Jews, Christians, and Muslims working together

9 Comments Add your own

• 1.    Jill Shaw  |  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 am

  Do we not have more in common with those of other faiths than with those of no faith? NZ has approximately 121 religions, according to recent census results. Surely a few of us can sit together and find some common ground.
  See http://conversationsatintersections.blogspot.com/2008/05/stories-glasses-foundations-worldview.html

• 2.    AM I A HINDU?  |  August 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  Namasthe: I want to congratulate and offer my best wishes to The University of Auckland for conducting the Multifaith Conference. It is about time, every one of us know all about each other so that we can avoid future conflicts and welcome universal peace where every one can live in harmony. May God bless all of us.

• 3.    Nigel  |  September 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 am

  In my experience multifaith dialogue tends to be disingenuous. Religions tends to be reduced to mere wisdom cults, because that is the common denominator. Both Christianity and Islam are supersessionist, in that Christianity sees itself as superseding Judaism, while Islam sees itself as superseding Christianity (and Judaism). Christianity and Islam are also similarly imperialist, as converting the world’s peoples is central to both, with the Koran advocating force, and of course Christianity having a history of forced conversions.

  So what is true multifaith dialogue all about when other religionists dialogue with Christians and/or Muslims, or Christians dialogue with Muslims? Ultimately, Christians and Muslims want to convert the others. Of course, I am not talking about essentially secular and/or nominal adherents, who seem comfortable leading interfaith dialogues when they do not actually believe the scriptures or are highly selective.

  An article promoting this conference on the university website today says: “people increasingly accept that no single religion is superior to any others.” Really?! Religious people?! I do not accept that people committed to any religion would agree with this. Although it may be true of the apparently committed and learned Christians I have personally heard exclaim Mohammed as a true prophet, which never ceases to amaze me. Why are they not Muslims? How can they deny themselves the “revelation” of the Koran? It may be true of secular and or nominal people, as the results of US surveys suggest. It is certainly true of the diplomatic language used by politicians who are ignorant and/or speak with forked tongue.

  But why would a truly religious person choose a single religion over another if they accept that no single religion is superior to any others? Are religions like political parties, with services being social gatherings of at least somewhat likeminded? I am honest enough to say that I must think my religion superior to any others, because otherwise I would surely choose a less demanding one, or worship with the congregation that has the coolest services, irrespective of religious persuasion. But I also adhere to a religion that does not seek to convert the world, and would be happy to genuinely dialogue with all other religionists that (genuinely) do not want to convert me, although such dialogue must surely be more about mutual cultural tolerance and hopefully appreciation than about faith?

  When it really comes down to it, away from the perceived need for diplomacy, I think the true theists amongst the monotheistic religions would question whether they even pray to the same God. The character of Allah as portrayed in the Koran seems quite different to that of God in the Bible, and Christians commonly remark that God’s character in their New Testament seems quite different from the God of the Tanach, apart from the fact that the Trinity doctrine that is central to mainstream Christianity is anathema to Jews and Muslims.

  If a multifaith conference is to be anything more than just another conference there must first be genuine acceptance and attempts at properly understanding how others define themselves. Several so-called religions are inextricably linked with ethnicity, denials and misunderstandings of which lead to intolerance and racism by charging those religions as intolerant and racist. Without those religions that insist religion and ethnicity are separate identifications coming to terms with the ongoing damage such insistence causes, there cannot be meaningful dialogue at any level. And I think the university should take a good long look at its own seriously imbalanced approach.

• 4.    jdalton3au  |  September 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm

  Nigel, its a pity you have only experienced bad interfaith conferences. You’re right that Christianity and Islam are supersessionist, and serious conferences will acknowledge this. i cannot comment on the Auckland Uni conference, but the JCMA conference in melbourne never shies away from confronting the big differences (while looking at the similarities).

  You’re right that its the trendy secular liberals who portray “all religions as equal” while the genuine believers advocate their ow faith while respecting others. Regarding the deity, actually Islam and all of Christianity until recently was 100% clear about us all worshipping the same God as the Jews. Its only certain extremist right-wing “Christian” groups now who are saying Muslims worship a different god, for their own racist/violent purposes.

  I hpe that the conference does indeed do as you suggest and aim at “genuine acceptance and attempts at properly understanding how others define themselves”. Only then can real interfaith dialogue begin.

• 5.    Nigel  |  September 7th, 2008 at 2:21 am

  Take a look at the goals of the conference, the speakers, the programme, and even the steering committee, and I think there is a serious lack of the diversity necessary for the conference to achieve its goals. I fear the conference will fail to address head-on some of the serious issues raised by recent overseas research into students’ religious attitudes, and that the lacking diversity of expert opinion will foster common misconceptions rather than challenge them, hindering progress of honest interaction and exchange with those groups not represented. Maybe I am expecting too much from a conference in Auckland, but then the conference marketing set the level of those expectations. I will endeavour to attend a JCMA conference in Melbourne.

• 6.    Robin  |  September 21st, 2008 at 12:07 am

  Hi, this is the first site that comes up when searching google for “multifaith conference Auckland”, so congrats

  I actually went to this conference and with preconceptions similar to Nigel’s and I was very surprised how constructive and non-competitive the talks were, without shirking from controversial points like which religions should be present, which exclude themselves, if humanists should take part (they did and it was very interesting) and what the point of the whole thing was anyway.

  One thing that was not discussed at all were which beliefs were ‘right’ and which were ‘wrong’ (for instance the rationalists did not challenge beliefs in God, nor was there any attempt at ‘converting’ others) which prior to the event I rather naively expected but I’ve changed my mind; how could talks of that nature be constructive? In fact the whole atmosphere was very friendly and engaged and there was a feeling of “we’re getting somewhere” throughout in regards to communicating what the religions believed and how the less esoteric goals could be worked towards with the cooperation of different faiths. And why understanding was important in this day of extreme groups which are portrayed (and portray themselves) as religious.

