Religious Communities and Interreligious Dialogue: Two Guidelines for Living Together in Multi-Religious Societies

Religious Communities and interreligious Dialogue: Two Guidelines for living together in multi-religious Societies

Miriam Schneider

Abstract This paper compares two different interreligious guidelines that have been devel- oped and published in Switzerland. Following a brief overview of the religious landscape of Switzerland, this paper will outline and discuss the two guidelines in an attempt to answer the question of what the purpose of such interreligious guidelines could be. The conclusion will accordingly raise some questions for further reflection and give a general comment on these interreligious guidelines, including their benefits and challenges.

Author Miriam Schneider gained her MA in Interreligious Studies at the University of Bern and is currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Basel, Switzer- land.

Introduction

Like many other western European countries the religious landscape of Switzerland has greatly changed during the last 50 years.1 The numbers of religious adherents as provided by the Federal Office of Statistics shows this clearly.2 Looking at the year 1970, we see that Swiss society was predominantly Christian. Of the total population some 97.5% were recorded as Christian, made up of 48.8% who belonged to the Reformed

1 for further information on religious pluralism in Switzerland see: Martin Baumann / Jörg Stolz (eds.), Eine Schweiz – viele Religionen (Bielefeld: transcript, 2007) and Martin Baumann / Samuel M. Behloul (eds.), Religiöser Pluralismus (Bielefeld: transcript, 2005) 2 Data as provided by the homepage by the Federal Office of Statistics. See: https:// www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung/sprachen-religionen/religionen. html (accessed 12.09.2017); and https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoel kerung/sprachen-religionen/religionen.assetdetail1822034.html (accessed: 12.09.2017).

Protestant Church, 46.7% to the Roman Catholic Church, and 2.0% to other Christian communities. While the number of adherents of the Roman Catholic Church until today has been more or less stable, the Reformed Protestant Church has lost many members. In comparison, the number of people who do not belong to any religious community is today growing significantly and the Muslim community, although a relative minority, is also registering some growth. In 1970 only 1.2% of the people said they were unaffiliated with any religion, and only 0.2% of the population were Muslim. In 2015 the numbers were very different. The statistics then showed that 23.9% were not members of a religious community and 5.1% of the people in Switzerland at that time were Muslim. Religious communities like Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and others are also part of the religious landscape today. Even though they are small minorities, they are nevertheless active partners in many interreligious organizations. Due to migration, globalization and secularisation, Switzerland is now confronted with a religious landscape that has greatly changed during the last 40-50 years. This provokes two different reactions. On the one hand, contemporary religious diversity is interpreted as something negative and provokes reactions accordingly, which also can be very political. In this regard, probably the most discussed issue has been the minaret affair of 2009. On the other hand, the challenge of religious diversity has led in recent years to many interreligious initiatives, and a number of relevant organizations have been established throughout Switzerland, for example, Haus der Religionen, Interreligiöser Think Tank, IRAS COTIS, Rat der Religionen and Zürcher Institut für interreligiösen Dialog. On 29th November 2009 the Swiss population voted for the prohibi- tion of the construction of minarets at Muslim mosques, even though the Federal Parliament had recommended voting against the proposal that had been brought forward through a popular petition.3 Wolfgang Lienemann reflected on the issue of this petition at the time, arguing a change of the Federal Constitution was not a political bagatelle.4 Freedom of religion is part of the Swiss Federal Constitution and most relevant civil organizations were certainly against the petition. Lienemann sum- marized the main arguments put forward by those who wanted the building of further minarets banned (there were only four in the entire coun- try). Ban proponents argued that minarets represent the social-political claim to power by Muslims whose goal is to build a society based on

3 See URL: https://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis353.html (accessed 04.09.2017) 4 See: Wolfgang Lienemann. Streit um das Minarett (Zürich: TVZ, 2009), 9-11. Religious Communities and interreligious Dialogue 119

