Challenge of interfaith dialog in globalization era<\/p>\n
Benny Susetyo, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of Malaysia has said that
\nthe world is now seriously in need of establishing an interfaith
\ndialog in the struggle for peace and justice, and should not
\nremain in a state of continuous conflict that could lead to more
\nacute differences. \"It is this interfaith dialog that the world
\nneeds most of all today,\" he said in his address to the
\nconference of the World Council of Churches (WCC) held in Kuala
\nLumpur on Aug. 3, 2004.<\/p>\n
Badawi's statement is in tune with the world's most pressing
\nneed currently. We have witnessed how dialogs have often ignored
\nvarious problems that the world is confronted with, ranging from
\ninterfaith to interstate relationships. As a result, it is more
\noften the case that the differences become increasingly acute.<\/p>\n
When, for example, terrorism is deemed to be the common enemy
\nof the world's nations and therefore poses a serious threat to
\nthe harmony in the international community, the old paradigm is
\nstill employed to solve this problem, namely the paradigm of
\nviolence against violence. A dialog is very hard to pursue
\neven though those fighting terrorism tend to be considered to
\nhave greater democracy than other nations.<\/p>\n
The world's annoyance with terrorism has not manifested itself
\nin the form of self-correction, i.e., by nations asking
\nthemselves why the terrorists have launched their attacks, but
\nrather by seeking new ways in which terrorism can be eliminated.
\nIn reality, it is public knowledge that the world comprises good
\nand bad guys and that the bad guys cannot be completely routed.
\nWhat is feasible is to direct them in such a way that they will
\nnot become destructive. It is impossible to eliminate terrorism
\nif the root cause is religious fundamentalism, which is the
\nreality today. Terrorism can only be stopped if the objects of
\nterror come to realize what they have been doing wrong. The only
\nthing that is possible to do in this context is to hold a dialog!<\/p>\n
A dialog, as Badawi has noted, is necessary for a world that
\nis currently facing a host of problems. A dialog is very
\nimportant in dealing with the arrogance of global capitalism,
\nwhich has often sidelined issues of humanity. Its import is also
\nfelt when common humanity no longer forms part of the principal
\nviewpoint of advanced countries when looking at poor countries.<\/p>\n
Badawi is correct when stating that a new way of looking at
\nhuman beings is now needed. A human being is not merely an
\neconomic or production factor. A human being must be treated in a
\nway that takes account of all of his aspects. Humanity is the
\nbasic paradigm for togetherness in developing harmonious
\nrelationships between advanced and backward groups, rich and the
\npoor states, the majority and the minority, and the oppressed and
\nthe ruler. It is in humanity that human beings can find the roots
\nof true togetherness.<\/p>\n
It is also humanity that will supply the foundation on which
\nan interfaith dialog can be built, something which, alas, is
\neasier said than done. An interfaith dialog will develop and hit
\nhome if its orientation is geared toward the problems that
\nmankind is facing today.<\/p>\n
In this age of advanced communications, the world has
\nundergone a shift in actual orientation, with the values of
\ntogetherness being sidelined for individualism. This change has
\neroded further our orientation toward humanity. Each community is
\ninclined only to think about its own interests, its own religion
\nand its own group. It is easy to guess, therefore, that this
\ninclination will strengthen personal, religious and ethnic
\nsentiments.<\/p>\n
This reality has made it difficult for an interfaith dialog to
\nbe useful in solving global problems, such as the destruction of
\nhuman civilization that has led to greater alienation on the part
\nof human beings in their relations with themselves and their own
\nenvironment. The environment is no longer a peaceful place where
\nyou make your home because the soil, the water and the air have
\nbeen polluted and contaminated by physical as well as non-
\nphysical waste. Brotherhood is no longer part of our lives in
\nestablishing relations with our fellow human beings. Relations
\nare based only on money transactions and power. Just like in the
\nold days, when a human being was like a wolf to his fellow human
\nbeings, the survival of the fittest is the law that still
\nprevails today.<\/p>\n
Paul F. Knitter has proposed models of humanitarian dialog
\nthat are linked to the human plight, namely, the economic,
\necological and educational problems that have devastated mankind.
\nKnitter encourages religious people to use these dialog models so
\nthat they will be able to keep themselves informed about these
\nproblems of humanity.<\/p>\n
Such dialogs are possible only when a religious community
\nestablishes an egalitarian, not hierarchical, community. A
\nreligion that claims the sole truth cannot overcome the global
\nproblems now sweeping across the entire world. A religion must
\nacknowledge that it is not perfect and that it needs to forge
\ncooperation with other communities, such as intellectuals,
\ncultural activists, politicians and economists.<\/p>\n
It is now time for religious communities to discard prejudices
\nagainst people of other faiths. A self-interested orientation
\nwill only remove the role of the religion as a community of those
\nwho make \"a final decision\". Each religion must move to respond
\nto the increasingly complicated problems of humanity. Obviously,
\nwhat Badawi has said is connected with the hope that religious
\ncommunities will build synergies in discussing legislative
\nproducts that run counter to humanity.<\/p>\n
All religions must feel called upon to jointly rethink their
\ntasks, namely, to respond to ongoing problems facing mankind in
\nan effort to save the world from its own collapse. Religions must
\nunite to think about new alternatives for the establishment of a
\nnew world order. The present order is one of injustice and
\nexploitation, and has led to the emergence of religious
\nradicalism.<\/p>\n
Radicalism can be properly dealt with only when religions can
\nformulate common ethics that are concerned with the values of
\ntogetherness geared toward the empowerment of the poor and the
\noppressed. Poverty is the common enemy of religious people.
\nPoverty has made human beings unable to deal with global
\ncompetition.<\/p>\n
It is at this juncture that a religion must throw away its
\ndoctrinaire attitude and give up its claim to truth. A religion
\nmust assume a more prophetic attitude with regard to the
\ncomplicated problems that human beings are confronted with in
\ntheir lives. This acknowledgement is important to ensure that a
\nnew world may be established, one that is free from prejudices
\ntoward other people.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, we all should contemplate Karl May's words: \"It
\nturns out that I have all this time lived amid a terrible plague
\nand the cause is a prejudice.\"<\/p>\n
The writer is cultural observer.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/challenge-of-interfaith-dialog-in-globalization-era-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }