Interfaith Dialogue and Peace

Interfaith Dialogue and Peace
Discussion

Moderator: Francis Park
Panelists: Alim Mandming Bandara
Antoine Sondag, Jin Wol
Interpreter: Anselmo Lee
Reporter: Edmund Chia

Rationale and Guidelines:

1. Originally, the workshop was entitled "Interfaith Dialogue on Tolerance and Peace". But upon discussion, we felt that it would be better if it were called "Interfaith Dialogue and Peace." The word "tolerance" conjured negative implications of inauthentic and insincere acceptance of "the other."
2. The workshop aimed to explore the various dimensions of interfaith dialogue to further the understanding and appreciation of the matter and to explore possibilities for collaborative action.
3. The panelists were carefully selected based on religion, gender, etc. It was noted that there was a gender imbalance though this did not mean that the feminist perspective was unimportant.
4. The panel included Mandming Bandara who represented the South-East Asian perspective on the traditional or cosmic religions; Antoine Sondag who spoke from the European perspective as a Christian; and Jin Wol who represented the host country, as well as North-East Asia, as a Buddhist.
5. The presentations used the descriptive and case studies approach.

Alim Mandming Bandara

1. This was a case study of the interfaith relations in Mindanao in the Philippines, an area presently on a full-scale war. An historical overview of how the different ethnic composition and segregation came about was given. Unfortunately, religion played a significant factor in this segregation that included the Christians, the Moro Muslims, as well as the peoples who are believers of the traditional and indigenous religions such as the Lumads. The differing history of the various communities and the unequal opportunities has been an on-going source of tension. It is in this context that the present Mindanao conflict should be looked at.
2. The Lumads are peoples who are connected with nature. Nature is their source of knowledge, power, and life. Because theirs is spirituality in tune with nature, and which has evolved from nature, there is an emphasis on respect and appreciation for nature. It is in nature where the forces of life will maintain a balance and come to equilibrium.
3. Thus, with globalisation infiltrating into the lands of the Lumads, the balance has been disturbed. The development of industries, tourist spots, and other projects which does not take into consideration this relationship with nature and which has resulted in ecological imbalance poses a serious problem to the peoples of traditional religions. The Lumad people condemn profit-oriented economic development that does not pay heed to the sacredness of ancestral lands. The present conflict in Mindanao should also be understood in this context.
4. Globalisation cannot be stopped but we can create a safety net. Thus the call for unity amongst the different religions and communities, so as to address the challenges posed by globalisation. Inter-religion and interfaith dialogue is imperative in our times. Specifically, there is a need to enable others to understand the Lumad's spiritual connectedness with nature and their collective forms of decision-making, which gives priority to the good of the community over private interests of rich corporations. It is also important that we cultivate a development perspective that respects holistic peace, progressive pluralism, and the rights of minority communities.

Jin Wol

1. This was a case study of the development of New Spirituality in the context of globalisation. It is a description of the influence of globalisation on religion as well as the response of religion to globalisation.
2. It is generally assumed that there is an interrelatedness and interdependence amongst peoples, while each maintains its separate identity. Thus, religious pluralism is an acknowledgment of this separateness.
3. Globalisation has influenced religion in that it has heightened the competitiveness amongst them. On one hand, it has led some to the path of secularisation, with its concomitant impoverishment in the spirit. On the other hand, other groups have reacted to globalisation by turning inward and reinforcing their sense of fundamentalism, fanaticism, and exclusivism.
4. In view of the many religions that exist in the present world and in view of the force that religions wield on society, it is important that we appreciate religious pluralism. It is impossible for anyone to claim that one single religion is meant for all. Thus, there can be no peace in the world without peace amongst the religions. And, there can be no peace amongst the religions if there is no dialogue between them. Therefore, a spirit of dialogue is imperative for the creation of a "new spirituality." We could call this an "open spirituality," an openness that will not discriminate and an openness oriented towards peace.
5. The United Religions Initiative (URI), which has its roots in San Francisco, provides such a vision for an "open spirituality." It is a growing global community dedicated to promoting enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, ending religiously motivated violence, and creating a culture of peace. A part of the URI Charter has this: "We believe that our religious, spiritual lives, rather than dividing us, can guide us to build community and respect for one another.... We unite to support freedom of religion and spiritual expression, and the rights of all individuals and peoples as set forth in international law. We unite in responsible cooperative action to bring the wisdom and values of our religions, spiritual expressions, and indigenous traditions to bear on the economic, environmental, political and social challenges facing our Earth community."
6. Korea, like many other countries, has seen two trends within religions: the first is generally positive and cooperative, while the second is negative and fanatical. We hope the first trend of dialogue and cooperation can become the mainstream.

