From the point of view of significance, the recently-concluded UN Interfaith Conference in New York could be said to have matched the US presidential election of November 4, but not all sections of world opinion seem to have concurred with this assessment. This is borne-out by the comparatively meagre media attention the conference earned world-wide.

Still, the fact that some 80 countries could have met and reached consensus on a number of thorny questions related not only to religion as such but to also inter-religious ties, is a milestone event in international relations and only those sections which are completely ignorant of or cynically dismissive of the role played by religion in shaping international politics, would undervalue the conference as something of only marginal importance to them.

Yet, religion is in the eye of many a storm centre of global politics. It was the predominant motivational force behind, for instance, September 11, which brought to the fore the now familiar ‘Conflict of Civilisations’ concept. It is the perception among some sections of the Arab world, for instance, that their civilisation and faith are under assault that triggered violent opposition on their part to the West in general and the US in particular. It accounts for the fanatical religious zeal with which some sections take on the US-led forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Religion also accounts for the numerous ‘Jihadic’ wars which are ravaging the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Accordingly, the current US-led ‘war against terror’ cannot be fully comprehended without a reference to faith and the pivotal role played by it in popular mobilisations against the West among sections of disaffected Third World opinion. Among these sections, political violence is certainly being linked with faith and is even being shown as justified by it.

However, if a balanced assessment is to be made of the use and abuse of religion in current political strife, reference needs to be made to US President George Bush’s characterisation of perceived enemy states of the US as being parts of an ‘axis of evil’. This is the language of theology and not of political science. It amounts to seeing the world through theological lenses; a division of the world into ‘good’ and ‘evil’. However, these theological categories were made the basis for US-led military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the US seeing itself as embodying ‘good’ and the invaded states and sections of their populaces being seen as representing ‘evil’. Here, abstract theological concepts, which may not relate easily to concrete reality, are abused to demonise the ‘Other’ and serve political purposes. Thus, neither the West nor its perceived enemies could claim the moral high ground in the current debate on the use or abuse of religion in the perpetration of terror.

These ambiguities and complexities in perception among the initiators of war, no less than the need for an international meeting of minds on containing current, global conflicts, make fora such as the recent UN Interfaith Conference, highly welcome events.

Admittedly, the resolutions or declarations adopted at the conference are non-binding and could be dismissed by some as ineffective, but they are valuable pointers to emerging trends in international opinion and provide the world with insights into the ways in which issues arising from faith are being analysed and conceptualised by states and peoples who matter. The forum, after all, featured 14 world leaders, including US President George Bush, British Premier Gordon Brown and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who initiated the conference. Equally importantly, such meets help in bringing about understanding and reconciliation among faiths and cultures.

The consensual positions which evolved at the conference bear out the above observations. For instance, we are told that the conference ‘rejected the use of religion to justify acts of terrorism, the killing of innocent civilians, violence and coercion’.

Such pronouncements help in underscoring the inherent sanctity of religion. Concurrently, they prove effective in alienating those political forces which abuse and pervert the doctrinal core of religions, from the majority of the adherents of these faiths who use religion purely as a basis for wholesome morality. They help in uniting the ‘moral majority’ against the lunatic fringe and singularly underscore the fact that the former cannot be confused with the latter. All criminal acts ‘in the name of religion’, are triggered by extremists and not by the ‘moral majority’.

The final declaration of the conference, titled ‘Culture of Peace’, emphasised the ‘importance of promoting dialogue, understanding and tolerance as well as respect for all religions, cultures, beliefs’; points that multi-religious states, such as Sri Lanka, need to carefully bear in mind.

Of equal significance is the fact that the conference expressed concern over ‘serious instances of intolerance, discrimination, expressions of hatred and harassment of minority religious communities of all faiths’.

The latter pronouncement is of immense relevance to Third World states in particular, which are currently torn apart by identity-based conflicts. It is something which states which have not made constitutional provision for secularism need to strongly bear in mind. Secularism stands for a clear ‘separation wall’ between the state and religion. That is, in secular states, religion does not come under the purview of governments but is relegated to the private lives of citizens – which is how it should be in any thriving democracy.

However, there is an unfortunate tendency among some states which have found it politically expedient not to erect the constitutional ‘separation wall’ between state and religion, to pander to majority religions at the expense of the interests of minority religions. National unity suffers as a result and sooner rather than later extremists begin to use religion as a tool of popular mobilisation. For, unequal treatment of religions by states provides opportunities for the political empowerment of extremist elements from both majority religious communities as well as minority religious communities. The former could appeal to the majoritarian sentiment among their constituency and thereby expand their support base and make a bid for power, while the latter could claim victimisation at the hands of the state and thereby acquire a following among the relevant minority communities. Both such tendencies, steeply erode democracy and its institutions. Such states need to drink deep the lessons offered by the UN Interfaith Conference.