Religiously-based civil unrest and warfare Sponsored link. But they did not manage to change me. I have NOT learned to hate my neighbors and I never will. Injustice invariably leads to rebellion and retaliation, and these will lead to escalation on the part of both making reconciliation almost impossible.
Honors students work through the issues at one university symposium Breaking into case teams, we sought means by which we could reduce religious conflict Some semesters back, the Honors Program at the George Washington University in Washington, DC held a symposium on religion and conflict in the 21st century.
In this symposium, we heard from several speakers, then broke into case study groups in which we attempted to resolve various religious conflict scenarios.
Below is a solution to religious conflict that my particular case study group formulated during this symposium. This need not be the case. Interfaith dialogue can and must be used to ameliorate religious tensions and prevent sectarian violence and war.
Without it, future conflict, division, and violence is, as Jenkins suggests, inevitable. While lowering barriers and obliterating long-lived rivalries will be challenging, success can be achieved with a mixture of communication, political action, creation of new resources and paradigms, and maintenance.
What we need to do, simply put, is disavow, discuss, develop, and delegate. My case study group formulated this plan when presented with the dilemma of two ethno-religious communities living in close contact with each other who are struggling for political or territorial control.
While our plan was created with this particular scenario in mind, it crosses over well for almost all scenarios involving religious conflict. Our first stage involves the disavowal of violence. This stage would require political and religious leaders alike to disassociate their countries and religions with radical violent sects.
My group did acknowledge that disavowing violence on its own will not end it, but making a clear statement that a religious or political philosophy does not support violence does, to a certain extent, lessen the impact of those seeking to commit violent acts in the name of a certain country or religion.
If leaders and other influential personas frame violent acts as part of a religious struggle or war, people will view them as such.
This allows these acts of terror to evolve from isolated incidents to widespread conceptions of clashing ideologies. As these messages lose their validity and thus their effectivenesstheir popularity will lessen and hopefully be extinguished completely.
Though acts of terror in the future are probably inevitable, with disavowal, they can at least be viewed as isolated acts of violence and not blown out into something more damaging.
This stage is essentially where inter-faith dialogue steps in to solve the problem of sectarian violence. Thus, while disavowing violence will help prevent different peoples from constructing walls that separate them, initiating interfaith and intercultural discussion will build the bridges that draw people closer together.
Some may argue that there already has been a great deal of interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue that has not made any significant impact. This may be a valid argument, but dialogue only fails to aid reconciliation when it is not addressed correctly.
If one does not discuss with an open mind, or if one does not view others as equals, or if one refuses to discuss particularly fragile points, it is indeed impossible to make progress. Embree argues that successful interfaith dialogue must be characterized by three features.
If parties adhere to these guidelines, they are less likely to fall into the same unfortunate ruts in which previous interfaith discussions have met their doom. All we need to do is focus on commonality, open-mindedness, and willingness to truly discuss and not point fingers.Myanmar, was under the rule of an oppressive military junta from until The regime was responsible for major human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minority groups, including the Rohingya Muslims and the Christian Karen, in this mostly Buddhist nation.
American Muslim Minorities: The New Human Rights Struggle By Ashley Moore attacks on the World Trade Center, Muslims residing in the United States have experienced ostracism, and isolation that detach Muslims from the American mainstream.
In addition, the. Jul 15, · A Simple Solution to Religious Conflict. Updated on August 1, Simone Haruko Smith Below is a solution to religious conflict that my particular case study group formulated during this symposium.
The extent to which peoples’ perceptions of the world are negatively changed by religious terrorism is directly Reviews: 5.
Still today most violent conflicts contain religious elements linked up with ethno-national, inter-state, economic, territorial, cultural and other issues.
Threatening the meaning of life, conflicts based on religion tend to become dogged, tenacious and brutal types of wars. intermingling of various religions and ethnicities.
At the same time in the past half century we have witnessed many conflicts. These conflicts have been ethnic, communal, linguistic, development related, fight for a representative government, border disputes, intra-state, inter-state and inter-caste.
‘Ethno-religious conflicts’ refer to those involving groups where religion is an integral part of social and cultural life, and religious institutions are representative, possess moral legitimacy, and mobilisation potential.