International Association for Religious Freedom

George Wilkes of the International Council for Christians and Jews spoke about the Jewish contribution to European civilization, especially as viewed in the light of the Holocaust. Bishop Arpad Szabo represented the Unitarian Church in Romania, which dates from the Reformation and is Hungarian speaking. He made a plea to include the countries of what we call Eastern Europe, which geographically is really central Europe, in the future development of Europe.

Dr. Alexei Krindatch of Moscow spoke about the current situation in the Ukraine, where branches of the Orthodox Church are divided pro-Polish, pro-Russian and Ukrainian nationalist sympathies. Rev. Ilona Szent-Ivanyi Orbok of Budapest gave the closing speech and a good survey of the general situation.

The two principal speakers were Professor George Wedell of Manchester, the Chairman of the Wydham Place Trust, and Alastair Hulbert of Brussels of the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society.

Professor Wedell's paper dealt with European religious developments and the tradition of the Enlightenment. He pointed out that the notion of religious freedom only dates from the Reformation; before then political and religious power were generally synonymous or at least intertwined. In the Reformation period the growth of literacy and the development of geographical and economic mobility enabled some people to escape from the control of the ecclesiastical powers. But the growing diversity of religious sentiment in Europe was accompanied by an assumption, agreed at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, that the rulers had the responsibility and the right to determine the religious beliefs of their subjects.

Professor Wedell described the interaction in Europe between Christianity and Judaism and Islam, the world's three great monotheistic religions. Jews were dispersed in the continent after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 and thereafter were subject to various degrees of persecution causing further migration. Jewish emancipation has led to assimilation that today poses a threat to the continued existence of the Jewish community in Europe.

Islam had a very different relationship with Europe. Its conquests in Western Asia and North Africa turned Europe into Christianity's main base. Europe became embroiled in conflict at its borders with Islam, which only ceased in 1681 when the Ottoman armies were defeated at the walls of Vienna. Today many Muslims live in different parts of Europe but often seem to reject much of what is taken for granted in Western society.

Professor Wedell pointed out that the Europe of today is one of extraordinary diversity in terms of religions and races, although this is not evenly distributed across the continent. But even areas of Europe that are basically made up of a people with a single culture have been affected by this diversification.

Finally, he noted that churches have moved closer together in the last fifty years and increasingly participate in interfaith dialogue. He closed by quoting the American theologian, the late Reinhold Niebuhr: "Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope. Nothing true, beautiful or good makes complete sense in the immediate context; therefore, we must be saved by faith. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe, as from our own standpoint; therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness."

Alastair Hubert gave a particularly interesting paper entitled "Europe in Search of Meaning." Using medieval maps, such as Hereford Cathedral's mappa mundi, he pointed out how Christentum (the known world at the time) constituted a unity for the faithful. This is why Jerusalem was shown at the center of such maps and the mappa mundi was put in a triptych above the high altar in Hereford's Cathedral in the place normally reserved for a crucifix.

By the end of the 15^th century, however, Copernicus was proposing a new cosmology centered on the sun with the earth rotating around it.

The first European map of the new world, which was painted in 1500 by Columbus's pilot, continued to show Jerusalem and also a figure of St. Christopher (representing Christopher Columbus) carrying the Christ-Child to the Americas. However, this was to be the only map that used such imagery. Later maps reflected the national purposes of trade routes, commerce, and plunder.

European maps in the 16^th and 17^th centuries emphasized the dominance of Europe. Macerator's projection gives two thirds of the globe to the Northern Hemisphere and makes Europe appear twice the size of South America, even though South America is really twice the size of Europe.

Mr. Hulbert also looked at more recent maps. The Peters Projection tries to correct the dominating size of Europe, and the maps of Reginald Buckminster Fuller abandon the north-south axis and show the world as a single archipelago or as a connection of oceans linked by the South Pole or in terms of air communications. All of these maps present a view of the earth that is not dominated by Europe.

The second part of his lecture dealt with various images of Europe reflecting the scars of the Cold War, the pattern of migrations, and the Bridge of Mostar, a physical as well as symbolic link between cultures, that was destroyed by Serb and Croat artillery in 1993.

In conclusion, Mr. Hulbert proposed limits to the modern push for development and growth within which the spiritual and ethical search for meaning in Europe might flourish. These artistic images include Word, Time, Nature, The Child, Love, Silence, Place, Culture, The Cosmos, and Suffering.

