Pope Francis continues to give hope and encouragement to those of us engaged in interreligious dialogue.  This week he greeted an international committee of Jews as elder brothers and sisters, a greeting which has become common among Popes since the time of John XXIII.  This close relationship with the Jewish community is highlighted  by the fact that the department at the Vatican that deals with this is not the Council for Interreligious Dialogue but the Council for Ecumenism.  As far as the Catholic Church is concerned Jews and Christians belong to the same family. Of course sometimes family feuds can be bitter and the relations between Christians and Jews over the centuries have been bitter to say the least of it.  However the two communities have now been meeting formally for more than forty years and informal gatherings of Christians and Jews have also been happening over that period.  The turning point came for the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council when the document on interreligious dialogue recognised the dignity and integrity of the Jewish people and condemned anti-semitism.  Rabbi David Rosen has said that he does not know of any other document or even event that has so changed a relationship between people as this document.  

At the meeting this week Pope Francis  spoke of friendship being the basis of the development of more official dialogues
and reflected on his own friendship with members of the Jewish community in Buenos Aires.   He said " I met with them on various occasions to discuss the challenges which Jews and Christians both face. But above all, as friends, we enjoyed each other’s company, we were all enriched through encounter and dialogue, and we welcomed each other, and this helped all of us grow as people and as believers".  Obviously the Pope is a supporter of face to face dialogue and sees the time spent in developing good relations as a positive thing which allows for conversations about difficult issues. 

Today there was a baptism in my Church. It was a joyful occasion and the baby appreciated it with letting us know his lungs were in good order.  Included in the service was a short litany of the saints so we were encouraged to ask St Andrew and St Stephen and one or two others to pray for us.  The final request was to all holy men and women.  I couldn't help wonder what the majority of the congregation thought this meant.  Were they thinking about holy men and women who had died and now resided in heaven or holy men and women alive today?  And would all these holy men and women all be Catholic or at least Christian?  My interfaith journey has shown me   that included among those holy men and women are saintly figures in other religions, including the founders of the great religions of the world  such as the Buddha, Mohammed, Guru Nanak as well as ordinary men and women who strive to live a good life, some with religion and some without.  This belief in what Catholics call the Communion of Saints is, for me, not focused on an afterlife but on the interrelationship of all living beings, past, present and even to a certain extent to come.  We belong to a great human family and within that family are related to great men and women who have lived good and exemplary lives of service to others and made the world a better place for it.  To know that we are connected to them can be a source of strength for us if we harness that goodness and use it to inspire and encourage us. 

I have been thinking some more about secular Scotland and wondering why those who espouse what they call a secularist viewpoint are so opposed to the religious voice or see religion as being in opposition to them.  As I said in the previous blog, the religious people I know would rather live in a secular society than a religious one and many of them would consider themselves to be humanist because the dignity and value of the human person is at the heart of their faith. Are we not all seeking a better society and concerned about the kind of Scotland we want to live in?  If we spoke about this and the values we want upheld in society it might  be that we are closer than we think.  In interreligious dialogue there is a principle that we try to adhere to and that is to compare like with like. It is so easy to compare the worst of one religion or philosophy with the best of one's own. I often think there is a tendency to compare the best of Christianity with the worst of Islam and the worst of Christianity with the best of Buddhism. Similarly i think many secularists compare the worst examples  of religion with the best of their own.  What would happen if we each looked for the good in the other and admitted that we all fail and do not live up to our ideals?

Belief in Dialogue describes the kind of secular society that I certainly would want  when it states " The state seeks to provide ‘a space in the public square’ to a wide range of views to ensure the freedom of many religious groups and not just one or even none".  Everyone has the right to express their views and live according to their beliefs and sometimes there can be a clash of values which people have to struggle with. An example of this might be the clash or seeming clash between equality and religious freedom and people must be given time to reconcile these rather than be castigated for what they believe.  I think it is time for both secularists and religious people to believe that those who hold differing views from them are good, people of integrity, trying to do their best with the insights and wisdom that have been given them.  If we look for goodness we shall surely find it and if we look for the opposite we will find that too.  Pope Francis recently said that doing good is a principle that unites all humanity beyond the diversity of ideologies and religions and creates what he calls 'a culture of encounter' that is the foundation of peace.   Is this not worthwhile striving for?

