Religious peace - CReality

Direkt zum Seiteninhalt


Religious peace

Religious Order

Without religious peace no world peace - without world peace no religious peace (Hans Küng)

[deutscher Text hier...]

Theses on the current problems

1. Religions and their adherents can be both peace-building and violent.
2. Religions represent both universal and particularistic truths - and both are not always free of contradictions.
3. Religious or secular beliefs often oscillate between the poles of personal autonomy (self-determination) and collective heteronomy (determination through others).

Ideas for possible solutions
- For a stronger commitment of religions to world peace
- For worldwide freedom of religion and belief as a foundation and component of world peace
- For a lasting, self-critical and reconciliation-centered dialogue between the religions

- For a representative and strong World Coun-cil of Religions

- For an increased involvement of religions as a resource in dealing with conflicts

Depending on the religious tradition, involvement and commitment to a shared ethic of reconciliation varies greatly (cf. Philpott 2012:21). Before a concrete reconciliation process begins, it is very difficult to assess how broad and how extensive the agreement reached will be. In addition, a great deal depends on the individuals and subgroups of the faith traditions involved in the process.
In the scriptures of many religions - including Judaism, Christianity and Islam - there is no fully embraced ethic of political reconciliation, as Philpott (2012:21) rightly notes. He therefore calls for a further development of the traditional positions in the individual religions. In this context, an ethic of reconciliation is partly confronted with strong internal opposition. Philpott (2012:21f.) speaks in this context of a "rooted reasoning", which consists of starting with an idea set of one's own tradition and expressing it in another tradition, i.e., translating this idea set into another tradition. One could also use the concept of "key concepts" or "bridge concepts" in this context. Through such bridging terms, two traditions can enter into a mutual resonance and find an overarching or "expanded consensus" (Philpott 2012:21) or horizon.
Focusing on the Shoah against the Jewish population, Hazam (2015:33) has noted that experienced genocide was an expression of absolute evil and completely at odds with any notion of overarching morality and context-bound rationality. Such a harrowing, fundamentally traumatic experience as the extermination camps and collective persecution by the Nazis threatens any prospect of global reconciliation and peace to this day. And unfortunately, such collective genocidal experiences have occurred elsewhere as well, for example under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or in the persecution of dissenters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Every effort must be made to overcome such collective traumatic experiences - and this cannot be done with mutual accusations or attributions, but only with self-critical, but empathetic and loving reappraisal of history.


Cited Literature
Hazam, Haim
2015:  Globalization versus Holocaust. An Anthropological Conundrum. In: Goldberg, Amos / Hazan, Haim (Hrsg.): Marking Evil. Holocaust Memory in the Global Age. New York / Oxford: Berghahn. 30ff.

- Philpott, Daniel
2012:  Just and Unjust Peace. An Ethic of Political Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zurück zum Seiteninhalt | Zurück zum Hauptmenü