Regional Interfaith Dialogue

Abstract

Among the many aspects of religion within the Southeast Asia and Pacific region that today command attention, two things stand out. The first, as this book amply demonstrates, is that there is a very full and rich diversity of religious identity, expression and life present in the region. Indeed, the religious milieu of most nations is impressively variegated. And within the region as a whole, as well as within the nations that comprise it, no one religion predominates overall, although three world religions – Buddhism, Christianity and Islam – are variously dominant. But these three are themselves undeniably situated within multi-faith milieus, even where they command majority allegiance. Plurality rules; religious diversity is the norm. The second aspect commanding attention is that the attitude of the States, or of governments, within the region vis-à-vis religion is undergoing change. At the very least this rich religious diversity requires a measure of management, and religion has re-emerged in recent times as a key factor in respect not just to communal identity but also inter-communal and social harmony – or disruption where things go awry. In some instances the change faced by the State is quite significant. This is because, in broad terms, the political context of religion throughout the region is that of secularity: none of the countries is a religious state as such, even though in some cases one religion may have special status as being the de jure faith of the land. But, even so, other religions are allowed for.

The modern Western political ideal of the separation of the powers of religion from those of the State is the widespread norm. Nevertheless, three broad patterns may be discerned as applying within the region in respect to the relation of religion and the State – secular divide; benign secularity; and secular contract. Heretofore all have variously described and/or constrained the relationship of religion(s) to the wider society. But all of them are undergoing adjustment in response to contemporary changes in the world of religion and the need to take fresh account of that. The setting of an aggressive secular divide prefers to see religion wholly absent from the public sphere and political discourse. This is the historical context of Australia and New Zealand, for example. Here the media will emblazon the sins of a fallen priest but ignore the saintly work of hundreds. Good news is not good news; only bad news is news-worthy. The ideology of such secularism is hostile to religion and actively seeks to limit, denigrate and neutralise any potential influence of religion within the public domain. By contrast, other countries in the region, such as Pacific Island nations, could be said to be marked by a comparatively benign secularity. Here, while there is a clear division of responsibilities and sphere of influence between religion and State, there is not the underlying current of an aggressive secularism; rather the religious dimension of life is more overtly present within the public sphere and more likely to be regarded benignly, even positively, by the apparatus of the State and the leadership of the nation. On the other hand, some Southeast Asian nations – such as Malaysia and Indonesia – whilst being identified as nations of a particular religion (Islam) nonetheless are politically constituted as secular states whereby religion, including the dominant one, is situated within the context of a secular contract: rights, privileges and responsibilities are clearly spelled out by law. So long as the contract is upheld, religion is honoured. However, in all three situations – secular divide, benign secularity and secular contract – significant change is taking place. Governments are taking notice of the religious dimension in a new way. If it was thought that religion was safely in its place, suddenly, it seems, religion is to be taken account of, responded to, and interacted with in a wholly new fashion.