Religious pluralism

Although their experiences of religion were neither the best nor the most common occurrence among students, most of them did not see religion as a reason to separate people. Students’ views on the possibility for peaceful co-existence of different religions were not uniform, but most agreed that it was possible where there was mutual respect: a half of students thought it was possible, a quarter that it was impossible, almost a quarter saw both possibilities and some could not say.

The arguments put forward for the impossibility of peaceful co-exis-tence, if they existed at all, were short and general. Many times it was stated that it is not possible, without any further explanation. The sceptical arguments could be subdivided into two main types. The first group of reasons covered potential for wars and abiding quarrels at home, the second mentioned the issue of people imposing their views upon others.

In their answers it appeared that the respondents did not like conflicts or did not want religion to be a source of disagreements. The main reason brought forward as to why it is impossible to live peacefully together, was the quar-relling and constant arguing about religion that might result.

“I know my acquaintances, which have different religions and a husband says to his wife to go to his church but she doesn’t want to and says that she goes to her church and they have constant quarrels, arguing and scandals.” (f-or-34.b?) Probably in these cases co-existence was understood in terms of family life, not so much in terms of society. Occasionally it was evident but for the most part it was not possible to distinguish if they were speaking in terms of family or society. In addition to general remarks about constant arguing and the un-comfortable atmosphere, some personal examples were introduced about rela-tives, friends or themselves. If the co-existence was understood at the societal level, the arguments were general statements about bad relationships or dis-agreements. In some cases an example from history was presented, crusades and religious wars in particular. Both, personal and historical views are present in a following quotation.

“No, because I, who almost believe, argue very much with people who believe the same and if the religions are even different, it would be a catastrophe because they would argue and even fight about whose god(s) are the right one(s). We know already about crusades from history.” (f-ur-67-C+)

The second reason was similar – palming off your worldview on a spouse. The reason for having this as an argument could be one’s own experience and feeling uncomfortable, when annoyed in this way – a fact frequently mentioned in students’ experiences with a religion different from their own.

One reason given for the impossibility of peaceful co-existence was excep-tional: a boy without any religious affiliation mentioned religious reasons for the impossibility to live together.

“They can’t because they would be afraid of each other and would be afraid that an evil spirit comes and makes their life a hell.” (m-nr-50-C-)

Arguments for the possibility of living together varied from societal to individual ones, this time the arguments and examples tended to be more personal; concrete examples from society and students’ own experiences were used. Those who stressed the societal dimension were able to mention two different faith communities living peacefully together in their neighbourhood:

Orthodox and Lutherans, Christians and Jews, Buddhists and Mormons.

Respondents understood that in reality a society was very seldom totally homogeneous.

“In the town there are two churches; an orthodox and a synagogue. Some go to one and comply with their customs, others in other.” (m-or-45-B?)

At a more personal level, some students had some acquaintancewith families including representatives from different religions and they knew them to be happily married nevertheless.

“Yes, because for example nowadays people making up a family often have a different creed but at the same time they have happy families and a good mar-riage.” (f-nr-41-B?)

For many students it was difficult to imagine that religion could be something to get passionate about or make into a problem. As religion was not important for them and they did not talk about religious topics, it was hard to believe that somebody could be bothered to create conflicts over religious matters. A common argument was that religion could not interfere with relationships because nobody cares.

“Yes they can, why should anyone bother if some representative of another belief lives next to you?” (f-nr-51-C-)

If the respondent saw both possibilities, saying that representatives of different religions might live together given certain preconditions, the main prerequisites for co-existence were respect for a different worldview and customs, and people possessing mutual tolerance and love. In addition good will was mentioned as an important precondition. Although, the extreme and external demonstrations of belief were not regarded as a good precondition for peaceful co-existence, they did not make generalisations about all representatives of a religion.

“Yes they can if they respect each others’ religion, but if they don’t, then I think it is not advisable. Because let us suppose that neighbours were a Muslim and a Christian. I have a feeling that Muslims don’t tolerate other believers very much because they have only one god and they don’t acknowledge other gods. And if in another believer lives in this neighbourhood, then I don’t think that anything good will come out of it. Although it could turn out to be a wrong opinion because not all Muslims are so crazy, too. So, broadly speaking, they can indeed.” (f-ch-03-A+)

If religion is seen as a secondary factor, sometimes some more important aspects are named beside religious affiliation that make it possible to live together despite differences: personal qualities, having friends from different religions, keeping religion a private matter, shared interests and activities.

“They can. Because beside a creed there is a lot of other things what can unite people. For example, I don’t believe in God but my friend does but I am not against it, we go together for training.” (m-at-26-B?)

“I think they can indeed. Why shouldn’t they? I think that representatives of different religions can get along completely well. It is more up to characters. But if you will thrust your faith unto your neighbours, then problems can arise indeed.” (m-nr-12-A+)

Comparing the answers of different groups of respondents, it would appear that regarding oneself as a person with religious affiliation or a person without any affiliation, did not make any difference in seeing the peaceful co-existence of different religions as possible or not. Still, the reasoning that religion is too marginal to cause any troubles or disagreements was mostly used by students without any particular worldview and mostly, too, students who have not had religious education. It seems that the impact of religious education is not straightforward – it does not make one think that a peaceful co-existence is the only possible outcome. Youngsters with experience of religious education saw the problem of peaceful co-existence as more complex, using more unassertive expressions “might be possible” and gave other preconditions beside religious ones. The students who claimed not to have any experience of religion saw the possibility of living together least of all, even less than those who declared that they had had a bad experience of religion. But to speak about relations or even a cause-effect connection between these parameters on the basis of a qualitative study would be too premature.

3.2.2.4. Summary

Religion was not very important at a personal level. Neither was it seen as very important at a group level or in the relations the students have. It seems that the secular framework discourages the expression of worldview differences.

Another reason could be that students long for harmony and peaceful life and a strategy to avoid conflicts is to avoid the topic and conversations on these

issues. The students spoke slightly more frequently on religious topics if they had a religious background or they had had religious education. Students with a religious background declared more positive experiences of religion. As the negative number was the same for students with and without religious affi-liation, one can suggest that religiousness did not make them blind to negative aspects of religion. Students without religious affiliation declared less expe-rience of religion but the more students have learned about religions, even without any personal religious background, the more they seem to have an eye for positive examples and an inclination to speak about them.

If the importance of religion did not depend on gender, girls did name more positive experiences of religion and less negative ones. Also, religion was more often a topic of conversation for girls than for boys. But the differences were insignificant; no generalisations could be made at this point. Boys almost always understood the question of living together on a societal level, while girls justified their positions with examples from the lives of some families, where representatives of different religions live together peacefully or where there is tension and altercation. Girls from School B especially responded in this way.

For the most part religion was seen as neither a factor of conflict, as it is not important, nor an opportunity for dialogue. Instead it is seen as something boring or annoying but not as an apple of discord. In speaking about the pos-sibility of peaceful co-existence students usually did not use personal examples but remained reserved and impersonal. Religious background did not have much effect on their attitudes toward peaceful co-existence, but did make reasons more personal, while experience of religious education made their way of thinking more complex and multi-faceted.

Probably due to the higher religiousness of the Russian-speaking population they had more experiences of religion. Also they were slightly more sceptical about possibilities of living together with a person of a different religion.