Quick viewing(Text Mode)

A Formula for Peace?1

A Formula for Peace?1

ANNE SENDER AND JENS OSCAR JENSSEN

A FORMULA FOR ?1

Introduction In Norway, we have few conflicts based on or life stance. Therefore, it is worthwhile to reflect on what we have been doing right up until now: What makes it possible for different religious and life stance communities to actually live together in in Norway? We need to reflect on this to ensure we do even better in the , as we begin to see the of extreme reli- gious beliefs in Norway as well.

Norway Shaken to the Core Today’s Norwegian model of religious and life stance dialogue has a 20-year . After the well-nourished and somewhat flagging 1970s and 1980s, where the dimension of religion and was virtually absent from public de- bate, the 1990s came as something of a shock. All of a sudden the Soviet em- pire fell, and wars in the Gulf, Rwanda/Burundi, and the Balkans followed quickly. All these conflicts had elements of “religious convictions”—some- thing our rather secular Norwegian society observed somewhat remotely and ambivalently. Now these conflicts introduced religiously motivated actions against our “neighbour” that shook our smugness to the core.

Norwegian religious leaders found it imperative to examine where we2 stood. How should we deal with these conflicts? Should we defend them? Were they the true face of religion? If we wanted to present a positive image of our reli- gions, we would first have to put our own house in order. We could also see that we were now living in an age where humanity was once again searching for something to hold onto and that it was our responsibility to broker a legacy and to offer a way forward—each in our own way but also together.

1 This article is based on a chapter in: Jens Oscar Jenssen (ed.), Dialog er svaret på alt (Oslo: Frekk Forlag, 2013). 2 One of the authors of the present article, Anne Sender, was at this head of the Jewish Community in Norway. This article is partly written from her personal perspective. Throughout this article, “we” refers to the representatives of and life stances she collaborated with in developing the Norwegian model for and life stance dialogue.

119 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 24 (2014) 1

It was time to seize the opportunity in Norway. While the religious conflicts of the world at large were brought directly into Norwegian living rooms, the pop- ulation had also experienced foreign travel and, not least, Norway had begun to open its doors to new citizens, religions, customs, and trends. Individual and alternative choices of values and lifestyles flourished. A new and more diverse landscape took shape.

One consequence of this was that the conservative element in politics espe- cially responded in self-defence and fear of the unknown, which in turn forced all the parties to reflect on their own position on matters of religion and life stance, and on what they thought about the right to be a person of faith or a person of no faith. This marked the beginning of one of the major discussion topics of our time: How should the relationship between integration and facili- tation of the practice of religious beliefs and life stances be exercised in Nor- wegian society? Views were entrenched—then as now. Fortunately, there were also groups within the majority religious community, the Church of Norway, that understood that the time for dialogue had come. With Muslims, Buddhists, and New Age groups now having more than just a foot in the door, a few sig- nificant individuals came to grips with the questioning and uncomfortable advancement of religion and life stances in society.

Need for Dialogue Besides the that several religious leaders felt the need to present a positive face of religion, three other factors that were present in Norwegian society at this time are worth mentioning. First, the Norwegian Humanist Association, which for almost 50 years had been battling to prepare the ground for change in schools and legislation, was more than willing to share its and resources with anyone and everyone who would listen. Second, Muslims in Norway had entered a new phase. They had begun to find it important to or- ganise themselves and be visible as devout Muslims, and not just groups of ethnic Pakistani or Turkish migrant workers. Third, the of the Kingdom of Norway assumed that everyone was Christian, and this no longer corre- sponded to the religious landscape. Several minority leaders thus felt a need to take responsibility for the adjustments needed in Norway, and began to un- derstand that their interests coincided.

Overall, this established what can be seen as the number 1 item in the formula for developing a Norwegian model of faith and life stance dialogue: a situation where a heartfelt genuinely perceived need for dialogue is awakened in the religious landscape.

