Distinguished Addresses, Oct. 14

Tomáš Halík
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are embarking on the third and final day of the conference. The purpose of Forum 2000 continues to be the placing of emphasis on the connections of all three dimensions of our world: the political, the economic, and the spiritual (or if you wish moral-cultural) dimensions. This third one – if you would allow me to express my conviction in that it is the key dimension – is the theme today. Please allow me to introduce our distinguished guests, the speakers for this morning’s session: Meir Lau, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Mr Fawzy Fadel El Zefzaf, deputy of Al Azhar and President of Al Azhar Permanent Committee of Dialogue Among Heavenly Religions, Bishop Jonas Jonson, member of the World Council of Churches.
We, the citizens of the world, who a few years ago returned to the family of free societies following the fall of the communist dictatorships, painfully convinced ourselves many times of one thing: a free society, political and economic democracy, cannot unfold and sustain itself fully without a particular moral and spiritual atmosphere. It does not suffice only to establish particular political and economic institutions. It is necessary to care patiently for the moral climate, in which these institutions may breathe and live. The biosphere of free societies is the culture of human relations, their efforts for understanding and communication.
If the process of globalisation consisted solely of the overcoming of political and economic boundaries, it would lead to a cold and dangerous world. The process of globalisation must be accompanied by efforts to overcome the boundaries in the realm of culture and mentality, ideas and emotions. Here we must count on the presence of the barriers of prejudice and many disabling experiences from the distant and not-so-distant past. Therefore, the process of the world growing together in this subtle realm is much more complicated than communication on an economic or political-diplomatic level. However, neglecting this level could lead to a situation where the construction of the entire “global society” would be built on sand, if not a mine-field.
The establishment of cultural understanding and the sharing of values necessarily incorporate dialogue among the religions of the world. It is required that “multiculturalism” be changed into a process of communication. It is impossible to be satisfied with a cheap form of tolerance in the sense of a “non-aggression pact” or solely a free market of ideas, even though these variations are far better than a religious war or attempts at totalitarian domination. It is necessary to proceed further: to listen to each other, to seek that which binds us and that which separates us, to try to understand this as something that can enrich us rather than something that threatens us. During this conference, we have already experienced an hour of collective meditation. If our words and our actions did not originate from the depths of sacred silence, they would not be able to possess the strength needed for healing. “There is a time to remain silent and a time to speak,” states the Bible. I would like to ask this morning’s speakers to share their comments.

Meir Lau
Mr President, Mr Chairman, my dear colleagues at this session, my dear friend Mr Fawzy Fadel El Zefzaf of Al Azhar University, Mr Jonson, colleagues, comrades, friends, there is a prophesy in the Bible, where Isaiah the Prophet in Chapter XI speaks about a vision of the future: “Peace in the future. A day will come when the Messiah will arrive, the lion will dwell together with the lamb and the wolf and the tiger and the baby and the snake. No harm, no damage, they will all live together in peace and friendship. A day will come when the Messiah will arrive.”
Indeed, you have to ask yourselves a good question. Is this only a vision for the future? It has happened already in the past according to the same Holy Book, the Bible. Take the First Book of Genesis, the story about the flood of water and Noah’s Ark. In that Ark, during the flood of water, they dwelled together: the lamb with the tiger and the wolf and the lion, and babies, grandchildren of Noah, all the snakes, and all of them survived the flood. So why is Isaiah speaking about a prophecy in the future if we have had it already; if we have experienced it already, in the past? The answer is very simple. When all the creatures were together in the Ark, they were there because they had no choice, no alternative, because they had a common enemy outside, the flood of water. So that in order to survive, not to be liquidated, they had no choice but to dwell together in peace, somehow in peace, in that Ark if they wanted to survive the flood. Isaiah the prophet speaks about the future when there will be no enemies, when there will be an alternative, and people, because of faith, because of good education, because of free will, because of free choice, will choose the way of freedom, of friendship, of peace. Not because they have no choice, but even if there is a choice, we will want to live together in that global village, the world to come.
My dear friends, unfortunately at the end of the 20th century, at the end of the second millennium, almost in the year 2000, sitting here in Prague at Forum 2000 under the hospitality of President Havel, we must admit that we do not have even the understanding of the animals in Noah’s Ark thousands of years ago. Do we not, mankind, do we not have common enemies? Do we not understand the need to live together in friendship, at least with understanding and in peace? Do we not have common enemies: like starvation, like ignorance, like cancer, like AIDS, like atomic annihilation, like all kinds of diseases? What do we pay for weapons and what do we pay for research into cancer or heart disease? Is it proportionate?