The whole conference was a reminder of the variety and diversity of Europe today and its place in a world that depends of co-existence.

At the end of July 1999 the International Association for Religious Freedom will gather in Vancouver at the University of British Columbia for the 30th IARF World Congress on the eve of its centennial observance. The IARF was founded in 1900 in Boston and despite two World Wars and the Great Depression has held its international Congress almost every three years during the course of the 20th century.

The 30th Congress in 1999 will mark the beginning of a year of IARF centennial programs in Europe, East Asia and South Asia as well as in North America. What has been learned during a century of struggle for religious freedom and interfaith cooperation? What is the legacy of the IARF? What is its challenge for the next century?

The theme of the IARF Congress is "Creating an Earth Community: A Religious Imperative." All those who share the goals of the IARF are called to respond by preparing in 1998 for the 1999 Congress. To stimulate this preparation the IARF international Council has issued the following appeal.

"The members of the International Association for Religious Freedom are committed to a more just and peaceful world. At the 30th World Congress the IARF will seek to draw new insights from its one hundred-year history for the challenges presented by the 21st century. How are religious communities to support humane and sustainable alternatives to the economic globalization of life? How are those who support freedom of religion or belief to promote respect for fundamental human rights and to facilitate reconciliation among those who are divided? How are people of faith to resist violent conflict and blind consumption with effective dialogue and community-building initiatives? How may all those of goodwill join together in creating an earth community?"

Please mark your calendars for 29 July - August 4, 1999 and plan to join in the IARF Congress in Vancouver.

IARF was well represented at Mt. Hiei in Japan last August for the 10th anniversary celebration of the initial interfaith summit held there in 1987. A one-day conference was followed by a beautiful religious ceremony under the tall spruce and pine trees that grow around the temples on Mt. Hiei.

Much gratitude should be given to Rissho Kosei-kai staff members, who contributed greatly to the preparation of this summit. The President of the IARF, Rev. Yukitaka Yamamoto, Chief Priest of Tsubaki Grand Shrine, was also instrumental in the planning of the event.

As I was a sickly child, my parents wanted me to study at a Christian school, where there was always an abundance of religious concern. So from middle school I attended a mission school. My father, however, practiced Shinto, and other close relatives were Nichiren Buddhists.

In this context I came to understand that religious faith lies in maintaining one's own faith while recognizing and respecting the faith of others. Because Prof. Mitomo's comments confirmed what I had experienced during my school days, I heard his words with deep emotion.

He explained that the Japanese term "jihi" (compassion) is composed of two Chinese characters, "ji" and "hi." "Ji" is the heart of watching the growth of plants in the spring. It indicates the heart of a father. "Hi" is the feeling of a heart broken by deep grief and sorrow. It indicates the heart of a mother.

I wonder whether the extent of love is equal to the extent of grief. Now, I can't stop praying and hoping that the spirit of "ji" and "hi" will spread all over the world, across religions, races and nations.

This talk by Prof. Mitomo was so impressive that I once again recognized the importance of IARF activities.

We were all impressed and moved to tears during this social gathering held during the IARF Congress in Korea in 1996.

"We have been taught not to hold any resentment against the Japanese people," Choi Yin Ok said. She was one of the Korean women leaders participating in a meeting of women before the IARF Congress. "If we do hold resentment," she continued, "we will carry it forever." Professor Ji Hyun Han, head of the Won Buddhist Women's Organization, also spoke of the need for friendship and reconciliation between Koreans and Japanese.

Women like these and the women from the IARF Japan Chapter lead me to believe that the 21^st century will be an era for women in Asia.

On June 1st the IARF European office opened in the center of picturesque Amsterdam near many old churches and a Sephardic synagogue. At the same time I began my work as a half-time Remonstrant minister in Delft, as well as the IARF Coordinator for Europe. It is quite a challenge!

As every European knows, the diversity of our continent is immense. Therefore, dialogue in Europe is essential. This can be the mission of the IARF in Europe, and every IARF group and chapter is encouraged to consider new ways that it might embrace this challenge. Simply communicating information about the history and work of the IARF, for example, would be a good start, and this does not cost much money.

