BUSSEY.DOC
7/30/2007 9:02:43 AM
HOPE FOR A GLOBAL ETHIC. By Brian D. Lepard. Baha’i Publishing 2005.
Pp. 231. $11.90. ISBN: 1-931-84720-7.
Elie Wiesel was but a boy when his family was uprooted from their
home in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania and sent to the German
concentration camp—Buchenwald. His life’s work has been to proclaim
that “[i]ndifference . . . is not only a sin, it is a punishment.”1 News
reporting reveals a troubled world—one of constant religious unrest.
The media harass us with religiously inspired violence to the point of
nausea. So saturated are we that, upon hearing yet another report of a
suicide bomber, we simply give a shrug—numb to the pain and carnage.
In essence, we commit the very sin admonished against by Wiesel. We
are indifferent to the religious zealot who makes war with those with
whom he disagrees.
One can become melancholy at the apparent impossibility of
bridging the gap between earth’s religious communities. Lepard’s work,
Hope For A Global Ethic, wades into this struggle attempting to be a
repairer of the breach. Given the current state of affairs it is suggested
that Lepard’s effort is at least worth a sincere review despite one’s initial
cynical view that it is but a Don Quixote type discussion—well meaning
but ultimately useless.
Lepard argues that there is a need for a global ethic—a common
understanding of ethical principles to restore civil peace and respect for
human rights. He suggests that the answer is found in the scriptures of
the world’s major religions—Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism,
Hinduism, Confucianism and his own religion—the Bahá’í Faith. There
is at least one glaring omission on the list—the Sikh religion. He
justifies the omission on the basis that it is present in only thirty-four
countries—however, it would seem that its influence for world peace,
especially when one considers India, is deserving of membership in the
discussion. In further development of this project for a global ethic, the
Sikh faith, along with the others not mentioned (such as the indigenous
faiths) would ultimately need to be grafted in.
Lepard points out that while there are differences between the
world’s religions, there is much in common—particularly the “many
1. Elie Wiesel, Speech, The Perils of Indifference, given at the Seventh White House
Millennium Evening, Wash., D.C., Apr. 12, 1999, as recorded in Speeches that changed the world
217 (Smith-Davies 2005).
585
BUSSEY.DOC
586
7/30/2007 9:02:43 AM
JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION
[Vol. XXII
ethical convergences.” found in their sacred works. (11) The key to the
global ethic is to get the religious communities to recognize those
commonalities and not be parochial, but broaden their field of vision to
include respect for others as a part of a single human family. The
recognition of the need for all to peacefully sit down, as Martin Luther
King, Jr. put it, at the “table of brotherhood” has been a dream of many.
Recognition of the prominent role of religion in maintaining civil
order has long been observed by historians. Will and Ariel Durant, great
historians who claimed no sympathy for religious views, had to
conclude after a lifetime of study that
[t]here is no significant example in history, before our time, of a
society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of
religion. France, the United States, and some other nations have
divorced their governments from all churches, but they have had
the help of religion in keeping social order.2
Given the breakdown of civil peace that is occurring around the world,
as Lepard outlined in his opening chapters, he is on the right track to
look to religious consensus for a means toward elusive peace. The
question remains whether he is realistic.
One weakness in the book is that the author, as a follower of the
Bahá’í Faith, is already predisposed to the notion that “all religions have
taught the same eternal spiritual principles.” (18) However, most (if not
all) of the other faith communities respectively maintain that their
perspective is in fact the only true faith. Though there may be many
“ethical convergences” amongst the groups, it is often very difficult for
an adherent to step outside of her “faith box” and view other
communities objectively. The ability to see beyond one’s religious
culture and give credit to another religious view is counterintuitive for
most. Lepard does not provide concrete suggestions on how to bridge
the gap. More thought is needed on how to encourage openness
amongst the religious faithful embracing the commonalities of other
religious cultures. Perhaps it takes someone from the Bahá’í Faith to
point out those commonalities for those of us in our respective “true
faith.”
