Is One World Religion Possible Or Desirable?
The subject of the Charter for Compassion project, I think, raises an important question: is it first of all possible to create a single unifying world religion? And if we could do such a thing, why would we want to do it?
The question is part of the much broader one of globalization, its benefits and inevitability…
New World Order conspiracists have long-since spoken of a world religion as being an essential component of any kind of global governance system. Religion throughout history too has been inextricably linked to temporal power. Durkheim called religion a force of social cohesion. The root Latin term, religare, means something like “binding together.” Carl Sagan, too, used to talk about a religion rooted in the wondrous natural mysteries of science being the one to finally unite the human race.
Would it be possible to consciously craft a religion which would unite the human family, while still retaining the rich diversity of many different traditions and belief systems? How would such a thing ever be possible with all the strife in the world: much of which people claim is actually caused by religious differences?
Parallel to that is an interesting Wikipedia page I found recently on “Language Death”:
In linguistics, language death (also language extinction, linguistic extinction, and sometimes pejoratively as linguicide) is a process that affects speech communities where the level of linguistic competence that speakers possess of a given language idiom is decreased.
Total language death occurs when there are no speakers of a given language idiom remaining in a population where the idiom was previously used (i.e. when all native speakers die). Language death may affect any language idiom, including dialects and languages.
Each religion, in my way of looking at the world, is essentially a language: a system of symbols, rituals and associated contextual meanings which allow people to communicate with one another and express truths about their experiences of the world. Any uber-religion whose goal would be to unify mankind would inevitably extinguish many of the smaller unique cultural traditions and systems which are encoded with religious systems in the same way that a monopolistic chain store like Walmart inevitably drives out competition from local ma & pa shops. Is there a way to circumvent such a thing happening on a mass cultural level, protecting the neurodiversity and polyculture we now have as a result of the Tower of Babylon kind of world we currently exist in?

![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg)
November 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I believe this is somehow relevant:
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2008/11/15/flowing-data/
November 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Another relevant link, via Joseph Campbell:
http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/topic,31046.0.html
November 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Do you know of any religious leaders that have control of nuclear weapons?
Does the Pope or the Dalai Lama have nukes?
So who has the nukes?
I’m not buying the old saw that religion causes violence so that if we “change how people think about religion” we can end violence.
I think a better thing to unite everyone on is getting rid of all nukes. All nukes are weapons of terror. Mutal destruction. Its an implicit threat of a suicide bomber.
The US maintains world hegemony through an implicit suicide bombing threat.
We are a secular country and the only country that has used nukes.
I am a big skeptic of this.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:30 am
So what would you think of this scenario? Say we had one world religion and also nukes. What would you think about that?
November 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I like the idea of getting rid of nukes. I also like the idea of focusing collective human efforts on practical problems which have spiritual dimensions to them. As much as I question the legitimacy of Global Warming as a phenomenon, I do have to admit that it is a viable step towards something akin to a Gaia-consciousness.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Well, Gaia is conscious. Its consciousness is us in a way. So in the sense, the way you are using the phrase, is Gaia self consciousness.
There is the geosphere, the ecosphere and the noosphere. If Global warming is a lie, and most people believe it, it wouldn’t contribute to the noosphere at all.
It would be a global delusion. Nothing positive would come from that. Unity is not a greater value than truth.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Networks employed to decieve can be later commandeered to being used to deseminate truth, but in and of itself a global delusion is bad.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am
In fact when people are decieved through lies an energetic connection is made between the liar and the person believing the lie. This enables a form of psychic vampirism.
So really a group of elites decieving the whole world….Its bad m’kay? (Mr Makey voice)
November 18th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Some people believe that this is Jupiter’s heart chakra:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/jupiter/redspot.html