TruthBook Religious News Blog

LIVE’N’LEARN

Tariq Ramadan took part in a debate on inter-faith dialogue two weeks ago.
The dialogue between the panel of three (Tariq Ramadan, Soondursun Jugessur, Michael Atchia) some days ago and the audience (at Q-Bornes Town Hall under the auspices of the Conseil des religions) pointed to these:

? Inter-faith dialogue is possible and desirable;

? it is a vehicle for the spiritual and moral dimension in society, the family and an important factor for peace in the world;

? it must include everyone, even those with no declared faith and agnostics;

? it must go to villages and suburbs, to those in need, the masses, the young, and not remain among the elite and already convinced.

?Rooted in one’s own faith (which each must deepen), inter-faith dialogue enables each one to reach out, know, understand and share in other faiths, with huge results for everyone’s ability to better serve society and live in peace.

What is inter-faith dialogue?

The term refers to “co-operative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions”. Its aim is to unite global communities by sharing common elements, while accepting the differences (in religion and culture) to achieve harmony and enable people to live in peace.

A changing world

The face of religion on Planet Earth is rapidly changing. As a result of world-wide movements of people (whether for tourism, international workforces or immigration), most cities and many countries are fast becoming environments of multicultural and multi-faith environments, not to mention multilingual, as is the case in that inner London primary school where there are kids totalling 56 mother tongues, besides English! This worldwide movement of people has provoked a meeting of cultures and religions, a new phenomenon in history.

This historic encounter of religions is accompanied by another remarkable process: the interfaith dialogue movement. People belonging to the great faiths of the world are now talking to one another and understanding one another as never before, rather strongly contrasting with the set image of religion as a source of friction, conflict, terrorism (refer to the times of conflicting relationships in history between Christians-Muslims, Muslims-Hindus, Jews-Muslims, Catholics-Protestants, Christianity and science, etc.

New visions

I will take the concept of peace as an example: a typical western definition is that peace equals “freedom from war or violence” (Oxford dictionary). Peace activists in the west (and indeed the world over) prefer the eastern view of peace as a state of accord, understanding, harmony, fellowship, tranquillity, serenity, order, a state of non violence, unaggressiveness and uncontentious behaviour, as a state of plenty, of health, of happiness, etc. That definition combines elements from different religious traditions, as a sort of inter-faith, operational and multi-faceted. The former (Oxford definition) understandably arises from the aftermath of two World Wars, at the end of which peacetime was celebrated, after 80 million unnecessary deaths!

Religion and secularism

We must differentiate here between lip-service to religion (or the blind practices of formulae/rites, whether in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or any of the hundreds of new faiths-sects-religions) and being a true believer in search of meaning to life, essential values to live by and the intimate relationship with God. This is a paramount difference between wearers of the signs and badges of a religion and believers, who are always humble in the face of the immensity of the universe and the universal.

Modern society is fast replacing all references to revelations from sacred books or guidance for life obtained from divine inspiration by a huge set of secular laws, rules and regulations. But these belong to two different spheres, which can certainly co-exist. For example, most states are secular, meaning that affairs are conducted without reference to one or any religion. This is the case in France, India, the USSR of old, China, Mauritius, according to the Constitution. But surely and certainly those men and women elected or appointed to do the job can be (and should be) people of faith (not necessarily religious people).

The difficulty arises when a state defines itself as an Islamic State (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), a Jewish state, a Hindu kingdom (Nepal until recently), a Buddhist one (Tibet, until 1950) or any of the numerous Christian kingdoms of Europe from the middle ages into the 20th century, with sequels showing in the struggle between Catholic and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

So, homage must be paid to movements like those of Mother Teresa or that of the Brahma Kumaris. Each is inspired by one religion (Christianity and Hinduism respectively) but are universal in their openness to all and service to all.

We therefore see the necessity of inter-faith as well as inter-cultural dialogue in modern society. This dialogue can be a determinant factor for the ability of communities to live in peace and harmony, especially important in multi-religious societies like ours and in recent years in very many societies.

As a man of science, I am searching for truth, I try to understand the mechanisms and processes operating in nature. I do this purely by using the experimental method of observation, detached, neutral objective. Such is the scientific method, the example par excellence of secularism. It is only at this price that science can produce results which can then be applied to improve the quality of life of man. As a believer, I have neither nightmares nor conflicts between my work as a scientist and the grace of God in my life. The key word that comes to mind is complementarity.

The spiritual dimension is an integral part of true and complete education, no doubt about that! How does this operate in school systems is an ongoing and difficult subject. Extremes are regrettable, such as in French state schools where religion is ”out-of-bounds” or in some religious schools where adhesion to a given faith is a must. In both cases faith (which is a way of life “proposed”, not “imposed’ ) can develop freely. The experiment conducted by some of us (including Henri Souchon) in the QEC of the 1970s is still vivid in the minds of many: side by side with sectoral religious education (each one in her own faith), we devised and proposed courses in the encounter of religions, an attempt to learn the “facts and deeper meaning” of the religions of others. This was in a small way a good beginning to inter-faith dialogue. Where has this dialogue reached now?

Labels: culture, interfaith, Michael Atchia, peace, religion, science, society