VU University Amsterdam > Blaise Pascal Instituut > Girard Studiekring > COV&R 2007 > Abstracts Papers
Jan peters s.j.
Vice President Pax Christi Netherlands
Thematic
Opening of the Meeting of the Colloquium
on Violence & Religion in Amsterdam (July 4-8, 2007),"Vulnerability and Tolerance"
I can imagine that you feel disappointed to be addressed by a simple
Jesuit instead of by a bishop. I can tell you on behalf of bishop van Luyn that
he himself does regret very much that for healths reasons he cannot be with us
this afternoon.
Nevertheless, what I am going to tell you is based on some ideas that
our president developed in the past years.
Forty years ago, July nineteen sixty seven, we were still trying to
realize what happened just a month before, during the six days war between
Israel and the neighbouring Arab states. We: that is a small international
community of young Jesuits, studying and living in Lebanon. In our discussions
we had dreamed about a peaceful and just Middle East and we fancied how the
different churches, Islamic and Jewish communities could join hands to build a
new future for that part of the world.
In the aftermath of the six days war, we realized that it would be much
more difficult than we had hoped for. We remembered the words of one of our
professors of Arabic, Louis Pouzet, a French Jesuit, who told right after our
arrival in Lebanon: this country boasts
about its tolerance and peaceful collaboration between the many social,
cultural and religious groups. Dont be mistaken: it is first of all a balance
of powers, and a balance of weapons.
At the beginning of the civil war, some eight years later, we realized
the fragility and the vulnerability of this form of tolerance. A fundamental
basis had been missing.
Tolerance and vulnerability: the theme for this gathering.
Lucebert poet, painter and native of this charming city in which we
meet formulated this beautifully when he wrote Alles van waarde is weerloos [Everything of value is
defenceless. Everything of value is vulnerable]. If tolerance is a value, it is vulnerable.
Real tolerance, respect, equity and freedom are fundamental social
values that allow us to live in dignity. But they are not a firm and stable
basis for our society: they are continuously threatened, they are vulnerable.
Christian social thought can help us to reflect upon these values
The person and its values in
Catholic social teaching
The Catholic Churchs social teaching is built on the principle that
human dignity lies at the core of respect for all people and for the whole
person. It makes likely the development of talents in freedom, equity and
creativity; yet it is also interactive, it cannot be detached from peoples
responsibility for themselves and for the other. The apostle Paul wrote in his
Letter to the Romans: nobody lives for himself, nobody dies for himself[1]. This is more than a consolation;
it states a crucial axiom of Christian anthropology, namely, that our humanness
is both personal and relational.
The challenge presented by the biblical conviction that we have been
created in Gods image is to recognise Gods image in the other who approaches
us. We are challenged to transcend the boundaries of family, clan, ethnic
relationship, culture and even faith. The fact of being different must be
acknowledged and accepted, and the acceptance of this difference is directly
connected to human dignity. The capacity of society to accommodate differences
requires a level of deeply rooted tolerance.
Tolerance as a traditional Dutch value
The Dutch are known internationally for their tolerance.
In the past, it was their reputed tolerance that gave room to minds like
Spinozas and Descartes and that allowed French Huguenots, Sephardic and
Ashkenazi Jews and other minorities to settle and live openly rather than
enclosed in ghettos as they lived in other countries.
In our days, we are known for our tolerance of soft drugs, euthanasia
and abortion, tolerance of deviant behaviour, infringement of traditional norms
and values, allowing free speech, even when it includes disparaging and
discriminatory language. In recent years, it has become clear that this form of
tolerance makes our society vulnerable.
Why so? Maybe because this form of tolerance is not based on a social
commitment, but on a kind of indifference. You can be yourself, as long as it
does not intervene with our way of living. But at the moment that it does
intervene, what remains of this tolerance?
In the Netherlands we expected migrant labourers arriving in the
seventies to be here temporarily and thus we tolerated their presence and their
different religions, behaviour and attitudes. When they stayed on, however, and
new generations were born, cultural differences became more acutely felt,
particularly in our cities poorer neighbourhoods. Most politicians continued
to give rhetorical speeches on the blessings of multicultural society; they
accused its critics of intolerance. The murder of Pim Fortuyn weakened our
grasp on the image of a tolerant multicultural society. Pim Fortuyn had rapidly
become popular among many Dutch voters because of his straightforward criticism
of established politics, the culture of tolerance in particular. At the same
time many intellectuals were often dismayed by his blunt assault on our image as
tolerant multicultural society.
