Discussion Group Report

"It is true that most conflicts that are portrayed as religious conflicts are not in essence anything of the sort. Whether between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir, Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka, Christians and Muslims in Nigeria or Indonesia,…, or between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East, these conflicts are not at all religious or theological in origin!" says Rabbi David Rosen in his article with same title as this article in the "10th Annual Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs," September 23, 2005, sponsored by the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He states these conflicts are not religious or theological in origin but are territorial conflicts in which ethnic and religious differences are exploited and manipulated.

"Why and how," he asks, "is it that religion is so easily exploited and abused?" Why is it that in many contexts of conflict in our world, religion appears more to be a part of the problem than the solution? The answer, I believe is to a great extent implicit in the aforementioned point itself--namely the socio-cultural territorial and political contexts in which religion functions."

He says that because religion seeks to give meaning and purpose to who we are, it is inextricably bound up with all the different components of human identity--family, the larger components of communities, ethnic groups, nations and peoples, to the widest components of humanity and creation as a whole. These components of human identity are the building blocks of our psycho-spiritual well-being, and we deny them at our peril. The counterculture--drug abuse, violence, etc. are a search for identity by those who have lost the traditional compasses of orientation. He points to Robert Ardrey, who opines that because religion is so bound up with identity, religion itself acquires far greater prominence in times of threat and conflict, nurturing and strengthening the identity that senses itself as threatened, in opposition to that which is perceived as threatening it. The Hebrew prophets did not, in relation to the people when in exile, challenge their lack of moral responsiveness and ethical outreach, as when the people are secure, but, rather, saw their role as to protect and enhance the identity that was under threat.

However, the character that religion assumes under such circumstances is often not just one of nurturing , but often one of self-preoccupation and even of self-righteousness, that disregards "the other," who is not perceived as part of one's identity group, and even demonizes that "other" as hostile, as "a perfect picture of malice," in the words of historian Richard Hofstadter. So it is in the Middle East. Religion does not provide a prophetic challenge to political authority, but is rather subject to it and is more part of the problem than part of the solution. Because religion is associated more with partisan insularity or hostility, peace initiatives in the Middle East tend to avoid religious institutions and their authorities, seeing them as obstacles to the peace process.

In this light, in 2002 a remarkable gathering took place in Alexandria, Egypt, bringing together the Three Faith religious communities--Jewish, Muslim, and Christian--for the first time in human history, to lend the voices of their respective traditions to an end of violence and to promote peace and reconciliation. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt sent Sheik Tantawi to host the meeting. The Chief Rabbis of Israel and the Christian Patriarchs of Jerusalem also participated. They developed a declaration that condemned the violent abuse of religion, suicidal homicides and all actions that are oppressive and destructive of human life and dignity. It also called on political leaders to eschew violence, return to the negotiating table, to recognize the importance or religion as a force of reconciliation; and it called for respect for the rights of both Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The outcome has been the establishment of a Council of the Religious Leadership Institutions of the Holy Land with the purpose of facilitating communication between religious leadership and to engage such leadership in the pursuit of peace and reconciliation. The summit also led to the establishment of centers for the religious teaching on peace and reconciliation in Gaza, Kafr Kassem and Jerusalem. This work has led to a sense that religious institutions must play an active role in conflict resolution and has increased an understanding of this necessity among political leadership as well.

"Simply stated, if we do not want religion to be part of the problem, it has to be part of the solution," says Rosen. Although humanists are skeptical of religious claims to divine inspiration, it is encouraging to see some religious leaders from widely different religious orientations actively promoting the peace process.