Introduction - Dialogue is never easy!
Last Saturday, in Oslo we had a conference between Muslims and Christians. The agreement was that after the serious dialogue, we would have a football match between imams and the local clergy of the Church of Norway. We had a lot of good and trustful talk but we bad to cancel the football match. There were two reasons: On the one hand the clergy is both women and men, On the other hand there were imams who did not want to meet women in a football match. In other I words we had not done our homework regarding cultural differences. Dialogue means coming closer to each other, but then cultural differences also become more visible. But, we agreed that we will try again.
At a very local level, this incident illustrates what we are discussing here: Dialogue is never easy. And more specifically: It will not happen if respect for the possible partner is not there. The other must be allowed to present him- or her-self the way they themselves want. And I or we, must be allowed the right to the identity I choose. Imams must be respected for their refusal to tackle and dribble women clergy. And Christian clergy must be allowed to be a mixed clergy. If respect for this cultural diversity makes it impossible to meet in a football match, we must find other ways of playing, of consolidating human fellowship. It is indeed possible!
Philosophical and anthropological prerequisites for dialogue
The fundamental prerequisite for dialogue is recognition of the human dignity of the other. Without this recognition there can be no dialogue. Dialogue is talking and listening. Dialogue means acknowledging that the other has valuable insights, convictions and abilities. These can be important for me, for my nation for my religion - and not least for our relationship, for avoiding conflict for preventing war.
Since we do not meet each others as atoms flying freely around in the atmosphere we also have to realize that every person is part of a culture. Nobody lives outside a cultural context. Respect for the dignity of the other means respect for the culture of which he or she is part.
Dialogue means both facing and being faced by another person, nation, culture or civilization. The option for dialogue means faith in the convincing power of words good arguments and reason. But, it is potentially dangerous, because it implies the risk of having to change my mind. It may change the course of my nation, - or the way I understand my religion. If dialogue is based on respect it implies openness to change new insights and even new convictions. Dialogue is the opposite of use of force. Force or violence is not a part of dialogue. On the other hand: if we hope that dialogue can bring change and progress in a relationship, it requires patience, Dialogue is never a quick fix. The will to enter dialogue is at the same time a message to the partner that I will have the patience to wait for change to come voluntarily, to come from inside, from conviction. That is the only kind of change which is sustainable. No one has ever been convinced by coercion or by being exposed to force or the use of violence. Force or violence may lead people or nations to act the way the stronger party wants, but it will not lead to change of attitudes or mentalities. Mostly it leads to more violence.
On the other hand, dialogue is always between two partners. It is not possible if there is not sincerity on both sides. Nobody is credible in their request for respect for cultural diversity if they accept oppression of people with differing views. The will to dialogue must be paired with respect for dissidents and people who disagree, who hold another opinion or another faith, When willingness to dialogue is accompanied with disrespect for the inherent dignity of persons, it is impossible to justify any claim for respect for cultural diversity.
In short: There is no dialogue without openness of mind on both sides, and a fundamental respect for the otherness of the dialogue partner. There is no dialogue when there is no respect for personal and cultural differences. I would say: Real dialogue requires joy over, and praise for diversity.
The Role of religion
Religion is one of the fundamental elements of each culture. The world has never seen a culture without religion. It may have stronger or less visible role but it is always there. Religious institutions have a role in all societies. Humans have always believed that there is a heaven of some kind over their lives.
Religion is always shaped by culture and religion shapes cultures. There is no such thing as "pure" religion. Religion is always interpreted religion. We may have differing views on the character of holy scriptures, whether they are dictated directly from God or they are human reflections of a divine message, but religion and religious texts are never detached from religious believers, Believers are, however, no gods. Not even those with the highest religious authority. They are humans They may be wrong or right but they are always humans - part and parcel of a culture.
At the same time as religion and its believers are part of a culture most religions are at the same time trans-cultural. Most cultures are influenced by more religions and the same religion can be rooted in different cultures: Islam has deep roots in Western Europe and Africa. Christianity always was and still is a Middle Eastern religion - and has later become a European, African, North- and South American and Asian religion. The same can be said about other faiths. Consequently, dialogue between cultures or dialogue between civilizations, are never the same as dialogue between religions. To talk about "Islam and the West'' is therefore as misleading as a comparison between apples and pears. Within Christianity and within Islam there is the East and the West!
On the other hand religious identities have throughout history been used to represent different sides in conflict situations. Religions are used as banners under which combating parties gather. Religion has been used to justify numbers of wars, some of them even called holy wars. And those who use religion to give legitimacy to war and violence are not infants. They are humans with a history, with experience with values drawn from cultures which shape their perspective on the world and informs their actions. As religion comes to us as interpreted religion these people have interpreted religion in such a way that it justifies violence and terror.
Religion has also been used to stand up against war. Religious pacifists have been known from the dawn of history, but lately we have seen religious communities opposing war in the name of religion, as was the case when churches worldwide united to reject the war on Iraq, especially because of the religious connotations which could be detected in the justification of it. These people have interpreted religions differently than those who use it to divide humanity into those who side with good and those who side with evil.
Religion plays an increasingly important role on national and international level for bad and for good. It must therefore be taken seriously as an element in all kinds of political developments. Religion can be a spoiler or a positive force in work for peace and justice. It is high time that national governments and also the UN on a more permanent basis seek advice on how to relate to and deal with the role of religion in national and international politics.
Respect for cultural diversity can never be uncritical
Religion, and indeed cultural values, can be used for good or for bad. Respect for cultural diversity is indeed a prerequisite for dialogue, but respect can never mean uncritical acceptance of any kind of cultural diversity. We must identify these elements in any culture which are destructive.
Humanity can never stop probing for values which can benefit the common good. Guided by respect for the inherent dignity of each person we must look for those values which nourish life, build local and national communities, and promote international peace and justice. This probing, this search must be the basic concern in all dialogues.
Lastly, dialogue is never easy. It is never easy because it has to deal with good and bad. And good and bad always are intertwined. None of us is the god who knows where to distinguish between what is good and what is evil in this world. We have to work with ambiguities and find our way through them. From our own lives we know that we fail. At times, we choose the wrong path even if we want the good. So may nations and so may peoples do. On a personal level, dialogue is a way towards clarity of mind and a way of involving each other in creating a good fellowship and local community. This is also the case on national and international level.
Finally dialogue takes time. It takes time to learn another culture well enough to relate peacefully and constructively to it. And it takes dialogue and time to learn to see ourselves with the eyes of the other. It is only when we see ourselves with the eyes of the other with the eyes of the one who used to be a stranger, that we can be seen as fellow travelers towards a world where peace and justice can prevail.