Interfaith Movements, Religion and the Approach to Religious Violence

By Taryn Horwood

Organised religion has existed throughout the twenty-first century facing such phenomena as globalisation, religious violence, secularism and pluralism, to name but some of the seemingly particularly contentious points. Cumulatively these concepts are essentially hurdles for religious views that seek singularity, dominance and religious governance, and the coexistence of such worldviews has been attributed with providing a potential basis for the toleration or at least occurrence of religious violence. In light of this modern international context this essay will discuss the relationship between religion and interfaith movements in dealing with the issue of religious violence and violence-inspired fundamentalisms. Considering theories of interfaith dialogue, social cohesion, the dispute between religious worldviews and religion’s importance to societal structures, two practical examples will be used to outline the benefits and disadvantages of working across faiths to counter violence.

The introduction of this essay has highlighted globalisation, secularism and pluralism as contemporary experiences of organised religion. Whilst not seeking to examine how each of these concepts affect religion today, this essay will instead explore how religions coexisting in a diverse, non-religiously governed, international arena attempt to work with interfaith movements to resolve the prevalence of religious violence. In order to address this relationship between religions, interfaith movements and violence it is important to first establish the context of terms with which this essay will be dealing. Given the focus of this essay on the organised, major world religions and how they interact on a representative level, religion is understood as “institutions who hold to a Divine authority intended to be administered through a hierarchy, which has special powers, responsibilities and disciplines that govern or influence society”.[1] Furthermore, the notion of fundamentalism will be used when considering religiously inspired violence, and so for the purpose of this essay is defined as “a concept usually applied to biblical religions, cults, sects and their literature, identifying a belief in the absolute and infallible truth of whatever authority they rest on”[2]. This definition is significant when considering interfaith and religious approaches to resolving violent hostility displayed by fundamentalist adherents, given the nature of such belief. Finally, a term that should, according to Felicita Carr, be distinguished from the concepts of ‘interreligious’ and ‘ecumenical’, ‘interfaith’ is defined as; “relationships and encounters between members of different religious, spiritual, philosophic, faith and other communities, with an emphasis on the interpersonal and experiential nature of such interactions”[3]. Evidently, interfaith is a philosophy that promotes genuine relationships between various religions with a view to positive and effective coexistence, as is illustrated by the published mission of The Institute of Interfaith Dialog; “The Institute of Interfaith Dialog is a non-profit organization whose primary goal is to help bring together the communities in order to promote compassion, cooperation, partnership and community service through interfaith dialog and conversation”.[4] In light of this idea, it is possible to consider how such an approach to religious diversity may incorporate religion to attempt to resolve religiously violent issues.

The issue of religious violence has a variety of common perceptions amongst its religious witnesses; however of these numbered analyses the impact of contemporary social issues on religious adherents is a factor that has gained considerable attention. As previously mentioned, the combination of global interdependence, diversity and secularism in the modern world have had unique implications on major world religions, however it has been observed that such implications have naturally manifested negatively for the local proponents of various faiths. As explained by Elyse Rider in her work Interfaith Dialogue: A Deconstructive Site for the Cycles of Mythic Violence?, “we collectivise our knowledge into religious and political laws that we violently maintain against difference within our communities and particularly against those exogenous to our circles of contained and labelled truths”.[5] In a globalised world religious beliefs have the potential to appear threatened, and it has been the observation of interfaith thinking that there is value in attempting to weaken and eventually eliminate the ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality often present in religious belief. Such thinking is akin to “the enclave culture” theory developed by Gabriel Abraham Almond, R. Scott Appleby and Emmanuel Sivan, an idea that suggests fundamentalist movements tend to consider themselves as a marginalised and alienated minority of a hostile world.[6] Thus an anti-pluralistic issue has been highlighted as a factor of violence-inspired fundamentalisms, and it appears to be the resolve of religious leaders to change religious thinking through the particular action of interfaith dialogue.