Antoine Sondag

1. This presentation was a general observation of the important dimensions and implications for inter-religious dialogue. While inter-religious dialogue is good and important, more important is the intra-religious dialogue that must also take place amongst members of one's own religious communities. This is especially crucial given that many of those not in favour of inter-religious dialogue are also those who have intolerant, fanatical, and exclusivist views.
2. It is more important that we sign statements with our fellow religionists especially those who are anti-dialogue, than it is for the signing of statements with peoples of other religions who are in the first place already in favour of dialogue. Often times, the perpetrators of inter-religious violence and hatred are those who are also much against activities of inter-religious dialogue. Thus, they are the more important people we ought to dialogue with, even as it may be more difficult and challenging.
3. The many civil wars of present day and intra-nation conflicts point to the fact that these are probably cultural or identity wars. They are not as much economic or ideological wars as they are wars to protect and defend one's identity, ethnicity, or clan.
4. Religion and spirituality can never be divorced from one's culture and identity. Hence, the integral role of religions in shaping the cultural and collective identity. The challenge, therefore, is for us to discern to what extent has religion and spirituality played in furthering this culture of war and the intolerance of others. It is a challenge for us to see how religion has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for the perpetuation of hatred and dissension. What aspects of our religion can give rise to some of these attitudes? What are our responsibilities as believers? What must we do to ensure that religion cannot be used or manipulated to perpetuate intolerance?
5. It is not enough to say "No holy war" or that there is "no religious justification for violence." As believers, we also share in the responsibility to do something so that intolerance and the culture of hatred and war will not be allowed to happen.

Moderator

The following are key issues for inter-religious dialogue:

1. There is inter-relatedness between inter-religious dialogue, peace, and tolerance.
2. Peace is a necessary ingredient, but which hitherto has not become a reality yet, as can be seen by the many conflicts in various parts of the world.
3. The demands of peace suggest an investigation into the role of politics in religion, and especially the politicisation of religion. The dynamics of majority-minority statuses of religion within a particular country has also to be looked into.
4. The imperative to promote dialogue between the more conservative streams within a religion with the more liberal or progressive streams.
5. The imperative to look at the dynamics posed by secularisation and fundamentalism.

The key issues at stake are:

1. Tolerance is perceived as a charitable gesture of one group (usually the majority) towards another (usually the minority).
2. Has globalisation exacerbated the rise of religious fundamentalism?
3. Will religions play the role of mediator for peace or will they lead to what Samuel Huntington predicted, namely the clash of civilizations?
4. The importance of education and formation for inter-religious dialogue and that this must take place from a very young age and within the mainstream religious education curriculum of every religion.
5. The imperative to develop an alternative value system, one that will lead to greater openness and respect for another's religion.

Discussions

1. It is important to promote both inter-religious dialogue and intra-religious dialogue. One supplements the other and both need to happen in concert. The importance of formation for dialogue, especially that many need to be un-learned prejudices, misinformation, and false teachings.
2. We need to critically examine the notion of "truth." Can there be an absolute truth, especially one that seems to condemn others as false. If you want your religion to be respected, you need to respect others first.
3. There is shame that the fundamentalist amongst the religion has perpetuated much violence against others such as the destruction of Buddha statues. This seems to have arisen from the distorted understandings of one's religion that resulted in extremism and exclusivism. There is the need to appreciate the symbol systems of other religions and also the ability to use the stories of other religions to transmit religious messages to one's own community, despite objections from one's own co-religionists.
4. It is important to immerse into the culture and religion of another to learn from them and to learn more about one's own. As well, engage in dialogue with peoples of other religions on common concerns, e.g. ecology, spirituality, etc. and give priority to relationships between persons of different religions rather than to dialogue on dogmas and theories. Many Asians have a dynamic interaction in their psyche, which is at once Shamanistic, Buddhist, Christian, etc.
5. Why "new" spirituality? And from whose perspective? There is a need to develop the feminine perspective. Inter-religious dialogue can succumb to being anti-woman, since all religions have negative elements against women.
6. Need to keep in mind the grassroots and that the approach and methodology can be concrete, practical, and easy to implement. Migrant workers' issue is also important especially since they are vulnerable to conversion. Can religions develop support systems for them without the ulterior motive of wanting to convert them?
7. Inter-religious dialogue to be looked at as a bread and rice issue where the dialogue is about one's survival and well-being and not about wanting to convert the other to one's own religion.
8. The different religions can come for common action, prayer, etc. in times of crisis if inter-religious dialogue exists. Inter-religious dialogue must also not exclude those who do not belong to mainstream religions such as the agnostics, atheists, and secular spiritualists. Be aware that a global spirituality can be an illusion as people are different and religions will probably always remain different.
9. We must not avoid sensitive issues in inter-religious dialogue. It is especially important to discuss dogmatic incompatibility, other difficulties and apparent irresolvable issues, lest dialogue be a beautiful and nice gathering amongst peoples who will be too polite.
10. Can we shed our labels to stress our humanity? Can we do less with identifying ourselves according to our religions, genders, etc. and place more emphasis on the fact that we share a common humanity. Perhaps this "new spirituality" is one of harmony between religions, harmony between genders, etc. We return to concentrate on the humanness that unites us and need to survive together.

Moderator

The ingredients of a "new spirituality":

• acceptance of diversity and pluralism
• minimise the differences between religions and maximize the common elements
• globally responsible and the concern for developing a global civil society
• alternative to the logic of limitless competition and the law of the jungle
• restore the original aims and goals of religion
• ecologically concerned
• inclusive of feminist perspective

Alternative Praxis:

• overcome difficulties posed by dogmas, theories, and thought patterns
• move towards the moral and ethical dimensions of spirituality
• create a global spirituality so as to address the challenges posed by globalisation

Francis Park, (Woori Theology Institute and KCC-AE)

Alim Mandming Bandara, (Representative of Teduray/Lambangian, Mindanao)

Antoine Sondag, (Spiritual Director ICMICA, Paris)

Jin Wol, (URI, Korea)

Edmund Chia, (Executive Director of Federation of Asian Bishop's Conf. Inter-religious Affairs)