Islamic legal principles. As Muslims would try to do this wherever it was possible, minarets should be forbidden as a measure of social resistance to Islamic imperialist intentions. But Lienemann concludes that it was difficult to say if minarets as such were the religious symbols that represent an attack on the constitutional state as claimed. Arguments put forward by the ban’s proponents need therefore to be questioned.5 Another response to the broader challenge posed by today’s religious plurality is the founding of the Haus der Religionen (House of Religions) in Bern. The Haus der Religionen is an institution including and governed by eight different religious communities – Alevis, Baha’i, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. The erection of the building, with multiple religious and supporting administrative and public spaces, was accomplished only after a long journey of negotiation and fundraising. The Haus is located at the city-border of Bern and was opened with great ceremony at the end of 2014. Located close to a train station and tram-stop, the Haus der Religionen itself is part of a bigger building that contains shops, restaurants and apartments. It is therefore seen as a place of engagement for everyone.6 The idea behind the project is to promote the aim of practical living together under one roof, being in dialogue one with another, and with the public and wider society. It also meant that certain religious communities, that had not had a sacred place for worshiping before, could now have access to a room within the Haus. The house thus hosts an Alevi dergah; a Buddhist meditation and meeting space; a mosque; a Hindu Temple complete with many statues, one indeed breaching the roof so that the top is visible to the outside; and a multi-purpose and multi-denominational Christian worship room. A few religions that do not have their own room-space nevertheless have a presence in the form of wall-mounted display cabinets. These and other religious communities participate in the life of the Haus through its diverse cultural program. The physical core of the Haus is the dialogue area where people can meet, join in various cultural events, and eat together. Dialogue takes place in the context of actual living together – talking and interacting – instead of just in a context of only living next-door to each other.7

5 See also Douglas Pratt, Swiss Shock: Minaret Rejection, European Values, and the Challenge of Tolerant neutrality, Politics, Religion & Ideology Vol. 14/2 (July 2013), 193-207. 6 See: https://www.haus-der-religionen.ch/geschichte/ (accessed 12.09.2017) 7 See: https://www.haus-der-religionen.ch/idee/ (accessed 12.09.2017) 120 Miriam Schneider

From within today’s diversely religious society, and between the two extreme positions that the minaret ban presents on the one hand and the Haus der Religionen shows on the other – namely, avoiding and rejecting religious diversity through political action; and supporting interreligious dialogue and engagement through a unique institution – there has arisen a felt need for, and so the production of, interreligious guidelines to help shape and promote harmonious living-together within today’s secular Swiss society.

The purpose of interreligious guidelines

There is a multitude of guidelines for all kinds of areas of life, including interreligious guidelines of which there are many. But there seems to be little or no literature about, or reflecting upon, such guidelines. Indeed, one can ask: What constitutes interreligious guidelines, and what purpose might they have? What are the characteristics of such documents? First of all, the meaning of the term guideline needs to be clarified. The term guideline suggests guidance, helpful support, or even just a matter of suggestion. It does not infer something that is to be an obligation; that would be a requirement, a matter of law perhaps. A guideline can be rejected. Looking at the development of the interreligious movement during the 20th century, one of the most important documents is the Roman Catho- lic Nostra Aetate (the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions). This declaration was promulgated in 1965 as one of the outcomes of the Second Vatican Council. It clearly states the position of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to other faiths in a multireligious world. Nostra Aetate is not itself an interreligious guideline as such, although it opened the way for the production of specific guidelines.8 Documents by Councils have an authoritative character and must be acknowledged accordingly.9 Another very important document, which is also recognized worldwide, was published by the World Coun- cil of Churches in 1979 and is named Guidelines on Dialogue with people of living Faiths and Ideologies. In the document it is said that:

8 See for example, Maurice Bormans, Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, trans. R. Marston Speight (New York: Paulist Press, 1990). 9 ulrich Dehn. Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, Dominus Iesus, in: Ulrich Dehn et al. Handbuch Theologie der Religionen (Freiburg i.Br: Herder, 2017), 492. Religious Communities and interreligious Dialogue 121

