Ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, instruments of peaceInterreligious dialogue. As brothers before the CreatorInterreligious dialogue: More collaboration between Christians and MuslimsInterfaith relations require hard thinking, study, prayer and love. Empty discussion based on vague thinking, without real knowledge of one's own and others' beliefs, is nothing but talk, no matter how polite and respectful it tries to be. We must also pray for humanity to unite in a shared faith pleasing to the divinity. Relying on human efforts alone will get us nowhere.
And then, without true love, -knowing that true love can be hard-, we will only distance ourselves and serve evil, not good. As I wrote in an article published in Adamah Media: "Dialogue with other believers requires overcoming prejudices and cultural barriers and appreciating the dignity of the other person, whatever their creed."
The religious dialogue must never abandon the search for truth. Debate based on a relativistic rejection of the meaning of truth - everything is somehow true or nothing is really true - quickly descends into absurdity. We must be convinced that truth can be found and work together respectfully, and as rationally as possible, to seek it.
Although we never proclaim our beliefs against others, we should not be afraid to shock the sensibilities of others. What is an article of faith to me may come as a shock to them, and someone else's firm conviction may seem very problematic to me. We should be prepared for this clash and be willing - on both sides - to explore why it has that effect. And likewise, even if we are convinced of the truth of our religion, we should be willing to admit and discover concrete ways in which it might not be properly lived. Every religion can have its deviant and corrupt forms.
But interfaith relations cannot stop there. Apart from theological discussion, we must take practical action. In this article I want to delve deeper into this question. What are the specific areas, the key moral issues, on which we can agree and stand together to promote them? Too often we focus on differences, and because these are often so numerous in interfaith encounters (the theological gulf between Hinduism and Christianity, for example, can seem almost infinite), we can become paralyzed.
But interreligious engagement worthy of the name-which wants to go beyond futile talk-should lead to concerted practical action. Here is a proposed list of 10 areas - if not 10 commandments, at least 10 areas of opportunity - in which believers of all stripes could reach consensus for common action. Five are expressed as "no's" and five as "yeses." Of course, these are my choices, no doubt inspired in good measure by my own Christian convictions, but I propose them as areas in which I believe there could be possible agreement among all religious believers.
No to slavery and human trafficking
Slavery and human trafficking They thrive in part because religious believers do not do enough to oppose them. In fact, religions have been too slow to oppose them. Consider, for example, that slavery was not definitively abolished in Christian Europe until the 19th century.
There may even be racist or other notions persisting in certain religious forms that consider non-adherents of that religion, especially if it is linked to a particular ethnicity as is the case with some faiths, worthy of subjugation. Slavery could be considered an appropriate punishment for not accepting that religion. If this is the case, the conviction has to be honestly stated and allowed to be questioned.
But, in general, believers of all religions will agree in their horror at the fact that other human beings are unjustly deprived of freedom. For religion to be a force for good in the world, it must be a force for freedom. Religions can then come together to explain how true freedom is not license to do as one pleases: there are limits. Just as freedom does not justify physical harm to others or to oneself, neither does it justify moral harm.
The common struggle to oppose slavery and human trafficking, which, unfortunately, is so present in the contemporary world, could be a good starting point for interreligious action.
No to exploitation and oppression of women
No serious religion can rejoice in seeing half of the human population subjected to exploitation and oppression. Surely, religions can unite to say "enough is enough" when it comes to the objectification of women.
If a religion has a justification for considering women inferior, it should put it on the table for debate, willing to see if its arguments really stand up to the logical analysis of others. Put bluntly, if you believe women are inferior, at least have the courage to say so openly and explain why.
There may even be convictions that others see as negative prejudices and you see as positive respect for a deeper reason. Speaking as a Catholic, I would see my Church's resistance to the ordination of women as priests as one such example, and I would be happy to plead my case, although I am also aware that we still have a long way to go in opening up leadership roles and responsibility to women.
But if this negative mentality is simply due to cultural forces, or to the force of time, religion should have the courage to fight against this misguided attitude, helping its own faithful to overcome their prejudices.
Denigrating practices such as female circumcision must be questioned. Can the cultures that practice them find any real religious or rational justification? I suspect not, although I am willing to listen to arguments in their favor. I suspect rather that they have simply acquired the force of habit. But corrupt customs can and must change.
And surely the time has come for believers of all faiths to campaign and work energetically to stand together against the commercial forces that promote pornography for profit, united in prayer and political, educational and even technological action. This is certainly a problem that is crippling many people in the nominally Christian West and it would be interesting to compare it with believers in other parts of the world to discuss possible ways of cooperating to help overcome this plague.
No to human misery and poverty
Religious teaching can make sense of suffering by explaining how the deity can make use of it for a higher purpose: for example, as a form of spiritual purification or to prepare us for eternity.
But this does not mean that religions are indifferent to human misery and, in fact, various religious forms - I know this from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Buddhism, to name but a few - place great importance on works of mercy. They understand that God (in Buddhism it might be more a sense of compassion) has compassion for suffering human beings and wants his followers to be instruments of his tender care for them.
Since atheism rarely takes pity on human misery, it is all the more incumbent on religions to do so. We should therefore work together to overcome suffering to the best of our ability. As some religious codes may accept it fatalistically, this is another attitude that could be put on the table for discussion.
