Religious Communities and Interreligious Dialogue: Two Guidelines for Living Together in Multi-Religious Societies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 num- bers 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). Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 27/2, 117-130 doi: 10.2143/SID.27.2.3269038 © 2017 by Peeters. All rights reserved. 118 MiriaM ScHNEidEr 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 build- ing 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 build- ing, 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, includ- ing 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 guide- line 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-