This forum is dedicated to speaking about human rights and in this session today we will discuss the point of view of ethics, morals, faith, and culture, not politics or economy – from the spiritual point of view. Spiritually, I must say that the greatest human right, as everyone understands, is the right for life, the right for survival. Sometimes I am afraid to say that cynics and ironic people are very correct in saying that all of what we have learned from history is that we didn’t learn anything if, at the end of the century and not very far from Prague, there might happen an event like Kosovo, or the last two or three years of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Croatia. Believe me, I do not know the purpose of war and bloodshed – I do not know. How far is it from the heart of Europe? And it happened here 53 years ago? After only 53 years, when some of the survivors are still alive, like myself. I came out from Buchenwald as a child, an orphan, no father, no mother – all perished in the Holocaust. I was not yet eight years old. And I have seen, in 1968, the pictures from Biafra. Two million innocent children did not have human rights. They did not have the right to life, to food, to a ceiling over their heads, to a pair of shoes. It was the only time in my life that I went to a demonstration. At that time, I was a young rabbi, a district rabbi in the city of Tel Aviv. I went with a poster to the front of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset in Jerusalem, together with three friends, one of whom was also a child-survivor of the Holocaust. We lifted up the poster. It was on 6 August, 1968. One of the Ten Commandments says: don’t kill, don’t murder. Don’t kill your neighbour, except in Africa – this was the addition to the Ten Commandments that we put on that poster. Then I see the pictures today from Rwanda or Zaire, from what was Yugoslavia. I’ve seen the Far East, what happened at that time in Vietnam or Laos or Cambodia, everything in the past 10-20 years, in this horrible century, the 20th century. And we speak about human rights.
First of all – the right to live, to survive. We don’t understand what the animals understood in Noah’s Ark. We had to survive the flood of water. Today, there is a flood of fire, a flood of bombing, a flood of hatred. The first right we must acknowledge, spiritually – leaders of religions, leaders of nations, leaders of race – is to live, then to live in freedom. Take the book of Karl Marx – I wasn’t brought up on the communist system, never, but I know Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, the ideological foundations of communism. Do you know what he mentions there, like a vision, like a prophesy? I admit Karl Marx a prophesy. He speaks about Africa in the future – when he wrote it, it was in the future – and it became a reality before our very eyes, that they will have the right of freedom against all kinds of imperialism. And he brought one historical example: When the Jews made an Exodus and went out of Egypt 3,300 years ago, they lifted up the flag of freedom, going out from slavery in Egypt to freedom in their own homeland. And this, wrote Karl Marx, this will be a symbol, a signal, and an open gate for all the other nations in Africa to get rid of all kinds of colonialism and imperialism, and they will have the right to freedom, to sovereignty and that’s what happened. Take my friends in Egypt. Israel and Egypt were colonised at almost the same time under the British mandate rule, and now we are independent states, countries and nations.
One more thing about Africa. I want to be proud of my people, the Jewish people, and the Israeli people. One thing: maybe for the first time in the history of mankind, many aeroplanes brought 57,000 black people out of Africa to freedom, to equal human rights. If you know the story, the saga of the Ethiopian Jews that were brought from Ethiopia and Abyssinia at that time, to equal rights. There is a right to life, a right to freedom. There is a right to freely serve all the religions. Open gates to each one in his faith, let him live in his faith.
Speaking now about Europe, the unity of Europe to come next year, we want to be together in everything, in every field, politically, economically, but every church and every mosque and every synagogue and every religion. I was with the people in Japan, in Kyoto. I have met Confucianists, Shintos, Buddhists, everyone has his rights. This is the human right to freely serve the Almighty, everyone in his own way. Zacharias, the Prophet in the Bible, speaks about the right to serve the Almighty who is one, monotheist, everyone in his own way. So even being one family, but inside of the global family, everyone has his right to his faith, to his belief, to his religion, to his instruments of belief and faith.
We keep it, I must say, since we are in Israel – our 50-year anniversary of the State of Israel because we, the Jews, suffered more than a little bit for being Jewish in many countries, for many centuries, and in many places. We paid a very heavy weal for our faith and we are proud to say today that everything is open for everyone – to pray and serve whom he believes in. This is a part of human rights.
