Friday, February 28, 2014
"I am a social and cultural historian with special research interests in the social and cultural history of religion and secularisation, the social history of modern humanism, and the history of community ritual, all in the post 1750 period and more especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. I look most closely at Scotland and Britain, but also increasingly at Canada, USA and Ireland. I also have special interests in historical theory (postmodernism), personal testimony (using oral history and autobiography), in quantitative methods, and in the cultural history of Britain in the twentieth century (with special focus on the 1960s). I research, publish and teach in most of these areas and methods."
Here is a video presentation of the same lecture he gave at our conference: HOW DO PEOPLE LOSE RELIGION?
Professor Callum Brown - How Do People Lose... by chrisworfolkfoundation
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Here is a sharing from Mary Aktay, Communications Director of the Xaverian Missionaries USA.
Carol Sorce, with whom I am honored to have been friends for forty years, introduced me to Marty Alboum, history lecturer at Rutgers and Bergen Community College and VP of the Humanists of North Jersey. Carol thought Marty and their organization might like to hear about my recent experience in the outreach of a religious community to the secular community. She began our conversation by having me describe my “spiritual identity” to Marty. I answered, “I’m a Jewish Muslim Christian Humanist,” in homage to my family background and my devotion to inclusivity and equality and the advancement of humankind. Marty told me of his participation in “Partners in Torah” with a rabbi despite his non-faith and humanist affiliation. I thought to myself that that sums up precisely what the Xaverian Missionaries were trying to achieve by their outreach to the humanist community, a ”partnership” in working for a better world.
I then explained who the Xaverian Missionaries are (how they were started, their specific efforts, etc.) and spoke of the recent Common Ground Conference: A Conversation among Religious Believers and Humanists on Values and Ethics. Marty wondered why a “conversation” was needed. “If the two communities wanted to work together on a concrete goal, like serving in a soup kitchen, why not just do it?” I explained that the conference was a “first step:” an initial outreach in which the religious community had an opportunity to “listen” to the secular community in a cooperative rather than adversarial atmosphere. Carol thought that secular community needed to hear that given the history of derision and inequality; and the emphasis on “values and ethics” would serve to focus attention away from doctrine and dogma on to shared vision.
The conversation then centered on the need for defining vocabulary and terms before dialogue could even begin. I remarked how some humanists in Scotland did not want to use the word “faith” even for “faith in humanity” because they said they didn't have it in humanity either, given the state the world is in. Carol and Marty agreed that “faith” was used for what was not experiential or verifiable. They could however have “hope” that things would get better based upon human capacity for change and improvement.
I recounted the conference speakers’ presentations noting that they first told of their own individual experiences (religious and non-religious) and then ‘dialogued ‘ with each other on shared values and vision. I reported on Callum Brown’s statistical findings on the decline of religious belief and the rise of the non-affiliated noting that the majority of the latter still identified a ‘spiritual’ in some way. This led to a discussion of the individual interpretation of “spiritual” and its emotional underpinnings, to cultural attachments and then to the latest discoveries in Quantum Physics in the areas of String and Membrane Theories as unifying humanity and indeed the entire universe on a sub-atomic level.
I then asked about the difference between “belief” and “faith.” Marty responded that based upon his historical research of James Buchanan, Marty “believed” Mr. Buchanan to be one of America’s worst presidents. Marty’s belief was based on the facts as he understood them. If someone showed him otherwise, he might change his “belief.” Faith, in the other hand, was an acceptance of something as true and/or fact without any empirical evidence.
I asked my friends about the possibly of “continuing the conversation” on this side of the pond in the near future and asked if they would be interested in helping with the planning as it would be ideal to have humanist input from the “get-go.” They responded in the affirmative. Marty confirmed Carol’s suggestion that I speak at a NJ Humanist meeting on the ‘who, what, when, how and why’ of the Common Ground Conference. Saturday, March 8th was chosen as the date.
