Whenever I come to Washington I remember my first visit here almost forty years ago when at the end of an eight-weeks lecture tour I had the honour and the joy to meet President John F. Kennedy at the White House. He presented me to his vice president Lyndon B. Johnson with the words: “This is a new frontier man of the Catholic Church.” Of course, the new frontiers of the sixties were very different from the new frontiers today. At that time we concentrated on the frontiers among the Christian Churches and between Christia-nity and Judaism. In this new millen-nium we have to concentrate more and more on the frontiers among the world’s civilizations and religions.
 

I am certainly not among those who believe in a clash of civilizations. And our exhibition demonstrates that it is simply stupid to oppose the different civilizations and religions as if they were monolithic blocks which have nothing in common. The opposite is true: despite the undeniable differences among the religions, their belief systems and rituals, it is a fact that they all agree on some fundamental ethical values, attitudes and standards.
 

Our exhibition wishes to open eyes and encourages to transcend frontiers. This is in the line of a manifesto for the dialogue among civilizations which a “group of eminent persons” convened by UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan presented to him and to the UN-General Assembly in November 2001. The manifesto bears the programmatic title “Crossing the Divide” and develops the vision of a new paradigm of international relations, based on a global ethic. The principles of a global ethic are laid down in the “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic” of the Parlament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in 1993 to which I was also an adviser.
 

You see: this exhibition is not just an isolated subjective presentation of the world religions and of global ethic, but it is based on the one hand in the classical teachings of these religions and philosophies and reflects on the other hand the documents of international organizations which endeavour to apply the principles of a global ethic to the present world situation.
 

Let me remind you that the global ethic project attempts also to transcend the frontiers between the religions and modern secular humanism. Its principles can be shared by religious believers and non-believers alike. But how did these principles emerge and develop? Let me try to explain it with a comparison:
 
In our natural world there are crystals with countless different forms and colours. Equally in our cultures there are countless moral and religious forms and norms. But, just as all the crystals in the world can be derived from thirty-two classes of crystal, and because of their own symmetrical structure each of these thirty-two classes displays seven simple forms of crystal, so in human culture a few great traditions of norms of Middle East, Indian and Chinese origin can be established, and in all these traditions again there are five, six or seven elementary ethical norms.

However, the one great difference between the structures of the crystals and the structures of ethical norms should not be overlooked. The structures of the crystals have developed automatically in course of the evolution of the cosmos. But the structures of the elementary ethical norms, values and ideals of the great traditions have been shaped in course of human evolution by hu-man beings themselves, in an extremely complicated social and dynamic process. That means that where needs have emerged in life, urgent human concerns and necessities, rules for regulating human behaviour have become imperative: priorities, conventions, laws, commandments, directives and customs - in short, specific ethical norms. In the Hebrew Bible, in the New Testament and also in the Qur’an, in other words in cultures of Semitic origin, such norms are proclaimed as God’s commandment and are put under the authority of the one God, but you can find similar norms in the religions of Indian and Chinese origin. All this is shown in the six placards which depict the ethical teachings of the six main religions of the world – in a way which should attract people also by the visual presentation.
 

That also means that time and again men and women have had to, and still have to, try out schemes and models for ethical solutions; these have often been practised and tested over generations. After periods of trial and familiari-zation these norms of behaviour are finally recognized; and sometimes - if times change completely - they are again evacuated of content and disintegrate. Are we perhaps living in such a time?

Be this as it may, there are widespread complaints that we live in a vacuum of orientation: despite and in part also because of all globalization. We live in an age in which religion and politics are being torn apart. There are many wars and conflicts, and guidelines seem to be almost completely absent. Ours is an age in which many moral authorities have lost credibility; an age in which many institutions have been caught up in the maelstrom of far-reaching identity crises; an age in which many criteria and norms have slipped; an age in which you can spend hours in a virtual reality. And the result is that many young people in particular hardly know what is good and what is evil in the various spheres of life.
 

So it is impossible to deny that a new social consensus is necessary: we need to reflect on a minimum of humane values, basic attitudes and criteria. How are parents and teachers to bring up children if they themselves often do not know how they should behave? How are schools to cope with the greatly increased proneness to violence? How is our society to become more humane - locally, nationally and also globally?
 

This is our central concern for this epoch-making time of transition. What is needed is a shared basic ethic for all men and women, an ethic for humankind which transcends cultures, a global ethic. This is true at every level:
 
• If there is to be successful collaboration between nations, we need a new responsible politics: a politics which goes both beyond a Realpolitik without morals and a moralizing Idealpolitik. A responsible politics presupposes ethical conviction, but realistically investigates the possibilities and consequences of political action.

• And if there is to be successful collaboration between nations, at the same time we also need a new responsible economics: an economics which goes both beyond a welfare state for which we cannot pay and an anti-social neo-capitalism which is concerned with money only. A new fellowship of nations can be grounded only on the foundation of global justice: new, fairer structures of a global economy need to be shaped through collaboration between the nations.