In July 1997 almost a hundred participants from Europe and North America met in Hilversum in the Netherlands to address the theme "A Soul for Europe: A Challenge for Changing Religions." Many young adults joined the program this year, in part because the International Religious Fellowship brought a van of participants from its annual meeting in Germany, which was scheduled just before the IARF conference to allow this coordination. Certainly the IARF hopes this cooperation will continue.

In July 1998 the IARF will sponsor follow up activities at Bad Boll in Germany around the theme "Multiculturalism - A Common Soul? Chances and Barriers in Interfaith Dialogue." On 1-3 July a young adult "market of possibilities" will be held, and on 3-5 July the IARF summer conference will follow.

Questions to be addressed include: Is there a common Soul in Europe? What are the limits of dialogue? How can diversity contribute to a multicultural society? Workshops will provide opportunities to discuss economic, philosophical, political, and ecological concerns as well as the contribution that religious and cultural activities can make

Please plan to attend and add your thoughts. For more information contact the IARF European office in Amsterdam.

Upper Chapel, Sheffield, hosted a lively interfaith one-day conference on Saturday, 18 October 1997 co-sponsored by the British Chapter of the IARF and Sheffield Interfaith. There were three panel sessions with speakers from different faith traditions. The local Brahma Kumaris group provided a vegetarian lunch.

Ideals of tolerance, compassion, unity in diversity, generosity, the subordination of national interests to the good of the whole, peace and respect for ourselves and others were tested against the practical and immediate concerns of prejudice, ignorance, cruelty, violence, and unemployment.

We need to educate ourselves and others, in our minds and our hearts. We need to experience the boundaries of our own culture by crossing over to share in other cultures. Each of us has a part to play in this world drama.

First, an increasing percentage of people identify themselves as "religious persons," "believers in God" or, more specifically, as members of a church or denomination. Public opinion polls suggest that 45-53% of Russia's citizens regard themselves as believers, in contrast to only 25% in 1985.

Second, there is increased confidence in the church as a "social institution." Three quarters of the Russia's population have "a great deal of confidence" in organized religion, although only 50% claim to be "believers" and only 25% of these attend church services monthly.

Third, the growth of organized religious activity, which during 1990-95 increased by over 200%, has been accompanied by substantial changes in the proportions among communities of various denominations and in their geographical distribution. Many "non-traditional" religious groups have also been successful, especially where they seem to offer supportive communities in the midst of an increasingly unstable Russian society.

This religious revival has been accompanied by ethnic and religious tensions as well as by political pressure for more restrictive regulations on religious activity. Presently there are growing conflicts between "traditional" (existing in the Soviet era) churches and "new" religious movements. There are also disputes over the political activities of religious organizations.

These are the factors behind the 4-year struggle for a new law concerning religious freedom. The most important areas of disagreement concern defining a "religious organization," procedures that will confer legal status on such an organization, and restrictions on foreign religious organizations.

Some groups meet with members from Protestant and Catholic churches. Other prayer groups may reach out in an international partnership with Christian groups in other parts of the world - in India, Africa, South America or East Asia - with whom they want to assist in various ways. The extension of such projects may include help for and with indigenous non-Christians.

Quite a number of Christians in search of spiritual truth and depth are learning from Asian ways of meditation and may adapt these methods to Christian meditation. In addition, there are silent meditations at the Jewish memorials of the Holocaust in Germany and in Eastern Europe when German groups come to offer prayers of repentance for our nation and intercession for the Jewish people and for Israel. Christian groups may also meditate together with Jews at such a place on memorial days.

What other positive steps might be taken to foster understanding and mutual respect among the diverse religious communities in Germany?

First, our local Christian prayer and meditation practice should be strengthened in order to deepen it. This means aiming at a stricter ethical conduct in all aspects of life including the striving for peace on all levels, for justice for all, and for an ecological balance at home and abroad. It also means training to see others as brothers and sisters and being prepared to assist them.

The next measure is to become acquainted with different religious groups, their concepts and convictions, and by this new knowledge overcoming our mistrust and prejudices. It means getting acquainted with different ways of thinking, believing and expressing religious concerns

At this time, I regret to say that the atmosphere is not very conducive for joint meditation with Muslims due to frequent violence exercised by the terrorist organization PKK of the Kurdish people who are also Muslims. Nevertheless, this violent group is only a small minority. We should pursue contacts with local Muslim groups, get to know their religious and civic concerns, and visit them at their holy days and celebrations when invited. Also, we should invite them to our own holidays and celebrations.