With all the divisions in this world, notably, but not confined to, the religious right in disparaging all those who do not share their rather limited perspective (apologies for sounded pejorative, but this is my perception) it is imperative that people of like minds and hearts, if not beliefs or non-beliefs, increase their dialogue and cooperation. Conferences are great for this, but diners are wonderful as well!
Mary Aktay 12/19/2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
|Sr. Isabel Smyth, Rory Fenton and Chris Stedman on the Scottish Parliament panel discussion|
Sister Isabel Smyth is the founding CEO of the Scottish Interfaith Council, the Scottish Catholic Bishops Associate Secretary for Interfaith Relations and an honorary lecturer in the Centre for Interfaith Studies, Glasgow University.
The dialogue held at the Conforti Institute in Coatbridge in early November was, therefore, a very welcome contribution to a dialogue that is becoming increasingly important and an initiative which will spawn other such dialogues in Scotland. The weekend was refreshing, informative, challenging and encouraging and I offer the following reflection on what spoke to me over the weekend.
The keynote address at the beginning of the conference was given by Chris Stedman, the humanist chaplain at Harvard University. Chris describes himself as an atheist, a humanist and a secularist but one who is totally committed to interfaith dialogue. Chris has two degrees in religion, done a course in spiritual direction at the Jesuit Centre of Pastoral Studies, Loyola University and worked with the U.S. Interfaith Youth Core. Here was someone quite different from well known atheists such as Richard Dawkins who was not out to get rid of religion but respected it, wanted to dialogue with it and was even interested in it. I suggested to Chris that he might even have a religious personality and he agreed with this though his religious stance is to reject any belief in a transcendent supreme being.
Another presentation was a bit more sobering. This was by Professor Calum Brown of Glasgow University who shared his research on ‘leavers’ of religion. His oral history stories suggested that many of the subjects of his research had given up religion because of a bad experience they had had when they were quite young (between 7 years and 9) or because they had not felt that their homosexuality had been accepted. Leaving religion for them had been liberating and honest. It reminded me of Aloysius Pieris, a Sri Lankan theologian, who said that all religions had liberating and oppressive aspects to them. It was obvious that the ‘leavers’ had experienced only the oppressive aspects and had no insight into the liberating aspects that I presume those who remain in religion have experienced. This is shameful for those of us who are religious. Much of the tensions between religious and non- religious people is caused by religions being dogmatic and rejecting of people who felt they couldn’t fit in and some of this feeling had begun at an early age which also shows the importance of good religious education at the primary stage. An interesting statistic in Prof. Brown’s research showed a significant decline in religious affiliation in the 1960s. And this was universal in the western world. The reason was attributed to the self-realisation of women at the time – another lesson for religion.
There was a lot said about identity over the weekend with just the suggestion that religious identity was rather monolithic while people who were non-religious could be described as humanist, atheist, and secular depending on the context. But of course religious identity is also complex. Before the unfathomable Mystery of God I certainly could describe myself as agnostic, when it comes to desiring human flourishing I could describe myself as humanist and when it comes to living in a secular world which gives freedom to all religious and philosophical beliefs I could call myself secular. We all need to know who we are and a strong identity is necessary for dialogue but it is important to have an open identity which recognises the wisdom and insights of others. This I would think is essential to any serious dialogue as the opposite, a closed identity does just what it says closes people off from dialogue and sets up barriers.
To understand one another means to learn the other’s language. It is so easy for religious language to be rejected as meaningless whereas sometimes if we just scratched beneath the surface the language would reveal a human reality which all might agree on. An example of this was a participant suggesting that the language of call, used by another participant, meant nothing to her and yet as a psychiatrist she must have felt some attraction to leaving one profession to follow another – perhaps not such a different reality.
These thought are just one window into the discussions and dialogue of the weekend. These moved the dialogue on. Just as 9/11 moved inter-religious dialogue on from asking why to how so this initiative has set the scene for a conversation which will take for granted that our common humanity and common citizenship, our common concern for the future of our world, our nation and our society require a dialogue between religious and non-religious people. Now we can ask how we are going to further and develop this.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Last month, I attended an event organised by Xaverian Missionaries in the US and UK. The event was titled “A Conversation Between Religious Believers and Humanists on Values and Ethics”.