I want to tell you, dear friends, my heart is full of love and understanding for the rights of everyone, for friendship towards everyone. My dear friend, Mr El Zefzaf, remembers my visit to the University of Al Azhar last December, when I was very warmly accepted by the President of Al Azhar University, Grand Sheikh Dr Mohammed Tantawi, and we were sitting together for over an hour-and-a-half involved in a good dialogue, after having been in a dialogue with President Mubarak for an hour-and-a-half as well.
Last August, I had the privilege to go, on my own initiative, to Rochester, Minnesota, to the Mayo Clinic to visit our friend King Hussein, the King of Jordan. We spent 40 minutes together between four eyes. This was a visit of hospitality to a very admired leader who was an enemy to the Jewish people for over 40 years, and who is now one of our greatest friends. This is not only my approach, as Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, not only as a Chief Rabbi of Israel, but this is the approach of every true Jew who believes in the Jewish concept, which is a concept of friendship, love and observing all of mankind’s rights.
At the end of my statement, I want to tell you a very short story taken from our tradition, the old tradition of 4,000 years since Abraham. There is a story told by our old sages. Do you know, my friends and colleagues, where and when the first demonstration was in this global village, this world? When was it? What was the first demonstration not by people, not by human beings? The first demonstration was by the trees, the flowers, fruits and vegetables. They came to demonstrate to the Almighty on the sixth day of the Creation. Take the book of Genesis, the First Chapter of the Bible. The trees were created on Tuesday, the third day. Mankind was created on Friday, the sixth day. So all the trees came to demonstrate to the Almighty with a complaint: “You have now created man, and man will create all kinds of weapons, knives, axes, and he will cut the trees. He needs the trees for his buildings, for his furniture, for his sculptures, for heating his house. He will destroy all of us. Almighty, we cannot survive, if man will do what he is doing!” So the Almighty gave them one answer: “Don’t supply him the handles. The handles are made of wood taken from yourselves. Don’t betray one another. With the metal itself, he cannot destroy you. For the axes, for the knives, he is using a handle made of wood. Don’t supply the handles.”
My dear friends, let’s stop supplying the handles. Let’s give hands instead of handles – hands, one to the other. Let’s offer hands of friendship, of understanding, to keep and to observe highly, truly, human rights, and this will bring the prophecy of Isaiah to a true reality very soon.
Thank you very much.

Tomáš Halík
Thank you, Rabbi Lau, for your very interesting speech and now we will listen to the voice of Islam, Mr Fawzy Fadel El Zefzaf.

Fawzy Fadel El Zefzaf
Your Excellency, President Havel, distinguished assembly, esteemed Forum, Peace be with you, and God’s Mercy and Blessing.
I greet this forum, which is so noble in its goals, so rich in philosophers whose minds are focused on shining aspirations to make it possible for mankind to achieve happiness both in the present and in the future. I declare here that I am really happy that I have been invited and that I can be present on behalf of His Eminence the Great Imam, the Sheikh of Al Azhar. Any activity striving to gear mankind to greater perfection is welcome and should receive support from every sincere person who is also motivated by such activity to maximum zeal to reflect genuinely on his own modest contribution to a desirable future development.
I am, above all, an optimist as regards the future of mankind along the road to the most distant horizons of time, because every generation has produced leading intellectuals who strive for the greater happiness of man. They leave their mark behind them, inspiring us forward without backing down.
Comparing the present with the past, there is good reason to cherish hopes for the future. I therefore repeat my claim of being an optimist beyond measure as far as the future of mankind is concerned, because God who created man as the supreme creature will not leave him to the mercy of the tempest since he has endowed him with a conscious mind and luminous existence. Although our foibles may sometimes prevail over reason and a clear conscience, the sun of truth soon disperses the fog with its bright light and people come out of the darkness into the light again.
Occasionally we hear voices of those who deny the progress of mankind as a result of the horrors caused by modern inventions. Whole cities have been erased to the ground by wars. An enormous amount of effort has been exerted for the invention of the most destructive types of weapons against defenceless people. We all reject such abuse of modern inventions. It is not, however, the modern inventions that are to blame. The culprits are those who use the inventions to destroy, who use them as instruments of destruction and of the murder of innocent people. If our souls hear the voice of unspoiled human nature, modern inventions can bring the world liberation and peace. That would become reality if modern inventions were used to serve the good and safeguard the welfare of mankind. They would bring – the same as in the case of medicine – relief to people, and tools to fight epidemics and disease, and they would save the sick, alleviate pain like modern pharmaceuticals.
Reflecting on the progress of the civilisation of our world, we perceive interlinked phases of which each is more advanced than the one before it on the road to a more and more perfect state of righteousness.