As we become aware of joint problems in the secular society and also aware of the specific problems of Islamic, Jewish or other groups, Christian leaders could invite other religious leaders for discussions of all those concerns in the community. The group could later begin with a theme-bound meditation and through the achievement of a raised consciousness might also use a subject-free meditation (as in Zen).

Or the group could start with a repetitive meditation in which certain syllables, words or sentences are spoken over and over again as is the case in some Jewish, Hindu or tantric traditions (for instance with the syllable "OM") or in Shin Buddhism with the mantra exercises. (In the religious history of Germany we knew only the repetitive "Jesus-prayer" which could be shortened into the repetition of the words "Jesus Christ" or simply "Jesus"). Later on, the group might be opened up to allow lay members of any religious group to meet together to discuss religious and civic affairs and to pray and meditate together.

We have a long way to go in German speaking countries to reach a time when interfaith prayer, meditation and joint action will be a normal part of the everyday life of religious groups. But we are making some progress.

Rev. Anne McClelland, one of the IARF trustees of the IIC, has chaired the board of trustees this year and has helped initiate a new fund-raising strategy.

In February the IIC is cooperating with the Northern Ireland Interfaith Forum to offer a program assessing the role of faith communities in conflict situations, such as Northern Ireland. Participants will include local leaders as well as Dr. Ariyaratne from Sri Lanka and Yasmin Sooka of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.

The IIC will sponsor a conference in Oxford from 28-30 March 1998 on "Building Community: Living Together, Working Together. Strategies will be presented from urban and rural projects in India, Africa, the United States and the United Kingdom. There will also be an opportunity to visit the Oxford Center for Hebrew and Jewish Studies at Yarnton, which houses a large collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

From 4-14 April 1998, in cooperation with Rissho Kosei-kai, the IIC is offering a visit to Japan that will include a one-day interfaith dialogue in Kyoto and meetings at religious centers in the country.

Persons interested in any of these IIC programs are invited to inquire for additional information. (tel. 44-1865-202-745, fax 44-1865-202-746)

The purpose of the trip was to see how people from different cultures and faith traditions approach life, how they celebrate birth, deal with death and organize their communities

I chose to travel by bicycle because I realized that it was the best way for me to get out of the tourist areas and into the homes, villages, temples, churches and mosques of the average people. I met and stayed with a wide spectrum of people from the major world religions and some indigenous tribes and nomadic peoples as well. I also spent time studying in Hindu ashrams, Buddhist monasteries, and Jewish yeshivas.

In July 1993, when I was in the north of Pakistan, I stepped into a pharmacy and a man who did not speak English asked me with his hands and facial expressions if I had a gun and would sell it to him. The pharmacist, who spoke English, confirmed that this was indeed the question. I had the pharmacist tell the man that I don't carry any weapons because I believe in peace and non-violence. The pharmacist relayed my message and then explained to me that the man was from a tribal area near Afghanistan, where there is much violence due to tribal, religious and family feuds that go back for centuries.

The tribesman's six-year-old son was sitting silently beside him. I shook the boy's hand and wished him peace. The pharmacist said, "No peace for him, I'm afraid. Once his father is killed, he will spend his life avenging his fathers death." The words were spoken in a casual way, as if to say this is the way it is around here so, if I intended to stay around, I would have to get used to it.

I was deeply saddened by the realization that this little boy was being brought up in a culture where revenge and killing are accepted and, in fact, expected of male children. The "finger gun" that his father pointed and shot at me was more than a foolish man's inquiry. It shot an invisible bullet into my heart. It killed some ignorance in me, about life and the world, and it planted a seed of passion to fight for peace. May peace be with that man and his child and all children in the world!

After that experience, I began to reflect on the many children around the world who get robbed of their childhood due to war, poverty, and by those who use forced child labor and care more about profits than humanity and children.

In On This Matter of Culture J. Krishnamurti asks why our education systems teach our children how to fit into our fearful, immoral, corrupt societies, rather than teaching them how to change our societies? He feels we should not spend all our time on subjects like math and geography but should dedicate some time to the most important questions in life: Who am I? Why do I cry? Why do I laugh? Why do I die? These are the religious questions. We cannot settle for the answer, "Because your grandfather killed my grandfather." New answers must be found.

