Interreligious Movements in Brazil: Human Rights, Decoloniality, and Pluralism in Debate

Abstract

The text analyzes interreligious organizations and movements in Brazil based on the concept of the pluralist principle. It aims to systematize, based on observations of practices and studies of documents from prominent inter-religious experiences in Brazil, the degree of incidence of efforts to deepen democracy; defend human rights and the rights of nature; provide citizenship; appreciate ethnic, sexual, and gender diversity; and other effective decolonial forms of counter-hegemonic social articulation in these groups. Among the results, we present theoretical bases that show that it is necessary, for social analyses, to pay special attention to the articulation of the intersection between religious groups’ capacity for dialogue and the challenges surrounding social agendas that reinforce decolonial socio-religious perspectives. The profile of some inter-religious experiences within the scope of the research is also indicated.

1. Introduction

The descriptions provided in this text aim to present a synthesis of the results of research conducted on inter-religious movements and organizations in Brazil. The overall objective of the analyses was to investigate such experiences, seeking to identify, based on the conceptual foundations of the pluralist principle (Ribeiro 2020), their reaches and limitations. The evaluation criteria are their capacity and relationship with counter-hegemonic processes aimed at deepening democracy; defending human rights and the land; valuing citizenship; valuing ethnic, sexual, and gender diversity; and reinforcing values and practices that reinforce decolonial socio-religious perspectives.

Initially, we will present an overview of the main issues present in the landscape of religious diversity in the country, which, of course, we consider to be quite common to other regions of the globe. In the second part, we will provide a synthesis of situations and conceptual aspects that mark the relationship between religious pluralism, human rights, and democracy. The following steps will summarize the notion of the pluralist principle and the discussion on the main approaches that characterize intersectionality in the socio-political struggles present in the context of inter-religious dialogue and cooperation movements. Up to this point, it is also possible to present, in addition to the accumulation of these conceptual foundations, a brief description of some aspects of inter-religious movements and organizations covered by the scope of the research. This includes the Inter-Religious Forum of Recife-PE, the Ecumenical Center for Service to Evangelization and Popular Education (CESEEP), Koinonia—Ecumenical Presence and Service, and the Faith in Climate Program (ISER).

Characterization of the Problem

Religious diversity in Brazil and in various parts of the globe has generated new challenges in different fields of knowledge, especially in the field of religious studies. Despite the institutional and popular strengthening of religious proposals with more verticalist accents—generally conflictual, closed to dialogue, marked by symbolic violence, and fundamentalist in nature—the religious field has also experienced ecumenical forms of dialogue among distinct religious groups. In light of this ambiguous scenario, several questions arise. How does such a reality, especially with its contradictions, impact the social and political landscape? How do forms of inter-religious dialogue interfere with the strengthening of a democratic culture and related perspectives? What is the role of ecumenical religious practices in a project for peace, the defense of human rights, citizenship, diversity, and the deepening of democracy for future generations? These and other similar inquiries do not find reasonably secure answers. There is a long and dense path of reflection toward their maturation.

In recent years, I have sought to research the theme of religious pluralism (Ribeiro 2014, 2020). Among the many varied themes and questions that the debate around this topic raises, one has stood out and requires theoretical deepening: to what extent does the consideration of religious pluralism as a value (or principled pluralism, as some refer to it) favor the deepening of democracy and strengthen the spaces for defending human rights and valuing citizenship and ethnic, sexual, and gender diversity within a decolonial perspective?

It is a fact that religious experiences in the current globalized society are strongly influenced not only by the prevailing economic model but also by the capitalist social system in its broadest sense, as an economic, social, and cultural apparatus. Therefore, we recognize that scientific analyses of religion cannot dispense with the relationship with the economy, especially the seductive force of globalized capitalism, as a force of massification and uniformity within an increasingly diverse religious framework.

This perspective somewhat confirms the theses that, according to Walter Benjamin (2013) and Paul Tillich (1956), defend the idea of the strength of the capitalist system as a religion (Löwy 2014; Yip 2010; Hinkelammert 2014), subtracting from it the importance in the organization of life. However, religions, in their different traditions and systems, maintain significant poles of public presence, sometimes as a means of maintaining the status quo and other times as a force of social contestation.