A lot has been said recently about secular Scotland with the suggestion that there is no place for religion apart from the privacy of home and place of worship. In a recent article in the Herald Rosemary Goring depicts religion as intolerant and judgemental, excluding and exclusive.  No doubt there are religious people like this because religious people are human and human beings of any belief and outlook can be judgemental and intolerant but I  know many people of faith who are the very opposite of this. They are men and women  who are open and welcoming to all regardless of their beliefs, committed to social justice, working for the abolition of poverty, offering support and friendship to the lonely, the elderly, the bereaved among other things.  At the recent launch of Refugee Week a refugee spoke movingly about her experience and how helped she had been by the local Church.  Where would she and other refugees be if it hadn't been for the door opened to them  or the food and clothing provided for them by Churches.  Would advocates of a secular Scotland want this kind of good work to cease?  Would they be asking faith communities  to stop  soup kitchens, Churches and places of worship to cease from speaking out on behalf of the poor and marginalised, Church Action on Poverty, Islamic Relief to stop caring?  And where are the humanist and secular societies that engage in this kind of work?

It is interesting that at the same time as this kind of conversation is going on others such as those involved in the Postcards from Scotland initiative are recognising the contribution of religion to health and well - being as it gives people meaning and purpose, helps them look outwards towards their neighbour and gives them a practice to support them in day to day living. I don't know of a religion that does not incorporate the Golden Rule nor see the essence of its faith as service to others.  Do the detractors of religion know what actually happens within faith communities?  Do they know of the work of interfaith relations that brings together people of different faiths to explore differences as well as commonalities. This kind of activity allows people to move beyond tolerance to respect and appreciation of different beliefs and views.

While I appreciate the contribution of religion to society I would not want to live in a religious state.  I too uphold a secular state but one in which all views are respected, people are able to speak and contribute to society from their own value base, and all are committed to the common good.  A few years ago the Scottish Government published a document  called Belief in Dialogue.  The purpose was to develop good relations between religion and belief groups in keeping with equality legislation.  As the document was being written it became clear that it was not possible to see religion and belief as  separate.  Everyone has beliefs, some religious and some non-religious.  Secularist and humanist beliefs are beliefs in much the same way as religious beliefs are so should they also be relegated to the private and personal sphere?  And as it is possible to get fundamental religious people so it is possible to get fundamental secular people.  What is the answer? Not to deny anyone the right to express their views but to encourage dialogue between these different views because, as Belief in Dialogue says, dialogue is the building block of a healthy society.

 A meeting of Interfaith Glasgow this week reflected on the nature and purpose of interfaith and the best way forward for interfaith relations in Glasgow.  Some research has shown that the city has a number of small interfaith dialogue initiatives but many more multifaith projects dealing with issues such as poverty, destitution, the environment, for example.   These are not   interfaith projects as such.  I would describe interfaith activity as a face to face activity which is a  term used by  Lord Jonathan Sacks.  Its focus is on dialogue, on understanding one another, sharing insights about common concerns and in so doing breaking down barriers and prejudices.  The other kind of interfaith activity Lord Sacks terms side by side and this focuses on common issues.  This is an important activity and it is right that people of faith come together to promote justice and equality and work together for the common good.  At the meeting this week there seemed to be a general consensus that this was the way forward for interfaith relations and a sense that it was better to do this than merely talk.  it was accepted that working side by side encourages friendships between people of different faiths and can lead to greater understanding.  While this is true i had some hesitancy about the general consensus.

in my experience voluntary organisations which focus on justice issues,  many of which originated as Christian charities,  wish to widen their membership and involvement to include people of different faiths. They go to faith communities to invite them to get involved but ...... the agenda often belongs to the organisation and is not necessarily a priority for  the religions that are being invited to get involved; and often it is the same people who are being approached so that faith communities, which on the whole are small, are overstretched.  If  an organisation or project is to be genuinely multifaith then the agenda has to emerge from the common concern of people of different faiths.   Because we live in a multifaith world many institutions, public, private and voluntary are multifaith because people of different faiths work in them and as colleagues develop friendships.  So multifaith involvement is in a way integral to society and does not need a special group or committee to do this.  