Religious education has the potential to provide an ethical and moral base that will guide people in their daily lives. Certainly, when we go beyond the languages and rituals of the world's religions, we find that they all, in one way or another, seek to provide a system of ethical living.

When I was in Israel, I spent some time studying Judaism in an ultra orthodox yeshiva. In that school a rabbi taught his students what he called a "five finger proof" to show them why it is not important to learn about other religions. He explained that his religion is like a hand with five fingers. He has one and it works well. So, even if some person in a foreign land says that their hand with six fingers works better, there is no point going to find out about it. I feel this rabbi, like many other conservative religious leaders, misunderstands the purpose of learning about other religions. In my understanding, the point is not to divert us from one religion or convert us to another. Instead, learning about other faiths helps us explore, reaffirm and enrich our own beliefs. Discovering differences gives us the opportunity to look deeper into our own faith tradition to gain a better understanding of why we do what we do. At the same time it helps us build qualities like compassion and tolerance that are essential in this diverse and interactive world. Seeing the commonalties of the various religions helps people realize that the essence of all religions is the same. By recognizing the similarities, people are not as threatened by the differences.

As religious leaders and educators, we have a great opportunity to spread hope, peace and understanding. We also have the responsibility to keep alive the truths of our faith traditions and to promote tolerance and understanding of the faith of others.

What is Dialogue, and how shall we conceive its purpose? Dialogue is respectful, mind-to-mind interaction between individuals and groups of different background, as they explore important issues - a process that reveals both commonalities and differences - in quest of greater truth and meaning. Dialogue can be informal and casual, or formal and planned. It can be face-to-face, as in a study group, panel or forum, or it can be written, as in a newsletter or journal. It can be bilateral, involving two parties (say, Christians and Jews), or multilateral, involving three or more parties (say, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs).

Dialogue, above all, requires 'respect' - something all too rare, yet certainly achievable, in interfaith relations. It is the attitude conveyed when the 'others', as persons of dignity, and as faith groups of spiritual substance, have been formally acknowledged. It means that arrogance and rigidity have been overcome, and there is a noticeable degree of openness in each of the parties. Personal meanings about the life of faith are shared. Varying points of view are considered worthy of each other's understanding. Also, respect means that some of the crucial differences and commonalities are not completely understood, and perhaps may never be. So there is a desire to understand more deeply, along with the awareness that some things may be unknowable.

In claiming that Dialogue is mind-to-mind interaction, I do not wish to suggest that elements of emotion, sociability, will and spirituality do not enter into the engagement. They inevitably do, and this is appropriate; but Dialogue is primarily an intellectual activity directed to conceptual understanding, new meanings, practical possibilities and deepened wisdom.

We have said that Dialogue addresses 'important issues'. These are questions that are not trivial, rhetorical or merely semantic. They are quite substantive, abiding and relevant to the world family. Examples of themes or topics worthy of dialogical exploration include:

- the nature of suffering and our human response

- teachings on love and service

- children and family life

- paths to justice and peace

- care for the Earth community

- concepts of ultimate reality

- sources of spiritual authority

- methods of spiritual discipline

- balancing faith and works

- religion, science and technology

- religion and public education

- religion and government

- religion and the arts

to name just some of the many fruitful areas of mutual concern.

Dialogue aims at greater truth and meaning - a broader worldview and a deeper value-orientation for each and every participant. 'Truth' is here understood as something approachable in successive degrees, but not absolutely attainable by human beings. We can move closer to universal truth and meaning through Dialogue, which incorporates the tests of reason, experience, scripture and tradition. The type of truth Dialogue achieves is more practical than theoretical; it is 'truth for living', or wisdom, that yields mutual understanding and prepares us for more harmonious relations.

This quest presupposes that our own views may change in response to others, and that their views may change in response to ours. These possible changes unfold as a 5-part pattern in the flow of successful Dialogue.

1) You share some of your significant truths and meanings, and I listen with open mind and heart.

2) I share some of my significant truths and meanings, and you listen with open mind and heart.

3) We identify commonalities, celebrate them, and consider ways of acting upon them.

4) We identify differences between us which are complementary, and appreciate them, realizing that they enrich our understanding (e.g. the Buddhist emphasis on detachment from the fruits of our labor while feeling compassion for suffering, complements the Christian emphasis on stewardship through prayerful good works).