“The statement and guidelines were commended to member churches” according to the Central Committee “for their consideration and discus- sion, testing and evaluation, and for their elaboration in each specific situation”.10 This document plays an important role for the ecumenical and interreligious movement. It does not have the same authoritative and declarative character as Nostra Aetate. It is, indeed clearly, an example of an intentional interreligious guideline.11 Returning to the question of what is meant by the term guideline, it seems that not every guideline is titled, or declared, as a guideline as such. Indeed, different names and terms are used, as this paper will show below. Further, with respect to the field of interreligious relations, it can be asked: Why are there so many guidelines? Do people want or need this guidance? Certainly, religious plurality, as found in many societies today, is a significant challenge for all participants within those societies. There- fore, to the extent the challenge is recognized and addressed, people are asking their communities and other institutions for some help that offers guidance for living together with people of other faiths. Such pluralist communities on one hand feel the need of having statements for reference, and on the other hand they also want to show that they can work with each other in the practice of interreligious dialogue and other forms of positive interreligious engagement. Thereby such communities can provide good examples and support for adherents of the different religions. In this context, many interreligious initiatives have been founded and some of these have already published guidelines. On inspecting the characteristics of such guidelines it is readily seen that different backgrounds, contexts and settings apply. Some guidelines were published by only one religious community, others were elaborated by different communities within a religion, e.g. ecumenical groups. There are also guidelines that have a directly interreligious background. They are a product of an interreligious project, working-group or organization. Reflecting on who the authors of a guideline are, and to whom it is directed, is not always obvious, but it is an important dimension as the following examination will make clear.

10 wCC. Guidelines on Dialogue, (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1979), iv. 11 Ulrich Dehn, Leitlinien zum Dialog mit Menschen verschiedener Religionen und Ideologien, in: Dehn et al. Handbuch Theologie der Religionen, 506. 122 Miriam Schneider

Two Guidelines

The guidelines which will be discussed below, and which were published by two very different groups, differ in regard to several aspects. For one thing, they have different backgrounds and arise out of different contexts. The first guideline is a product of an interreligious initiative and the second was produced by an ecumenical (Christian) working-group. The guidelines have different forms, they were elaborated under different conditions, and by different authors who address their guidelines to different groups of readers.

The St. Gallen Declaration for the Coexistence of Religions and Interreligious Dialogue

In 2005 an interreligious guideline was published in the city of St. Gallen.12 The document itself does not give any explanation about why it was produced. But by looking at the date of the publication it becomes obvious that the historical context was more than reason enough. The shock of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the 11th of September in 2001 had a huge impact in many other parts of the world. However, starting the war (‘against terror’) in Iraq in 2003 as one reaction was, for many people, quite unintelligible. It was following these events that a project-group called Religious Identity13 prepared The St. Gallen Declaration for the coexistence of Religions and interreligious Dia- logue document. This was declared in collaboration with IDA (Interre- ligious Dialogue and Action week).14 IDA organizes an interreligious dialogue and action week every two years in September, during which several events on interreligious issues are offered. This involves the Department of Home Affairs of St. Gallen, the three main churches,15 the Jewish community of St. Gallen, the umbrella organization of Muslim communities in east Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and the

12 St. Galler Erklärung für das Zusammenleben der Religionen und den interreligiösen Dialog (St. Gallen: IDA, 2005); See: http://ida-sg.ch/fileadmin/images/PDF_2017/SG_ Erklaerung_2015.pdf (accessed 17.09.2017) 13 original: Spurgruppe religiöse Identität (English translation by the author). 14 See: http://ida-sg.ch/ueber/uebersicht-ueber-die-ida/ (Accessed 10.04.2017). Origi- nal: Interreligiöse Dialog- und Aktionswoche (English translation by the author). 15 the three main churches of St. Gallen, and indeed throughout Switzerland, are the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformed Protestant Church and the Old Catholic Church. Religious Communities and interreligious Dialogue 123