Thus, old Egyptian civilisation was a source for the oriental civilisations of China and India and contributed to the progress of mankind. The oriental heritage later expanded westwards; ancient Greece became the first nation to improve urban civilisation, both theoretically and in practice. It has left monuments which we observe with reverence. When ancient Rome was bequeathed the Hellenic heritage, it enriched it with its own contribution, especially in the field of law.
After that came the shining light of Islam. The Abbasid state translated all the knowledge brought to the empire from India, China and Greece. This knowledge was then transformed into a creative, responsive mould, enriching the intellectual treasury of mankind by the contribution of Muslim scientists and scholars – personalities like Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn al-Haytham, ar-Rashid and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) - and many others whom it is impossible to list on this occasion.
Modern European Renaissance discovered the heritage of the Arabs and the Muslims as a firm foundation to lean on in its sweeping ascent in many fields. And thus mankind is moving ahead, one century after another, and no one but god knows what the world will be like in the future, as science is advancing in giant steps. Were a 19th-century scientist to appear suddenly in the world of today to see the present scientific achievements, he would be overwhelmed and struck speechless. He would understand that whatever mankind had managed to achieve in the past centuries was but a trifle compared with the advance of science in this century.
By using this example, we are not denying the merits of our ancestors since it is they who have laid the foundations of the progress of civilisation. We are only confirming the fact that progress has guided scientists to the highest goals, that the world has changed into such a small village that no political or scientific novelty can remain hidden from the lord or the humble man. Any individual can now be well informed about what is happening in his neighbourhood as well as far away in the world...
If this is a marvellous fact from the point of view of scientific progress then only to the degree to which this progress is taking place on the road to righteousness, to the degree to which it benefits human society without discrimination.
With the passage of time, man acquired such rights as he had never enjoyed in the past. He acquired human dignity and freedom on the basis of principles of equity as upheld by the Divine religions, declaring brotherhood, equality and justice and stating that all people are equal, that there is no difference between an Arab and an alien, or between a white man and a black man, except in the doing of good.
The West is now boasting that it has been the pioneer of this political progress and one of the important factors in its implementation. A more alert and unbiased view will show, however, that the West is observing all the principles of freedom, brotherhood and equality only within its own borders. Every civilised country in the West recognises freedom, applies the laws of equality and respects human dignity only within its own borders while taking the law into its own hands to master over all other people. Beyond the borders of the home country it resorts to imperialism, turning it into an instrument of exploitation, subjugation and plunder of wealth; it has used destructive weapons against peaceful nations whom it has robbed of their wealth, driven into poverty, ignorance and backwardness. Were it not for the fact that these countries had risen against imperialism and colonialism, and were it not for their craving for freedom, they would not have achieved even a speck of freedom.
Mankind could have been spared such destructive disasters if the principles of that humanity of which the West is so proud had been observed also beyond the territory of the West. It is necessary to apply these principles generally and absolutely everywhere.
It cannot be denied that the direction chosen by nations after the two world wars, marked out by steps to equality, is proof of the progress of civilisation. Nevertheless, the differences between large and small countries continued to be clear and obvious – first in the League of Nations and now in the UN. The right state of human matters will not be achieved unless these distinctions are erased to allow all to stand as equals in front of the law. The main defect of the United Nations is namely the differences that allow the preferential standing of powerful states, which can use their right to veto decisions on the platform of the Security Council and achieve their own objectives. The sense of equality thus loses out or disappears altogether.
We are full of pride when we claim: the current civilisation has confirmed human rights and is promoting their enforcement by the adoption of charters and various provisions. This generation has also striven to entrench democracy, which has sanctified universal freedoms and extended rights to man and advocated his responsibilities. It has also introduced women to the world of progress after they had been, in the past centuries, prisoners in their homes.
That is what we say, and we keep stressing that it is the current civilisation that has introduced all these things, as if they were something new...
But the study of Divine religions is complex and the last of these religions, Islam, has proven that these rights have been known and confirmed and also applied under the rule of the wise caliphs, which drew its principles from the noble Koran and the Sunna of the Prophet Muhammad (God’s blessing and peace be upon him).
I am not trying now just to attest to these facts as heavenly commandments, but I am stating that it is necessary to implement these principles in real life. We do not welcome heated squabbles as to whether it has been Islam or other religions that first proclaimed the necessity of observing these principles. As long as we agree on the benefit of their existence, we must strive to bring to perfection the instruments for their implementation. Historical research can then be left to those concerned with it in universities.
