Diversity, Harmony, and Individual Conscience Featured at the Parliament of the World's Religions

The Parliament of the World’s Religions “cultivates harmony among the world’s spiritual traditions and fosters their engagement with guiding institutions in order to achieve a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world.” The Parliament of the World’s Religions met for the first time 1893. It was held in conjunction with the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, which ran for six months from May 1 to October 30. During the Exhibition that commemorated the 400th anniversary of Columbus sailing across the Atlantic Ocean to kick off European colonization across the globe, there were hundreds of meetings and special events. Beginning on September 11, the Parliament ran for 16 days. So, the 1893 Parliament was a small event in the much larger Exhibition. Today, the 1893 Parliament is recognized as the birthplace of the worldwide interfaith movement.

There have been eight Parliaments since 1893 in cities around the world. In 2023, the Parliament returned to Chicago. Meetings were held from Monday, August 14 through Friday, August 18, at the McCormick Place Lakeside Center.

My first impression was visual, of people who appeared to be dressed for a come as you are event. Or maybe they were wearing their clothes for special occasions. Saffron robes were worn by both men and women. I saw men wearing kilts, clerical black and collars, and some who looked like they were going to a baseball game. Many women and men wore clothes that they might wear to an office job in Chicago. A large group of Sikhs, both men and women, wore white robes. And there seemed to be an unending variety of other robes.

The variety of head covering caught my attention. This made me think about some of the apparel that I did not see. With more than 7,000 people attending, I certainly did not look at everyone and what they wore. But there were several garments that I did not see. I spoke to a Catholic nun, so I know they were there. However, I didn’t see anyone wearing a nun’s habit. Many women wore head scarves, but I didn’t see a burqa or a niqāb. Muslim men were well represented but I didn’t see any men wearing keffiyeh. I didn’t see anyone wearing hats like the Amish do. So, I looked up Anabaptist in the program listing and didn’t find the word mentioned. Also, I didn’t see anyone with the apparel I have seen Native Americans wear to a traditional powwow. However, I attended a panel discussion where a Native American, Shannon Rivers, powerfully described the impact of racism on Native Americans.

The panel discussions I attended fell into four broad categories. 1) Climate change was a popular topic. Empowering women was another. There were descriptions of particular problems related to challenges facing humanity. And activist groups encouraged people to take the problems they identified seriously. 2) Closely related were panels where organizations explained and promoted the approaches they have to interfaith dialog or empowering activists to be effective. 3) Panels also celebrated interfaith cooperation or shared purposes. For example, I attended a panel where four presenters described men from their faith tradition who led lives that can be models for us today. 4) And there were panels and special spaces where practitioners of a faith tradition explained what they believe and do.

The diversity of apparel contrasted with the culture of the Parliament. With the culture, I observed uniformity. It was expected that presenters in panels would be treated with respect. When there were differences of opinion, alternative views were received with seriousness and humility. For example, in the panel about four exemplary men, a woman in the audience observed the absence of women both in the presenters and in the exemplars. The moderator, Ibrahim Anli, received the criticism graciously and said he was sorry women were not included. Then he added that attempts had been made to include women.

Individual conversations were polite, and both parties listened with respect and responded with curiosity. They were not debates, but learning experiences. The reason for interfaith dialog was mutual understanding, not finding a consensus.

The style at the plenaries was to invite one representative after another to deliver a prepared speech. They did not engage, rather each person addressed a topic from the perspective of their faith tradition. One presenter, Marianne Williamson, didn’t try to explain a faith tradition, although she talked about her Jewish heritage. Her message was that everyone needs to take seriously the pressing problems facing humanity. Of all the speakers I heard, she received the most energetic response. She called on the participants to fix things like climate, hungry children, oppression of women, racism, and so on.

The theme of the conference was “A Call to Conscience: Defending Freedom & Human Rights.” For the participants and the presenters, the “call to conscience” was the strategy for “defending freedom & human rights.” Everyone appeared comfortable with leaving action to individuals to either work with their faith tradition or participate with one of the organizations proposing a specific strategy for defending freedom and human rights.

Personal responsibility is the DNA of the Parliament. At the 1993 Parliament, Hans Kung prepared a document called “Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration,” which was adopted. It stands on two fundamental ethical demands. First, the Golden Rule: What you wish done to yourself, do to others, and second: every human being must be treated humanely. Kung proposed a method for applying this ethic. He wrote, “Earth cannot be changed for the better unless the consciousness of individuals is changed first. We pledge to increase our awareness by disciplining our minds, by meditation, by prayer, or by positive thinking. Without risk and a readiness to sacrifice there can be no fundamental change in our situation. Therefore, we commit ourselves to this global ethic, to understanding one another, and to socially beneficial, peace-fostering, and nature-friendly ways of life.”

I attended the Parliament held in Salt Lake City in 2015. Climate change was a popular topic there. Then at the 2018 Parliament in Toronto, a climate statement was added to the document that Kung wrote. The official website of the Parliament explains, “The Parliament is not a scientific organization. We make no claim to independent findings or insights regarding the physical state of our planet, the causes of climate change, or its impacts on humans and their environments. We do assert, however, the universal responsibility for each person to be accountable for our actions.”

I was inspired by the commitment to individual conscience and responsibility by more than 7,000 people from hundreds of faith traditions and nations. Conscience is the foundation of a commitment to anti-racism work. So, taking time to recognize and share where our conscience leads us is important for Ending Racism USA.