"Radicalization," "extremism," and "reconciliation" are all
buzz words today floating through political and media discourse. On March 31, St. Anselm’s Abbey here in Washington, D.C. hosted an event called “Radicalization and Reconciliation
in God’s Name: An Interfaith Inquiry.” I attended the event hoping to hear more
nuanced answers than those in the media regarding the questions of how to
understand why some sincere believers turn to extremism in the way they
interpret their tradition and how we can best respond to the challenges that
violence in the name of religion presents?
Six faith traditions were represented on the panel: Sunni
and Shi’a Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism. While the
diversity of represented faiths was admirable, not a single woman was included.
The event seemed to forget that diversity applies to more than just religion. The
discussion started with each man discussing why he believes violence is
perpetrated in the name of their own tradition. The answers shared the common
thread that these religions condemn violence, but individuals become radicalized
through literal interpretation of texts which splits the world into black and
white, good versus evil. Such a strict worldview leaves one feeling vulnerable
and like they must defend their truth, God’s truth, sometimes through violence.
The event then switched tracks to discuss what might be done to address
radicalization. Addressing the structural violence of poverty, lack of
education, and corrupt governments from which many places that are
“breeding grounds” for extremism suffer was a theme. Furthermore, all the
different faith leaders agreed that radicalization and violence occurs when
individuals forget what their religions really stand for, which in the case of
all six of these traditions is peace, loving your enemy, and doing good acts.
Toward the end of the conference the archbishop of Washington, D.C. stood
up and asked the panelists’ opinions on the recent Marrakech Declaration, which
was signed by hundreds of religious leaders and scholars from a variety of
faith backgrounds and stated unequivocally that religious minorities must be
free to practice their own traditions and must be protected and respected
within Muslim nations. The participants, some of whom had attended this "historic event," lauded it as a real step forward and proof that large
international interfaith dialogues could be successful.
I see a great parallel
between these two events: both were meetings of high-level religious thinkers, academics,
and diplomats to discuss interfaith issues of the utmost importance. A problem
exists, though, because all those attending and leading these meetings are well-educated and already agree that their religions do not offer justification for
terrorism or violence, but their philosophical and theological reasoning is
relatively inconsequential to those populations most vulnerable to
radicalization. So how do you take the high-level interfaith discourse and
shift it to an action-oriented policy that can actually counter radicalization
on the ground in conflict and poverty ridden places?
While I believe that interfaith dialogue is essential to
building respect and trust, which is the basis of resolving conflicts and
countering violent extremism, the real challenge is to find ways for the public
to engage in these discourses in addition to scholars. There are, I fear, many
structures and institutions standing in the way of greater public engagement,
for instance a lack of laws protecting religious freedom or freedom of
expression especially in Muslim-majority countries, media outlets worldwide
that choose focus on violence because it drives viewership and profits, and the
lack of opportunity for education, employment, and advancement which people of
all religious traditions confront daily. Addressing these inequalities seems to
me equally as important a place to start as interfaith dialogue when attempting
to counter radicalization.