5) We identify seemingly contradictory differences, challenge each other respectfully, consult universal ethical teachings, and work toward resolution of these differences (e.g. Christian and Islamic concepts of 'holy war' may modify, and be modified by, Buddhist and Baha'i teachings on non-violence).

When interfaith Dialogue is going well, participants feel intrigued, fascinated and stretched in understanding. We share both the formal and the personal content of our faith. We get many glimpses of larger truths and universal wisdom, as if the Creative Spirit were guiding our process. We begin to feel some potential inter-group intimacy, and we also start to envision ways of working together.

When Dialogue is not going well, participants are frustrated by what feels like 'shallow platitudes', manipulative techniques, the others' 'blind spots', poor communication, or irreconcilable differences. We lose faith in the creative possibilities of interfaith encounter generally. However, modeling openness and authentic sharing enable Dialogue to begin. Expressing appreciation and respectful challenge can help Dialogue go well.

Dialogue leads us to the threshold of intimacy, and the desire to know each other more fully as persons. We move from the intellectual to the social, from the realm of the mind to the realm of the heart, from the quest for truth and meaning to the engagement called Fellowship.

At this point, the interfaith curriculum becomes deceptively simple: 'getting to know each other'. Who are we in our everyday lives? Are we willing to reveal our ordinariness to one another -where and how we live, our families and stories, our occupations and vocations, our cultural enjoyments and struggles? Can we offer true hospitality, and demonstrate both to each other and the world, that our diversity does not have to entail divisiveness? Dare we extend our hands, enter into Fellowship, and create the possibility of befriending one another across cultural and religious boundaries?

The very informality of Fellowship, the fact that it presents no specific agenda other than 'sharing our personhood', is both an opportunity and a challenge. The main opportunity is to establish personal bonds through heart-to-heart communication, bonds that transcend our intellectual compatibility. What makes us laugh and cry? How did we become the persons we are today? What are our deeper fears and higher hopes? Sharing these things may well lead to lifelong friendships.

And the main challenge of Fellowship is that, in this encounter, our prejudices - which we all have to some degree -will surely surface. Our social and cultural tolerances will be tested, as will our racial and religious tolerances. How do we really feel about the way those 'others' live? Aren't 'they' seriously misguided in some of their practices? Which differences are complementary, and which are unacceptable? We must undergo the healthy pain of growing through our prejudices, or undergo the unhealthy pain of postponing the day of reckoning. Fellowship affords us the opportunity to face and minimize our prejudices sooner rather than later.

Some of the main program possibilities that facilitate Fellowship include:

- serving refreshments and meals during formal interfaith events

- offering 'circle groups' at conferences that focus on our personal backgrounds, and how we are personally experiencing the activities

- offering excursions to social and cultural points of interest in different communities, including various forms of hospitality

- informal visits to others' worship places, including hospitality

- informal visits to others' homes for shared meals, stories and sharing about daily life

- picnics and potlucks that include all ages, and offer some whole-group activities (like singing or games)

- living room discussions that focus on each person's experiences, joys and struggles

- cultural events (dance, drama, music, art exhibits) especially those featuring children and youth

- pure entertainment (enjoyable films, plays, games, dancing, etc).

When interfaith Fellowship is going well, participants feel relaxed with each other and are somewhat surprised by the 'human-ness' of the 'others'. We are strangely understood and appreciated, and we strangely understand and appreciate. Stereotypes and prejudices begin to break down as we become aware of connections more basic than culture, religion and national background. Friendships begin to form, some of which develop into an abiding love. We catch clearer and clearer glimpses of a hopeful vision of our world family.

When the engagement called Fellowship is not going well, we feel as if we do not, and perhaps cannot, fit in. We are uncomfortable, and regress to a 'survival mode' that may manifest as loneliness, numbness, or being hypercritical. The 'foreign-ness' of the encounter may reinforce stereotypes and prejudices, and even lead to hostility. Our individual hopes for our world family weaken or disappear.

However, several things can help: showing understanding for the difficulty of face-to-face interaction with strangers; drawing out those who feel disenchanted about their reactions, and about the experiences underlying their reactions; listening with respect and compassion; and introducing them to a 'kindred spirit' from another faith tradition, in a safe setting with minimal expectations.