Round Table of Religions in St. Gallen.16 Furthermore, The Declaration was signed by representatives of all those organizations, aside from the Round Table and the Jewish community. The Round Table of Religions was established in 1999 as a loose group of interested people and it became a registered organization only in 2007.17 Thus the Round Table was not already a partner of IDA at the time of the formulation of the declaration. But there is no explanation as to why the Jewish community did not participate; further research into that would be required. The text of The St. Gallen Declaration is divided into two parts, which are titled as ‘We state’ and ‘We commit ourselves’.18 The first part, which introduces the declaration, states matter-of-factly that 1) there are members of different religions who live in the canton of St. Gallen; 2) there are also many people who do not belong to a religion; and 3) that many members of non-Christian religions are foreigners to Switzerland. However, the first part concludes by asserting that diversity is not always uncomplicated. In other words, diversity can be a complex matter. Two aspects in the third phrase of this first part of the statement are of particular interest. Use of the term non-Christians would seem to imply a view that distinguishes the world in terms of Christian versus non-Christian. This distinction might have been com- prehensible if the author was a solely Christian group, in which case one could interpret this as an attitude of Christian dominance, albeit quite insensitive for an interreligious guideline. But this was not the case. It was an interreligious group that drafted these guidelines. The second interesting aspect is that the statement says adherents of other religions are foreigners. This is true only for a few people, but not for all. As shown in the introduction above, there were already in the 1970s adherents of other religions living in Switzerland even though it was a small number. Further, today many young adherents of the different religions were, in fact, born in Switzerland. They are not foreigners – immigrants – strictly speaking. The second part of this text contains five paragraphs that enunciate the commitments that comprise the actual guidelines. These paragraphs do not have titles themselves, therefore it is helpful to use each paragraph’s issue as a working-title.

16 See: http://ida-sg.ch/ueber/traegerschaft/ (Accessed 10.04.2017); see also: https:// www.rtdr-sg.ch (accessed 10.04.2017). The Round Table of Religions in St. Gallen consists of adherents of many religious communities, including Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism, Baha’i, and the different denominations of Christianity. 17 See: https://www.rtdr-sg.ch (accessed 10.04.2017) 18 See: St. Galler Declaration, 1. 124 Miriam Schneider

The first concerns Truth and other Faiths. The declaration says here it does not want to make general statements about other faith traditions, but rather allow adherents from other religions to be true to their own tradition. It also says it wants to be open to find truth through inter religious dialogue and to encourage living together with people from other religions. The second paragraph has to do with the issue of Prayer and Ritual. It is declared in the statement that God is listening to all who make appeal to him, even if they use different names. Therefore the authors affirm the act of praying together without this either obliterating or syn- cretistically mixing the religions. This paragraph also makes a clear distinction between different types of interreligious prayer and rituals.19 The authors indeed seem to promote what Douglas Pratt calls multi- religious prayer.20 The third paragraph addresses the issue Protection of the Human Rights. The declaration affirms Human Rights for everyone. It asserts that religion, in being bound to God, or to some sense of divine tran- scendence that has an ethical dimension, affirms and calls for Human Rights and especially equal rights for women. In this paragraph the authors show they have a very functional understanding of religion.21 The fourth paragraph addresses the issue of Identity and Diversity. It asserts that differences between people are necessary, but relative. “We are all God’s creatures”,22 says the Declaration. People are seeking for cultural and religious identity not through separation but in dialogue and in living together. In the understanding of the declaration a diverse society will nevertheless be integrative in respect to fundamental human- itarian values and a democratic constitutional state. The fifth and last paragraph and issue can be called Extremism and Tolerance. The authors reject any kind of extremism that threatens people from other religions. They rather advocate the obligation for tolerance