The lines of demarcation have become defined and the outline clear. Nobody shall or should be able to deny the human right to freedom and dignity or the right of nations to freedom in the light of equality and justice. Dawn cannot rise over the human world unless these rights are safeguarded for the whole world, unless scientists follow the good and not the evil and silence any egoistic voice calling for profit from trade in arms and annihilation of people.
Reflecting on the blatant contradiction between the declaration of liberty and equality by the powerful nations and their devious policy of non-observance of the same principles in relation to weaker nations, I come to the conclusion that religions have ceased to act as movers of souls. For many people it has become a de facto understanding that the era of science has eliminated religious teaching and that religion has moved to the private sphere of relations between the believer and his Lord. If the situation were otherwise, and this relation were perceived in the traditional sense, i.e. that the Creator rules over the conduct of the individual, who observes his commandments and avoids that which is forbidden, then the dominance of God would be a stimulus for the observation of laudable righteous behaviour and abstention from repugnant crimes and misbehaviour . Alas, some people perceive this relationship as exclusive of anything else except prayers and religious rituals taking place in monasteries and temples, and as having no connection with arrangements relating to “real” life. Such interpretation allows the followers of one divine religion to exploit followers of other creeds, to declare what is forbidden – like the killing of people with bombs and all kinds of chemical and other weapons – as acceptable. It is as if those weak nations were pests to be controlled by a pesticide designed to kill humans. This state cannot be remedied otherwise than by a return to the principles of genuine religion, by divine religions fully controlling human behaviour in all its manifestations.
I must pronounce as false all those unfair labels attached to religion by a certain stream of scientists in the age of scientific revolution. They claim that science has an enormous power and that it disposes of total rule over the universe by controlling matters of both organic (animals and plants) and inorganic nature (minerals, rivers and seas), as well as the skies (planets, stars and galaxies). This rule has, in their view, excluded the rule of religion, which has become redundant. “Has not science revealed mysteries of life which religion could not?” they ask.
This claim is evidently untrue because the mission of religion is stronger than that of science. The mission of religion is in enabling man to reach his Almighty Creator and in guiding the righteous man, one who has avoided all that which is base and false, up the road to the heights of nobility of spirit. If such is the case, one can live a noble life – a feat which cannot be achieved by anybody who is a slave but to the laws of science.
Thus we see in our vicinity those who believe in science alone, and deny whatever is beyond. They are like the materialists who have occupied the world with their works during the whole 19th century and a large part of the 20th century. And then there are those who believe in both science and religion simultaneously.
The first suffer unmanageable mental crises. It is not possible to avoid disasters, and once these afflict people of such inclination, the wide world in front of them darkens and becomes too narrow. At times, this state develops into a lethal, incurable disease: madness, mania, schizophrenia. There is, in fact, no way out for them from this fatal disaster, none that would help them achieve peace of mind and soul. They are captives of their obsession. They stumble from darkness to darkness, without finding guidance.
The person who believes both in religion and science may in the event of any disaster rely on his faith in the compassion and help of God, and on his hope that matters will revert to the good thanks to the Creator of Heaven and Earth. This firm belief in God’s mercy and compassion and in his help brings man peace of mind and calm, which persists until the passing of the crisis. And what peace of mind!
And society is like the individual. As the believer finds spiritual peace, so, in its general composure, does society. We have seen the solid ranks of nations surrendering to God’s will. At times of darkest crises, their steps led to cathedrals and mosques and there they found relief. The disintegration of unbelieving nations is a strong warning. Had they entrusted themselves to God’s care, they would have found certainty and their fate would have been different.
There are great scientists who, in this context, assert: “Religion strives for a higher goal than science. Even if science reaches the ultimate clarification and interpretation of existence, the religious goal shall be closer to the human heart because there is a bond between man and his Creator. This bond shapes man for the understanding of the truth about life and reveals to him the wisdom of being and its mechanisms. This is something that science cannot achieve alone. What use is there for man to know the secret of the composition of an atom of matter if he uses this knowledge to break the atom and then construct a bomb to destroy a whole city? What use is there in mastering the perfect utilisation of electric power for his needs, or in building engines driving vessels and aeroplanes, enabling them to reach the other end of the world in a couple of hours – what use is this to man if he cannot find peace in his life? What use is this to him if he is stricken by disease and full of despair that he will not recover? What use is it if, in such circumstances, he cannot have trust in God?”
We must ask the question: Is faith in God such a barrier to involvement in secular research and in learning about the world that we should concentrate all our efforts to expel science from religion?