Our tolerance of minorities was noticeably revealed as indifference to
them; among the most tolerant were those with the least experience of what it
is like to live in the shadows of major urban complexes. During Fortuyns
heyday and in the aftermath of his death, the media broke taboos by linking
crime rates to ethnic background and by concluding that, by and large, the
participation of minorities in our economy and our political system was
undeniably below average. We discovered that a serious problem needed solving.
The solutions suggested ranged from very tolerant what some called
multi-culti pampering to zero tolerance.
Tolerance can quickly disappear and even turn into oppression as social
cohesion weakens and disintegrates resulting in a dangerous level of disorder.
Vulnerability and the need for
security: a dilemma
This form of tolerance, based on indifference, is in itself vulnerable:
it disappears when social problems arise, because it is not really rooted in a
social structure.
On the other hand, this form of tolerance makes a society as a whole
vulnerable: to tolerate everything can lead to a society without shared norms
and values and to a feeling and even a situation of insecurity. People do
realize this in our country and ask for security and protection.
Real security and protection, (based on human dignity), which are given
to any individual, are dependent on the willingness of each member of a
community to accept responsibility for providing this protection to all other
members of that community. Acceptance of this duty to protect stems from
rational and emotional
convictions. We want to follow Jesus who was moved with compassion when he saw
the people harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd[2] and express this in our solidarity
with those who are weak, poor and vulnerable.
If we are to live together in security, we must abide by rules and
regulations, laws even, but also by the dictates of morality. Here the strain
between individual freedom and the collective interest is at its greatest.
Without diversity, without difference we would suffocate; yet change and
deviant behaviour often causes suffering. Although we may tolerate differences,
we do not easily accept them. What is it that we should tolerate and what not?
To what extent can or should we be willing to tolerate something?
How tolerant should one be in the face of blatant intolerance?[3] What would happen if a fanatically
intolerant group ever became the majority in our democracy? What options would
still be open to the Christian faith?
These questions are openly discussed in the media and even in our
parliament, especially since our former minister of justice did not exclude
that once in the future our country could be governed according to the Islamic
sharîa law.
Engaged tolerance[4]
Is there an alternative for
tolerance as disguised indifference?
We want to accept differences, we must show tolerance, yet we need to
protect what we hold as most valuable. The question was and remains: how should
we define tolerance so that it could not become disguised indifference or lead
to exclusion? Such tolerance must be based on human dignity and the importance
of the community. It should be a socially and for many- religiously committed
tolerance.
The need for dialogue
We are looking for a different form of tolerance, rooted in Christian
anthropology. Monsignor van Luyn called this engaged or committed tolerance. It
is the opposite of the indifference that people in power show towards those they
tolerate. Committed tolerance must be based on true, reciprocal interest that
recognises the dignity that befalls every human being. In doing so, we see
ourselves and the others no longer as individuals, but as human persons, rooted
in their social environment and in their religion or social morality.
A committed tolerance would involve dialogue. There are three
prerequisites for dialogue between persons, cultures and faiths.
The first is a self-critical attitude. No one has an exclusive claim to
truth, but we can create a space in which truth can arise in an open dialogue.
The Catholic Church, as Cardinal Lehman noted last year in Berlin, is no
exception to this: a critical self-reflection could constructively expose the
violent tendencies in our own church history, those in the past and those that,
unfortunately, still persist in the present.
Thus, a second prerequisite for dialogue is reciprocity in which all
parties are willing and able to learn from one other. This must be done with
respect for each ones views. Feelings of superiority are as misplaced as are
the views that make an exclusive claim to the truth. Our dialogue must
acknowledge the positive (and negative?) elements in the other cultures and
faiths. Dialogue on fundamental questions could lift us out of deadlock. IKV
Pax Christi recently invited Ibrahim Mousawi to the Netherlands to participate
in a meeting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Mr Moussawi had served as a
spokesman of the Hezbollah during its most recent conflict with Israel. The
Dutch Government refused him permission to enter the Netherlands. In a
teleconference, he then said, What
makes one human? You will need to be able to be compassionate with all people.
We do not have a conflict between Arabs and Israelis. Nor between the East and
the West, neither between Muslims and Christians. This is a moral conflict:
between good and evil, between justice and injustice. This is about occupation
and oppression. This conflict is brought to the most fundamental level: that of
morality, of common human values. While there may many topics on which
one disagrees with the organisation that Mr Moussawi represents, the words that
I quoted may form a basis for a deeply rooted dialogue.
A third prerequisite for dialogue is consistent action. Dialogue in the
context of committed tolerance would lead to action that promotes human dignity
and to the participation of all in society. The ultimate expression of the
meaning of our life is found in what we do in the name of solidarity with others.
