|
Hans Joachim Meyer
President of ZDK, Germany
One of the most prominent topics of the current international debate is the question whether a dialogue of different cultures or civilizations is possible or whether their conflict is unavoidable. As the theme of our congress correctly makes clear, the core of this question is whether different religions can meet in a dialogue or not. It is true that the character of human beings is strongly determined by the culture in which they have been brought up and in which they live. Both historical studies and intercultural comparative investigations reveal the large influence of culture on our mind and on our behaviour. Cultures, however, have their basis in religion. There is no culture or civilization in human history which could be analysed and explained without reference to their religious sources. Even if a society maintains to be non-religious or is officially related to an atheist ideology, its culture is still showing signs of religious influence upon the history of that particular nation. But is it therefore a necessary consequence to regard the difference of religions as the basic cause of cultural conflicts and of wars among nations? And are therefore the emerging multicultural societies in Europe doomed to breed dangerous tensions and clashes? Christian tradition has a twofold answer to this complex question. On the one hand, Christians recognize the interdependence of religion and culture. In fact, they emphasize the enormous impact of Christianity on national cultures, particularly in the western world, but also in Russia and in other countries of Eastern Europe as well as on certain strands of tradition in Asia Minor and the Middle East and on non-western countries such as Ethiopia. At the same time, it is Christian conviction that the teachings of Jesus Christ can and must be incarnated in different cultures and that, hence, it would be wrong to assume an identity of religion and culture. Reality shows that different cultural currents may flow from the same religious source. Catholic thinking has always been aware of the interrelationship of identity and difference as well as of continuity and change. All world religions live in history and know of the difference of place and time and its importance for human life. For the complexity of this interrelationship the religious situation in present-day Europe is a good example. On the one hand, European identity has been shaped in the course of history in a threefold way � by the heritage of Greek and Roman antiquity, by Jewish and Christian spirituality and by the ideas of enlightenment and civil liberty. On the other hand, present-day European society clearly shows a multicultural character, because in the second half of the last century ethnic and cultural minorities which profess a non-Christian religion and represent a non-European cultural tradition immigrated into many European countries. It is only fair to emphasize that this immigration was mainly the consequence of European policy. People left their home countries because these had been the object of colonization by European powers or because they had been offered better prospects of work and life in Europe. In addition, people came as victims of religious, racial and political persecution. In any case, the multicultural character of many European societies is a fact which cannot be reversed escept by force. Since this is totally out of the question, there is no other alternative than finding a peaceful way to cultural and religious coexistence by dialogue. But what could be the basis of such a dialogue and what should be its aim? The first thing we need for this dialogue is a realistic perspective. There are multicultural societies, but there is neither a multiculture nor is there any kind of general and all-embracing religion. This excludes the vision of a cultural and religious melting pot. Only people who ignore their own cultural roots and have no religious conviction can cling to such an illusion. It would be likewise na�ve to ignore the potential danger of clashes and conflicts arising from the close neighbourhood of people and communities with different religious and cultural ways of life. Therefore bridges of knowledge and understanding must be built, which requires insight and wisdom as well as patient and long-standing efforts. This is a challenge which is particularly urgent in Europe. Likewise, it is a task for which the representatives of the religious communities in Europe bear a special responsibility. Should this be a cultural dialogue or a religious dialogue? Nobody will deny the impact of cultural traditions and cultural mentality on our lives and on our personalities. But if we want to come to the roots of our differences, we must speak about our religious creeds. Basically, it is not culture which distinguishes religions, but the truth in which they believe. It is the truth of God and the consequences of this truth for human life which is the heart of any religion. Although the quest for truth is always posed in the context of a definite culture and with a particular historical background, it is a question which pertains to everybody regardless of place or time. From this follows a twofold consequence: It is the quest for the essential truth of this world which is the origin of all religions. It is the meaning of this truth on which they differ. Hence, the basis of the religious dialogue must be the common quest for truth. The realistic aim of the dialogue, however, can only be respect and understanding for the belief of the other. This does not mean to renounce the ultimate aim of the quest for truth or to deny our ability of recognizing truth. And quite certainly it does not mean to give up the truth in which people believe and which is the core of their faith. Respect and understanding for the belief of the other first and foremost means to understand the relationship between truth and freedom. Christians know from the Gospel according to St. John that it is God�s truth that makes us free. It took them a long history of bitter and bloody experience to understand that, nevertheless, any human decision to recognize and accept God�s truth must be an act of freedom. That means: This act must not be the result of physical or mental force, but should only follow from the free will of the human person. Nobody can be made free in God by human force. It is true that many people have professed and do profess their belief in God�s truth, although they are persecuted and imprisoned because of their conviction. Human determination to act according to one�s conviction can be stronger than external power used by man against man. In this case it is the strength of their belief which makes people free in their mind. But this is not an argument against the principle that everybody must be free of force and pressure when deciding on his or her conviction. Although human beings can be really free only in the splendour of God�s truth, they must have the freedom to decide for or against God�s truth. There is a freedom in society and there is a freedom in God. Without this distinction no free society with its diversity of convictions and persuasions could exist peacefully. It is this insight into the relationship between freedom and religion which, as the result of a long history, has become the cornerstone of the foundations of the European as well as of all western societies. Therefore it is the European context which may offer a good chance for a peaceful dialogue of religions. In addition, the presence of different religious communities in Europe makes this dialogue an urgent necessity and, at the same time, gives it a practical background. In a society which is politically pluralistic and culturally heterogeneous people have ample opportunity to learn the practical advantages of freedom. As studies show there is not only a growing awareness of tensions and clashes which my result from religious and cultural differences within the same society, but also an increasing readiness to engage in dialogues for promoting a knowledge of and an understanding between people with different religions. Admittedly, such dialogues can only be fruitful, if we do not aim at a superficial harmony, but are ready to face up to the reality of difference and contrast. Especially we must be aware of the danger that a liberal society and its principle of religious and philosophical plurality may persuade people to disregard the quest for truth altogether and to deny its sense and necessity. This cannot be our aim. A religious dialogue which ignores the importance of truth would be a contradiction in itself. It is for this reason that the dialogue of religions in Europe must pursue two aims: Firstly, to build bridges of informed understanding and peaceful coexistence between people and communities who have and stick to divergent religious convictions, but who have come to recognize constitutional freedom both as the right of every human being and as their common obligation for the whole society. Secondly, to defend the quest for truth as the ethical source of human life and to consider the respect for truth as the basis for any humane society.
|