True religion guides man to the study of the kingdom of heaven and earth and, in all regards, it goes hand in hand with reason. It actually challenges people not to observe that which denies reason. Since religion supports science on its right path, why is it then that some people designate religion as the enemy of science despite the fact that religion protects science against possible evil? Indeed, were religion to rule over those who create weapons of mass destruction, like the atom bomb and similar weapons, science would be protected by religion. It would be guided on the right path and would be prevented from going astray.
I am not speaking here as an idealistic dreamer, I am only revealing the bare truth, and I say: if I am an optimist about the future of mankind in the coming centuries for the various reasons which I have stated, then my optimism leans first of all on my conviction that faith will govern scientific trends in all directions and that the future world will thoroughly understand the degree of lethal evils left over by the past, evils which have resulted in moral disintegration, ostentatious, crushing power and the proclamation of false slogans which made every nation think it was the best. Nationalism has thus become a means of permeating souls with the notion of supremacy over other nations and with feelings of their superiority.
It is odd that it is namely such nations that declined most deeply during the last war. Their descent from the limelight has refuted their morbid slogans. Nevertheless, those who follow their egoistic objectives have not taken this fact into account, and the voice of justice is often lost in the turmoil of injustice, forcing the people who are striving to achieve righteous goals to exert enormous effort to let law prevail and to defeat injustice.
In my view, the mass media, in all spheres and in all parts of the world, are promoting very strongly material lures and foibles. Film, too, has a similar effect. The picture presented makes it seem there is nothing else in this world besides luxury and leisure – in contradiction to religious truths, and resulting in a situation in which religion, and faith in the Creator of the Universe and of Man is taken lightly.
We should expect a better balance between the two – to have place for serious matters and place for leisure and amusement. If the mission of religion is promoted by individual countries in the media, a tool will be offered to save desperate souls, to guide them to peace of mind – which is what believers long for, as they lack such content in the worthless distractions on offer. They would be able to find what they are searching for – trust in God and in Faith.
The media have a very important mission as they must play an ecumenical role between all religions. Do not all these religions appeal to human virtues, do they not aspire to mutual respect between different people, do they not repudiate vile fanaticism? For ethical reasons, it is up to us to mould the common features into a source of harmony and cohesion, not to seek reasons for splits and disputes.
Religious fanaticism – in the positive aspect of the term – means the observation, by the believers, of the commandments of their religion, the cultivation of their faith. It certainly does not mean the waging of war against those religions they do not profess – that would be but vile contentiousness. If every believer observes ardently the commandments of his religion, the world will be governed by love and friendship and religion will become a healing balm for the wounds of tortured humankind. Where the clergy of all religions co-operate in the dissemination of the ethical virtues of their faiths the world is broad enough for the achievement of consensus and avoidance of disputes. In the light of such reality, scientific thought can advance in the steps of righteousness, it can become a means of finding truth and justice – love born of understanding among people is one of the noblest inspirations proclaimed by true religion.
We are witness to certain streams of fanatics trying to drag people of other religions over to their faith. I believe they would do better to concentrate on missionary activity among the unbelievers and pagans, among those who profess no religion. They could thus benefit mankind by guiding unbelievers to faith in the true God and to awareness of the final reckoning on Judgment day. This faith is the road to happiness in life. Only such person who believes in the final judgment, and who knows that God is observing him, will cease to commit evil and will reflect deeply on his situation on the day when all people stand in front of God’s tribunal. That is the role of religion in its fight against evil.
The person who does not believe in God’s judgment tries in all possible ways to avoid the sanctions prescribed by the secular laws adopted by the state. Maybe he will manage to avoid such punishment if he is careful enough when committing his crimes not to leave any traces. He will remain happy because he has rid himself of responsibility, although he might have committed a dreadful crime...
The conscience of the person who believes in a just reckoning is alive, it does not allow him to do evil. Such a man will be protected from evil by a sensitive soul which would torture him with reproach should he ever commit an evil deed.
If all religious streams and sects join forces in their call for moral virtues and for repudiation of the evil forms of fanaticism, they would clear the way for a calm, peaceful and positive future. That is the reason for the importance of dialogue between the divine religions, for which Islam has always called.
“Say: ‘People of the Book, let us come to an agreement: that we will worship none but God, that we will associate none with Him, and that none of us shall set up mortals as gods besides Him.’