I must admit to be being very sceptical about the idea of being involved in ‘interfaith’ dialogue. As an atheist I do not identify myself as holding a ‘faith’ position. I was therefore very wary about the whole idea.
I sensed some slight trepidation on the part of the hosts, there were a few emails exchanged, and a phone call, during which it was made clear the the event was not going to be a confrontational debate, but looking at notes of agreement between theists and atheists. I assured the organisers that I was capable of, if not agreement, then civility perhaps.
The event was held in the Conforti Institute in Coatbridge. Upon arrival I was greeted by a man called Hugh, a very pleasant and helpful guy, who seemed genuinely glad to see me. I was, after a quick registration, ushered into a large lounge where I met Rory Fenton of the British Humanist Association.
Shortly after we were shown into a large dining room for dinner. There were no placements, and no attempt by our hosts to engineer the seating arrangement so as to ensure a balance. This struck me as odd, and slightly off-putting. However, after a few minutes of introductions at the table, I felt very at ease. At my table were Rory Fenton (Vice-president of British Humanist Association & President of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist & Secular Student societies in the UK), Prerna Abbi (Interfaith Youth Corps), Chris Stedman (Assistant Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University), John Catt (Treasurer of Leicester Secular Society & member of BHA) & Mary Atkay (St. Francis Xavier Mission Society). We had a lovely dinner, and despite our table being heavily weighted to the non-religious, Mary was charming and seemed genuinely interested to hear about all of our opinions.
I also noticed many people whom I recognised, in particular Rev Sally Fulton-Foster (Convener of the Church of Scotland’s Church and Society Council), Prof. Callum Brown (Glasgow University) and a few others.
The residential nature of the conference fostered a very informal and friendly environment, with individuals from various religious institutions, academics, secularists and humanists mixing freely.
I struggled at first to find the point of the conference, sure it was nice to chat with people of different groups and different opinions, but I tend to do that anyway – despite what people think. I was not really sure why I was there.
It was during a conversation with Fr. John Silavon that I realised how much we had in common (hence the title of the conference). I was able to laugh and joke with John, and share my thoughts quite openly. I could see that John was certainly not motivated by anything other than care and compassion, something which he gets from his faith. Whilst I’ll always struggle to understand why this care and compassion needs a metaphysical connotation, I realised that it would simply not be a good use of time and resources to argue about it.
During some discussions, I was keen to point out that whilst religious people and non-religious people share many common values, justice, compassion and love – we may differ on how best to enact these values.
Many of the religious people at the conference seemed to have a genuine belief that the term ‘religious privilege’ is simply another way of atheists asserting their disgust at religion. I saw it as a good opportunity to explain that when atheists talk of ‘religious privilege’, they are actually talking about things like anti-atheist employment discrimination in denominational schools, unelected religious education representatives and lack of sex education in Catholic schools – not trying in any way to undermine any persons own faith.
I was very keen to hear the other side of course, I find it strange to understand how anyone (religious or not) could not agree with the secular agenda. What I heard was a lot of fear and worry. The religious people that I spoke to all said that they felt persecuted and as though their most important belief was being attacked. Whilst I still don’t agree, I could see that these people were genuine. I still think about that a lot, and I think it will help to guide my campaigning in the future – I don’t want to scare people, nor make them feel scared to be religious.
This is the difficult dichotomy of interfaith dialogue. As secular humanists, we must not waiver from our responsibility to expose injustice and collusion, yet at the same time, seek to promote a positive and friendly dialogue of compassion and understanding. This is possible, in my opinion, however it takes a great deal of work and commitment to continue the dialogue, even if we hear things that make us uncomfortable, in fact – especially if we hear those things!
There were many issues on which all of the delegates agreed, was the need to promote and engage more people in politics and public discourse.
So, all-in-all I must admit that I was convinced by my experiences at that conference, that atheists, humanists & secularists do have a place in this interfaith dialogue. Chris Stedman, an openly gay atheist humanist chaplain at Harvard was selected as the ambassador for the conference (an achievement in itself).