The Dialogue Begins Efforts to arrive at a new Norwegian policy on religion and life stances and new legislation began in 1992 with a project spanning a few weekends at the 120 A FORMULA FOR PEACE?

Norwegian Humanist Academy (established in 1938), at the Nansen Academy in Lillehammer. Those present were representatives of the Church of Norway, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the Norwegian Humanist Association, the Islamic Council of Norway, the Jewish community, the Nor- wegian Hindu Cultural Centre, Gurduara Sri Nanak Dev Ji (Sikhs), the Bud- dhist Association, and the Baha’i community.

The gathering was led by Rector Inge Eidsvåg, a knowledgeable Gandhi ad- mirer who was the right man in the right place at the right time. His open and respectful manner created an atmosphere that gave everyone room to venture further. Eidsvåg a “tone” of dialogue that extended into all the resultant projects and working groups. This helped the dialogue of diversity get off to a good start, not only because it laid the foundation for really listening to one an- other, and thus also actually learning something about one another, but also be- cause we learned the true meaning of dialogue. We learned that dialogue had to take place in the present. Scoring points regarding past wrongs was not very fruitful. Therefore, these are the next two points worth emphasising when looking back at the development of the Norwegian model of religion and life stance dialogue: dialogue initially requires a good facilitator and should be an- chored in the present—the conversation should be focused on the issue, not on settling old scores. The latter point is also the basis of many conflict resolution theories.

The report from the Nansen Academy in 1992-1993, “Community in a multicultural Norway,” initiated a shift in the greater society’s under- standing of its minorities. For the first time, the new non-Christian believers expressed their own views, roles, and experiences—in more or less fluent Norwegian. Buddhist monks and Hindu priests had to communicate the basic values of their own religion to a secular, egalitarian society.

It was, of course, not entirely unimportant that many of us in the group were also ethnic Norwegian converts to, for instance, , the Bahai faith, Is- lam, and . Thus we had, after all, the security of in the majority, we had the cultural codes and egalitarian thinking under our skin, and felt no fear of authority.

A Common Field of Interest Emerges The Nansen Academy project taught us a great deal about one another. Our experience suggests, however, that dialogues on religion and life stance will not persist in the long run unless a joint project is realised. One needs an over- arching to continue to meet; otherwise, the dialogue will run dry. The current Norwegian model would not have existed in its present form, had it not been for just such a common purpose emerging.

121 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 24 (2014) 1

That project turned out to be to work for non-confessional instruction in reli- gion and ethics in schools. By 1992, it had taken more than 20 years to move away from a situation where minority children stood outside in the corridor during “ class” to the introduction of “Life Stance classes” in 1992. But the minorities still saw that much of the material about their own religions was influenced by Christian interpretations. Their religions and life stances were presented in textbooks without them having been involved in the design of the syllabus. If there was to be any kind of equality of teaching about reli- gions and life stances in schools, the time had come for Norwegian students to learn about “being different” on the religions’ own terms, not through the prism of Christian educators.

Thus, the fourth point worth highlighting is that religion and life stance dialogue requires a common purpose or theme that benefits everyone. Other- wise, it loses meaning and impetus. This first Nansen School group therefore led to the proposal in the final report in 1993 of an enlarged, mandatory com- mon life stance school subject that would include Christianity, plus purely Christian Studies to cater for the majority’s needs. In other words, contrary to Christian scaremongering, the minorities were not opposed to having more Christianity in school.

Excluded from the Development of Religious In 1994, the Ministry set up a commission headed by Erling Pettersen, director of the Norwegian Institute for Christian Education. The “Pettersen Commis- sion” was tasked with reforming in Norway. They were creating a new curriculum, but one still based on the school’s Christian mission statement. Amazingly, there was no minority representation on the commis- sion, and the Ministry came under heavy pressure from Christian organisations keen to see even more emphasis on Christianity.

