NO WORLD PEACE WITHOUT RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE

By Mario Soares Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

LISBON, Nov 28 2007 (IPS) - In principle, religion is against violence, yet historically intolerance has reigned, and without tolerance and respect for those who are different, conflict and war are inevitable. Thus it was in the past and probably will be so in the future unless there is a revolution in the thinking of religions and dialogue and peaceful co-existence prevail, writes Mario Soares, ex-President and ex-Prime Minister of Portugal, and President of the Commission for Religious Freedom of Portugal. In this article, Soares writes that we have a moral duty to fight against all forms of violence and to build a global culture of peace. Violence is harmful for religions, in the short term and the long term, as well as to relations between believers and non-believers, who necessarily live together in our modern societies. A world without violence could be our magnificent utopia of the 21st century – if we were able control the myriad forms of violence that daily enter our homes through the television, movies, and the Internet and if all religions were convinced that the fight for peace, for human rights, and respect for those who are different was the best way to express the love for God.

The three major monotheistic religions are characterised by a love for God that, it would seem, would be the same for all of them, and all three speak of loving one’s neighbour. The question is, which neighbour? And do they love infidels and heretics as well?

Because all three are revealed religions, each has its own truth. This is what makes interfaith dialogue difficult so often — though not impossible, as we have seen in recent history. The faithful of one creed can be infidels for another, or even considered heretics. And dialogue between believers and non-believers, whether atheists or agnostics, is even more difficult.

In the past, inter-faith conflicts and wars to ”convert the infidel”, like the Crusades, were the general rule. Obviously there were exceptions, like the Caliphate of Cordoba, where in the 12th and 13th centuries, Jews and Muslims lived side by side and conversed in peace.

The separation between church and State and the defence of religious pluralism are modern ideas that date from the creation of secular States in Europe.

The culture of human rights and peace as supreme values is essential in a globalised world in order to assure respect for others and make fanaticism and religious violence recede. In the past, both in Europe and other continents, the defeated, if of another religion, were required to undergo a false conversion to the victors’ faith. Today religious fundamentalists –Islamic, Christian, or Jewish– provoke ”holy” wars in order to eliminate those who do not share their creed.

Logically, of course, there neither are nor can be ”holy wars”.

Moreover, it is clear that even if certain wars are called ”holy”, their motivation is more than simply religious: they are driven by poverty, social inequality, nationalism, cultural backwardness, the humiliation of the dominated…

This is where we come across the problem of unilateralism and in particular the current ‘counterculture’ of preventive war and the attempt to marginalise the UN. It has been argued that all of this was a response to the Islamic terrorism that emerged brutally on September 11, 2001, and demonstrated the vulnerability of the dominant superpower. But it is undoubtable that this was the least intelligent and least effective response to a phenomenon as complex as terrorism.

Terrorism must be fought, but without compromising human rights and their universality.

It was the recognition that we are on a slippery slope mined with dangers to world peace that led Spanish President Zapatero and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, backed by the UN Secretary General, to launch an initiative called the Alliance of Civilisations to provide a forum for discussion among cultures and religions — an idea earlier suggested by Iran’s ex-President Mohammed Khatami.

However, despite the many goodwill initiatives and ecumenical dialogues that have arisen from many parts of the world, religious fanaticism has only got worse and does not promise to recede in the future.

For this reason, we have a moral duty to fight against all forms of violence and to set about building a global culture of peace. In this context, religions must debate among themselves in order to open paths to mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence. Violence is harmful for religions, in the short term and the long term, as well as to relations between believers and non-believers, who necessarily live together in our modern societies.

It is worth noting that fervent anti-clericalism has almost entirely faded away as a result of the widewpread imposition of the separation of Church and State.

A world without violence — this could be our magnificent utopia of the 21st century, if we were able to control the myriad forms of violence that daily enter our homes through the television, movies, and the Internet and if all religions were convinced that the fight for peace, for human rights, and respect for those who are different was the best way to express the love for God. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)