Now here it is also already clear that a global ethic truly does not mean a new global ideology, a new single world culture, even an attempt at a uniform unitary religion. It would be ridiculous to want to replace the Torah, the Sermon on the Mount, the Qur’an, the Bhagavadgita, the Discourses of the Buddha, or the Analects of Confucius by a global ethic. A global ethic is not a substitute for religion, nor is it a simple ethicizing of religion; it is not a substitute for a specific religious or philosophical ethic.
 

Today – and our exhibition makes this clear in a fundamental way to all those who visit it – we know that despite all the differences in the religions which are already expressed in the portraits of their great founders, their ethics in particular display basic common features, and these are documented in the texts.
 

Today we can therefore achieve not only a global organization but also a global ethic. This global ethic may be named differently in different languages: in french “éthique planétaire”, in spanish “ética mundial”, in italian “etica mondiale”, in german “Weltethos” – but that makes no difference. What matters is not the word, but what it stands for. Particularly in an age of globalization such a global ethic is absolutely necessary. For a globalization of economy, technology and communication also results in a globalization of problems which threaten to overwhelm us all over the world: problems of ecology, nuclear technology, and genetic engineering but also of globalized crime, and globalized terrorism. At such a time it is a matter of urgency that the globalization of economy, technology and communication be supported by a globalization of ethics. In other words: Globalization requires a global ethic, not as an additional burden but as a base and support for human beings, for civil society.
 

This exhibition makes two points quite clear: First, it is an ethic to which a contribution should be made by believers and non-believers, in other words also by skeptics, agnostics and doubters; and secondly, that all the religions of the world should support this ethic.

Both these points are made in this exhibition, prepared by the Global Ethic Foun-dation based in Tübingen, Germany, with branches in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic. The way in which the great religions stand behind this ethic is shown by the first six placards, and so too, later, is the way in which the great humanists of our time are witnesses in particular to the demand for humanity - from Immanuel Kant through Henry Dunant, Rosa Luxemburg and Thomas Mann, Albert Schweitzer and Hannah Arendt, to Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Yehudi Menuhin. None of the great spirits of the twentieth century has given me more support in my efforts towards a global ethic, right from the beginning, than that incomparable artist and humanist Yehudi Menuhin.
 

With our exhibition we have deliberately attempted to demonstrate the characteristic features of these religions, not only by portraying the founder figures, but also by a brief characterization of the religions themselves, which embrace far more than just an ethic.

On the other hand, we have also set out to express clearly the fundamental ethical standards which are common to all these religions. Nowhere is that clearer than on the fine placard illustrating the Golden Rule. Here in different scripts and formulations one and the same norm is expressed which today needs to be observed not only by individuals but also by groups, nations, religions and regions (also in the Middle East): “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you!”

But alongside the Golden Rule stands the even more elementary principle of humanity: “Every human being - whether man or woman, white or black, rich or poor, old or young - should be treated humanely: in other words not in an inhuman, bestial way.” Four directives can be established in the great traditions of the religions which give concrete form to these two basic principles; they are by no means fortuitous but cover decisive spheres of human life and human society and are presented as the personal responsibility of all men and women, boys and girls:
 
• Responsibility for a culture of non-violence and reverence for all life. Particularly in a time when children even murder children, it should be underlined: “Have respect for life!”, according to the age-old directive “Do not kill!”

• Responsibility for a culture of solidarity and a just economic order. Particularly in an age of globalization it should be underlined: “Deal honestly and fairly!”, according to the age-old directive “Do not steal!”
 
• Responsibility for a culture of tolerance and a life lived responsibly. In the face of so many scandals in Wall Street, in politics and in the media it should be underlined: “Speak and act truthfully!”, according to the age-old directive “Do not lie!”
 
• Responsibility for a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women. At a time when taboos are being broken in an unprecedented way, it should be underlined: “Respect and love one another!”, according to the age-old directive “Do not abuse sexuality!”

My hope, ladies and gentlemen, is therefore that many people who may just happen to visit this place will look at the placards and possibly take home the attractive brochures which reproduce the content of these placards in full, to read them more closely at home.

Even those in America and abroad who may not agree with President Bush’s most recent very risky foreign policy may approve his plea for “a new ethic of responsibility”, expressed in his Wall Street speech on 9 July 2002: “America’s greatest economic need is higher ethical standards – standards enforced by strict laws and upheld by responsible business leaders … With strict enforcement and higher ethical standards, we must usher in a new era of integrity in corporate America.” When President Bush asks the business leaders to “give the free enterprise system an ethical compass”, I may humbly add that by this exhibition we give very concrete and well-founded coordinates for such a compass.
Dear Dr. Köhler, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
against all those who predict a “clash of civilizations” for the 21st century this is my alternative vision for the future, not just an optimistic idea but a realistic vision of hope: The religions and civilizations of the world in coalition with all people of goodwill can contribute to avoid such a clash, provided they realize the following insights:
 
• No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.
• No peace among the religions without dialogue between the religions.
• No dialogue between the religions without global ethical standards.
• No survival of our globe in peace and justice without a new paradigm of international relations based on global ethical standards.