He argues 5 reasons why humanists should engage in interfaith work:
1) humanists are outnumbered, 2) they want to end extremism and oppression, 3) they want to overcome negative stereotypes and discrimination against non-believers, 4) they can learn from interfaith groups, and 5) such dialogue is consistent with their humanist values (from article by Brian Pellot).
So, I am delighted that in my role as Education Officer with the Humanist Society Scotland, I will be working to organise an interfaith conference in the New Year, on the theme of education. This event will seek to bring together partners from government, statutory and voluntary sectors, a range of skeptics, atheists, humanists and secularists from across Scotland, as well as a range of religious people.
Also, as a result of the conference, I have been asked by The Scottish Parliament to contribute to the ‘Time for Reflection’ slot at the opening of Parliament (a welcome alternative to the UK Parliament’s practise of Christian only prayers).
I’d like to take this opportunity again to thank the organisers. Attending the conference did not change any of my fundamental beliefs, it did make me consider how best I strive to meet them.
Friday, December 6, 2013
|Most of the participants in the Scottish House of Parliament|
The French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas delivered a speech in 1947 entitled: “Beyond Dialogue.” At that time he felt that the term dialogue between persons of different faiths and convictions had become a compromised idea, akin to a feel-good word used by estranged groups that had no real intention of understanding one another. In 1947 Levinas was thinking about exchanges between Jews and Christians. However I think Levinas’ thinking applies well to the tradition of interfaith and intercultural dialogue, not only between persons of different faiths, but in our day with those who consider themselves humanists, atheists, and agnostic. He says when estranged groups go beyond superficial dialogue, their rivalrous relationship dissolves. Even more: true dialogue reveals what the rivalry covers up, a state of mutual need and responsibility. For him, authentic dialogue partners relate as healers of each other’s hurts and inadequacies. But fear and ignorance of each other makes us resist such vulnerability. The solution is simple: take the risk.
What We Tried to Do
The Xaverian Missionaries of the USA and the United Kingdom joined together with a dream project in mind: creating a safe and deferential space where religious believers and humanists could come together in friendship, dialogue respectfully with each other, listen and share in order to find some common ground and solidarity. We hoped it to be an opportunity for those who participated to bring this spirit of dialogue back to their own organizations, churches and mosques in order to find ways to do good together. Audaciously we hoped that people of all faiths and convictions could find common ground in our residence on this planet cherishing the values of justice, compassion, reconciliation and more. Going even further, the hope of this dialogue project was indeed to expose our need for each other, and our responsibility to each other. Perhaps too our own convictions and beliefs could be enriched and deepened, with an expanded view of humanity and the good we are called to do.
Why We Tried to Do This
Our commitment as Catholics to share our lives and the faith that we so deeply hold is done in dialogue in a
The second aspect that is important to keep in mind is that these exchanges and dialogues must focus on grassroots communities and not only among leaders of faiths and humanist organizations. If we are to have an impact on the culture we live, our exchanges must “involve the whole people of God.” In this sense it is important for ordinary Catholics in the pews to understand how we live our faith in communities where not all share the same faith or convictions, live in solidarity with peoples who do not reflect our own faith tradition, and pass on our faith to our younger generation in this challenging environment. In a true sense, the younger generation needs help to navigate this pluralistic world through the eyes of their faith. It requires a great patience and wisdom, openness of heart, and an informed sense of our Catholic and Christian tradition, as well as a healthy sense of apostolic daring. Fundamentally, the impact of our faith in the cultures we live must be characterized by our desire to avoid “our sacral and secular isolation “from one another.
