Challenges in interreligious dialogs<\/p>\n
By B.S. Mardiatmadja<\/p>\n
The following is an excerpt of a paper to be delivered next
\nweek at a seminar in Oegstgeest, the Netherlands. The seminar,
\nReligious Plurality and Nationalism in Indonesia, is organized by
\nthe Netherlands chapter of the Association of Indonesian Moslem
\nIntellectuals. This is the first of two articles.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The essence of dialog among people of different
\nbeliefs is identical to the essence of dialog on the core element
\nof development of a national vision.<\/p>\n
Why? Because a national vision is the way a nation looks at
\nits future and how to reach that future.<\/p>\n
And this is exactly the main essence of democracy. In
\nprinciple, democracy supports the freedom, equality and
\nfraternity of citizens.<\/p>\n
One person is equal to another simply because of their basic
\nhumanity. One's religious, racial or caste identity becomes
\nsecondary in relation to one's fundamental rights and freedoms.<\/p>\n
A community may have an ideology it claims to be independent
\nof any religious affiliation but the reality may not be so.<\/p>\n
This tension between reality and ideology provides an
\nincentive to reform or transform the facts in order to conform to
\nthe ideology.<\/p>\n
There are at least four obstacles to a dialog: prejudice,
\nsecularism, fundamentalism and communalism.<\/p>\n
Prejudice often has its roots in ignorance. Many of us are
\naccustomed to living in a community that is highly
\ncompartmentalized.<\/p>\n
This means that as a member of a religion's community, many of
\nus are living in a world of more or less our own.<\/p>\n
We are often ignorant of the beliefs and practices of other
\npeople. The void left by ignorance is filled by prejudice. This
\nmay be transmitted from generation to generation.<\/p>\n
Another person's faith is simply regarded as nonexistent and
\nthere is no reason to have a relationship with that person. One
\nis ready to believe every rumor, and in Indonesia, there are a
\nlot of rumors.<\/p>\n
Religious diversity is recognized, but it is not always
\nperceived in the same way by various adherents of religion.<\/p>\n
Secularism may be manifested among some well-educated
\nIndonesians. Religion is often privatized, or else exploited as a
\npolitical tool.<\/p>\n
Provided one is faithful to the law of the land, one is left
\nalong to hold whatever belief one wishes.<\/p>\n
The danger here is that deprived of its religious base, moral
\nprinciples in public life fall prey to self-interest, efficiency,
\nsuccess, economic growth, profit motive and others.<\/p>\n
Fundamentalism is a narrow affirmation of the truth of one's
\nbeliefs. The others may not be considered insincere, but deluded.
\nNo distinction is made between religion and morality, nor between
\nwhat is moral and what is legal.<\/p>\n
A mild form of fundamentalism sees in religion the cementing
\nforce between people and tries to promote a state religion. Many
\nreligions have smaller groups of active fundamentalists.<\/p>\n
They confuse religion and society and faith and polities too
\nquickly. A milder form of fundamentalism may show itself in a
\nself-sufficient attitude that has eyes only for what is lacking
\nin others.<\/p>\n
God is perfect, but however perfect the object of our faith
\nmay be, our own understanding, expression and practice of it is
\nculturally and historically conditioned and limited.<\/p>\n
An awareness of such limitations would keep us more open to
\nreceive as much as to give in the process of encounter.<\/p>\n
A similar difficulty arises when religions do realize that
\nthere are symbolic elements (analogical element) in all languages
\nabout God (Wirtgenstein).<\/p>\n
Ongoing reinterpretation to make the original memory relevant
\nto contemporary reality is necessary to make religion
\nhistorically pertinent.<\/p>\n
Communalism believes that people who share the same religious
\nbeliefs also share the same economic and political interests.
\nHence, it seeks to turn the religious community into a political
\npower block.<\/p>\n
While communalism may be also based on other factors like
\nrace, language and others, religious communalism seems to be the
\nmost dangerous, because it uses all the emotional power of faith,
\nwhich has an absolute character, to support its struggle for
\npolitical power.<\/p>\n
It would be difficult to speak of a national community.
\nCommunalism degrades religion, by making it a political tool.
\nDialog is becoming more difficult.<\/p>\n
If dialog is to be more than merely the casual, superficial
\nacknowledgement of others' views about God and the world, if it
\nis to be a real conversation (which is what dialog means), then
\nit cannot be among \"the religions\" but among the people of
\nvarious religious traditions. Dialog is essentially a personal as
\nwell as a structural event. It is very complex.<\/p>\n
But despite its complexity, antireligious dialog is the real
\nsignature of our time.<\/p>\n
Authenticity, truth and truthfulness have become the essential
\nelements for contemporary antireligious dialog.<\/p>\n
Dialog is a human process to be honestly social. In many
\nofficial meetings in politics and economics, as well as in a lot
\nof religious communities, tactics and hidden agendas very often
\ndetermine the allegedly unbiased dialog atmosphere.<\/p>\n
But it is authenticity that qualifies interreligious dialog as
\npersonal encounters. Authenticity is understood here as \"truth,
\nthat is, honesty with oneself and others\" and the interactive
\ndepending of one's relationship to oneself, the world and God.<\/p>\n
The writer is a Catholic priest and lecturer on philosophy at
\nthe STF Driyarkara, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/challenges-in-interreligious-dialogs-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}