The Bishops’ Committee for Interreligious Dialogue had its annual symposium last week. The main speaker on Friday evening was Martha Ines Romero who is the General Secretary of Pax Christi International, a Catholic peace movement, with 120 member organisations worldwide which promotes peace, respect of human rights, justice and reconciliation throughout the world. Set up at the end of the Second World War, Pax Christi believes that peace is possible and that the vicious cycles of violence and injustice can be broken. It’s work for peace and advocacy for non-violence action are admirable but not straightforward. Should a country defend itself? Are boycotts really non-violent or are they masking an attitude of non-violence? How do we avoid a black and white response to conflicts without knowing the history of the people as is often the case, especially in my experience with attitudes to Palestine. Is this dividing the world into them and us, good and bad really helping us develop the compassion necessary to be a peacemaker? Should we not in this day and age be trying to overcome the dualism that has set us apart from one another and cause conflict.
Some of these questions were taken up by Dr Maureen Sier, the Director of Interfaith Scotland who spoke about her experience of difficult dialogues in Scotland. This made us face the nitty gritty, not only of dialogue but also of peacebuilding. Maureen suggested that conflict in Scotland can be caused by three things – geo-politics when loyalty to fellow believers in situations of conflict abroad can drive faith communities apart in Scotland; the media that often portrays religion and religious conflicts inaccurately in a way that increases suspicion and amplifies differences; contentious issues that need to be handled delicately.
The most difficult of these dialogues was a recent one set up by Interfaith Scotland and Interfaith Glasgow on the situation in Israel and Palestine and how to stop it affecting good relations between faiths here in Scotland. It was called ‘Courageous Conversations: Nurturing Community Relations in the Light of the Middle East’. Christians, Muslims and Jews were involved and while the privacy of the conversations was honoured Maureen acknowledged difficulties and misunderstandings which luckily did not prevent the participants staying to the end of the 5 sessions. For some of the participants the space did not feel safe, but they knew it to be a brave and important space, and the only place where they were able to have understanding – seeking interfaith conversations on the war in the Middle East.
I was not part of that dialogue but had been part of a similar one organised by the West of Scotland Council of Christians and Jews and Interfaith Glasgow on antisemitism as it related to Israel/Palestine. That too had its tense moments but the good relationships between the participants allowed for an honesty and growth in understanding and a recognition of the different perspectives we can have of the same situation. These conversations are not easy and need careful planning and facilitation using a variety of tools to foster active listening. The result of the antisemitism dialogue was the publication of a report ‘Creating Brave Spaces’ which describes the processes and facilitations tools used in the dialogue as well as reflections from the participants and the facilitators.
One of the first lessons learned in these difficult spaces is how language can mean different things in different contexts and lead to misunderstandings. Maureen spoke of how she was warned as a Bahai not to speak of unity (something close to the Bahai’ faith’s heart) when she went to Northern Ireland as there the word has a geo-political meaning. Similarly, words like terrorist, genocide are not helpful if people are to stay in dialogue with one another. This I think is something that people in general need to learn so that they are aware that throw away comments and unthinking evaluations of a situation can alienate their listeners which is in danger of spreading misunderstandings rather than peace. So too is asking inappropriate questions as happened on the occasion when a Jewish speaker, having spoken highly of Nostra Aetate and the Catholic Church’s changed relationship with Judaism was challenged about the State of Israel and its relationship with Gaza. This is something that happens often to Jews who are not Israelis. To be a true peacebuilder demands a lot of self-reflection and careful research into the stories of those involved in wars and conflicts, not necessarily agreeing with them but at least understanding them.
The conversations among participants showed a recognition of this and a growing understanding of the importance of interreligious dialogue as a tool for peace. It is something that takes us beyond talking about peace to engaging in it. And to engage in it with integrity we need to seek an inner peace and compassion through our own religious practice.
The image that remains with me is a description of a moment by the Sea of Galilee which Maureen had experienced when she went as part of an interfaith pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In that moment she saw a Buddhist monk walking mindfully along the shore, a Christian washing his face in the water and a Hindu priest in the Sea, scooping up the water with joy and laughter declaring this is a sacred Sea just like the Ganges. What would it be to recognise the sacredness in one another’s religions – a sacredness that is everywhere?
Some of these questions were taken up by Dr Maureen Sier, the Director of Interfaith Scotland who spoke about her experience of difficult dialogues in Scotland. This made us face the nitty gritty, not only of dialogue but also of peacebuilding. Maureen suggested that conflict in Scotland can be caused by three things – geo-politics when loyalty to fellow believers in situations of conflict abroad can drive faith communities apart in Scotland; the media that often portrays religion and religious conflicts inaccurately in a way that increases suspicion and amplifies differences; contentious issues that need to be handled delicately.
The most difficult of these dialogues was a recent one set up by Interfaith Scotland and Interfaith Glasgow on the situation in Israel and Palestine and how to stop it affecting good relations between faiths here in Scotland. It was called ‘Courageous Conversations: Nurturing Community Relations in the Light of the Middle East’. Christians, Muslims and Jews were involved and while the privacy of the conversations was honoured Maureen acknowledged difficulties and misunderstandings which luckily did not prevent the participants staying to the end of the 5 sessions. For some of the participants the space did not feel safe, but they knew it to be a brave and important space, and the only place where they were able to have understanding – seeking interfaith conversations on the war in the Middle East.
I was not part of that dialogue but had been part of a similar one organised by the West of Scotland Council of Christians and Jews and Interfaith Glasgow on antisemitism as it related to Israel/Palestine. That too had its tense moments but the good relationships between the participants allowed for an honesty and growth in understanding and a recognition of the different perspectives we can have of the same situation. These conversations are not easy and need careful planning and facilitation using a variety of tools to foster active listening. The result of the antisemitism dialogue was the publication of a report ‘Creating Brave Spaces’ which describes the processes and facilitations tools used in the dialogue as well as reflections from the participants and the facilitators.
One of the first lessons learned in these difficult spaces is how language can mean different things in different contexts and lead to misunderstandings. Maureen spoke of how she was warned as a Bahai not to speak of unity (something close to the Bahai’ faith’s heart) when she went to Northern Ireland as there the word has a geo-political meaning. Similarly, words like terrorist, genocide are not helpful if people are to stay in dialogue with one another. This I think is something that people in general need to learn so that they are aware that throw away comments and unthinking evaluations of a situation can alienate their listeners which is in danger of spreading misunderstandings rather than peace. So too is asking inappropriate questions as happened on the occasion when a Jewish speaker, having spoken highly of Nostra Aetate and the Catholic Church’s changed relationship with Judaism was challenged about the State of Israel and its relationship with Gaza. This is something that happens often to Jews who are not Israelis. To be a true peacebuilder demands a lot of self-reflection and careful research into the stories of those involved in wars and conflicts, not necessarily agreeing with them but at least understanding them.
The conversations among participants showed a recognition of this and a growing understanding of the importance of interreligious dialogue as a tool for peace. It is something that takes us beyond talking about peace to engaging in it. And to engage in it with integrity we need to seek an inner peace and compassion through our own religious practice.
The image that remains with me is a description of a moment by the Sea of Galilee which Maureen had experienced when she went as part of an interfaith pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In that moment she saw a Buddhist monk walking mindfully along the shore, a Christian washing his face in the water and a Hindu priest in the Sea, scooping up the water with joy and laughter declaring this is a sacred Sea just like the Ganges. What would it be to recognise the sacredness in one another’s religions – a sacredness that is everywhere?
RSS Feed