Our Communities are Both Religious and Secular
The place of religion in our societies has changed profoundly in the last few centuries. What these changes mean--of what, precisely, happens when a society in which it is virtually impossible not to believe in God becomes one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is only one human possibility among others. Charles Taylor, Canadian philosopher, in his book, A Secular Age, examines the development in "Western Christendom" of those aspects of modernity which we call secular. What he describes is in fact not a single, continuous transformation, but a series of new departures, in which earlier forms of religious life have been dissolved or destabilized and new ones have been created. As we see here, today's secular world is characterized not by an absence of religion--although in some societies’ religious belief and practice have markedly declined--but rather by the continuing multiplication of new options, religious, spiritual, and anti-religious, which individuals and groups seize on in order to make sense of their lives and give shape to their spiritual aspirations.
Fr. Schreiter adds that this has resulted in a discussion of a “post-secular” society. The term has come to have many meanings. In all instances, however, it does not mean that secularization is going to disappear. In fact, even thoughtful religionists would not want a number of very positive dimensions of secularity to go away, such as the emphasis on human rights, democracy, and an array of freedoms for the individual and for groups. What is most often meant by “post-secularity” is that religion will come to take its place in some manner alongside secularity. It will most likely not be the institutional presence that it held previously. There is recognition that, in many ways, secularity is a product of Christianity itself, and therefore as “relatives” the two need to find a way to live together.
The Impact of this Dialogue on our Churches and Organizations
One of the remarks that surfaced consistently in our Common Ground conference among humanists and
It seems that the concerns of the Catholic Church’s participation in this dialogue are little understood by Catholics, particularly among some bishops and clergy and those pastoral agents that work more closely with parishioners. Using the image of breathing in and out, this dialogue reaches out to our humanist and atheists brothers and sisters and the fruits of this dialogue are brought back into our churches and organizations where the very faith and human convictions we all represent become reasons to work together. The goal of this dialogue is inspire more people to be involved and create ever new opportunities of exchange and collaborative service, a proliferation of dialogue is what is required to break down the walls of intolerance and the lack of understanding between us.
The Pontifical Council for Culture of the Roman Catholic Church created a program, already underway in parts of Europe called Courtyard of the Gentiles through the direction of Benedict XVI. Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Council says this: "We wish to broach a dialogue, maintaining ourselves sturdy in our territories, but respecting the identities. It is the place to search for common itineraries, without shortcuts or distractions or disturbances, in which listening becomes fundamental in spite of the differences.” For Catholics, we have far to go and much to do to allow this concern of the Church to be internalized in the plans of the new evangelization in each and every diocese, particularly in Europe and the United States.
Where to From Here
The Xaverian Missionaries of the USA hope to hold a similar dialogue gathering somewhere in the United States in collaboration with the American Humanist Association and their local affiliations, as well as the broad spectrum of religious traditions that make our country so rich culturally. We are also charged with the publication of an e-journal that helps us share the fruits of our Common Ground conference with the hopes of encouraging more of these types of opportunities. We hope to have it published by the end of February 2014.
One of the first lasting impressions of this conference was this special gathering itself and the enthusiasm and hopeful expectation that all of the participants brought from their own life convictions and faith traditions. It was thought important that we are in this conversation in the first place. Each of the talks of our esteemed speakers from Scotland and the United States centered on why they thought we need to be having these kinds of discussions. This conviction was echoed in the dialogues of the participants throughout the weekend. Many felt it important to assuage the problems of misunderstanding that exist between us. Humanists and religionists use different languages to talk about the same things. We all have some universal concerns for the quality of life of humanity and the planet we all inhabit together but we are still convincing ourselves that we are all allies in these concerns. This dialogue should allow us to learn how to speak a new language together about the deep human solidarity that all of our convictions are propelling us toward.
Humanists at our conference were concerned about the overall religious influence in public policy that affects the lives of non-religious people. Catholics and humanists agree that there needs to be a separation of religious beliefs from politics, but this does not mean that religious faith has no place in the public sphere. Catholics, for example, find it important that the values of our faith are reflected in some way in public policy. Many humanists do not agree with this. At the same time, Catholics may feel contemporary politics interferes with the religious convictions of its citizens on occasion, raising the importance of religious freedom. The opposite is also true.
