friendship between peoples.”

What Francis says here is—on the surface—absolutely true, for Christianity at least.  Christian zealots who forget the humanity of others pervert God into a mindless ideology.

But where to draw the line between the extremes of hateful zealotry on one hand and meaningless syncretism on the other?

If the goal is to avoid all forms of conflict, might that line be drawn when one’s religion finds outward expression, when one begins to walk his faith and to literally believe its tenets, and trying to persuade others to do the same?

The United Religions Initiative isn’t shy about its association with Cardinal Bergoglio.  The story from their website details the Pope’s 9/11 interfaith service in New York on 25 September:

Pope Francis’s History with URI

Maria Eugenia Crespo de Mafia, URI Director of Cooperation Circle Support, had the opportunity to work alongside Pope Francis in Buenos Aires, when he joined URI’s tenth anniversary celebration. “Though as a Catholic and Argentine I am excited and proud of his meaningful gestures and words, I must say I am not surprised because he is doing and saying what we were accustomed to in Buenos Aires. The passion he shows today for interfaith was born in Buenos Aires, so it was not strange that he was part of Interfaith Events in New York. When Rabbi Sztokman from Escuela de Amor CC told Pope Francis (then Cardenal Bergoglio) that Bishop Swing was in town to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the first URI Meeting in Latin America, he joyfully said he would be joining the celebration and he offered the Metropolitan Cathedral for the interfaith prayer.”

uri.swing2007_258

Pope Francis (then Cardenal Bergoglio) in Argentina in 2007, where he celebrated the 10th Anniversary of URI in Latin America in the Altar of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Buenos Aires with Bishop Swing, Swami Pareshananda, Raul Mamani, Beytullah Cholak, Rabbi Sztokman, and Maria Crespo.

So to what is Pope Francis subscribing with his support of the United Religions Initiative?

From the URI website, excerpts of their charter:

Preamble

We, people of diverse religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions throughout the world, hereby establish the United Religions Initiative to promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings. . . .

. . . Purpose

The purpose of the United Religions Initiative is to promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings. . . .

. . . Principles

2) We respect the sacred wisdom of each religion, spiritual expression and indigenous tradition.

3) We respect the differences among religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions. . . .

. . . 21) Members of the URI shall not be coerced to participate in any ritual or be proselytized. . . .

. . . Guidelines for Action

URI Cooperation Circles are self-organizing and self-governing, choosing what issues to take on and how. This Agenda for Action, inspired by a Javanese phrase, Memayu Hayuning Bawano, meaning “to work for the safety, happiness and welfare of all life,” is offered as guidance for CC activities.

  • Faith Traditions: Actions to promote daily interfaith dialogue, understanding and education.
  • Healing and Peace: Actions to prevent and mediate religiously motivated conflict and promote reconciliation.
  • Rights and Responsibilities: Actions to uphold and promote human rights.
  • Ecological Imperatives: Actions to promote environmental welfare.
  • Sustainable Just Economics: Actions to close the poverty gap.
  • The URI Community: Actions to support URI and its activities.

Sure, it sounds nice enough, but it has the effect of turning one’s religion into just a preferred brand of belief, just as valid as Crest toothpaste compared to Colgate or Aquafresh.

And look at those last bullet points. Don’t they sound familiar? Actions to “promote interfaith dialogue”, to “uphold and promote human rights”, “to promote environmental welfare”, and “to close the poverty gap”.  Pope Francis talks of nothing else!

The United Religions’  “Talking Back to Hate” page gives an idea what the URI hopes to accomplish:

Hate speech, discrimination and bullying are global problems that can affect any of us.

As people of many cultures, faiths and backgrounds, we’re committing today to take specific steps to address hate and discrimination in our communities, and to work for a world where every person, regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion, culture, gender, orientation or ability, is treated with respect and is safe to be themselves [Janus: Emphasis mine].  We call upon our political and community leaders to make new efforts to secure and defend these fundamental human rights for all people, and to speak out together against acts of hate, discrimination and bullying.

Each of us commits to find specific ways to act on these values of tolerance and respect in our daily lives.

Each of us also commits to take action with a particular emphasis on September 21st, 2013, the UN International Day of Peace, to counter hate, bullying and discrimination, and to encourage positive speech and respectful dialogue in our communities.

So religion will be held to the same human resources standard that any office-cubicle power-point-maker must adhere to in the workplace. “Don’t do anything that makes another person feel uncomfortable, and it is the victim that determines whether an act is harassment rather than the intent of the perpetrator, and some victims are more equal than others.”  Got it.

Pope Francis’ goals and those of the United Religions Initiative are one and the same!  And the URI goals are the same as the United Nations goals: to destroy the sovereignty of any non-globalist power in the name of peace.

There are going to be a lot of Christians rotting in prisons one day.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

4 Comments

  1. Reblogged this on Brittius.

    Like

    Reply
  2. My first thought is the Vatican wants be Rome again and UR is just a vehicle.

    Like

    Reply
    • The Vatican seemed to keep its distance from the UR, at least at the top, until Pope Francis was elected. I am still have a lot to learn on this topic, but Francis’ near total alignment with the objectives of the UR suggests that he is deferring to another power rather than trying to actually take power. But who knows? This sudden change does suggest the rise of a new faction within the Roman church, and regardless of the goals, the likely results don’t look good.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  1. Phil Lawler – Is Post-Synod Confusion Better Than The Alternatives? | FINES ET INITIA Headlines

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: