Dialogue

Hannah Arendt wrote in 1957, that for the first time in history, “all peoples on earth have a common present. . . . Every country has become the almost immediate neighbor of every other country, and every man feels the shock of events which take place at the other end of the globe.”

That was before the internet, mind you. In 2008, it seems we are shocked anew, every morning.

Arendt feared that this new “unity of the world” would be a largely negative phenomenon if it wasn’t accompanied by the “renunciation, not of one’s own tradition and national past, but of the binding authority and universal validity which tradition and past have always claimed.”

Arendt called for "a process of mutual understanding and progressing self-clarification on a gigantic scale."

Is it happening?

I'll admit that I am usually pessimistic about the potential for mutual understanding among religions. But recently, I've been challenged to look at the progress we've made.

When the Dalai Lama visited Seattle, he asked listeners to go to the essence of their own traditions.

That was not surprising. What surprised me was his statement that we are progressing as a human race toward universal human rights. It is easy to forget -- with daily news of war, torture, crime, abuse, human slavery, and hatred -- that we have made progress as a species.

Evils that were once tolerated are now publicly condemned.

Of course, we have a long way to go. The Dalai Lama called for this to be a century of dialogue. Dialogue is the first and essential step in mutual understanding. I hope his own efforts in the human rights arena (with the Chinese, about Tibet) are successful.

Meanwhile, in our own, individual spheres of influence, how are we doing? What is the purpose of our dialogue here, on this blog?