Religion, Civilization, and Dialogue.

By: khairi janbek


Examining the overall religious scenario, one cannot fail to notice that, in religion there seems to prevail a paradoxical situation today. In general, religion is losing its grip in some areas, and simultaneously tightening it in different areas. In some sections of society; in almost all religions, ther seems to be a powerful swing back in the direction of dogmas with medieval rigidity and intolerance of opposition.

On the moral side, religion is on the retreat; crime is rampant, truth is disappearing fast, equity and the deliverance of justice are on the verge of extiction, social responsibilities to society are being ignored, and selfish individualism is gaining strength in its stead, even in those countries in the world which otherwise claim to be religious.These and many other sopcial eveils may well be considered as signs of decadent society. If moral values in any religion form the life and soul of religion itself, then a progressive strangulation of these values can lead us inevitably to conclude; that while the body of religion is being ressurected, the soul is fast ebbing out of the body. So what we observe in religion today; the so called revival of religion, becomes tantamount to resurrecting dead corpses so that they walk around like zombies.

In other areas, long stagnation and lack of exciting developments, generate negative consequences on the religiously inclined people. Miraculous things which they expect to happen, do not take place. The bizzare phenomenon of supernatural intervention in world events, to change the world to their liking does not materialise. They want to see strange prophecies fulfilled in order to give credence to their faith, yet nothing materialises. Those are the people who provide the cannon fodder to the cults of death and destruction. The urge to escape from the past from the present generates the desire to fill the void in expectations with something new.

Evidently, the world has changed with great speed since September 11th., and even lately with the caricature crisis. Therefore, we must stop and wonder, how it is possible to shift the issue of religion from being a major part of problems between civilizations, to being a major part of the solution to those problems. Hardly anyone among us, even with rudimentary knowledge about the essence of the various religions, would mnot recognise that fact that, the world's great religions are all absed on profound notions of justice, peace and goodwill.

At the sam time, although religion can be viewed as a force for peace, it can also be an incentive to conflict. In fact religion can be idetified as the source in the overwheliming majority of conflicts raging currently in the world. Wihtout seeing while believers prefare conflcit as an option, it may well be impossible to understand the cause of a given conflict, much worse, we cannot even begin to appreciate what religion can or cannot do in order to ameliorate it.

At least in the three Abrahamic faiths, there is authorization to use force by one people against another. But at the same time, they can inspire visionary people to commit themselves to a future of tolerance, justice and peace. Therefore, it is essential, in this day and age, to refelect seriously on the subject of religious partizanship in politics, and work earnestly to transcend the religious dictums which govern political issues.

In a sense, religion should be taken out of the fray, in order to become a source and a vehicle of mediation in conflict limitation or even resolution, as religion plays a very potent role in many societies, and when utilised in the context of honest brokerage and goodwill, it can achieve far better results than conventional diplomacy, which is governed by the rules of expediency.

As for the advocates of inter-faith dialogue, there seems to be a tendency of separating between individual action and the system of faith itself. The separation is usually justified by saying that, it is important to separate both aspects in order to protect the faith, since an incomplete effort, or any mistake will lead up to an incomplete faith. But if we continue to follow this pattern of reasoning, we shall end up afraid for our own respective faiths, mindful about protecting our beliefs, and consequently insecure in our various civilizational outlooks.

What kind of dialogue can be pursued between the faiths, when our main concern becomes the preoccupation with defending our faiths, and justifying or denouncing actions attributed to them?. Afyter all, the term dialogue means the promotion of those values in the various faiths, which contribute to the enhancement of our commonalities, but not a vehicle for defending or explaining our respective faiths.