In recent events, vigils and prayer meetings following, marking and responding to the horrific murders at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin there were many who beat the inter-religious/interfaith dialogue drum. One often hears worn out and trite mantras: "We need to learn about, and from, one another's 'faiths' and/or religions!"; "We need to promote understanding"; and "We need to build bridges among our faiths." And these were chanted with sincerity and in earnest since that terrible day on Aug. 5.
While these intentions and desires seem superficially desirable (and remind me of a theological version of Barney's "I love you" song), do they really mean anything? And do they ever have a long-term impact? Or are they merely the right thing to say, an obligatory condolence, a self-serving and temporary panacea?
Perhaps, more importantly, what do potential participants mean by this "inter-religious dialogue" in which they purportedly intend to engage? Do they mean that they will accept as true the claims of others, even if they are at odds with their own? What, for example, is a Protestant who believes only in one God to think of claims of a Buddhist, who denies the existence of any god, or the claims of some Hindus, who proclaim the existence of many gods? Surely all of these claims cannot be true. And if one thinks that all of these claims are or can be true, then surely this problematizes and belittles the traditions from which they derive! Or do some participants think that the claims of others are patently false and that inter-religious dialogues are ideal opportunities for conversion? Or are such inter-religious dialogues merely fodder for pleasant and provocative conversations at suburban cocktail parties, akin to jet set, dilettante, amateur anthropologists who become experts of the culture/religion/faith au courant?
Though inter-religious dialogue seems, prima facie, to be a good idea, there is a great deal of difficult philosophical/theological work that participants need to do before they can have a fruitful one. In this connection, I would challenge all of those who chanted the inter-religious dialogue mantras to follow through with their promises, and to work out these preliminary and essential details, lest their promises become empty ones.
And let it never be forgotten that proposing inter-religious dialogue to sympathetic audiences is preaching to the proverbial choir. The biggest, and perhaps insurmountable, challenge is to engage and entice those who are isolated and seek no conversations whatsoever.
Follow Deepak Sarma on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dsarma
Chris Stedman: Finding Common Ground With 'Sacred Ground'
Rose Aslan: Branches of the Same Tree: Overcoming Sectarian Divides Among Muslims
Najeeba Syeed-Miller: Visiting A Gurdwara After Wisconsin Shootings
Should inter-religious dialogue remain an institutional formality then I fear it may never rise to fulfill its promise of deep and meaningful engagement between peoples of diverse faiths and backgrounds. It is as individuals we dialogue not as collective identities. To arrive at such a door of dialogue presupposes some deep sense of inquiry about the very fact of a multi-religious world. A knocking upon an inner door followed by entry in to dialogue which is both with the other and within oneself. Both individuals become doors for each other’s entry in to a moment of “presence” before one another. A presence that is both independent of them and also within them.
But God made us into nations, clans, tribes, races and cultures giving us a freewill to test and and find our own way of conviction
Quran :
10:19 And [know that] all mankind were once but one single community, and only later did they begin to hold divergent views.
And had it not been for a decree - that had already gone forth from thy Sustainer, all their differences would indeed have been settled [from the outset].
The ability to realize God's existence, oneness and omnipotence is innate in man, and that all deviation from this basic perception is a consequence of the confusion brought about by man's progressive estrangement from his inborn instincts
Holy Quran Chapter 5 Verse 38
And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way.
Men should differ in their intellectual approach to the problems touched upon by divine revelation, "they would not have contended with one another after having received all evidence of the truth", but would all have held from the very outset, would continue to hold, the same views
Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. However, if you want to get good people to do bad things, they have to have "faith".
---
No...not speechless.
Thank you for posing this question. I think in principle it good to have these "dialogues" for no other reason than the fact that at bare minimum 2 different groups may walk away with respect for another group even if they do not agree with their worldview.
Personally I am an adherent of the Perennial Philosophy and as such I see the spiritual traditions of the world as so many unique and sacred expression of the One and the same Reality whether it has been called Wakan Tanka, Brhaman, Allah, the Father, Nirvana, Tao, Yahweh, etc.....When I encounter the teachings of another tradition, I simply feel as I am seeing one of the infinite faces of the Divine and hence they are all sources of wisdom for me.
I would argue that they are, and that 'god' is not different, it is just being talked about in different ways. But I am a Sufi, and we are like that.
There are some, but very few, rationalists and secularists who reject religion in its entirety. There are some extremely orthodox people who exhibit rigidity and intolerance towards other faiths, not on communal grounds but on the grounds of religious orthodoxy, but they too are a minuscule minority.
India’s extreme tolerance is perhaps due to the influence of the ancient Indian doctrine that the one truth is manifested in different forms, and to the Sufi doctrine of wahdat al-wujud (Real Being is one).
As the ancient Hindu doctrine leads to inclusiveness and peaceful coexistence so does the Sufi doctrine. For peaceful co-existence, another Sufi doctrine of sulh-i-ku (total peace and peace with all) is also important. Sufism has left a deep influence on the Hindu masses as much as on the Muslim masses.