The engagement of Dialogue yields an awareness of 'common ground' or shared ethical values, along with some glimpses of how different faith groups might 'work together'. The succeeding engagement of Fellowship brings us the kind of trust and relaxed communication that leads to the threshold of planned joint activity. Respectful 'talking' and warm 'relating' allow for the possibility of collaborative 'doing'.

Solidarity is just such collaborative doing. It means cooperation across cultural and religious boundaries in quest of justice. As the Global Ethic demonstrates, all religions share a call to justice, the content of which is remarkably similar. We are to witness together for basic human rights and responsibilities, to help alleviate unnecessary suffering, to solve our problems nonviolently, to care for the Earth community, and to enlarge the world family's culture of relatedness. Solidarity means actually working together in response to this higher ethical calling.

Non-formal education centers with 20-25 young children in each are being run in all six villages. Four youth leadership-training camps have been held involving more than 200 youth in self-help classes and exercises. Wells have been dug and a pump purchased with IARF funds to supply irrigation water to the fields. A tractor was also purchased with IARF funds and made available with training to members of the villages.

More than 180 youth were involved in an afforestation project, and 8,000 trees purchased at a subsidized price from the Forest Department of Bihar were planted. Training for small business opportunities has helped a number of men and women develop skills in tailoring, driving, raising ducks, cycle repairing, carpentry, and grocery store management.

In May 1997 an IARF evaluator from the Ramakrishna Mission Lokasiksha Parishad in Narendrapur, West Bengal, visited Jamtara and discovered that there was considerable room for improvement. He noticed that a spirit of self-reliance was not being generated, as the people were continuing to hope for more help from charities or the government. Therefore, he began a training program, encouraged the involvement of more women in the development efforts, and took a hand in organizing leadership programs for young people.

When the IARF evaluator returned in August 1997 he was able to observe definite progress. More women were becoming involved, which is remarkable in tribal society. Village groups were carrying out a health survey with an emphasis on achieving the immunization of all the children. Serious efforts were being undertaken to recover outstanding agricultural and business loans, waste land was being returned to production, the tractor was being utilized more fully, and sports activities were being set up in the villages.

To help the people become financially self-sufficient a small savings program that the evaluator had begun during his first visit had, in three months time, generated deposits of about 5,000 Rupees. Moreover, women in the villages were among the leaders of this program. An additional 2,000 trees had been planted, and training in afforestation had been given to leaders of the villages and the women's groups.

With additional training and continued evaluation, the tribal peoples of the area may make real progress in sustainable self-development.

From September 19-28 a Youth Camp promoting communal harmony was sponsored by the Tenkasi and Kadayalanur branches of the IARF Chapter in India. The camp brought together young boys from villages affected by caste clashes only a couple of months earlier. The project was planned and supported by the IARF in South Asia and received very good coverage in the local press.

The camp was held at Courtallam in Tamilnadu under the guidance and leadership of Mr. M. Subramaniam, Chairman of the Tirunelveli branch of the IARF Chapter in India. Forty-five boys participated.

The program was led by local social workers and included interfaith prayer, lectures and discussion of issues. The afternoons were devoted to tree planting, digging trenches for a drainage system, white washing a school building in Nannagaram and leveling a playground.

In addition, a medical check up and health counseling was provided to residents of Sundarapandiapuram village.

Swami Jivan Muktanandaji, Administrator of Shivandanda Hospital, inaugurated the camp. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Khan and Mr. C. N. N. Raju contributed greatly to the planning and administration of the Youth Camp.

The Israel Interfaith Association

Yehuda Stolov attended the 1996 IARF Congress and is an active young adult leader in the IARF. The Israel Interfaith Association is an IARF member group.

In December 1996 the Association sponsored, in cooperation with "Beit Hagefen" and other bodies, an international conference that drew forty religious leaders to Haifa for two days. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, Bahai's from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Jordan met to plan a series of dialogues over the next several years.

The conference opened with a keynote speech by the philosopher Bernard Henry Levy and concluded with a reception by Mr. Amram Mizna, Mayor of Haifa. In that reception a declaration read by Rabbi Yitzhak Bardea, Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan and Bishop George Almor, the Catholic Bishop of Jordan, called on all religious people to avoid violence, to be tolerant, and to promote human respect and peace.

Ramola Sundram.

