Academic literature on the topic 'Religious pluralism – Europe'

This paper asks: when and under what conditions does religion become a source of coopera- tion rather than conflict? The Gülen movement is an Islamic social movement that bases its philosophy on increasing religious consciousness at the individual level and making Islam an important social force in the public sphere. It is this intellectual and social activism that has made the movement a global phenomenon and the focus of socio-political analysis. The Gülen community brings different sectors of society together to facilitate ‘collective intellectual effort’ and offer ‘civil responses’ to social issues, seeing this as a more subtle and legitimate way of influencing public debate and policy. To this end, the movement initiated a series of symposiums, known as Abant Workshops in Turkey. The scope of these meetings was later expanded to include a wider audience in Europe, the U.S., and the Middle East. This paper looks specifically at the Abant Workshops and the movement’s strategy of bridge building and problem-solving. It uses the press releases, transcripts and audio-visual records of the past 14 meetings to discuss their objectives and outcomes. This material is supplement- ed by interviews with key organisers from the Journalists and Writer Foundation and other participants. The discussion aims to understand how far religiously inspired social groups can contribute to the empowerment of civil society vis-à-vis the state and its officially secular ideology. Beyond that, it aims to explain the role of civil society organisations in democratic governance, and the possibility of creating social capital in societies lacking a clear ‘overlap- ping consensus’ on issues of citizenship, morality and national identity. The hesitancy at the beginning turns into friendship, the distance into understanding, stiff looks and tensions into humorous jokes, and differences into richness. Abant is boldly moving towards an institutionalization. The objective is evident: Talking about some of the problems the country is facing, debating them and offering solutions; on a civil ground, within the framework of knowledge and deliberation. Some labelled the ideas in the concluding declarations as “revolutionary,” “renaissance,” and “first indications of a religious reform.” Some others (in minority) saw them “dangerous” and “non-sense.” In fact, the result is neither a “revolution” nor “non-sense” It is an indication of a quest for opening new horizons or creating a novel vision. When and under what conditions does religion become a source of cooperation rather than conflict in the civil society? The Gülen movement is an Islamic social movement that bases its philosophy on increasing religious consciousness at the individual level and making Islam an important social force in the public sphere. It is this intellectual and social activism that raises the Gülen movement of Turkey as a global phenomenon to the focus of socio-political analysis. The Gülen community brings different sectors of the society together to create and facilitate a ‘common intellect’ to brainstorm and offer ‘civil responses’ to social issues. The move- ment sees this as a more subtle, but more effective, and legitimate way of influencing public debate and policy. Hence, the movement initiated a series of symposiums, known as Abant Workshops in Turkey. The scope of the meetings was later expanded to include a wider audi- ence in Europe, the U.S., and the Middle East. In early 1990s the Gülen Movement launched a silent but persistent public relations cam- paign. Fethullah Gülen openly met with the prominent figures of government and politics, and gave interviews to some popular newspapers and magazines. With a thriving media net- work, private schools, and business associations the movement seemed to have entered a new stage in its relations with the outside world. This new stage was not a simple outreach effort; it was rather a confident step to carve a niche in the increasingly diversified Turkish public sphere. The instigation of a series of workshops known as Abant Platforms was one of the biggest steps in this process. The workshops brought academics, politicians, and intellectu- als together to discuss some of the thorniest issues of, first, Turkey, such as secularism and pluralism, and then the Muslim World, such as war, globalization and modernization. This paper seeks to explain the motives behind this kind of an ambitious project and its possible implications for the movement itself, for Turkey and for the Muslim World in transition.