As diverse religions existing in a globalised modern world has been highlighted as a factor of contemporary religious aggression, the social theme of this issue has resulted in its relevance to the interfaith cause. The impact of ‘the enclave theory’ has seen religious leaders identify this hindrance in religious thought and promote the message of interfaith relations to their respective parts of the world, largely through the practise of interfaith dialogue. According to R. Scott Appleby, for religions to be successful at peace building in the twenty-first century they must envision three goals, the third of which is to give priority to establishing and supporting interreligious dialogue and cooperation to provide an opportunity for transforming the issue of conflict.[7] It is evident that religion is an intrinsic factor of interfaith philosophy, and controversially so since religious views are usually invoked as an inspiration of religious violence. However much of the involvement of major religious authorities in interfaith movements can be attributed to the challenging idea that whilst essentially invoked in religious conflict, religion is a necessity for peace and as such is required in the peace building process. This thought is illustrated by Professor A.R. Radcliffe-Brown in his lecture on Religion and Society, when he discusses “the theory that any religion is an important or even essential part of the social machinery, as are morality and law, part of the complex system by which human beings are enabled to live together in an orderly arrangement of social relations”.[8] Due to the common interpretation of the value of religion in influencing peace it has been the choice of many religious leaders and community members to adopt the philosophy of interfaith and engage in interfaith dialogue and relations. Such an attitude was expressed by Pope John Paul II to hundreds of people from twenty different religions at the conclusion of the Interreligious Assembly hosted by the Vatican in October 1999; “religion and peace go together: to wage war in the name of religion is a blatant contradiction. Religious leaders must show that they are pledged to peace precisely because of their religious belief. The task before us therefore is to promote a culture of dialogue. Individually and together, we must show how religious belief inspires peace, encourages solidarity, promotes justice and upholds liberty”.[9] Notably, Pope John Paul II’s reference to religious leaders pledging peace precisely because they hold a religious belief is another aspect of religion and interfaith movements attempting to penetrate the barriers of competing religions, by finding similarities.

Whilst changing the nature of religious thought in today’s diverse society through preventing the survival tendencies of fundamentalist thought, both religious and interfaith adherents have emphasised the notion that religions can relate to each other through their similarities. The concept of globalisation has been altered by such groups to portray the perception that all religions are noticeably similar and have the ability to share certain goals, in an attempt to replace the perception of globalisation as fostering threatening and competing religious ideals. Marc Gopin discusses the documented evidence of the leaders of many world religions having expressed a commonality of both goals and values in recent decades, [10] and Anna Halafoff notably cites the 1993 World Parliament of Religions focus on common-ground in the form of discussing poverty and human rights issues as “shared problems and threats”.[11] It is evident that interfaith movements encourage the major religions to consider their similarities and discuss global issues as a united religious body, to discourage views of segregation and emphasise positive commonalities of different faiths. Thus the relationship between religion and interfaith movements has been demonstrated, with it being evident that religion is a necessary influence for fundamentalist and religiously aggressive thought, with both religious and interfaith groups striving for peaceful coexistence. It can now be demonstrated through two case studies what the benefits and disadvantages are of working across faiths to counter violence.

The first case study to be examined highlights the benefits of addressing the ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality across different faiths as a measure of countering religious violence. This issue was addressed by Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish Muslim scholar who founded the interfaith-associated Gülen Institute and is responsible for pioneering a rejuvenation of the Interfaith Dialog spirit in the Turkish-Muslim tradition in 1994.[12] One of the many aspects of Gülen’s work has been transforming perception between Muslims and non-Muslims, where he focused on the aforementioned mentality of ‘us’ and ‘them’.[13] Through his studies Gülen realised the insecurity felt by Muslims who perceived the Western world as subtly seeking to undermine Islam, a feeling that is largely due to memories of Western colonialism. Subsequently, the notion of the development of Islam into an ideology of conflict and reaction has resulted in suspicion and mistrust of Muslims, increasing the cycle of mutual negative perception. According to Gülen, interfaith dialogue is a building block for further peaceful development; “dialogue, tolerance, and trust reinforce each other: developed through the dialogue, tolerance helps to accept all differences in order to further the wider goal of cooperation”.[14] As with the thoughts of Elyse Rider previously discussed in this essay, such negative thoughts of the external world and such resultant protection of internal beliefs and truths appears to suggest that changing perceptions between religious groups can significantly break down violent barriers that exist based on ingrained ideas. Altering the mentality of Muslims and non-Muslims demonstrates that a negative cycle has the potential to be broken, and working across these faiths to counter this violent attitude demonstrates the benefits of a fundamental step providing a basis for more vast improvements. Obstacles are evident in other case studies, however, where the aim of communication across faiths has exhibited disadvantages for resolving violence.