The first version of “ and Dialogue,” the commission’s plan for the new subject called “Christianity, Religion, and Spirituality” (KRL), was sub- mitted in May 1995. The plan provoked fierce reactions from all minorities. Those of us who held different beliefs felt they had to accept large doses of the Norwegian Christian heritage and, in the sense of an apology, learn a little about themselves in a compulsory subject with too little opportunity to be ex- empted from the compulsory study of Christian teaching.

But something good came out of this. In the wake of the launch of “Identity and Dialogue,” the rabbi of the Jewish community, Michael Melchior, hosted an open meeting with the “Pettersen Commission,” the parliamentary educa- tion commission, as well as all the minorities from the Nansen dialogues. It was the first time the Jews had invited Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists as guests.

122 A FORMULA FOR PEACE?

The debate was explosive, and it was probably the first time it dawned on the commission and the politicians that this was serious. A brand-new Christian Democrat (KrF) politician at the time, furiously frustrated, said in closing: “Isn’t it time you realised that Jesus is the saviour?” Fortunately, this Christian Democrat politician has adjusted his views over time, but at that time the state- ment was representative of the of “the power”: Christianity had come under threat from “all the rest” who simply had not understood about Jesus yet. However, the indignation this sort of attitude stirred up in us minorities just brought us closer together, and in the summer of 1996 we became aksjon livssynsfrihet i skolen (“the campaign for freedom of belief in schools”).

A fifth point of general validity might be inferred from this: although a shared sense of injury may not be a good thing, it does say something about what we, the minorities, had in common. We shared a sense that brought us together—something we could recognise in one another. Accordingly, the fifth point reads thus: dialogue benefits from identifying “like” feelings in the other, in spite of conceptual differences. This point is often seen in conflict resolution theories and can also be usefully included in a conflict prevention strategy.

The curriculum, with some modifications, was nevertheless adopted by the Norwegian parliament in January 1996. And we “campaigners” realized it would be a long battle—and that we would all have to learn a great deal.

Civic Education Gradually, we came to grips with the work of writing responses to white pa- pers and consultations, establishing what constituted common practice in Christian organisations, interpreting political party platforms, using the media and the judicial system. Through this work, the minorities, on their own ini- tiative, arrived at an understanding of democracy and community life that it seems many minorities in other countries can scarcely dream of. Several of us also had to personally learn Norwegian tolerance in practice; one example was that Muslims had to tolerate Ahmadiyya Muslims having a place on our shared platform, and Iranian Muslims had to tolerate the Baha’ís. Both of these mi- nority religions have experienced severe discrimination in their Muslim major- ity societies and still do.

The sixth point is that all of us gained entry into democratic society by work- ing along democratic lines for our own religions and life stances. From the perspective of integration, the of this point can scarcely be overplayed. This may also have a bearing on three other points that relate to clarifying relations between the government on the one hand, and religious and life stance communities on the other. First, we religious and life stance com- munities learnt about one another, and clarified our mutual relationships through personal contact. Second, we clarified where we stood in relation to

123 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 24 (2014) 1 the government, as a combined group of religious and life stance minorities, and where the government stood in relation to us. Third, thanks to the pressure we brought to bear on the authorities, we were able to clarify the government’s actual position in relation to the national majority community and how far they were willing to go to defend the status quo. This latter point can be explored further by fast-forwarding slightly.

The controversy surrounding the school subject of Christian knowledge and religious and ethical education (KRL) changed the roles of majority and mi- nority in Norway. The Norwegian Humanist Association took its case for the right to withdraw pupils from religious education through all the courts of Nor- way, including the Supreme Court in 2001, where they also lost. A case has to have exhausted the entire national judicial system before the UN or the Euro- pean Court of can consider it. The government lost in the UN in 2004 and in the EU in 2008, and the ruling handed down was the decision that the authorities had wanted someone else to make for them.

At least, many took the view that Norway was seeking clarification from an in- stitution with more experience in dilemmas of religious freedom than Nor- way’s own case could muster. In reality, Norway’s handling of the entire was rather cowardly and reprehensible; the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of the minorities, and both the school subject and the right of exemption had to be changed.