While the appeal of ‘civilisational dialogue’ is on the rise, its sources, functions, and con- sequences arouse controversy within and between faith communities. Some religious lead- ers have attempted to clarify the religious foundations for such dialogue. Among them are Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth, Edward Idris, Cardinal Cassidy of the Catholic Church, and Fethullah Gülen. The paper compares the approach of these three religious leaders from the Abrahamic tra- dition as presented in their scholarly works – Sacks’ The Dignity of Difference, Cardinal Cassidy’s Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue, and Gülen’s Advocate of Dialogue. The discussion attempts to answer the following questions: Can monotheistic traditions accom- modate the dignity of followers of other monotheistic and polytheistic religions as well as non-theistic religions and philosophies? Is a belief in the unity of God compatible with an acceptance of the religious dignity of others? The paper also explores their arguments for why civilisational and interfaith dialogue is necessary, the parameters of such dialogue and its anticipated consequences: how and how far can dialogue bridge the claims of unity of God and diversity of faiths? Islam’s emphasis on diversity and the Quran’s accommodation of ear- lier religious traditions put Islam and Fethullah Gülen in the best position to offer a religious justification for valuing and cherishing the dignity of followers of other religions. The plea for a dialogue of civilizations is on the rise among some policymakers and politi- cians. Many of them believe a dialogue between Islam and the West has become more urgent in the new millennium. For example following the 2005 Cartoon Wars, the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conferences, and the European Union used a joint statement to condemn violent protests and call for respect toward religious traditions. They pled for an exchange of ideas rather than blows: We urge everyone to resist provocation, overreaction and violence, and turn to dialogue. Without dialogue, we cannot hope to appeal to reason, to heal resentment, or to overcome mistrust. Globalization disperses people and ideas throughout the world; it brings families individuals with different beliefs into close contact. Today, more than any period in history, religious di- versity characterizes daily life in many communities. Proponents of interfaith dialogue claim that, in an increasingly global world, interfaith dialogue can facilitate mutual understanding, respect for other religions, and, thus, the peaceful coexistence of people of different faiths. One key factor for the success of the interfaith dialogue is religious leaders’ ability to provide an inclusive interfaith theology in order to reconcile their commitment to their own faith with the reality of religious diversity in their communities. I argue that prominent leaders of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are already offering separate but overlapping theologies to legitimize interfaith dialogue. A balanced analysis of multi-faith interactions is overdue in political science. The discipline characterises religious interactions solely from the perspective of schism and exclusion. The literature asserts that interactions among believers of different faiths will breed conflict, in- cluding terrorism, civil wars, interstate wars, and global wars. According to this conven- tional depiction, interfaith cooperation is especially challenging to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam due to their monotheism; each claims it is “the one true path”. The so-called “monothe- istic exclusion” refers to an all-or-nothing theological view: you are a believer or you are an infidel. Judaism identifies the chosen people, while outsiders are gentiles; Christians believe that no salvation is possible outside of Jesus; Islam seems to call for a perennial jihad against non-Muslims. Each faith would claim ‘religious other’ is a stranger to God. Political “us versus them” thinking evolves from this “believer versus infidel” worldview. This mindset, in turn, initiates the blaming, dehumanizing, and demonization of the believers of other reli- gious traditions. Eventually, it leads to inter-religious violence and conflict. Disputing this grim characterization of religious interactions, scholars of religion offer a tripartite typology of religious attitude towards the ‘religious other.’ They are: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. Exclusivism suggests a binary opposition of religious claims: one is truth, the other is falsehood. In this dichotomy, salvation requires affirmation of truths of one’s particular religion. Inclusivism integrates other religious traditions with one’s own. In this integration, one’s own religion represents the complete and pure, while other religions represent the incomplete, the corrupted, or both. Pluralism accepts that no religious tradi- tion has a privileged access to religious truth, and all religions are potentially equally valid paths. This paper examines the theology of interfaith dialogue (or interfaith theology) in the Abrahamic religions by means of analyzing the works of three prominent religious lead- ers, a Rabbi, a Pope, and a Muslim scholar. First, Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth, offers a framework for the dialogue of civilizations in his book Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations. Rather than mere tolerance and multiculturalism, he advocates what he calls the dignity of difference—an active engagement to value and cherish cultural and religious differences. Second, Pope John Paul II’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope argues that holiness and truth might exist in other religions because the Holy Spirit works beyond the for- mal boundaries of Church. Third, the Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen’s Advocate of Dialogue describes a Muslim approach to interfaith dialogue based on the Muslim belief in prophecy and revelation. I analyze the interfaith theologies of these religious leaders in five sections: First, I explore variations on the definition of ‘interfaith dialogue’ in their works. Second, I examine the structural and strategic reasons for the emergence and development of the interfaith theologies. Third, I respond to four common doubts about the possibility and utility of interfaith di- alogue and theologies. Fourth, I use John Rawls’ overlapping consensus approach to develop a framework with which to analyze religious leaders’ support for interfaith dialogue. Fifth, I discuss the religious rationales of each religious leader as it relates to interfaith dialogue.

The 20th century witnessed changes which altered radically the world hitherto functioning in the same way for centuries. The pluralist global culture is characterized by rapid and unpredictable changeability involving continuous challenging of traditional values. Architecture is no exception to this rule, including religious architecture, which best reflects the spirituality of its time. Revaluation which took place in the last century resulted in the need of a new interpretation of the concepts of the sacred and the profane, as they have lost their clarity and significance. In consequence of the conflict between the dogmatic understanding of stability on the one hand and the modern culture, science, thought and world interpretation as well as the pace and style of living on the other, the need has emerged to build new places of cult that embrace the Zeitgeist of today – stripped of almost all ideology, visually modest, devoid in their décor of intense expression or a large number of stimuli. There are also temples which invite into the same space people of different religions as well as people who are seeking faith or are doubtful, places focused on catering for spiritual or contemplation needs, but also offering intellectual rest.