Broadening the Scope of Interreligious Studies: Interrituality

Abstract

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Hospitality and the ethics of religious diversity

“…There are advocates of hospitality who treat their ethical position as a significant break from the other two – as ‘a radical shift from an age of monologue to an age of dialogue’ (Moyaert (2019), 3), ‘the movement beyond the insularity of tolerance toward more open and cooperative interactions’ (Conway (2009), 12) – and the two questions in my typology show that and how these claims are correct. Despite what advocates of hospitality sometimes claim, however, the significance of this position is not that it introduces a willingness to live with difference nor that it fosters a respect for other people's religious forms of life.…”

From dialogue to activism: How to get Generation Z and Millennials to participate in the multifaith movement in Australia

“…Christian theologians who participated in the emergence of the multifaith movement in the late 1800s and the early scholars of the academic discipline of religious studies set this precedent (Moyaert, 2019a: 9). Cotter and Robertson (2016) note that early scholars of religion modelled ‘religion’ on Protestant Christianity, ‘which prioritised “belief” and “doctrine” as preserved in texts as the sine qua non of “religion”’(Cotter and Robertson, 2016: 6).…”

“…Without critique, it threatens to exclude those who possess multiple religious belongings, those who identify as spiritual but not religious (SBNR), and religious nones, which is a significant portion of young people. Moyaert (2019b) argues that a focus on theological dialogue also presents religious identities as clear and fixed, rather than multilayered, fluid, and complex. It fails to notice that religious traditions may borrow ideas and practices from one another, and that many adherents may engage in multiple beliefs and practices.…”

“…It fails to notice that religious traditions may borrow ideas and practices from one another, and that many adherents may engage in multiple beliefs and practices. Focusing upon religious identity obscures other identities such as race, class, gender, or sexuality, and the power imbalances and politics connected to those identities are overlooked (Moyaert, 2019a: 4). Focusing on dialogue limits multifaith relations to an educated elite (Scheffler, 2007: 175), and as Fahy and Bock highlight, it ‘uncritically accepts religious leaders and scholars as representatives of complex and heterogenous traditions’ (Fahy and Bock, 2018: 69).…”

“…Similarly, Fahy and Bock (2019) are critical of the dialogue model and have sought to broaden the frame of multifaith into the realm of social sciences by inviting scholarship on the socio-political contexts in which multifaith initiatives have developed and to expand upon multifaith as a social movement (Fahy and Bock, 2019: 10). Conjunctively, Indigenous, postcolonial, and feminist critiques have been crucial to challenging the logocentric bias in the multifaith movement (Kwok, 2005; Moyaert, 2019a: 9; Swamy, 2016), and a field that emphasises multifaith practise, embodiment, and materiality is expanding (see Giordan and Lynch, 2020; Griera, 2019; King, 2016; Moyaert, 2019b; Smith and Halafoff, 2020).…”