We Catholics and religious believers in general, must come to terms with the positive values of secularity that we all esteem and where we can find that delicate balance of honoring our pluralistic society and the freedom that both religious and humanists enjoy in a free democratic society. Secularism is the principle for the organization of a diverse, open society where people follow different religious and non-religious ways of life. It requires that the institutions we share (and jointly pay for in our taxes) should provide a neutral public square where we can all meet on equal terms. Both religious and non-religious voices need to be heard and heeded.
The purpose of this dialogue is not persuasion or conversion. Rather, it is an exercise in love and respect in order to create mutual understanding as a means toward collaborative service to our local communities and the world at large. Quoting the Interfaith Youth Corp in Chicago, “It is always better together.” Dialogue here is not merely a conversation about what we believe and do not believe, it is concerned first and foremost for the search of common ground by which humanists and religious believers can act with justice and compassion in a world often torn by indifference, xenophobia and intolerance. In this instance, respect is not ordered to the beliefs each one of us has, but to the persons themselves, no matter what they believe. So dialogue between religious and non-religious people is all about behavior, not about our feelings about what we believe. It leads us to understand that amidst all of our differences we have important common convictions. This common ground is the basis by which we renew and strengthen the solidarity of humanity.
To achieve this we cannot by naive about how this dialogue must occur if we are to take the words of the Holy Father seriously. It implies that in dialogue we find that all beliefs may not be acceptable, even if understood. Similarly, respect for other convictions and beliefs do not mean refraining from criticism. Rather, it means taking them seriously – and if I take something seriously, I engage it critically. The work of this dialogue and its promised fruits implies some type of critical engagement. It is an important sign of how much we esteem each other and to what lengths we are willing to go to unearth solidarity, despite our differences. ►
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE ARTICLE ONLINE HERE
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT AND ADD TO THE DIALOGUE
Monday, November 25, 2013
Jeremy Rodell is Chair of South West London Humanists and sits on two local interfaith forums as
This was a bold initiative by the Xaverian Missionaries to find “Common Ground” across one of the most important fault-lines of western society, especially here in the UK. I did not need convincing of the value interfaith dialogue involving humanists – I was already involved in it. But I left the conference convinced both that more could be done and that what we’re doing today could be done better.
The conference itself was, of course, an example of dialogue in action. I had never met a missionary before and, if I’d thought about it at all, would probably have come up with the caricature of a Bible-bashing neo-colonialist. What I found were thoughtful people who had made major practical contributions to the lives of people in the countries where they’d lived – in one case helping to end a devastating civil war. That doesn’t make me more comfortable about Christian proselytization, but it certainly provides a more nuanced perspective. Equally, I don’t think many of the religious people present had met a humanist before. There were a lot of fascinating and enlightening conversations.
My main “takeaway” was that, at its core, this is all about human relationships. If people from different backgrounds know each other and have listened carefully enough to understand where the other person is coming from - and perhaps have worked together for a common cause - then it becomes almost impossible to demonise “The Other”. That doesn’t mean they will agree on everything. What Chris Stedman referred to as “Kumbaya” interfaith, where everyone loves one another and genuine differences are suppressed, has limited potential. But we were able to demonstrate at the end of the conference that, once trust has been established, it is possible to articulate conflicting views on controversial issues while maintaining mutual respect.
However, we shouldn’t be naïve. There are people within almost all religion and belief communities who have no interest in dialogue – they know they’re right and at best want either to isolate themselves, or to argue, and at worst to impose their views by force. They’re just not interested in listening and understanding people they consider to be “the enemy”. On the other hand, there are people in these same communities who understand that we live in a plural world in which mutual understanding is essential for peace, and where it is often possible to find common ground with those with whom we disagree. We learned from Chris Stedman that Eboo Patel, the US-based founder of the Inter Faith Youth Corps, refers to the divide between these two types of people as the “Faith Line”.
Those who organise and turn up to a conference on dialogue between believers and the non-religious are, by definition, on the liberal side of the Faith Line. But the fact that we don’t directly reach the hard liners doesn’t invalidate the exercise. They can only be reached, or perhaps faced down, by more open-minded people from their own belief backgrounds – people on “our side” of the line. It is by dialogue that we can all become better informed and feel better supported in advocating the interfaith approach within our own communities.