The second case study to be examined is that of peace building in the Middle East. In Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding, Ronald Young discusses the venture of hundreds of American Jews, Christians and Muslims working together in the US Interreligious Committee for peace in the Middle East since 1987.[15] Whilst the venture was seemingly well-intended, Young ultimately sums up the issues experienced by these proponents of different religions, explaining that there are several significant interfaith obstacles to be overcome before resolving the destructive issue of violence. Firstly, Young describes the historical issues between the Israeli Jews and Palestinians as manifesting in bitterness and partisanship regarding the issue and as a result there is a lack of committed activism to the peace building cause. A subsequent obstacle of this partisanship has been a tendency to classify the argument into sides of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, and the inability to appreciate the entirety of arguments throughout the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict means lacking the sort of understanding of the situation that is beneficial for the process of peace building. Thirdly, and possibly most significantly, attempting a peaceful resolve for the Middle East conflict requires the Jews, Christians and Muslims involved to confront deep fears and prejudices they have about one another. The view of Young is that religion has unfortunately contributed as often to fuelling the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it has to help resolve it, and as such it is evident that working across faiths to counter violence in this situation is unhelpful, and possibly sometimes damaging.

This essay has examined factors of competitive religious worldviews, social cohesion, interfaith dialogue and the influence of religion on societal structures, to determine an intrinsically beneficial relationship between interfaith movements and religion that encourages positive interfaith relations and commonalities to attempt to counter religious violence. Whilst it is apparent that difficulties do arise from the process of peace building through interfaith dialogue, and as such the relationship is not always effective, it is evident that the relationship between interfaith and religion in attempting to resolve issues of religious violence and promote a future of understanding and peace is a promising and effective one.

In-text References

Almond, G.A., Appleby, R.S. and Sivan, E. Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Appleby, R.S. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.

Benedict, G. The Watkins Dictionary of Religions and Secular Faiths. London: Watkins Publishing, 2008.

Carr, F. Peace-building through Ecumenical and Interfaith Dialogue. www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/158546/Carr_InterfaithPeace.pdf

Gopin, M. Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Gülen Institute. http://www.guleninstitute.org/index.php/Biography.html

Halafoff, A. Multifaith Movements in Ultramodernity. Monash University. August 2008. www.tasa.org.au/conferencepapers08/Religion/Halafoff,%20Anna,%20Session%2012%20PDF.pdf

Korostelina, K. ‘Redefining “Us” and “Them”: Gülen’s approach to transformation of perceptions between Muslims and non-Muslims’. Conference Proceedings from Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gülen Movement. November 14-15, 2008.

Rider, E. Interfaith Dialogue: A Deconstructive Site for the Cycles of Mythic Violence?. Monash University. www.colloquy.monash.edu.au//issue16/rider.pdf

Radcliffe-Brown, Professor A.R. ‘Religion and Society’. In The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 75, No. 1/2, 1945.

The Institute of Interfaith Dialog. http://www.interfaithdialog.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=6

Young, R. ‘American Jews, Christians and Muslims Working Together for Peace in the Middle East’. In Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding. Edited by David R. Smock. US Institute of Peace Press, 2002.

---

[1] Gerald Benedict, The Watkins Dictionary of Religions and Secular Faiths (London: Watkins Publishing, 2008), 485.

[2] Ibid., 192.

[3] Felicita Carr, Peace-building through Ecumenical and Interfaith Dialogue, 2-3, www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/158546/Carr_InterfaithPeace.pdf

[4] The Institute of Interfaith Dialog http://www.interfaithdialog.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=6

[5] Elyse Rider, Interfaith Dialogue: A Deconstructive Site for the Cycles of Mythic Violence?, Monash University, 148, www.colloquy.monash.edu.au//issue16/rider.pdf

[6] Gabriel Abraham Almond, R. Scott Appleby, Emmanuel Sivan, Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 23-24.

[7] R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation, (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), 245.

[8] Professor A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, ‘Religion and Society’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 75, No. 1/2 (1945), 33.

[9] Felicita Carr, Peace-building through Ecumenical and Interfaith Dialogue, 1-2, www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/158546/Carr_InterfaithPeace.pdf

[10] Marc Gopin, Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 87.

[11] Anna Halafoff, Multifaith Movements in Ultramodernity, Monash University, August 2008, 6, www.tasa.org.au/conferencepapers08/Religion/Halafoff,%20Anna,%20Session%2012%20PDF.pdf

[12] Gülen Institute, http://www.guleninstitute.org/index.php/Biography.html

[13] Karina Korostelina, ‘Redefining “Us” and “Them”: Gülen’s approach to transformation of perceptions

between Muslims and non-Muslims’ (Conference Proceedings from Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gülen Movement, November 14-15, 2008), 455-459.

[14] Karina Korostelina, ‘Redefining “Us” and “Them”: Gülen’s approach to transformation of perceptions

between Muslims and non-Muslims’ (Conference Proceedings from Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gülen Movement, November 14-15, 2008), 455-459.

[15] Ronald Young, ‘American Jews, Christians and Muslims Working Together for Peace in the Middle East’ in Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding, David R. Smock (ed) (US Institute of Peace Press, 2002), 63-64.