19 for the distinction between different types of interreligious prayers and rituals see: Marianne Moyaert. Introduction: Exploring the Phenomenon of interreligious Ritual Participation, in: Marianne Moyaert / Joris Geldhof (eds.), Ritual Participation and Inter- religious Dialogue. Boundaries, Transgressions and Innovations (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 1-16. 20 Douglas Pratt. Parameters for Interreligious Prayer: Some Considerations, Current Dialogue 31 (1997), 21-27. See: http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd31-03.html (accessed 12.04.2017), 21 Religious studies distinctions a functional understanding of religion from a substantive. See: Peter L. Berger, Some Second Thoughts on Substantive versus Functional Definitions of Religion, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (1974), 125-133. 22 St. Galler Declaration. 2005, 2. Religious Communities and interreligious Dialogue 125 and peace which each religion in fact promotes. Therefore, by direct implication, the different religions are understood to be open to inter religious dialogue and to harmonious living together with peoples of other faiths. With these five paragraphs the authors cover a wide range of issues on religious living-together. They start every paragraph with the word we which gives the impression of a strong and inclusive agreement between the partners who created the declaration, and in each case a commitment to a common understanding and affirmation is made. This can be seen as the strength of the guideline, because it shows the reader that the local religious communities, and the state (Canton), are in a good contact and interconnected through friendship and mutual affirmation. Another positive aspect of the document is that the issues are formulated in a short and clear format. Everyone can understand them, and the declaration is also translated to several languages.23 The document is addressed to absolutely everyone and not only to a special group such as a specific religious community, or to those of a particular level of educa- tion. At the same time it can also be criticised that the text is very short. It could give the impression that the interreligious encounter might be a rather trivial matter, not requiring much in the way of guidance, and that the multi-religious living together is only a matter of attaining peaceful harmony in mute co-existence. Another critical point is the non-visibility of the Guideline document. This is because it is only available online and not as a printed document, and it is unclear which community or organisation recognises or endorses the document. It also cannot be said who the reader of the Declaration is, despite its inclusive language and openness to all. This is in contrast to the next interreligious guideline that I discuss.

10 Tips for Living Together in a Multi-Faith Society

The flyer 10 tips was published in 2015.24 This guideline was elaborated by the working-group TRM (Treffpunkt Religion Migration)25, an ecumenical group of the three main churches in the canton of Bern.

23 See: http://ida-sg.ch/stgaller-erklaerung/st-galler-erklaerung/ (accessed 11.4.17). 24 10 Sätze zum Zusammenleben in der multireligiösen Gesellschaft [10 tips for living together in a multi-faith society] (Bern: Treffpunkt Religion Migration, 2015). See: https://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis353.html (accessed 04.09.2017). 25 Treffpunkt Religion Migration can be translated as ‚meeting-point of religion migration’. The group changed its name in summer 2017 to AKRM – Arbeitskreis Religion Migration, which can be translated as ‚working committee on religion migration’. 126 Miriam Schneider

Thus the 10 tips document has a different background and origination as compared to the St. Gallen Declaration. The 10 tips is a statement from Christians, for Christians. Therefore it can be asked how this differs from the St. Gallen Declaration that has an interreligious background and originating context. As with the Declaration, the 10 tips does not give a specific occasion as to why it was published in 2015. But one can infer the terrorist attacks on the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo in Paris earlier that year, and the war in Syria, played a role. Such events lead once again to the awareness that peaceful living together does not happen by itself. It must be worked on. The 10 tips is a much longer document than the Declaration but it is also divided into two parts. The document starts with an introduction and then articulates the ten items (or ‘tips’), each with a long explanation. The introduction mentions current societies that are multicultural and multi-religious. This context is described as enriching but also as a challenge. Religious and cultural traditions can be used, on one hand, as a legitimation for discrimination, intolerance and violence but, on the other, can also nurture a sense of meaning, strengthen identity, and promote peace.26 The introduction affirms that ‘The message of the Bible clearly calls Christians, in following the example of Jesus, to stand up for foreigners and minorities, to promote non-violence, justice and peace and to show respect and love towards all human beings’.27 Therefore Christians ought to seek to engage in dialogue with people from other religions and, within the context of Swiss secular law, ensure religious freedom for all. The 10 tips document seeks to be part of that dialogue and supports Christian communities and others who are interested in going into dialogue.28 The introduction describes a similar society to that of the Declaration, but it adds a specific task for Christians, namely tak- ing ‘… responsibility for upholding religious freedom and maintaining peace between religions in society.’29 The 10 tips can be classified into five groups. The first amounts to a description of religion as internally diverse and changing. It contains two tips. 1): Religions are diverse within themselves and 2): Religions change. Together these indicate there are various currents, denominations and groups within each of the religions and, further, that some of