If they refuse, say: ‘Bear witness that we have surrendered ourselves o God.’” (verse 64, sura Al-Imran)
We, Muslims, believe in the divine religions that preceded Islam, we believe in all the earlier prophets and messengers, making no distinction between them. We are also convinced that there is a wide space in the divine religions for common virtues and noble righteousness and that sincere and true collaboration of all clerics for their accomplishment would benefit mankind and result in the rule of security and peace...
I now return to my statements and declare: for our optimism about a happy new century to be justified, it is necessary to intensify our effort and agree on the right moral foundations, as proclaimed a long time ago by the divine religions, and transform these foundations into a shield against destruction. We need to turn religious righteousness into a constitution, to be observed and respected. There is no need to bring evidence of this need, to prove its correctness, because every reasonable man believes firmly that to strive for moral greatness is a dignified ambition and that a man who follows the path of such greatness feels satisfaction in his heart.
That is what all reasonable people think. However, there are people in whom lowly instincts prevail over such belief. These people stray from the right path although they know, deep in their hearts, that they are consciously departing from what is right. Later they are hurt that other people have seen them doing evil things and try to invent excuses for their fall. They also know that while they are managing, with the use of various tricks, to explain their misdeeds they cannot calm their agitated conscience – and they resort to all kinds of sedatives to pacify it.
Conscience is the voice of God inside man, a voice which does not let him sleep when he sins against divine law and the virtues commanded by God. It also protects us from succumbing to unrealistic dreams. It is easy to let ourselves be guided on the road of virtue as proclaimed by the true believers and as incorporated in religious rules and teachings if the virtues are such as cannot be denied.
These virtues must be taught to our children at home, in the mosque and in church. They should become a form of social contract among people, they should be adopted by public opinion as a desirable social goal. Any individual or state who betrays these virtues should have to face a wave of public condemnation, to show such violators that they are isolated and excommunicating themselves from society.
This cannot be achieved without absolute equity of rights and duties of nations and states irrespective of nationality, colour of skin, religion or language – because mankind consists of the sons to whom God, the Almighty, has said: “Men, I have created you from male and female and divided you into nations and tribes that you might get to know one another. The noblest of you in God’s sight is he who fears Him most. God is wise and all-knowing.” (verse 13, sura The Chambers). And also God’s words: “You are all of Adam, and Adam is of clay.”
To us, too, these words of God Almighty were addressed: “Let there become of you a nation that shall speak for righteousness, enjoin justice, and forbid evil. Such men shall surely triumph.” (verse 104, sura Al Imran)
Distinguished gentlemen, I am not a dreamer moving blindly in a labyrinth of illusions. I am only pointing out the need for the observation of righteousness on which all who are following the right way have agreed, people of all religions and languages. If we do observe the rules, the horrors of war will disappear and brotherhood will prevail, a brotherhood which will open a new dawn to mankind.

Tomáš Halík
Thank you, Mr El Zefzaf, and now, Bishop Jonson.

Jonas Jonson
Mr President, I am honoured to be invited to talk peace between religions in this city where my own countrymen, for confessional reasons, ransacked the Cathedral just 350 years ago.
Religion is back on the world stage. Mission and migration have made the world religions present everywhere. Media and mass movements have confirmed fears that religion may play a divisive and destructive role in the years to come. To secular people in the North, the return of religion has been an unexpected and somewhat disturbing development. The current religion reaction is speeded up as a response to globalisation with its nihilism of values. Faith, cultures and nations reassert themselves in some cases as a means of survival. An emphasis on confessional and ethic particularity has made the world map explode. This particularity calls many universal common values into question as being implicitly Western, Christian, male or oppressive. Particularity has the potential to bring the world civilisation to the brink of disintegration.
People of faith drink from inexhaustible sources of wisdom and grace. But they stand at deep and dark waters where common sense, peace, and respect for others, are sometimes drowned. Religion is not easily controlled, but rather easy to mobilise for legitimising violence and supporting particular interests. Contextual concerns and interpretations of religion take precedence over what is universal across frontiers. To exercise spiritual and moral leadership under the present circumstances is, therefore, a responsible and precarious vocation. I do not subscribe to the view that a clash of civilisations undergirded by world religions is unavoidable, nor do I interpret the revival of religion as a revenge of God, as a French author has called his book. But any analysis of the present must conclude that religion as world views, as value systems, and as devotion, is determining communal life and cannot be neglected. The challenge is consistently to strengthen the authentic concern for the well-being of all, which can be found in every religious system. We have to stand together for humanity, peace and a liberating hope.
