The Religious Dimension of Intercultural Dialogue
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
! Education and Culture Standing Committee The Religious Dimension of Intercultural Dialogue Rapporteur : James Barnett, Intereuropean Commission on Church and School Document prepared by the working group Janvier 2015 The Document Preface Page 2 Alvaro Gil Roblès Introduction Page 4 The Context - The Council of Europe and religion Page 8 The Faro Declaration Page 10 The Religious Dimension Page 11 The Religious Dimension of Intercultural Dialogue Page 17 Thomas Hammarberg The Religious Dimension of Intercultural Dialogue Page 18 Jean-Paul Willaime Address by the Rabbi Rivon Krygier Page 21 Judaism Page 25 Manuèle Amar Judaism and Human Rights Page 27 Gilbert Nerson in cooperation with the Chief Rabbi René GUTMAN, Chief Rabbi of the Bas Rhin Judaism and Culture Page 29 Gilbert Nerson Islam - Divine "Unity" or the oneness of God and Muslim diversity Page 31 Lilia Bensédrine-Thabet Introduction to the Charia and its Sources Page 36 Muhammad Amin Al-Midani Buddhism: Is it a Religion ? Page 41 Michael Aguilar Contribution by the EBU on the Religious Dimension Page 44 Michael Aguilar Ethical Principles for an Interreligious Dialogue Page 48 Richard Fischer The Basis of Intercultural Dialogue Page 51 Denis Gira The Religious Dimension Page 53 Proposals Page 55 Recommendations Page 61 Glossary Page 62 Working Party Page 64 !1 Preface I should like first of all to express my gratitude for the invitation to write a preface to this excellent report, by a working group of the INGOs of the Council of Europe, on "The Religious Dimension of intercultural Dialogue." We must certainly congratulate the writers and contributors on this initiative, because all intercultural dialogue is neces- sarily imbued with the element of religion. Religion, with its variety of form and practice, has accompanied human existence over the centuries. As an inevitable as- pect of society's economic development as well as of the cultural development of those who belong to it, the most brutal and violent aspects of religious ceremonies, those based in ignorance and superstition, have gradually become more mild, or indeed they have disappeared. To deny or to ignore the value of religion is no less a mistake than not to allow freedom of practice to those who profess a particular belief. But the desire to enforce a system of belief and to take steps against those who do not share it, is even worse. It is very important to recognise that, over and above belief and the practice of religion, there is respect for common va- lues, innate to human nature, to the dignity of the human being and the things that we have universally classified as hu- man rights. The involvement of religious traditions, with their variety of creeds, in the common project of guaranteeing absolute res- pect for human rights, has represented and still represents today a historic challenge for all humanity. The key to enable this fine project to be transformed into a reality shared by all, is found in the acceptance by different religious groups of the fact that practice must be absolutely constrained by respect for democratic values, for human di- gnity and the freedom of others whether they be believers or non believers. In the years when I worked as Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe, I endeavoured to create a space for meeting and dialogue between the different religious traditions, with the objective of thinking about the "transcenden- tal role" which they can and must play in the defence of human rights, rather than to be a cause of their violation. I am delighted that this dialogue continues and that it grows in strength and I cite as evidence the initiative about which I am writing today. Religion should not be a danger for human rights, indeed the opposite is true. Religion cannot be an instrument for the spreading of hatred, of intransigence, of excluding or denying the integrity of the other. Religion, the practice of which should be an instrument not only of personal fulfilment in seeking after the transcendental "I," but also of positive understanding of other human beings, should be an instrument of peace and not of fanatical confrontation. That is why the most advanced societies have given effect to the importance of establishing and protecting an integral common space for all, regulated by rules that guarantee the neutrality of institutions and of public authorities, in their structure, in relation to existence and the legitimate practice of different religions. It is what we understand as the laïcité of a State that perceives itself as being composed of all its people and as existing for all its people. That is why it is so important that the school should be a place for handing on knowledge of the essential content of dif- ferent religions, of their history, which is also that of our continent, and of cultural diversity. Ignorance of the existence of religion can only be of service to those who make use of misinformation to spread fanaticism. We should not confuse in- formation and education (formation) with catechesis which is a function of the private realm, for those who belong to each religious tradition. The state should be the guarantor of the transmission of objective information in this syllabus, inclu- ding the vision of those who find themselves at the edge of all religious belief. Europe represents an array (prisme) of cultures, of religions, of different philosophies. In the course of history, they have not always lived together in peace. Indeed, they have experienced violent and cruel convulsion. On our continent we have learned the lesson (with some exceptions), and we have defined our identity in human rights, the rule of law, democracy and respect for the fundamental liberties of every person. The Council of Europe is, without !2 any doubt, the best and most important testimony to this collective engagement for the defence of our fundamental va- lues. That is why I give my strong support to the initiative by the International, Inter-cultural and Inter-convictional group (G3i) in "organising constructive dialogue between those whose vision of the world is founded on different convictions (beliefs, religions, atheism, agnosticism…). The interconvictional process leads everyone involved, through mutual re- cognition, to be enriched by one another's point of view, expressed with complete freedom and without seeking to domi- nate. It is to be hoped that the European Union will both undertake and implement an "inter-convictional" approach. The document which you have in your hand is a serious reflection in that direction and a resource of great value for a better awareness of the role of religions in what we call intercultural dialogue. Alvaro Gil Robles Segovia, 1 June 2014 !3 Introduction 1. The Context The Council of Europe brings together 47 member states with the aim of safeguarding democracy, the rule of law and the universal values of human rights. Its foundation, which dates from the end of the forties, engaged ten states from western Europe, whereas there were twenty-three member states at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wallin 1989, all from Western Europe. In the last decade of the twentieth century the "liberated" nations of central and eastern Europe were welcomed by the Council of Europe, of which civil servants and experts made an important contribution to the development of de- mocracy, jurisprudence, government and the administration of the new member states. The historical and cultural diver- sity of the "47", as well as immigration since the war, engages an extended cultural debate. In May 2008 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the White Paper on intercultural dialogue. The document includes a chapter on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, because there was an awareness of certain differences as a result of the religious engagement or tradition of European populations. 2. The INGOs and religion The term "white paper" borrowed from the British system, denotes a document on policy development, in this case policy on intercultural dialogue. In view of religion's involvement in certain conflicts, the white paper suggests, in a short chap- ter on the religious dimension that "education as to religious and convictional facts in an intercultural context makes avai- lable knowledge about all world religions and beliefs and their history."1 Though the European Convention on human rights guarantees liberty of belief, conscience and conviction, the Council of Europe can have no view on religion, of which the liberty is guaranteed, because the safeguard of human rights involves universal values and not "truth" which is termed "confessional." The Conference of INGOs is a particular feature of the Council of Europe. The 400 INGOs with participative status bring knowledge of civil society, therefore of the life of citizens among whom they work. There are INGOs of "religious inspira- tion" of which work in the humanitarian field enriches the life of our continent. At the same time, INGOs with non confessional inspiration or indeed non confessional conviction encounter some consequences of religious origin in the context of their work. Our working group was established at the initiative of the Education and Culture committee with the intention that it should work on the religious dimension. It was hoped that we would be able to shed light on a "phenomenon" in the context of the universal values of human rights. We needed to be objective in respect of intercultural dialogue, the reli- gious dimension and the plurality of the twenty-first century. The members of the group joined it as a result of an open invitation. We had diverse convictions, they were not necessarily religious, but our working method was objective, that is to say that there was a non confessional assumption about the plurality of our convictions, while the definition of the re- ligious dimension should not prevent the recognition of certain affective aspects in religious practice and belief.