Back to the Nansen Academy When the Nansen Academy opened its doors for another dialogue project in 1996—“Religion: Life Stances and Human ”—everyone was well aware of considerably greater public interest than back in 1992. After all, we had ac- complished quite a lot. We had demonstrated both to ourselves and “the powers that be” that we were capable of standing united as a group, and we had shown that we meant business.

One key difference compared to the previous Nansen dialogue was that this time Alternativt Nettverk [“Alternative Network,” a New Age organisation] was also represented; this helped shed light on the boundaries between religion and life stances. The majority of representatives from the old religions felt it was odd to have a life stance without faith, but over a period of time it became evident that all communities had interests peculiar to their own that transcended the boundaries of religion, ethics, spirituality, and secular arenas. Religion and life stance were both identified as components of all types of conflicts and as a possible bridge-building mechanism through the traditions of constant reinterpretation that have always adapted to changing .

124 A FORMULA FOR PEACE?

The Institutt for Menneskerettigheter (Institute for ) co-hosted the dialogue this time. The philosopher Tore Lindholm’s wonderful commit- ment and ability to communicate brought into sharp relief the understanding of the inalienable right of the individual to self-determination, to , and to freedom of , with or without a God.

Training in human rights was probably the major eye-opener for several of the minority representatives who attended; this was something everyone could support. This is an important factor; the seventh in the development of the Norwegian model of religious and life stance dialogue. The religious and life stance dialogue benefits from training in human rights, which upholds freedom of religion and belief.

Ironically, the battle concerning religious studies as a school subject (KRL) led to the outcome the politicians might truly have wanted or at least should have wanted: a better informed population where the majority and the minorities alike took responsibility for their own identity and place in a pluralistic society.

A Deliberate Norwegian Policy on Religion and Life Stances Of all groups, it was Alternativt Nettverk that took the initiative to ensure there would be a permanent successor to the commitment involved in the campaign against the school subject of KRL. This turned out to be the start of The Coun- cil for Religious and Life Stance Communities (STL) in 1996.

Here, too, the church was invited to participate in the dialogue—a vital factor because this toned down the worst suspicions and stark images of the villain, even if the tone was often sharp. And this is the eighth point: in order to pre- vent the emergence of new potential for polarisation, all must be invited to participate in the dialogue.

The Council on Ecumenical and International Relations appointed a PhD stu- dent, Olav Fykse Tveit, to be its representative. Today, he chairs the World Council of Churches, which brings together almost 600 million Christians of all denominations. Back then, Fykse Tveit wisely kept a low profile, while the rest of us, full of confidence and bravado, talked about all the things we would change.

A group of representatives developed the by-laws of the council. Each com- munity has one vote, regardless of size, and the council decided unanimously that, this time around, we would focus our efforts on compiling and developing a deliberate Norwegian life stance policy. Up until now, there had only been a church policy in Norway that drowned out other voices.

125 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 24 (2014) 1

Another thing we established was that we should not aim to address or have an opinion on international issues; this has enabled us to avoid a great deal of dis- cord between representatives over the years. All decisions should be unani- mous, and we should work strategically and with a long-term perspective to- wards our goal. We should not actively seek media attention, or allow our- selves to be drawn into the media’s agenda, but we should try to make the me- dia our partners with a view to better-informed debates.

The ninth point, therefore, is this: if the dialogue is to be sustained over time, it must become institutionalised on the participants’ own terms, and it must oper- ate on the of consensus. This creates the requisite level of confidence and .

The Establishment of the STL A lovely community feel and a of real influence characterised the early days of the Council for Religious and Life Stance Communities. Now processes had been set in motion that the minorities had a natural stake in. State-church commissions—initially within the church, and then the govern- ment Gjønnes commission—asked for input from STL.

The discriminatory way in which the Church of Norway recorded church membership needed to be scrutinised and compared against the procedures of other religions and life stance communities, which had to comply with far more stringent criteria in terms of their memberships. The same would have to apply to procedures and services in hospitals, prisons, and graveyards, where Church of Norway clergy had held sole sway up until now.