26 See: 10 tips, 1. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. Religious Communities and interreligious Dialogue 127 them may be denoted as fundamentalist, while others are conservative, moderate or progressive. It also notes that all religions have been under- going change throughout history. Religions cannot be seen as monolithic blocs. And this means also that the personal faith or religiosity of a person is likewise changing during his or her lifetime. All these aspects of change must be taken into account. The second group describes a task of religion with tip 3) that asserts religion should support integration. On one hand religion can be a cause of isolation and separation but, at the same time, it can also be integrative. Religion can help people to overcome their difficulties, give sense and meaning to their life, and strengthen their identity. In speaking about the task of religion, the statement shows a strong functional understanding of religion, as also noted above. The third group can be titled Human Rights, Discrimination and Gender because it contains tip 5): There must not be any discrimination on the basis of faith; tip 6): Religious extremism is unacceptable and tip 7): Human rights are to be respected. This group refers to adherents of the religions as sometimes discriminated against because of their religion, on the one hand, but also, on the other, instances where members of some religious communities cite their religion in order to justify human rights’ violations. Neither is acceptable, and furthermore no one should be subjected to discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. The guideline document is very clear on this. The fourth group may be called Identity and its Ambivalence as it references the question of religious and individual identity with tip 4): People must not be reduced to their religion. This reminds the reader that a person’s identity is multi-faceted. It does not only involve just religious affiliation but also other aspects such as profession, political beliefs, social status, and many more. The fifth and last group has to do with the Encounter with other Religions and contains tip 8): Respond to other faith traditions with respect; tip 9): Openness is vital in interfaith encounters and tip 10): Interfaith dialogue is enriching. These three collectively affirm that people should meet those of other religions in a context of acceptance and empathy and not try to convert adherents of other religions, for to do so is to undermine respect for the other as other, display a closed view to what the other is and offers, and negate the possibility of enrich- ment. Indeed, it is a widely experienced fact that people can come to understand and appreciate their own religious tradition much better when they rethink it through the experience of interreligious engagement 128 Miriam Schneider and dialogue. Therefore people should be open for and to interreligious encounter. At the end of the flyer the logos of all three churches and the working group can be found, but there is no personal signature or authorial iden- tification as such. The authors remain in the background. Furthermore, there was no celebration or presentation when the 10 tips flyer was published. It was simply sent by mail to the different churches and religious organizations in the Canton and beyond. While one could miss references in this document to the aspect of ritual and prayer, it must be appreciated just how the 10 tips deals with the tension within each issue, or tip. Although the titles of each tip, as denoted above, effectively declare the authors’ positions, there are nonetheless difficulties and challenges with the statements of the 10 tips. As already mentioned above, the 10 tips is mainly addressed to Christians, but also to others who are interested in interreligious relations. This can be seen by who ordered or requested the flyer. According to the ecumenical publisher, the 10 tips was ordered by different churches in Switzerland and also by individuals. The plateforme interreligieuse de Genève ordered 5000 copies, for example, and the office Stiftung Welte- thos Berlin also asked for the flyer, as did the Old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht, and many more. Clearly this flyer, despite any limitations, has had – and continues to have – wide impact and applicability. It speaks to a real need.

