Do interfaith dialogues actually work?

Zakariya Dehlawi -

Asking whether “interfaith dialogues actually work” is kind of a foolish question. Interfaith dialogue itself is an open definition. Heck, what does “work” mean in this context? Regardless of definition games, I think it’s extremely important.

First off, interfaith dialogue covers a wide range of activities. I consider Muslims and Christians volunteering together at a soup kitchen interfaith dialogue, as much as sitting at meeting tables and discussing the similarities between their religions. It isn’t constrained to formal activities — my random conversations with lab partners also count.

First, we need to be clear on the intention of the dialogue. If both sides have the idea that their purpose is to convert the other, you’re not going to get very far. You end up with two parties that are convinced they’re right, which isn’t conducive to conversation, or even conversion for that matter. I think it’s rather rare that you can persuade someone to convert based on your brilliant and analytical arguments. Only God chooses whom to guide.

When interfaith dialogues are a tool for conversion, they don’t work, but I don’t believe that’s their purpose. Interfaith dialogue should be used to dispel misconceptions and more importantly, generate understanding among people. The intention of an interfaith dialogue should be to seek an understanding of another’s beliefs. Once you know what someone holds dear, the better to empathize and respect it.

We should remember that dialogue is a two-way street. If someone is not open to understanding, or even is hostile to the other, than there really is no point. The Quran addresses this type of situation by saying, “You shall have your religion, and I shall have my religion” (Chapter 109, verse 6).

Provided the purpose of dialogue is for mutual understanding, the question to whether interfaith dialogue actually works, I can offer an emphatic “yes.” I personally have witnessed people transform their opinions and drop stereotypes through the most innocuous of activities. The wife of a friend of mine is from Iraq, and she had never met a Jewish person. She was actually intimidated by the idea. But after a single positive interaction, she realized she had nothing to fear.

I have a lot of experience with interfaith activities, and I find them to be extremely rewarding. Some of my earliest work was with “Together We Build,” an interfaith coalition that builds houses for Habitat for Humanity. There’s nothing like building scaffolding with someone to get to know them better.

I think everyone should get involved in interfaith dialogue, even nonreligious types. It really is a broadening experience, personally as well as for the other person. And isn’t that why we’re at college, to expand our minds and broaden ourselves (and make loads of fat cash upon graduation)? It’s especially important for Muslims to be involved, because face it — we have a lot of stereotypes to dispel.

There are many opportunities out there for interfaith work. On campus, the Muslim Students Association would be happy to talk about cooperative activities. We already have done work with Hillel, and are open to more ideas and organizations.

One of my best experiences was as a faith leader for the annual Puget Sound Interfaith Youth Camp. It’s a truly multi-faith experience, with more than just the Abrahamic religions. Kids really learn the value of respect and understanding. The camp is looking for counselors. If you’re interested, or know young folk who might want to be campers, look up the camp.

I like interfaith dialogue, and I think we should all do more of it, if only to progress humanity’s overall understanding of itself.

Celeste Flint -

Compassion is neat.

While I don’t disagree, I don’t think a serial killer awaiting his execution would, either.

Last week during the Seeds of Compassion conference, the Dalai Lama’s presence led to an interfaith dialogue that discussed the value of compassion and tried to define it.

While some religious groups may find these dialogues encouraging, they’re based on a complete misunderstanding of religion.

Interfaith conversations shouldn’t be able to work, because each faith comes with an entirely different worldview and frame of reference.

For example, in a dialogue about suffering, some declare it’s the ultimate problem of the world, while others say we should let karma be.

Yet many people found the recent Seeds of Compassion engagement a success.

Aside from the Dalai Lama, the only leaders on the panel I recognized have such liberal and heretical theologies that some Christians question if they’re Christians at all.

Pastor Rob Bell, whom I assume was meant to be the Protestant Christian representative, said he believes in compassion “because it’s the only way.”

Sounds hokey to me.

Christians don’t believe in compassion because it’s nice or because people deserve it. On the contrary, free compassion is incredibly unmerited, and people don’t “deserve” it.

However, Christians should be the most compassionate of all, because Jesus has given us complete forgiveness for our mistakes, offering the same to those who would believe in him.

Our gratitude should compel us to always pay compassion forward.

Seeing how Bell fluffed his way through the event, it’s not careless to assume that many participating in the dialogues have similarly watered-down beliefs. Only two things can come of this.

The first is nothing, because the participants aren’t honest about their beliefs. The second is nothing, because their beliefs are so far from universal truth or value.

Interfaith dialogues look at how certain values show up consistently in different religions. Those consistencies are then accepted as universal truths. This happened at the Seeds of Compassion event when the speakers came to the conclusion that compassion is “good.”

Christians in particular shouldn’t be able to function within interfaith dialogues because the dialogues work from the acceptance of Oneism. This means that people, the environment, society, religion, God and everything co-exist in one “circle of life.”

Instead, Christians believe in Twoism. This proposes that God is unchanging, perfect and sovereign, and therefore isn’t affected by anything. Imagine two circles, one for Jesus and one for everything else. Truth therefore isn’t what we agree on; it’s what God has already determined.

“We strive [for] looking at the other person in a spirit of holy envy,” said Dr. Ingrid Mattson, the Muslim representative of the event.

I loathe this statement, because it’s all about the good humanity hopes to do, and it has nothing to do with the goodness God has already accomplished.

Natalie Sikavi -

For the first five years of my life, a Muslim woman named Soraya lived in my home and helped my parents raise me. She is the kindest, most genuine person I have ever known, and I attribute many of my own virtues to her teaching. To this day, she still calls me dokhtaram, which, in Persian, means “my daughter.” Living with Soraya, I learned the key to interfaith dialogue — respecting other people’s beliefs. There may be qualms about people voicing their beliefs in different things, but the way I see it, the problems arise from the way people act on those differences.

One of the most famous instances of interfaith dialogue can be found in the 13th century: the Disputation of Barcelona, an event where King James I of Aragon summoned the great scholar Nachmanides and Friar Pablo Christiani to debate their faiths before a large audience. Though he was given a reward by the king for his performance, Nahmanides was forced to leave the country because of the church’s anger. Pope Clement IV sought to punish the rabbi for his defense of Judaism.

But that was nearly 800 years ago.

Today, in the United States, we are privileged to have rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I have the freedom to write about Judaism in this paper, and alongside me are two other columnists that have the right to express their beliefs as well.

Today is much different than the Spain of 1263, and I’m thankful for that. I love the opportunity to have friends of different faiths and to be exposed to different traditions. Oftentimes, I find that I have a lot in common with people who aren’t Jewish and I like discussing our similarities as well as our differences.

What I don’t agree with is the mixing of faiths to create a “new” religion. As much as I loved watching Seth Cohen for his three seasons on The O.C., the idea of “Chrismukkah” made me cringe.

Hanukkah is a Jewish holiday with a miraculous story behind it. Christmas too is sacred to Christian people. Fusing together two completely unrelated holidays simply because they fall in the same month distorts both traditions and leads to a bad kind of assimilation.

Interfaith dialogues should be about understanding and learning to accept one another. But dialogues should not be about trying to unify different people into one entity at all costs. Just as I learned from Soraya, I respect other people’s practices and so I also expect them to respect mine.