The Importance of Inter-Religious Dialogue and Freedom of Religion in Fighting Extremism

Second Vatican Council brought to light the importance of Inter-Religious Dialogue in the life of mission and the life of the Church. 

The council described as bringing aggiornamento, or fresh air to the Church, defined the role of inter-religious dialogue in the Church as an integral element of the Church’s evangelizing mission. The council did not stop by pointing at the core of the identity of dialogue in the Christian life but unfolded a way in which we are to live this mission in the world.

With the world becoming more religious and many urban cities becoming hubs of mass communication making pluralistic societies—this necessity to be involve in inter-religious becomes more evident. Either people engage in talks about their faith or they simply ignore it. The good news is that this interchange happens in ways we are unaware most of the times. The Council not only made inter-religious dialogue an essential part of our lives as Christians but it also provided a way to understand and talk about our experiences with people of other faiths. The council explained that there are four forms of inter-religious dialogue: The Dialogue of life, The Dialogue of action, The Dialogue of Theological Exchange and The Dialogue of Experience.

Many believe that inter-religious dialogue needs to take place in an intellectual setting, as scholarship discourse and theological pursue only. However, this is only part of what inter-religious dialogue is. Instead, inter-religious dialogue is grounded in experience, in fact, in the experience of the other. At times, encounter is the word chosen to describe inter-religious experiences—pointing more directly at the face-to-face experience from which it derives from. The Dialogue of life for instance is concerned with ‘neighborly spirit’ sharing joys and sorrows and human problems and preoccupations with people of a different faith, the dialogue of action is concerned with the collaboration of integral development and liberation of people, that is working together with people of different faiths for problems that unite us, and the dialogue of religious experienced is rooted in the riches of spiritual traditions, prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching God.

Pope Francis pointed out the importance of inter-religious dialogue in a recent visit to Turkey promoting Inter-Religious dialogue and openness of faith expression. He urged ‘More inter-religious dialogue to help bring peace and end all forms of fundamentalism, terrorism and irrational fears.’ In his encyclical, Joy of the Gospel, he addresses the role of dialogue, ‘Inter-religious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christians as well as other religious communities.’ In a recent meeting in Europe’s Parliament, where extremism is a persistent threat, Mr. Tajani, ex-president of the European Parliament said, ‘who shoots in the name of God, shoots at God,’ stressing the importance of how violence in the name of religion hurts all religions alike. Pope Francis and Mr. Tajani address the same issue alike, inter-religious dialogue is not only a necessity due to our plural circumstances but also the source of peace and reconciliation to address extremism and fundamentalism.

Yet, there are many that are quick to point out that religion is in fact the problem. Many point out at ISIS and current extremist and violent group’s motifs to declare religion as the source of conflict. However, there have been many studies now that challenge this notion. The Institute of Economics and Peace in conjunction with The Religious Freedom andBusiness Foundation, found no general causal relationship between religion and conflict when looking at all of the current conflicts in the world. In fact, the most influential factor affecting peace is the government type showed the study. The study also indicated that not only is religion not a factor in conflict in the world, but a peace catalyzer. The study suggested ‘that freedom of religion is tied to higher levels of peace and that when religious people are free to do good, they bring powerful resources that can counter violent extremism and promote social advancement.’

Inter-religious dialogue and freedom of religion directly shape the way in which we respond to extremism and radicalism. All four forms of dialogue are able to exist because of religious freedom and inter-religious dialogue. Extremism and fundamentalism do not exist in a vacuum. That is, radicals and extremists foster fundamentalists thoughts in cultures and societies that are closed in which religious freedom is not a reality. In the same study by The Religious Freedom and Business Foundation, it was showed that countries with more religious liberty enjoyed more peaceful societies. In a similar way inter-religious dialogue seeks to confront radicalism through a theology of encounter, through all its forms, it promotes and seeks fellowship, justice and unity, it seeks out members that are becoming isolated, violent and closed-off to be members of an active and vibrant community that seeks peace and justice.

The Second Vatican Council put the primacy of inter-religious dialogue in our identity as Christians. We hold that it is necessary to share, communicate, collaborate and get to know people of other faith. Pope Francis reminds us that this notion of being Christian makes us peace-builders in a world that desperately needs it. He summarizes the foundation of these principles by saying, ‘fanaticism and fundamentalism, as well as irrational fears which foster misunderstanding and discrimination, need to be encountered by the solidarity of all believers. This solidarity must rest on the following pillars: respect for human life and for religious freedom that is the freedom to worship and to live according to the moral teachings of one’s religions.’

Why the Discourse on Radicalism is Missing the Point?

President Obama recently spoke against radicalism explaining that the United States is not at war with Islam, but with extremism. He explained, that ISIS is neither not Islamic and certainly not religious. A clear point that was faced with some resistance and criticism by some conservative networks. Why doesn't the president seem to emphasize the alliance or identification of this group as Islamic?, they seemed to ask-- a question that not only lacks a profound understanding of Islam but also an entire erroneous view on religious identity.

Let's start with the claim of who get's to decide what the identity of a group is? Well, certainly it does not only depend to the group itself but to a larger community that either accepts or rejects this identity. Despite the efforts of the KKK to identify themselves as Christian, would the larger community accept and defined them as such for example? It is not enough for a small group to claim ownership of an ideology, it is the mutual acceptance of larger community to establish that.

There is a larger misconception out there that Islam or any other religion carries innately a chance to pervert it's original message to become destructive and evil. Let's look at the fallacy of this thinking. When something becomes something that it is not, why do we still speak of the original identity as being distorted? This is what president Obama speaks of when he calls the Islamic State certainly not religious but a terrorist group. The minute the group promotes violence and terror, it has nothing to do with Islam, the same way that the KKK has nothing to do with Christianity.

There is also a major point that is not part of today's narrative of radicalisation. First of all, radicalisation or extremism is understood only through groups that promote violence. Nothing can be further from the truth when we talk about radicalisation. Ideas that promote good moral values are often radical ideas, extreme ideas, that seem to go against any current set of values or systematic belief. Furthermore, religion is in itself radical. No matter what creed, religion or faith -- if at the core, it promotes a way of living that is difficult but holds itself as very valuable it will definitely be radical.

Religion in fact has to be radical or it will loose it's appeal so to speak. However, it is radical in its message for goodness, for love, for justice, for equality, for solidarity, for peace. If Christians were not radical, how could they ever forgive their offenders? As Christ taught. The Quran surprisingly, teaches the same truth,


Terrorist groups should be identified as such, whether they are falsely trying to seek a religious identity or not. In the same way, the discourse that extremism is dangerous for the world should be understood in its own context. Religion is radical. However, radical acts of kindness certainly do not get the same coverage like the ones of violence. Goodness is radical, there is nothing practical or average about it. In fact, goodness and peace is far more radical than violence and evil. It is far more difficult and it takes a lot more work to do what is right and good.

The association of radicalisation and religion needs to be put to a halt. It detriments religion as factor or motivation for violence. While it is true that religion is radical, it is radical for other purposes. It is men that pervert religion, and not the other way around. Perhaps, the discourse needs to focus on what unites people of faith. These radical people throughout the world that share different systems of beliefs that compelled them to do what is good. Let's drop the radicalisation discourse tied with religion, call these groups for what they are terrorists, and explore the radical essence in religion that promotes good in all creeds and faiths.