Committed tolerance would therefore also mean participation of
minorities in a society that acknowledges the value of every human person and
the entire creation. Participation, much more than integration, should be the
keyword when it comes to shaping an inclusive society. A dialogue marked by
broad participation provides a tangible opportunity for all people to work
with, and become interested in, one another so that every person can serve the
common good in accordance with his or her talents.
The churches and civil society must foster and share the hope that peace
and justice will come to our world, that inspired political leaders will create
the right preconditions for this and that people from all quarters work to
build such a world. In practical terms, this means that minorities learn to
speak the national language and that they have full access to the labour market
and to political forums.
Committed tolerance means an end to tolerance as indifference. Committed
tolerance elicits a serious discussion on norms, values and virtues. Virtues,
here means consistent behaviour based on our values, framed by our norms. The
1980s and 1990s taught us that secularisation and especially individualism have
depleted our stock of common values. There are running debates on the role of
the judiciary and morality, and on rationalism, the inheritance of the
Enlightenment and the role of religion.
We cannot address these questions here today, but we must note that
committed tolerance operates within the framework of human dignity and that in
practice the extent of this framework is sometimes, but not invariably set by
our understanding of justice, as embodied in the national and international
laws.
Islamic anthropology
In the present debate on Islam we may be tempted to speak in
stereotypes, even though we know that reality is always much more complex.
Reducing this complexity has created a polarity between Islam and the Western
world. We need to escape from this simplification and to avoid having one group
being defined as the exact opposite of the other. Human dignity and solidarity
will not allow us to load our common problem on one scapegoat group sent into
the desert.
Let me say a few words about the concepts mentioned above, but now in an
Islamic context.
The very first text of the Qurân, the first revelation to the prophet
Muhammad, speaks about the relationship between man and his creator, and right
from the beginning in the context of mankind and the entire creation. God, who
created mankind and creates every human being in the womb of his mother. The
human person is seen in his social context, but directly linked to his creator
who is also the teacher of mankind and of every human being.
This central topic, when it is elaborated in the first years of
Muhammads preaching, has a very strong element of solidarity and social
justice. The main duties of any human person, mentioned in the older suras of
the Qurân are: saalât and zakât: prayer and charity. The two main pillars:
obligations towards God and obligations towards the people you live with.
These characteristics of a committed human person and the Qurânic texts
expressing these duties are quoted by Islamic movements for peace and justice
to support their aspirations and their activities.
In our days, the reality can seem
to be different, but in the discussions about human dignity, about tolerance
and justice, we can find our partners and allies in the Islamic world to start
a dialogue about our shared values and norms, in order to build a world of
peace and justice.
The dreams of our small Jesuit community in Lebanon forty years ago
should not be given up.
Mimetic Theory and René Girard
Ladies and gentlemen,
the focus of this conference is on vulnerability and tolerance as seen
from the perspective of René Girards mimetic theory.
According
to René Girard our society is based on an attempt to drive out violence by
applying the violence of all against one. He describes a world in which tolerance
cannot be tolerated: casting any doubt on the guilt of those who are turned
into scapegoats endangers the cohesion of society. Ancient myths tell us that
Romulus could not tolerate his brother Remus behaviour and that Rome was
founded on this fratricide. According to the Bible, Cain founded the first city
after having killed his brother Abel, whose name means thin air or, in a more
moot translation, the vulnerable one. The myths praise Romulus, while the
Bible brands Cain a murderer. Yet, he was not to be killed by those who meet
him. The circle of violence and revenge was outlawed.
According
to Girard, scripture unmasks the peoples mimesis, their imitating their
neighbours desires and the subsequent scapegoat mechanism used to create order
where chaos rules and everyone imitates what everyone else wants. It upholds
the innocence of victims, restores their humanity and recognizes their
vulnerability. The Pax Romana
begins to crumble when it encounters revelation and the Pax Christi.
Our
societies become fragmented; the gospel undermines violence-based societies.
However, this need not result in unlimited, possessive individualism. When we
refuse to compare one person to another, to succumb to rivalry or to treat
others as scapegoats, we come to see the potential victim as a person like
ourselves. This revelation offers an alternative way of behaviour in which
those who are less vulnerable stand up for those who are more vulnerable and
form one community with them.
Ladies
and gentlemen,
Academic conferences can be places
of rivalry and verbal violence. I hope that this conference may be a place of
dialogue, a place of fruitful encounter, a place where we teach one another how
to live without rivalry and scapegoats, a place where we learn to be tolerant
and committed, to be vulnerable and open.
|
|
|
|