| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
"Towards A Culture of Tolerance" Prime Minister, The events of September 11 were a grim reminder to all of us of the absolute necessity to vigorously combat terrorism and extremist violence anywhere and everywhere. The murderous attacks in New York and Arlington were aimed at the people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, aimed at the citizens as well as the Government of the United States. They were also intended as an attack on the open society we cherish and on the values of democracy and human rights on which it is built. Finally, they were meant to strike at the very foundations of peace among nations and civilizations. Their purpose was to sow hatred, violence and destruction among the nations and civilizations of the world. Our response to this challenge must be a dialogue among civilizations, a commitment to the peaceful resolution of differences, to tolerance and mutual respect. That is a challenge that requires a clear understanding, however, of our own fundamental values, values we must defend but also live up to. There is no direct and certainly no causal link between these two challenges. But they will nevertheless determine the course of the twenty-first century. Our response to both challenges will decide whether we live in a world of escalating cultural, religious and ethnic conflict or in a world in which different civilizations coexist peacefully. Our world will always be defined by the diversity of our societies and cultural traditions. If there is respect and tolerance for our differences, they will enrich all our lives. But if such differences are exploited for political ends, they may cause untold harm. When familiar structures disappear, borders become irrelevant and the language of the market invades every aspect of daily life, people increasingly look to their cultural roots. They seek to reassert their identity - in terms of language, ethnic origin, religion or cultural heritage. To want to know who and what you are is a natural and very powerful human need. It is a need, I believe, responsible leaders should respond to, not suppress. Because only the right kind of response will prevent people turning to the false and dangerous prophets of nationalism, fundamentalism or xenophobia. However, - and this is crucial - responsible leaders must resist the temptation to exploit this need for their own purposes. The frightening scenario of escalating cultural conflict in a world of soon seven billion people should be a strong incentive for all of us to look for practical ways to foster cooperation. What we need is a "Culture of Tolerance". A way to reconcile the need for identity with an open and outward-looking spirit. Tolerance does not mean indifference towards those we see as "other" than ourselves, towards their culture and religion, background or origin. Tolerance requires that we have some knowledge and understanding of these others. What is the real meaning of tolerance and dialogue in this whole process? Let me start with a general comment: this dialogue can only succeed, if Orient and Occident engage in it on equal terms. Tolerance, then, means respecting the fact that civilizations are different. Dialogue, as I see it, means seeking a common understanding of those values that will guide us through the twenty-first century. This kind of "intercultural dialogue" is a very ambitious goal. To achieve it, we must all begin work at home, within our own societies. There is a three million-strong Muslim community in Germany. We for our part are striving to develop and practise the kind of tolerance I have described. That needs time and in some cases requires difficult judgements. Let me give you some examples: Should the Koran be taught in German schools - and who should do the teaching? Should Muslim women teachers be allowed to wear headscarves in school? Is the slaughter of animals according to Muslim rites compatible with our ideas and laws on animal protection? Those are just three of the many practical issues that have led to intensive debate in Germany - among the general public, in the political arena and also before the courts. But in the course of these debates we have steadily deepened our understanding of what it really means to be a tolerant society. In an important speech last October the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas analyzed the "speechlessness" between the secularized world and religion, which he observed also in those societies founded on the separation of church and state. To overcome the orthodoxies on both sides, the demands of faith and the demands of modern science, he argues - and I quote - "for the civilizing role of a democratically enlightened common sense, which (...) speaks up for a third position alongside science and religion". This type of common sense, rooted in our religious traditions and at the same time sensitive to the opportunities and the limits of modern science, can help to reconcile the tensions within our own society. If we apply this kind of common sense to our dialogue, I am sure we will be able to resolve cultural tensions in constructive ways and without resorting to violence. Without a solid common basis, however, only monologue, not dialogue, is possible. Is there general and wholehearted support for the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant international conventions? Do we really share the same understanding of the importance of individual liberty and other fundamental human rights? These questions include the issue of the role and rights of women. Their rights must be an integral and prominent part of this dialogue. Once we have reached a clear and solid consensus on those values we hold in common, it is up to political leaders to endorse these rights. They must defend this spirit of openness in society, defend it against the modern fundamentalisms that seek to impose their own absolute truths. For me, this also means people must be free to practise their religion. The way minorities are treated is the true test of the "culture of tolerance" for which I am calling. True tolerance is an expression of self-confidence, not weakness. In Europe there are certainly Muslims who suffer from social exclusion and isolation. Yet for many years mosques have been built in Germany and all over Europe - the largest of them all in Rome, close to the Holy See. In many Islamic countries, however, the freedom of Christians to practise their religion is still severely limited. Things were different, though, in the past. I remember very well my visit to the magnificent Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, where in the early days of Islam Muslims and Christians for decades had their places of worship right next to each other. That is an impressive historical example of tolerance. It is only when we succeed with this dialogue within our societies, that we can really reap the fruits of a dialogue between our societies. Not as some kind of contest between Christianity and Islam, but as a serious effort to resolve social and political differences, an effort that includes mutual respect for each other's way of life but excludes any resort to violence. Let us make a real effort to move away from a "culture of lecturing each other" to a "culture of learning from each other". That will require honest answers to tough questions which I do not want to suppress. What is the Islamic world ready to contribute to this joint effort? Is there a readiness to seriously discuss the tensions and contradictions that arise from a strict interpretation of the Sharia on the one hand and fundamental human rights as we understand them on the other? Can we reach a consensus on the rights of women, on their full participation in society, on their equal right to education and training? Is there a broad consensus to unambiguously condemn any religious justification of suicide attacks? Can we work together to find a peaceful and just agreement on the question of Jerusalem, thereby resolving one of the most difficult issues of the Middle East conflict? An agreement which - based on Israel's right of existence and security as well as the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to their own state - will provide a peaceful solution that satisfies all the faithful, one that is worthy of the three great book religions? And is there a readiness to oppose those in the Islamic world who continuously blame Israel for a whole range of problems that are in fact of domestic origin? Those are questions we cannot evade if we are serious about preventing cultural and political faultlines. Let me emphasize at this point, that Europe also has a responsibility to contribute to that "message of hope" which UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for last week in New York, to demonstrate the solidarity with others without which no partnership on equal terms is possible. There have been periods of appalling intolerance in the history of Germany and Europe - a legacy the Islamic world also has to shoulder. Today, however, it is our common responsibility for the future, which makes it imperative that our dialogue is substantive and successful. A future we will shape not just as neighbours but also when we ourselves live in the midst of societies less familiar to us than our own. Not only in the political arena but also in schools and the media, among scholars of Islam and leaders of Friday prayers, we must come to an understanding of what I called a "culture of tolerance". That is what we must work for, each one of us beginning in our own country yet also all together.
|
|
 Newsletters
 Printer-Friendly
Page
Email This Article |
||
|
|||||
|
|||||
