Dave Andrews

Meaningful interfaith engagement is principle-based engagement.

Stephen Covey says, ‘These principles are a part of every major religion, as well as enduring social and ethical systems. They seem to exist in all human beings, regardless of conditioning and loyalty to them, even though they might be submerged by such conditions or numbed by (incidents of) disloyalty to them’.

Covey says ‘these principles are essentially unarguable because they are self‑ evident. (They) are guidelines for human conduct that are proven to have enduring, permanent value. One way to quickly grasp the self‑evident nature of principles is to simply consider the absurdity of attempting to live an effective life based on their opposites’.

‘Principles,’ Covey says, ‘are not practices. A practice that works in one circumstance will not necessarily work in another, as parents who have tried to raise a second child exactly like they did the first can readily attest. While practices are situationally specific, principles are fundamental truths that have universal application. They apply to marriages, to families, to private and public organizations of every kind. When these truths are internalized into habits, they empower people to create a wide variety of practices to deal with different situations’.[i]

Probably the most important of these principles is what we call ‘The Golden Rule’ – that is the basis for building the networks of mutual obligation that provide the foundation for community.

A sense of mutual obligation can be either ‘specific’ or ‘general’. If it is specific, the reciprocity is specific – I’ll do this for you if you do that for me. If it is general, the reciprocity is generalised –if we do what we can to help other people now, then someday, when we need help, someone may help us. ‘The Golden Rule’ is a classic call to practice the principle of generalised reciprocity. And the same call is enunciated – with slight variations – in all of the eleven major religious traditions.

In Taoism the call is descriptive. ‘Regard your neighour’s loss or gain as your own loss or gain.’ In Jainism the call is instructive. ‘One who neglects existence disregards their own existence’.

In Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Judaism and Baha’i the call is imperative and it is framed in negative terms. ‘Never do to others what would pain you.’ ‘Hurt not others with that which hurts yourself.’ ‘What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbour.’ ‘Do not impose on others what you do not yourself desire’. ‘Desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.’

While In Christianity and Islam (and Sikhism) the call is imperative and it is framed in positive terms. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. ‘Do unto all people as you would they should do to you’. ‘Treat others as you would be treated yourself.’[ii]

In all these traditions the call for us to practice generalised reciprocity is the same. There are no short cuts. There are no quick fixes. We cannot hope to practice meaningful interfaith engagement unless we ‘do unto others as we would have them do unto us’.

[i]   Covey,S. ibid 34-35

[ii]      Tobias, M (ed) A Parliament Of Souls (San Francisco: KQED Books, 1995) 124-5