Face to face is less popular and less understood. Why just talk( which includes listening)?  Often it is the talk about important issues that concern us all, that focuses on our common values, on what it means to live a good life, on the place of religion in society that allows religious people  to play their part in the public square.  It is talk that helps us explore one another's faith, that helps us understand what it is like to stand in one another's shoes, that shows us how limited and subjective is our own perspective, that challenges our own faith.  It is our talk which develops the kind of relationship that helps us have the difficult conversations about areas of difference and sometimes even of conflict. Without the talk these difficult conversations cannot take place.  And yet these conversations are necessary if the world is to become a safer place.  

I attended a training on oral history yesterday and was struck with the idea that many of us are caught up in our community's story even if it doesn't quite equate with our own personal experience.  This is obvious in the statements such as the one that came out from the Catholic Media Officer, Peter Kearney, recently about  anti-catholic discrimination in Scotland.  This is not my experience and luckily some Catholics publicly said it was not their experience either. 

It struck me that this might also apply to the parents who pulled their children out of a visit to a Mosque in Edinburgh recently.  According to the press the reasons given by the parents focused on the hate they thought was being preached in mosques and was influenced by the  murder of Lee Rigby.  This was a  dreadful event  which was condemned by Muslims as well as others and gave a field day to UKiP and other extremist right wing groups such as  the British National Party and the English Defence League.  I suspect these  parents took on board the story of these groups without ever having visited a Mosque, meeting a Muslim or knowing something about Islam. Incidents such as that in Woolwich should surely make all sensible citizens determined to develop good relations between the different groups in our society and overcome hate with friendship and respect.  What have the children learnt by the action of their parents?  To be suspicious of Muslims, to see them as people to be feared, to see themselves as right and others wrong?  And if the children learn this about Muslims they will no doubt transfer this suspicion to anyone who is different.  What a way to bring up children!  The parents were  hoping to protect their children from harm but it seems to me they have harmed them in a very subtle way as they have harmed society.  How different this story is from the heartwarming one about the Imam in York.  But the parents, possibly unwittingly, have promoted the story of the BNP and the EDL and made our society less tolerant.  The visit to the Mosque was to promote understanding and respect, not to ram religion down the children's throats as one parent suggested. Surely understanding and respect are the kind of values we want to promote in our children rather than fear and suspicion.  I do hope the school organises a visit to the Mosque for the parents sometime and if the parents have the courage to step out of their own limited circle they might be surprised by what they discover.  I am reminded of the  story of a man traveling through the desert who sees an ugly ogre ahead coming towards him and is very frightened. As the ogre gets closer the man realises the ogre is not so big but definitely ugly and certainly frightening. Eventually the two come face to face and discover one another as brothers.  The same of course could be said of sisters!

There was a heart warming story on the BBC news last week  that got a mention on the recent edition of Have I Got News for You.  
Yorkshire English Defence League, Scarborough Division had posted a message on its Facebook page calling for supporters to gather outside a nearby mosque.   As it turned out only six people arrived to protest while more than  a hundred supporters went to the Mosque to support the community after learning of the planned demonstration.  The Imam and members of the community went out to greet the members of the English Defene League.  They offered  them tea and biscuits,talked  to them  invited them in to the Mosque and ended up playing football with them.  I can imagine that the EDL went to the Mosque with hate in their heart but left warmed and changed by the hospitality shown to them.  Father Tim Jones who went to the Bull Lane mosque, which is situated in his parish, is quoted in the BBC report: "I've always known they were intelligent and compassionate people and I think this has demonstrated the extent to which they are people of courage - certainly physical courage and also a high degree of moral courage. I don't think I'll ever forget the day that the York Mosque tackled anger and hatred with peace and warmth - and I won't forget the sight of a Muslim offering a protester tea and biscuits with absolute sincerity."

This simple act of hospitality transformed a situation. it was a act of courage but also one of genius. This is  a great model for interfaith relations as well as relations between all sorts of other groups in our society.   To reach out to one another, to offer hospitality not only to people but also to their beliefs and way of life could transform our understanding of those whom we consider to be different and  reveal something of our common humanity.  The mosque may be small and a bit ram-shackled but its heart is big and and its generosity an example to us all.