Conclusion

While the 10 tips publication shows a very functional understanding of religion, at least at a few points, the Declaration does not elaborate a specific notion of religion. One could speculate why this is the case. For instance the question can be raised if the authors of the 10 tips wanted to show the secular part of the society, and the political sphere, just how useful religion is for peaceful living-together. Another interesting aspect is the use of language. The Declaration does not use religious terms in the introduction, but it does in the main part. In fact, although the Declaration does not commit to a specific religion, even in mentioning Jesus Christ, it does directly speak twice of God. This contrasts with the text of the 10 tips. The introduction here gives a clear Christian-theological reason for the 10 tips. But then the substantive phrases are not formulated with religious terminology. Why is this so? The hypothesis that the authors Religious Communities and interreligious Dialogue 129 used religiously neutral language in order to be sensitive toward the other religions, or to be understood by the secular part of the society, remains to be confirmed or denied. A third and final question also remains open. The statements of the two guidelines do not represent explicitly a clear position concerning any theology of religion. Therefore it must be asked if any reflections regarding the theology of religion lies behind the guidelines and, if so, what that would look like. But it is also questionable if it would be even possible to find a religious-theological common ground for a group that is religiously diverse. Or perhaps it was better to relinquish any quest for such a religious-theological common ground and focus instead on the specific topics of living together multi-religiously. Interreligious guidelines have their opportunities and limits. They are not academic papers; therefore scholarly based reflection can be missing at some points, together with clarification of main terms. But such guidelines aim to provide accessible support for a wider, non-specialist population, for living together in multireligious societies. They are one of the responses to the pluralisation and secularisation within western European societies. Interreligious guidelines like the Declaration or the 10 tips can give guidance to religious adherents and to others interested in this field of social life. Even if there is no recipe for the perfect solution for living with or next to each other, interreligious guidelines are a helpful and an important part, and form, of interreligious dialogue.

Literature

10 Sätze zum Zusammenleben in der multireligiösen Gesellschaft [10 tips for living together in a multi-faith society] (Bern: Treffpunkt Religionen Migration, 2015). Baumann, Martin / Behloul, Samuel M. (eds.), Religiöser Pluralismus. Empiri- sche Studien und analytische Perspektiven (Bielefeld: transcript, 2005). Baumann, Martin / Stolz, Jörg (eds.), Eine Schweiz – viele Religionen. Risiken und Chancen des Zusammenlebens (Bielefeld: transcript, 2007) Berger, Peter L., Some Second Thoughts on Substantive versus Functional Def- initions of Religion, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (1974), 125-133. Bormans, Maurice, Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims Trans. R. Marston Speight (New York: Paulist Press, 1990). Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Reli- gions), in: AAS 58 (1966) 740-744 (latin text) Dehn, Ulrich. Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, Dominus Iesus, in: Dehn, Ulrich / Caspar-Seeger, Ulrike / Bernstorff, Freya (eds.) Handbuch Theologie der Religionen (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 2017), 492-499. 130 Miriam Schneider

Dehn, Ulrich. Leitlinien zum Dialog mit Menschen verschiedener Religionen und Ideologien, in: Dehn, Ulrich / Caspar-Seeger, Ulrike / Bernstorff, Freya (eds.) Handbuch Theologie der Religionen. (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 2017), 506-542. Lienemann, Wolfgang. Einleitung, in: Tanner, Mathias / Müller, Felix / Mathwig, Frank / Lienemann, Wolfgang (eds.). Streit um das Minarett. Zusammenleben in der religiös pluralistischen Gesellschaft (Zürich: TVZ, 2009), 9-19. Moyaert, Marianne, Introduction: Exploring the Phenomenon of Interreligious Ritual Participation, in: Moyaert, Marianne / Geldhof, Joris (eds.) Ritual Participation and Interreligious Dialogue. Boundaries, Transgressions and Innovations (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 1-16. Pratt, Douglas, Swiss Shock: Minaret Rejection, European Values, and the Challenge of Tolerant neutrality, Politics, Religion & Ideology 14 ( 2013), 193-207. Pratt, Douglas. Parameters for Interreligious Prayer: Some Considerations, Current Dialogue 31 (1997), 21-27. St. Galler Erklärung für das Zusammenleben der Religionen und den inter religiösen Dialog [St. Gallen Declaration for the Coexistence of Religions and interreligious Dialogue] (St. Gallen: IDA, 2005). World Council of Churches. Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1979).