The fight against poverty is more delicate. Some faiths even seem to justify it - such as the Hindu caste system (although, in fact, it is rejected by many Hindus) - but most do not. Again, in various religious systems, especially Christianity, poverty can have a positive value when it is seen as the voluntary renunciation of material possessions in order to open oneself more to God. And the poor are seen as particular objects of divine love.
But Christianity and most other religious traditions agree in seeing unchosen destitution as a bad thing.
How can people raise their gaze to the deity when they are forced to wallow in degrading misery and must focus instead on where to find their next meal? Since helping to feed the hungry is the first step in enabling them to raise their gaze to God, all religious traditions would therefore benefit from giving food (and shelter and clothing) to those in need.
No to war and violence
The expectation that religions should be against war and violence is difficult to defend because some religions have spread precisely by these means and many religious believers have used the name of God - and continue to use it today - to justify their bloodshed.
But religions can also evolve without betraying their essential tenets. Through a deeper study of their own founding documents and the best expressions of their lived practice, I am sure that many religions will discover that violence is not fundamental to their beliefs and that it may have arisen from a misinterpretation or at least a limited interpretation of their beliefs as they relate to that historical period.
They will discover holy men and women in their history who stood out for their promotion of peace and who can inspire them to do the same today. It is striking how Christianity has followed precisely this path, learning that spreading the faith by the sword is an aberration from true Christian belief. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that all Christians have learned the lesson: see the current conflict between Christian Russia and Ukraine.
Peace is a complex and difficult structure to build and maintain, but it involves the concrete and local gestures of goodwill of very ordinary believers.
No to abortion
Religion that does not defend innocent life - and what is more innocent than a child in the womb or a newborn - is a dead religion. If it does not see every human being as a creature willed by divinity and, therefore, to be loved and defended, what idea does it have of that divinity? What kind of divine being wants its innocent creatures to be killed?
However, I am aware that there may be differences of opinion about when life in the womb actually begins: some religions do not believe that there is life until after 40 days. While this could be a matter of ongoing debate, we could certainly work together to defend life in the womb from that point onwards.
At a time when, because of the loss of the sense of God, some Western countries and pressure groups promote abortion as a human right, we should jointly proclaim that human life is a right, as a divine will. And this includes the right not to be killed in the womb.
One form of violence that is spreading in our time is euthanasia. Apart from the many human reasons against it, it should be easy for religious believers to agree to oppose it together. Only divinity should decide when human life should end.
Yes to the family
A clear conviction of the world's major religions is that true marriage can only be between a man and a woman with a view to having children. They regard marriage as an unbreakable union for life, at least as an ideal goal, as some allow divorce. Although some religions allow polygamy, they still teach that the fundamental marital (and therefore sexual) relationship must be male-female, and not any other combination.
Not surprisingly, it is the families of religious people that are the fastest growing. Here, our common belief in the reality of marriage could lead us to a common action that, in fact, could save humanity from self-extermination.
Declining birth rates around the world, but most dramatically in places like Japan (where, not surprisingly, religious practice is also very weak, either not lived at all or reduced to mere superstition), remind us of how serious the threat is. Lack of faith often translates into childlessness, which seriously endangers the continuation of humanity. Religions can stand together to work not only for life after death, but also for life before death!
Yes to religious influence in public life
Religions must rise together to demand the right to have a voice in social life. They should not be confined to the temple or the church and denied the possibility of influencing the politics and practices of the nation. In the West and in some authoritarian Asian regimes this right is often not recognized in practice.
We must also stand united in opposing all forms of unjust prejudice and discrimination against religions: Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, persecution of Christian minorities, etc., as well as social ridicule of religious convictions.
It is also time for believers to unite in calling for greater integrity in public life. Religions can cooperate to work for a new political culture truly inspired by the honesty, public service and ethical values that religions teach.
But where religions have a voice, they must learn to restrain themselves from abusing their authority. When religion and politics mix, the purity of religion always ends up badly tainted.
So, if religions have the right to speak and to try to influence the life of the nation for the good, this right imposes on them a greater responsibility of self-restraint. And the cases in which religions fail to live this only show how damaging it is when it happens.
Yes to the care of creation
Religious sensitivity can help the believer to see the natural world and the human person as wonders of the divine creator. Care and defense of the environment could be a good place to initiate interfaith joint action, as, fortunately, seems to be happening more and more, with a recognition of humanity's role as the summit and steward of visible creation.
Yes to integral development
Belief in the divinity also implies valuing the dignity of his greatest creature on earth, the human person. God is also glorified when his rational creature, the one who most reflects him, is glorified.
Therefore, it should be natural for religions to promote education and artistic, intellectual and cultural development, and many beautiful common initiatives could be undertaken in these areas. Religions that do not do so should ask themselves whether they are really true to their fundamental beliefs. Would their deity be happy with their neglect in these areas?
Yes to freedom
I have addressed this before, but all religions should stand for freedom, and this includes the freedom of both themselves and other faiths to operate within a flourishing civil society.
This is something we should demand of secular authority, but also live it ourselves (as a Catholic, I am aware that Christians have often failed to do so). A religion that feels the need to proscribe other religious expressions to defend itself is a very fragile religion. If it believes it is true, it should have the arguments and confidence to defend its beliefs without simply banning those of others.
These 10 areas could open up exciting and creative fields of common action and fruitful relationships, often lived at a discrete local level. This would be beneficial for each of the religions involved and also for society at large.