Victory and Changed Identity The status of the Jewish minority changed in the course of this process. Previ- ously, the Jewish community had consisted of well-integrated Norwegians of the Jewish faith. Now, all of a sudden, Jews were seen as part and parcel of im- migrant groups with exotic and non-Norwegian practices. On encountering minorities, Norwegian society had become somewhat entrenched in the view that “being Norwegian is synonymous with being a Christian.” But the first major challenge for us minorities—to take ourselves seriously enough while being vastly outnumbered in our encounter with Norwegian majority bureau- cracy—paid off, and it has continued to pay off to this day.

In 2013, a government-appointed expert committee on religion and life stance— the so called “Stålsett Commission”—published their report named “Det livs- synsåpne samfunn” (“The Life Stance Open Society”). The Stålsett Commis- sion revised the entire Norwegian policy on religion and life stances based on the principle of equal treatment. They propose phasing out the state Church of Norway, and the part of the values clause of the Norwegian Constitution that 126 A FORMULA FOR PEACE? states that “our values remain our Christian and humanist heritage,” as well as the monarch’s confessional . What would then remain of the values clause would be: “This Constitution guarantees democracy, the rule of law and human rights.”

The first objective of our common journey has been achieved.

Concluding Remarks Previous history and the experience gained in connection with the start of the STL have had a major impact on Norwegian religious minorities’ experience of Norwegian society. Perhaps most importantly, it all started with grassroots co- operation, with the associated sense of ownership. The very fact that, in Nor- way, there are short lines of communication between the corridors of politics, the media, and the church facilitated the coping skills and confidence that are quite possibly the most important ingredients for “living together” in harmony.

The religious landscape in Norway is obviously in a very different phase 17 years after the establishment of the STL, and it is frightening to think about where Norway would have been had the STL never seen the light of day. Go- ing forward, therefore, the challenge will be to safeguard the trust that already exists as and when even more diverse ethnic and religious groups have to coexist ever more closely in Norway, with fewer jobs and welfare benefits to share.

It is puzzling, however, that so many of those who instigated dialogue and co- operation projects still serve as representatives of their communities in STL today. Why is that? Is it loyalty, or have they failed to train younger people to follow? The elders possess the institutional history, but there are not enough people to share it with. This is a real challenge—one that Norway must address before it is too late.

A priority task must be to get the proper religious leaders to do even better and to expose ignorant and dangerous leaders before they recruit insecure and questioning young people from all kinds of environments. We know now that extremists and fanatics are here, so dialogue must now move out onto the streets, into the communities, playgrounds, and workplaces. Meetings of the top echelons are no longer enough.

Norway has the structures and relationships, the ability and the will to take control; at the same time, it is essential for these structures to persist and to be sustained by the religious and life stance communities themselves, and for the authorities to continue to support them. Nine points for a Norwegian dialogue model are as follows:

127 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 24 (2014) 1

1. Will and commitment to dialogue; 2. Dialogue initially requires a good facilitator to set the “underlying tone” for the dialogue; 3. Dialogue must take place in the present tense—in the present day. Scoring points regarding past wrongs is not very fruitful; 4. Religious and life stance dialogue requires a common purpose or a common theme that benefits everyone. Otherwise, it loses meaning and impetus; 5. Dialogue benefits from identifying recognition in “like” feelings, de- spite conceptual differences; 6. Religious and life stance dialogue will have a very positive effect if it leads to minority communities being allowed to work for their religion or life stance on democratic terms; 7. The religious and life stance dialogue benefits from training in hu- man rights, which upholds freedom of religion and life stance; 8. To prevent the emergence of new potential polarisation, all must be invited to participate in the dialogue; 9. If it is desirable for dialogue to prevail, it should become - alised on the participants’ own terms, and it must operate on the principle of consensus. This creates the requisite level of confidence and trust.

128

Top View