How then can we get those seven religious groups to come up with
a synthesis of their “ethical convergences” for the global ethic? Anyone
can pick and choose basic terms from the sacred writings, but will those
groups willingly sign on? How can we encourage others to move their
allegiance from a particular sacred writing to a new compilation that
2. Will & Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History 51 (Simon & Schuster 1968).
BUSSEY.DOC
585]
7/30/2007 9:02:43 AM
BOOK REVIEW
587
includes unfamiliar maxims? Lepard, to his credit, appears to have
recognized this in his acknowledgement that his work is simply the
beginning of a “conversation.” His primary objective is to present
evidence of a global ethic for further discussion. It is a “time to get the
ball rolling” as it were—we have to start somewhere. His is but the
beginning.
In trying to get a religious community to accept an ethic held in
common with another faith tradition, it does make sense to appeal to that
tradition’s legitimate authority. Sacred writings fit the requirements of
legitimacy, and can persuade the adherent “to sign on” to the project. So
then what are the ethical convergences?
Lepard scans through the writings and points out that these
traditions all teach that there is a fundamental unity of the human family.
There is unity in diversity—each person is sacred, though these faiths
live and organize themselves differently. Our primary allegiance is to
our human family rather than to our country, race, or religious group.
The Golden Rule is applicable to all groups. We treat others as we
want to be treated—not taking advantage over another.
We recognize the common virtues such as kindness, generosity,
and selflessness. There is an obligation to be concerned for the welfare
of others—one’s neighbor is not a geographical requirement but a
human. Those with advantage are to assist those without—the rich help
the poor, the healthy help the sick.
The emphasis on equality means that human rights of all are
respected—there is to be no domination by one group over another
based on religion, race, social status, or citizenship. Fundamental
freedoms such as conscience, religion, equality of women, freedom of
the press and fair trial are to be respected and fostered by all.
There is respect for the rule of law, so that governments are not to
be challenged by threat of revolution. The established legal systems are
to be respected and any attempt to overthrow the state only leads to
further unrest. Peaceful solutions for group autonomy and grievances
must be sought—Lepard suggests federal structures seen in some
democratic countries as a model for such a devolution of autonomy.
The scriptures argue for the interdependence of peace and justice.
Lepard argues that governments must respect their treaty obligations and
seek cooperation amongst the nations while also demanding that there be
a just peace in the troubled areas of the world. Force may be necessary
to preserve peace and provide justice for those states and individuals
suffering human rights abuses. Lepard argues that such force is to be
limited so that civilians are not targeted. Prisoners are to be treated
BUSSEY.DOC
588
7/30/2007 9:02:43 AM
JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION
[Vol. XXII
humanely. Terrorist acts are to be condemned.
Although he points out that the scriptures are optimistic about the
human capacity for ethical behavior, Lepard is also pragmatic about the
implementation of these reforms and realistic in his expectations.
Cynicism and complacency about human affairs is rejected outright.
Lepard closes with his admonition that there must be a willingness
amongst the religious communities to reinvestigate their sacred writings,
with an open-minded attitude in order to find these points of
commonality. This process itself must be grounded in a spiritual
sense of unity and good will. Rigid adherence to traditional
dogmas without unprejudiced inquiry will only perpetuate the
gross divisions that have too often marred relations among
religious communities and their ability to work together to
promote shared values. . . . [It] will require a new readiness . . . to
consult with one another to come to better understandings of the
core beliefs they have in common. (198)
In the end, is Lepard successful in his search for the global ethic? I
think he is successful in commencing a discussion that must not be
overlooked. As he suggests, it is but the start of the discussion. Success
will not be had until we get the critical mass accepting those points
raised by Lepard as the basis of our fundamental principles of what it
means to be human.
If 9/11 has taught us anything—if the struggles in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Somalia, Darfur and the Middle East have taught us
anything—it is that we cannot simply shrug with indifference when we
watch on the nightly news about another family murdered, another child
maimed, and another dead soldier brought home in a body bag.
Indifference is not only our sin, it is our punishment for the failure to
work toward a global ethic.
Barry W. Bussey*
* General Counsel, Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada, Oshawa, ON, Canada.