Speech of Ishmael Noko, the General Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation

Your excellencies,
Honorable authorities,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Human beings are fundamentally religious. Whether we consider ourselves as religious people, or refer to a specific recognized religion, we all have belief systems that guide our actions. More than that, we all hunger for the meaning that faith brings to our lives. I consider, then, that faith is an inherent characteristic of the human existence, and the fundamental basis for human dignity. That, what attacks our freedom to believe in what we believe and to profess those beliefs, threatens the essence of our human dignity.

The fundamental nature of this characteristic has been recognized in the incorporation of the principles of freedom, of religion or belief in the canon of the International Human Rights Law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) confirms that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion", and that "this right includes freedom to change his [or her] religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his [or her] religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

As further articulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which 156 States have so far ratified, this basic principle includes the following consequences:

- No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his or her freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of their choice.

- Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

- Respect for the liberty of parents and legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

The central nature of the freedom of religion or belief is further recognized in the fact, that it is one of those core human rights that may not be derogated from, even in times of public emergency. In these difficult and dangerous times, many authorities would do well to remember this unconditional obligation.

Religious communities were instrumental in ensuring that these provisions were incorporated in these important international instruments in the way that they were. What is most noteworthy in these formulations is the inclusiveness of the freedom described, and its application to all faiths and beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is the recognition of the essential fact that unless all enjoy this freedom, none can be secure in its enjoyment. If we claim for ourselves or our own community the exclusive right to this freedom, or seek to impose restrictions on the enjoyment of this freedom by others, we weaken the very basis of this freedom and undermine our own human dignity.

It is by now trite to observe that inter-religious tension is a major threat to peace and justice in today's "Global Village". It is a matter of obvious and urgent priority for all religious leaders and communities to reduce these tensions and to control intolerant tendencies. I consider that the greatest means of promoting religious co-existence and solidarity is through dialogue and cooperation across religious boundaries.

It is significant that the UN Special Reporter on freedom of religions or belief (Ms. Asma Jahangir of Pakistan) has observed that "religious leaders regularly organize high-level meetings at the international level to promote inter-religious dialogue", but that "Governments, which are primarily responsible for protecting people against violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief, rarely organize intergovernmental events to discuss the rise of religious intolerance, in particular at the regional level." In this connection, let me emphasize that it is extremely important that Governments take responsibility to protect places of worship and prayer. Such responsibility is integral to the freedom of religion and democracy.

In this context, the present initiative of the Government of Kazakhstan is especially to be welcomed. I sincerely hope that this process might serve as an example and encouragement to other governments to address this key challenge more actively and positively, and that the Government of Kazakhstan can take a lead in engaging other members of the international community in this discussion.

At the same time, religious leaders must recognize their own responsibility in this regard, and the importance of not abrogating this responsibility to governments alone. As active as many forums for inter-faith dialogue have been, we must examine the extent, that these dialogues are received by and impact, the perspectives and experiences of our respective constituencies. Ultimately - and urgently - we must move beyond dialogue to what we have called "diapraxis" -dialogical relationship of practical cooperation between different faith communities in addressing common challenges. The experience of working together to resolve a common problem is, I believe, much more productive of mutual understanding and solidarity than any amount of academic discourse or legal proscription.

One of the Lutheran World Federation's leading recent experiences of diapraxis has been its participation in the Inter-Faith Action for Peace in Africa (IFAPA) process. IFAPA is a continent-wide network of national and local inter-faith councils and groups, religious leaders and communities committed to working together for peace in Africa. IFAPA encompasses all of the major faith traditions represented in Africa (Christianity, Islam, African Traditional Religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Baha'i Faith and Judaism). Beyond the inter-faith dialogue, it focuses on promoting practical inter-faith action for peace and the building of a decent Society. It is based on the conviction that peace is central to the birth of a new Africa, and that religious communities in Africa have a central role in this regard.

One important lesson from the IFAPA process has been the importance of a fully comprehensive inter-faith engagement. It is vitally important that no faith community is excluded or excused from the challenge of inter-faith cooperation and the promotion of mutual understanding, since all faith communities must also clear tendencies connected with intolerance within their own traditions.

I think that it is also essential that faith community leaders must themselves define the agenda for their inter-faith relationships, rather than allowing political interests to dictate the agenda. An example is the current pre-dominance over the issue of terrorism. Terrorism is a criminal act, and must be appropriately treated by the authorities as such, within the constraints and according to the dictates of the rule of law. I am convinced, however, that no legitimate religious tradition condones terrorism. Certainly, the resolution of common problems through inter-faith cooperation and the increased mutual understanding, that such cooperation promotes will be a major force in depriving extremists of the audience they seek. But terrorism cannot be the defining issue in current or future inter-faith relationships.

A recent crisis point for the pursuit of inter-religious understanding and tolerance was the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed and the protests - and violence - that ensued. In my view, this situation represented a gross failure to exercise responsibility. However, it had been falsely presented as a conflict between secular rights and religious values, or worse still, as a "clash of civilizations." No one can doubt that the caricatures at the heart of this controversy were genuinely and deeply offensive to Muslim sentiments and religious values.

Their repeated publication led to the perception that they were published not innocently but with the intention to provoke. It must be clearly affirmed that freedom of expression is a legal right of universal application. But all legal rights must be exercised not only within the limits of the law, but also wisely and responsibly according to ethical principles. The freedom of expression was not exercised wisely and responsibly in this case, but recklessly and dangerously. Nonetheless, the wholesale violence in which some of the protesters engaged cannot be condoned, either politically or religiously. But just as the actions of an insensitive or provocative few in Denmark do not implicate either the entire Danish nation or the West as a whole neither does the violence of some of the protestors implicate all Muslims.

The wearing or display of religious symbols or clothing, such as headscarves and crucifixes, has also become a point of bitter contention. But as Bishop Munib Younan, Lutheran Bishop in Jerusalem, has declared, "We condemn the defamation of all religious symbols, prophets and holy writings because it only provokes offense and builds walls of hatred... We also condemn all violent acts that threaten others...as intolerable and unacceptable." He has written about the small significant ways in which Palestinian Christians and Muslims have learned to live as neighbors, displaying respect to each others' beliefs and traditions -not due to legal obligation, but out of respect and care for the neighbor. It is an example, many others could learn from.

Another area, which any current discourse on freedom of religion should cover, is the discrimination and religious intolerance which occurs within religions. Intolerance and discrimination are not only practiced between different religions. Indeed, many religious groups experience as many problems from those of the "same" religion as from those of "other" religions. The implication that religious intolerance and discrimination are only practiced by "outsiders" is both wrong and misleading. It affirms unfortunately the "clash of civilizations" analysis of inter-religious relations. Instead, the real challenge is to eliminate the "enemy images" that have been constructed in order to demonize others whose beliefs or practices differ from our own, whether or not they belong to a different religion.

At the Tenth Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation in 2003 in Winnipeg, Canada, we acknowledged that in our world today "religions too often are used by political forces to divide people and fuel conflict," and that therefore "it is crucial that we pursue justice and reconciliation with those of other faiths. Reconciliation is central in the gospel we proclaim: in Christ, God has reconciled the whole creation. In this sense, dialogue that furthers such reconciliation is one of the important ways of carrying out God's mission."

Lutherans are therefore committed to holding fast to this vision and understanding. Coexistence and dialogical cooperation in eliminating the problems that confront us all, regardless of faith affiliation, remains the only path towards peace in our fractured and troubled world. Faced with the difficult global context in which we now live, our commitment to that path should be redoubled, not reduced.