One insight of this question is that religious diplomacy and interfaith, while having some overlap, represent different approaches to the challenge of religious conflict. With that in mind, as we look at the ongoing conflicts around the world, many of which are informed by religion even if they are not explicitly religious, have not been resolved by interfaith dialogue. In our view interfaith dialogue tends to attract those already committed to positive interaction and conversation. Those at odds with each other over deep differences, and who desperately need some kind of appropriate intervention, are not likely to participate. And even if they did, serious questions remain about the efficacy of interfaith dialogue in the face of deep conflicts. In recent years interfaith dialogue itself has come under increasing scrutiny in many quarters by those who want to ensure that the vast resources of time, money and energy spent in interfaith efforts are really making an impact in the areas where they are applied. Studies such as those by the Wolff Institute, as well as scholars working in the behavioral sciences, demonstrate the need for a scientific understanding of the challenges and the use of alternative approaches. Considering this, we offer the way of religious diplomacy, an approach that incorporates the insights of the science of conflict and which is aimed at audiences that most need alternative forms of intervention.

Not at all! Interfaith dialogue does build understanding of common values that can lead to collaboration between religious communities. Many humanitarian aid projects with billions of donated dollars and hours are accomplished through joint efforts of different religious traditions. Interfaith cooperation can have strong positive impact on economic and political matters when moral alignment of religious citizens is achievable. However, interfaith dialogue is not the best approach in bringing people resistant to conversations to the table to build enough trust to tackle intractable conflicts. Religious diplomacy aims at reaching such individuals and groups to build trust and goodwill by facing their unresolvable differences and continually seeking the whole truth together.

It can be a challenge, but it is possible. Over the years FRD has brought people together to have conversations and build trust despite irreconcilable differences, including Jews and Palestinians, Iranian Muslims and American Christians, liberal Buddhists and conservative Evangelicals, Satanists and Evangelicals, and more. There are several good reasons why those who disagree about fundamental beliefs and value priorities should come together, from a desire to better understand to the desire to try to persuade others that their position is better to a recognition that respectful engagement is preferable to suppressing the voice of others or engaging violently, and many more reasons. While we recognize the challenge of bringing people together who may not really want to do so, it is possible, and these resistant audiences are those we seek to engage.

The term “rivalry” may sound like it has negative connotations, but this doesn’t have to be the case. Consider sibling rivalry, or the rivalry between competing sports teams. While these can have negative aspects, such as when siblings fight or members of sports teams mix it up on the sidelines after a play, rivalry can also be positive. Whether in a family context or sports, those in competition often improve each other. After a recent high stakes professional football contest, two teams fought hard to win, and surprisingly, the team desperately behind in the first half rallied and pulled out a victory as the clock wound down. After the game, members of the teams could be heard talking to each other in mid-field as they congratulated each other on a game well played, and in one instance the defeated opponent told a victorious rival, “Great game, man! You made me a better football player.” The reality is that rivalry is a part of life. We are in competition with others, many times to win the hearts and minds of people to see things our way, especially in the realms of politics and religion. The best way forward is to embrace our rivalry and build trust between rivals as we seek to persuade others of our point of view.

This question is related to the terminology in relation to “religious rivals” but give us an opportunity to expand a bit. To be clear, we are not advocating conflict resolution or that individuals and groups that fundamentally disagree over beliefs and values will or even should come to complete agreement. Instead, they are more likely to understand their conversation partner’s position better and see them not as a threat, but instead as a sincere person who has very different convictions than they do. This enables the building of trust between people who still strongly disagree, who are then able to continue their disagreement in relationship over time as a form of “peaceful co-resistance” through differences and who can work together in various ways through forms of “cooperative contestation.”

Attempts at persuasion are indeed off-limits in interfaith dialogue, thinking it unethical. We strongly disagree. We all seek to persuade each other that our viewpoint is true, correct or the best one among various options. We do this every day. Persuasion is a basic part of marketing, as in the case of competing television commercials over which hamburger you should buy at a fast-food restaurant. But beyond persuasion in terms of personal preferences, where the stakes are higher, persuasion is also an important part of other aspects of our daily lives, from politics, the best personal and societal values, to religion. While our agenda should be far broader than just persuasion (religious diplomacy is not a cover for proselytism) and attempts at persuasion should be done ethically and when our conversation partner is open to it and without coercion, we see no good reasons why it should be excluded from the realm of religious differences. Indeed, we sense unrecognized assumptions here in that even those who advocate a no persuasion perspective in interfaith contexts hope to persuade others that their position is the best! In addition, when it comes to social persuasion, in order to improve the way in which this is done, FRD has created a statement of Commitment to Ethical Persuasion.  Finally, we recognize some religious traditions might not value Heart & Mind Conversations because it is a verbal discourse that cannot accurately communicate their faith. Others believe interfaith work, even if not intended, is inherently a way to promote western liberal political values. In the first case, we respect those who find conversation inadequate, and invite them to proffer other means for Heart & Mind Communication. In the second case, we invite critics to respectfully engage in conversations on the subject of contested religious and political values.

For our complete list of responses to questions download our FAQs document.