So what does that mean in practice?
Firstly, we need to get past some of the issues of language. Humanists don’t really like the term “interfaith”, or “interfaith dialogue”, which sound excluding, as Humanism isn’t a faith. But we need a term for dialogue between people with differing religious and non-religious beliefs, and “interfaith” is very widely used. Humanists should not be afraid to use it too. But we need the help of religious people to ensure that it’s understood to cover “faith and belief” not just religion.
More significantly, the conference demonstrated a misunderstanding over the meaning of “secularism”. I understand it to mean a level playing field, in which people are free to follow their religious and non-religious beliefs and practices – provided they do not erode the freedom and rights of others – with no particular group or organisation having privileges over others. In a secular society, freedom of religion and belief is protected. Like most humanists, I think that’s a good idea. Unfortunately, too often the term has been used to mean “anti-religious”, not helped by the fact that there are some atheists who, as well as advocating secularism, would also like to see the end of religion. The result was that many of our religious colleagues at the conference thought that, when humanists say we want a secular society, we mean one in which there is no religion. It was something of an “ah-ha” moment when everyone realised that was not the case.
Secondly, “doing interfaith” needs to be more than sitting on a committee, useful though that may be. It needs to involve more people from different backgrounds getting to know each other, maybe in informal settings, through social media or – ideally - through shared community activity. That doesn’t necessarily mean creating a new organisation or activity, but rather finding something that is fun, stimulating and has a doable objective.
At the risk of gender stereotyping, it’s useful to be aware that men and women may come at interfaith, and especially the involvement of the non-religious, from different angles. Callum Brown’s academic analysis suggests that changes in women’s lives have been the main driver of the significant move away from religion in the UK since the 1960s. But he says that arguments about science and rationality have not played the key role here – “community” factors have been much more important. The implication for interfaith work is that the more cerebral type of interfaith dialogue about ideas may, on average, be more appealing to men than women, who may be more attracted by practical community activity. Both have a role to play.
Coming from the south of England, it was interesting to find that Scotland – which is probably less religiously diverse than London – seems to be way ahead in terms of official recognition of the importance of interfaith dialogue and inclusion of the non-religious, as well as providing practical help on how to make it work. “Belief in Dialogue” is an official publication by The Scottish Government providing a “good practice guide to religion and belief relations in Scotland”. Its introduction is written by Sister Isabel Smyth, Chair of the Scottish Working Group on Religion and Belief Relations, who was among the conference attendees. In it she links the need for dialogue back to the values of wisdom, justice, integrity and compassion which we saw inscribed on the Scottish Mace when the conference visited the Parliament in Edinburgh. These are shared human values – no humanist would disagree with them. “Belief in Dialogue” is clear about the involvement of the non-religious: “The need to recognise the equal legitimacy of every community to exist in Scotland is enshrined as a human right, and by this we need to think about community in the broadest sense of the word. While most religious communities have established formal structures, non-religious communities and groups have considerably fewer formal structures but still need to be seen as communities in the sense that those who advocate such beliefs are bound by the beliefs they share.” It goes on to provide practical ways of building interfaith relationships which anyone can use. You can download it free from The Scottish Government website. The rest of us would do well to steal its thinking.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
|Isabel Smythe of the Committee for Interreligious Dialogue, Rory Fenton of the British Humanist Association, and Chris Stedman of the Yale and Harvard Humanist communities discuss shared values and ethics at Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on Nov. 9, 2013. Photo by Brian Pellot|
On November 8-10, 2013 the Xaverian Missionaries organized a conference of dialogue among peoples of different faiths and humanists/atheists at our conference center, Conforti Institute in Coatbridge, Scotland. The conference was entitled: COMMON GROUND: A CONVERSATION AMONG RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS AND HUMANISTS ON ETHICS AND VALUES. We are grateful to Brian Pellot of Religious News Services for his work on reporting the event. Video-casts will be available soon here on some interviews Mr. Pellot had during the course of the conference.