The IARF will sponsor a program for young adults (no older than 35) prior to the IARF Congress in 1999. IARF members in Europe, South Asia, the Philippines and North America who are interested in participating are requested to contact the Coordinator for that region or country. (See page 2 for contact information.) Others may contact the Secretariat in Oxford. Those seeking sponsorship must be active in the IARF before 1999 and demonstrate their commitment continue supporting the goals and programs of the IARF.

Sue Nichols is the Chair of the NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief at the UN in New York.

The Annual Day for Freedom of Religion or Belief, which was first observed at the United Nations in 1994, marks the anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief" (Resolution 36/55). This year's observance began with a religious service including Baha'i, Buddhist, Christian, Indigenous, Jain, Jewish, Muslim and Zoroastrian participants.

The Honorable Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was one of the 51 Honorary Patrons of the Day along with Prof. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief for the UN Commission on Human Rights, and Permanent Representatives of 49 UN Missions. The observance was co-sponsored by the Committee of Religious NGOs at the UN, the International NGO Committee on Human Rights, and the Values Caucus.

Dr. Samuel P. Huntington, Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University and author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, spoke on the resurgence of religious practice in the past 20 years in much of the world and its conspicuous absence in Western Europe. He noted that earlier in the 20^th century nation states had often defined themselves over against religion. Lenin's reaction against the Orthodox Church of Russia was an important factor in the rise of Marxist State. Ataturk insisted on a secular Turkey. Nehru urged Democratic Socialism when forming a secular India. Ben Gurion moved from Zionism to a secular Israel. The Shah led a secular Iran. Then came the reactions. Muslims challenged Ataturk's legacy, Hindus questioned Nehru's vision, and the Shah was overthrown and succeeded by a fiercely Islamic State. More recently, some of the former Soviet States are experiencing a religious revival.

Prof. Huntington also noted that when religion is identified with national identity, the result might be a strident assertion of religious nationalism. Bosnia reveals how dangerous this can be. In China religious movements originating outside the country are seen as "foreign" and suspect. Similarly, in Russia religious leaders oppose "Western proselytizing."

In this respect the threat to freedom of religion or belief is obvious. Yet, Prof. Huntington suggested, the United States can do little more than encourage better enforcement of international law in other countries. He noted that the Spector-Wolf Bill, which would mandate economic sanctions by the US for countries engaged in religious persecution, is endorsed by many Republican members of Congress but opposed by the Secretary of State, who feels it would undermine more subtle and perhaps more effective forms of pressure the US can bring to bear on governments that ignore fundamental human rights.

Professor Gamal M. Badr, Adjunct Professor of Islamic Law at New York University, responded from an Islamic perspective to Professor Huntington's presentation. He noted that the Quran says, "there is to be no compulsion in religion," and he argued that Islam has often been misused by political regimes acting merely in their own self-interest.

A lively discussion followed these comments, and those attending the observance enjoyed a reception as well.

The Italian President had been particularly annoyed because he had personnaly attended the inauguration of the Great Mosque in Rome, a project largely financed by Saudi Arabia.

He spoke out in favor of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia during his talks with King Fahd, and before living the country told journalists that was no freedom of worship in the country.

It is true that there is no freedom of worship or of religion in Saudi Arabia. But there is also no freedom of the press, no freedom of association, no freedom of organization, no political freedom. In short, Saudi Arabia is not a free State under the rule of law, and not only its own citizens but also many foreigners suffer as a consequence.

Action must be taken to ensure that all those living in Saudi Arabia could enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms. No historical, cultural, religious or economic grounds or sovereign prerogative can be invoked to justify violations of human dignity.

The Italian President had the courage to speak out, privately and publicly, against the violation of religious freedom. United Nations human rights bodies, and in particular the Sub-Commission, must likewise speak out, publicly as well as in closed session, concerning the situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia, and must call publicly upon the Government to take all necessary steps to secure respect for human dignity.

After speaking about religious intolerance in Afghanistan, Dr. Rossi concluded his comments by asserting that efforts must be redoubled to combat Islamic extremism, which continues to kill innocent victims in Afghanistan, Algeria, Israel and elsewhere. He also asserted that religious extremism within any religious tradition that sows hatred, violence and death must be combated. The Sub-Commission should pay closer attention to that phenomenon in order to help rid the world of a scourge that has already gained control in several countries and could threaten international peace and security.