Speaking as a Christian and summarising the 20th century experience of the Christian church, three independent dimensions come to the fore. The first is its expansion. Universal in character, Christianity has, for the first time, also become global in the geographical sense. It has expanded into most cultures and attracted millions of converts and new followers, and this continues on all continents. It poses the dilemma of how to uphold, protect and strengthen freedom of religion for all and, at the same time, legitimately protect the integrity of religious communities, cultures and individuals. The diversity of faith, with its corresponding diversity of value systems, is now found almost everywhere and is, of course, accessible to people on the “web”. In what have been rather homogeneous societies we face a new challenge to integrate, but not assimilate cultures, to provide space for diversity and, at the same time, promote basic common values.
For Christianity, this past century has thus meant a dramatic shift of numerical strength from the North Atlantic region to the South, particularly to Africa, South-East and East Asia. The fastest growing churches in the world can now be found in countries like China or Ethiopia. At the same time, Pentecostal, evangelical and conservative movements give new dynamics to the Christian church, and this shift of geography, as well as spirituality, has far-reaching implications for the more traditional churches.
There is, therefore, a pressing need for reformulating the ecumenical mandate of the churches, both with regard to their own mutual relationships and their dialogue and co-operation with people of other faiths. The World Council of Churches, of which I am a member of the Central Committee, is celebrating its 50th Anniversary, but it is deeply affected by the revival of religion in general and the changes of Christianity in particular, and is finding itself in a deep institutional crisis. The same is true for the Roman Catholic Church, hesitant to fully implement the Vatican Council. Relations between the three main traditions, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, have deteriorated in recent years. Orthodox churches, like the Russian, the Serb and the Bulgarian churches, are considering leaving international ecumenical organisations. Many churches around the world tend to withdraw into their own agendas. At the time when a joint Christian contribution to global civilisation, and a prophetic voice questioning institutions of global power, is asked for more than ever, churches caught up in their hierarchical structures of the past are not able to voice a common vision of justice, peace and the integrity of creation for the future.
The organised ecumenical movement has, however, proved indispensable: for its defence of human rights and obligations; its support for an open and constructive encounter with people of other faiths; its encouragement of spirituality free from all connections with violence and oppression; and, not least, its liberation of God from being confined to Western images and thought. The ecumenical movement has, in fact, been the most effective bulwark against fundamentalism, self-sufficiency and other-worldliness. Now there is a need for reconstituting the organisations and building new platforms where all churches can together address the burning world issues. This is underway. The process needs encouragement from gatherings like this one to confirm that the mission of Christianity is nothing less than the life of the world.
The third observation is that this past century has seen more Christian martyrs than any other time in history. We began the conference remembering one of the thousands, Edith Stein. A martyr is not a person opting for sacrificial death for the sake of a political cause, or as an entry to eternal life. In the Christian tradition, a martyr is a person whose freedom of conscience, integrity, passion for truth, and search for the well-being of others, has led to the loss of her, of his, life. As we wrestle with questions relating to the future of civilisation, we must not forget the many who sacrificed their lives for human dignity.
The greatest common undertaking by humanity in this century is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we will talk more about today. Formulated and supported directly, and indirectly, by people of all world religions, this Declaration gives direction to national and international legislation. Its expressed individual values already permeate every culture and gradually impact legislation. No religious community could claim ownership to the values expressed, but all religious communities should, referring to their own ethical heritage and theological anthropology, commit themselves to the legal, social and economic implementation of the Declaration. One hope shared by many churches and people of good will right now, is that there would be a moratorium on the death penalty by the year 2000.
Some people say that global ethics and a global community are impossible. If so, it is a necessary impossibility.
Given the destructive potential built into any religious system commanding human conscience, and claiming an exclusive understanding of the world, the integration and fundamentalism that is now building up simultaneously in all world religions is indeed fearsome. It is our vocation to deepen our understanding of God and to resist any temptation to rule, rather than to serve. Churches must make every effort to strengthen their own unity as a sign of the unity of humanity, to establish more committed forms of relations with people of other faiths and to seek agreed rights and common values while respecting diversity. Civilisation is the ability to live with, appreciate and integrate diversity. Only as we live globally at the local level, and fully respect the local at the global level, will there be communion. The strength of authentic spirituality is humility and the readiness to live with ambiguous answers. At the heart of Christian belief is reconciliation for all and with all. The way forward is a return to the sources, a return to God who is love, and is the giver of life, who always will call humanity back to a path of love and responsibility, and together we are now moving into God’s future.
Thank you.