Agree to Differ

[

] 150

Cultivated religious authorities and political representatives

have been and are still being called not as ‘witnesses’ but as

‘testimonials’ to this possibility, all eager to appear coherent

with a politically correct stance before the exponents of a soft

power that might be able to guide public opinion.

The instruments of that first mile have been ostensible mutual

esteem, friendship, cordiality – similar instruments to those

used by political leaders who feign non-existent affinities. It is a

journey that has been highly significant and certainly produced

effects, even political effects, in the short and medium term.

What remains, however, is the priceless resource of brotherhood.

If that resource is to remain intact, it must be said that there

has been, and still is, little discussion on the conceptual basis

underpinning these attitudes.

Rather than critically examining the categories used, they

have been applied in an emergency situation, as must be

done when intellectual energies must be rallied. This state of

necessity has been generated and exacerbated by the relent-

less spread of endless war, stretching from the foothills of

the Himalayas to Algeria and on down into Mali and Nigeria.

There were many questions that needed asking. Does

‘dialogue’ really indicate what its practitioners are seeking? Does

it have an unambiguous meaning for those who use it? What is

the foundation of coexistence and exchange in philosophical,

psychological and theological terms? Does the weight and space

of history belong to the vast realm of memory or of oblivion?

Is the term ‘interreligious’ an appropriate definition of what we

are talking about? What happens when ‘interreligious’ refers to

the life of an individual or group that has changed community?

Is it possible, or indeed wrong, that public discourse evens out

the internal differences within groups and categorizes as Hindu

or Islamic, Confucian or Christian, Sikh or Jewish the positions

of groups belonging to such complex families?

Although these issues should not have been set aside they

have been so for a very good reason. It was done to enable

more ground of the first mile to be more frequently covered

by much larger groups; to foster the commitment to friend-

ship and cooperation between peoples, cultures and faiths; to

ensure the use of tools which, though at first vague, became

increasingly familiar. All this did not, however, prevent a

small number of individuals, best described as bold, or pure,

or a combination of both, from posing crucial questions which

the majority considered to be irrelevant.

Historically speaking, this is what has enabled everyone to travel

that first mile. In a world where anyone was and is able to commit

violent acts of fundamentalist terrorism, everyone has been and is

able to commit to dialogue, peace, exchange and even forgiveness.

Yet the existence of this first mile that so many have travelled

over and over, and which many still would do well to embark

upon, does not preclude the existence of a second mile of the

encounter between religious others which remain unreconciled.

A second mile in which those issues, which were so hastily

dealt with previously, become central to a meaningful discus-

sion. One where the aim is not to thwart a threat, or exorcise

fear, or defend oneself, but to delve into one’s own heritage, to

discover what drives us to respect another’s faith or to reject

our own, or another faith, in the other.

This second mile, pointing towards exchange and pacifica-

tion, will not simply search for Kantian common principles or

for a unitary ethical foundation underlying religious experi-

ence (thus apologetically trying to demonstrate the strength

of all faiths or, even worse, their ‘utility’). Along this path each

person will find their own answer to their questions about the

other, beginning from their own spiritual heritage, and deep

understanding of its history.

There is a very common old fascist saying in Italy regarding

cultural heritage. Italy is reputed to have the largest cultural

heritage in the world which entails very specific obligations,

or even rights. This concept is not only fascist in a historical

sense, but in its intrinsic grammar. That is to say that Italians’

obligations and rights towards their cultural heritage do not

derive from its wealth, but from the fact of its being ‘their’ herit-

age – the sole cultural heritage they can draw on and which

therefore generates specific responsibilities which derive from

this qualitative fact (it is theirs) rather than its wealth.

It seems to me that this example can also be applied to the

theological doctrines of the other. We need to find a place

for religious (and non-religious) otherness within one’s own

understanding of mystery and theology, not because of the

dimension of the other, or because it is threatening or is being

persecuted. It is necessary precisely because it exists as an

other, a ‘significant other’ made significant by the very fact

that it has taken one or more decisions regarding faith, belief,

adherence to social norms and ethical principles.

The second mile, in short, asks those participating in talks and

ceremonial meetings to move on from the showy ostentation of

certain types of friendship and mutual appreciation, genuine or

staged though they may be. Within each one’s own tradition we

must ask where, how, and when resentment and hatred of the

other was theologically consolidated; where, how, and when

respect for the other was consolidated along with the moral

determination that precludes killing, indifference and revenge.

It is more important than ever to travel this second mile

today. The fact that we have learned to walk the first mile has

made it even more urgent. The fact that we have walked the

first mile many times has made it essential.

Embarking upon this second mile means acknowledging

that the ethical consensus between cultures cannot be reached

by the common repetition of the Lord’s command, which only

resonates when it is truly recognized as such. Consensus can

only be reached by acting as ‘we’ in unison, by committing and

undertaking commitments.

These need only be small commitments, enough to barely

fill a

parva carta,

stating that ‘we’ do not kill, ‘we’ will come

to each other’s aid, and that ‘we’ may be reconciled through

truth and forgiveness, but only provided that this ‘we’ can be

rooted in a theological intuition that recognizes the inalien-

able dignity of the other.

The famous 1964

Böckenförde-dictum

warned that the problem

of the secular liberal state was not only that it lived “on premises

that it cannot itself guarantee,” but above all that it was not “able

to guarantee these forces of inner regulation by itself without

renouncing its liberalism.” The second mile does not contain

the answer to those who merely call for religion ‘in the abstract’.

We must ask ourselves whether the religious experience of real

women and men is able to live out that ‘we’, embracing the diver-

sity which nurtures respect and holding that respect on which

diversity thrives. In the second mile we will find the question.

gree

iffer