  This is not to say anything material came out of it! No new initiatives to save the poor or bring about world peace here! But what was established was a framework where shared values can be communicated that acknowledge the core beliefs of the different religions and philosophies – that the fundamental ‘givens’ unique and totally important to the differing faiths don’t have to be set aside for them to be able to work together. I’m not sure if I’ve put that well but basically it wasn’t reducing everything to vanilla nor was it cutting out the difficulties and there were bridges built. Now I’m mixing metaphors, sorry!

  My main point was that it wasn’t JUST talk, I felt there were real links made and real understanding gained. So I’ll stop here

  Anyway, us students present were sufficiently enthused to set up our own multifaith group which is coming along nicely.

  Robin – student at Auckland Uni.

• 7.    Rebekah Grace  |  October 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 am

  Allah’u'abha!

  Like Robin, I am also a student at the University of Auckland who attended the multifaith conference. I came out of the conference thoroughly inspired with the possibilities for the future.

  Attempts of interfaith dialogue can lead to theological debate and having the conviction that one’s Faith is the “right” Faith can lead to attempts of conversion. Both are things that ideally, interfaith dialogue would wish to avoid. Their presence in attempts of interfaith dialogue does not mean steering clear of interfaith dialogue is the solution to avoiding these problems, but rather, they are issues that we should endeavour to address within the context of interfaith dialogue.

  It is wonderful to have convictions and it is wonderful to have beliefs. They are our right, and they are our identity. Like all humans rights we possess, they can be expressed up to the point of infringing upon the right of others. Pressuring others to convert, making others uncomfortable due to their religious choices is in no way an acceptable extension of our right to freedom of religious belief. However, the alternative to avoid the topic of religion is merely an extreme and often not the most beneficial.

  Religious beliefs, and beliefs addressing the concept of faith are very central to our identity. A secular society might suggest restricting our faith to the privacy of our homes or religious centres, “leaving it at the door of society” so to speak. However, to many religious people, this solution to prevent the conflict of interacting religious faiths is absurd. To myself as a Baha’i, if I was to attempt to put my Baha’i identity aside, I don’t feel I would be left with much. More than being a part of who I am, it is the core of my identity.

  Thus, interfaith dialogue needs to be flexible enough to involve and accommodate for the participation of those of differing beliefs. It is to seek to communicate between these faith groups and mutually improve understandings – it is a reciprocal process. Only with an attitude of learning can it be effectively carried out, while keeping in mind religious beliefs are not homogenous.

  Many of the attendees where theological lecturers and chaplains from universities around New Zealand. Although the participants were disproportionately Christian, I felt that this was inspiring. It must be kept in mind that New Zealand is, still, a predominantly Christian country. Hence, the presence of these Christian attendees bears witness to a much more mainstream desire to sincerely engage in communication as opposed to interest in interfaith dialogue resulting from a desire to avoid marginalization. However, it is important to remember that such attempts to expand into the realms of interfaith dialogue remain in an embryonic stage.

  Perhaps it is because multifaith dialogue is in a sense, an extension of my core religious beliefs as a Baha’i, I feel that it is a natural and highly valuable endeavour. Too often does religious ignorance lead to contention and strife, too often is there stigmatization, too often is exclusion based on differences. In the increasingly diverse and multifaith context which composes our society, and as the world grows smaller, it is important to address the core beliefs of our society for the sake of harmony and a greater degree of social cohesion: no longer employing the “us” versus “them” distinction.

  Of course, it’s always nice to expand interfaith dialogue from theological discussion (which can easily lead to questions of validity – what is right and what is wrong) to personal experiences (what does a particular teaching mean to you and how it has impacted your life) – a intercourse that all can enjoy and benefit from, seeing the Faith at a much more personal level.

  Interfaith dialogue should not be an attempt to push all faith into a homogenous mould in attempt to exaggerate the common ground while ignoring the differences. This is not conducive to strong links between the groups of society that would be able to withstand the challenges of religious conflict. Differences do exist, and they need be acknowledged. Diversity can be celebrated as opposed to being a source of discomfort. I think always, it is important to go back to the “golden rule” of religion – what can be called a summary of the ethical teachings. While differences vary and are diverse, this golden rule, this reason why we’re here, how we should act and treat each other, a desired attitude towards life, remains the same.

  As it is said in the Biblical Old Testament: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. This is the entire Law; all the rest if commentary.”

  With sincere desire, humility and an attitude of learning, strong and true foundations of interfaith dialogue and relationships can be established.

  I look forward to the national interfaith forum coming up in February, and the emphasis on youth becoming involved. ^__^

  With love,

  Rebekah

• 8.    Rebekah Grace  |  October 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 am

  just a curious question – does anyone know the significance of the icons in the top right hand corner of each post?

• 9.    Sho Fumimura  |  February 19th, 2009 at 1:17 am

  Rebekah said it best. As a supplement to her comment, I think multifaith forum can be a wonderful channel to discuss, debate and finally understand our sameness and differences, as religious and secular people.

  The forum/dialogue should be a tool by which we can bridge the gap and prevent religious conflict. One this is achieved, then we can start talking about working together for true peace and a constructive society.

  It’s not too late for New Zealand to do this. I came from a country that is too often shaken by sectarian violence, and I don’t want to experience that here, nor do I want any kiwis to be in that situation.

  The forum should be the start, as the real work begins when friendship and genuine acceptance bloom from these events.

  Peace.

Leave a comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed