Why do we avoid interfaith dialogue

Yesterday I attended an event at which three men and one woman spoke about interfaith dialogue. The occasion was the launch of Human Rights week 2014. Each panellist was asked to speak for five minutes on this topic: “Harmony in Diversity: A Human Rights Based Approach.”

The panellists were an ulama-cum-lecturer at a public university in Jakarta, a Catholic archbishop, a Buddhist nun and a Professor of Medicine who is also leader of a Sai Baba group. They are acknowledged leaders or spokespersons in their particular faith-based groups.

The Buddhist, Catholic and Muslim approached the subject differently from the Sai. The trio made references to their scriptures – the Koran, the Bible and other Catholic documents, and the writings of the Buddha. The Sai didn’t refer to authorities; he majored on actions and results, though he did say his group was compiling training around commonalities in different faiths.

The Muslim recited Koranic verses in classical Arabic and explained the response the verses expected from hearers. The Catholic and the Buddhist cited English translations of their references and similarly explained what their verses expected.

I was struck by the fact that none of them made any reference to specific articles of human rights, e.g. from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was first released by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, now the date on which Human Rights Day is observed around the world.

They talked about what they think comprises interfaith dialogue. The basic thesis of the trio is that we live in communities comprised of people with diverse religious views and must express our respect for the other by listening to each other.

The trio said the purpose of interfaith dialogue is both to understand the other and to gain insights about one’s own faith. They did not explicitly say what happens in interfaith dialogue.

I think that through interfaith dialogue we gain clarity about what the other believes, clarity about what we disagree on and clarity about what we agree on. And we gain insights on how we can live together harmoniously, including how we can correct misrepresentations of another’s faith.

The trio also did not say what we lose if we do not engage in interfaith dialogue, and what the long term results will be. Overall I felt they thought it more important to be polite than to be direct.

I would have appreciated some examples of interfaith dialogue. I was surprised none of them gave personal examples of engaging in interfaith dialogue.

I was surprised they didn’t give examples of what corrections they or others they know had to make to their image of the other after engaging in interfaith dialogue. I was surprised they didn’t give examples of new insights they gained into their own faith after interfaith dialogue.

Why didn’t any of them cite Article 1 of the UDHR?

Why didn’t any of them say “Article 1 says ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood,’ and then explain in religious terms why they agree or disagree with Article 1?

Why didn’t they speak about the fears which inhibit people from engaging in interfaith dialogue, e.g. the fear of discovering ‘fatal’ weaknesses in one’s own faith tradition, the fear of syncretism, in other words negotiating and diluting our distinctive beliefs so that we attain uniformity of belief?

I left the meeting feeling none of the panellists had actually engaged in sustained interfaith dialogue, and that none of them had actually read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I think the panellists displayed a high degree of cautiousness in their public comments – though the Catholic did propose that we should aspire to allow everyone complete freedom to choose his or her faith.

I think the cautiousness springs from the atmosphere of fear in Malaysia – fear of being charged with sedition.

The reality is that in Muslim-majority Malaysia which has spent and continues to spend billions of tax dollars to establish the religion of the Federation, interfaith dialogue is frowned upon.

Government-sanctioned and funded Muslim leaders do not care to enter into, let alone promote interfaith dialogue.

I left with the impression that those who were not represented on the panel know their personal faiths are unexamined, and fear that if they shine the light of other faiths onto their own, their faith may be found wanting.

I left with the impression that those who were not on the panel prefer to set up and attack caricatures of other faiths rather than to understand other faiths and thereby discover hidden things about their own faith – or even to discover more effective ways to communicate their own faith to draw others into their fold.

I left with the impression that even non-Muslim thought leaders in Malaysia dare not use the language of universal human rights; they seem more comfortable speaking of human responsibilities.

The assigned topic was “Harmony in Diversity: A Human Rights Based Approach.” What three panellists spoke on was “We should engage in interfaith dialogue.” The third panellist appeared to espouse this view: “keep your glorious truths private. Just join with others to make the world a better place.”