Beyond this framework, there are also new forms of the social reorganization of religious experiences, with an increasing diversity of reconfigurations, transitions, and multiple religious participations, as well as new and more spontaneous expressions of spirituality. There is also a range of situations that cause, whether intentionally or forcibly, the uprooting of local, national, or regional cultures, forging new experiences, often in inhospitable contexts. These forms of diasporic hybridity, almost always marked at some level by marginalization, discrimination, and oppression, form complex identities—especially because they are simultaneously situated between different worlds, in a constant process of cultural negotiation (Ribeiro 2023).

For the purposes of this analysis, it is important to note that there are various expressions of religious public presence in society, either articulated ecumenically or experienced separately, which aim to strengthen democracy, pluralism, citizenship, and the counter-hegemonic capacity to defend human rights. This reality is in tension with the two aspects already described: the influence of the economic system on religious forms and expressions and the strength of capitalism as the religion of the current world. Our assumption is that, despite these two factors, religions both live and base their practices and theological perspectives on the frontiers of the “turmoil” of hegemonic imperial forces in society. This situation is in constant tension with counter-hegemonic processes that seek to deepen democracy and to radically defend human rights and the land. And how does this happen within the context of inter-religious movements in Brazil?

Counter-hegemonic processes are varied, originating from different backgrounds and ideological orientations, without a centralized structure of coordination. This makes a precise description difficult. However, it is possible to state that their complexity can be summarized by what, in the political field, has been called the “spirit of the World Social Forums.” The movements around the World Social Forum, including the World Forum of Theology and Liberation, which has been happening in parallel since 2005, despite their contradictions that stem from their broad, diverse, and participatory political nature, link criticism of the economic system with anti-systemic struggles, such as those based on ethnicity, race, sexuality, and minority groups. There is a substantial number of religious groups directly or indirectly connected to the Forum, many of which lead inter-religious experiences with both social impact and significance in the field of spiritualities. All of these experiences position themselves in society as anti-imperialist and decolonial forces.1 In a sense, they revisit the Latin American Christian theological perspective that relates religion and domination, especially studies that highlight aspects of the absolutization of economic and political power and how these negatively impact social processes, to the point of making democratic efforts and the guarantee of human rights and land unfeasible.

At the borders between the public importance of religions and the strength of counter-hegemonic movements in society—many of which are directly or indirectly associated with religious movements—the interest in religious pluralism understood as a value, as well as efforts for inter-religious dialogue at various levels, is reinforced. We have been trying to show how this occurs within the Brazilian context and how such movements can be better understood from a pluralist principle, as we will indicate next.

The thread that connects the issues proposed within the framework of our analysis is based on the idea that social and economic adjustments implemented by hegemonic policies have led to human degradation, loss of dignity, and various social problems affecting the poorer sectors and individuals in society. Paradoxically, amidst the globalization of the economy and information, ethnic, racial, sexual, and regional conflicts are emerging more intensely around the world. The borders that divide these realities and religious experiences are thin, complex, and require deeper interpretations. We concentrate on these in this research.

2. Religious Pluralism, Human Rights, and Democracy

In the debate around religious pluralism and its relationship with society, we follow the understanding that any action or reflection regarding democracy and/or human rights requires more consistent analyses and clearer positions on the issues most directly related to them. This is a long list, but we can highlight the fight against racism (Silva 2003), sexism (Gebara 2017), homophobia (Althaus-Reid 2019; Musskopf 2012), and the criticism of the capitalist system as a producer of social inequalities, violence, and poverty (Wallerstein 2004).

We emphasize that these are not separate issues but rather a sociocultural amalgam and intertwining that require ongoing and profound critique of the economic system, focusing on both reflection and action around the causes of divisions within society. In the case of religions in Brazil—and this perspective can be identified elsewhere—due to both historical difficulties in addressing these issues, as well as the theological richness of various groups that have responded to the dominant processes and openly support the deepening of democracy and rights, this process of evaluation, reflection, and proposing action becomes increasingly imperative. This picture of religious diversity is not isolated from forms of diasporic hybridity, especially regarding regional migrations within the country and those affecting foreign groups. Tense and complex experiences are quite common, generating a feeling of being simultaneously in multiple worlds without truly having a space that is own, real, concrete, and welcoming (Bhabha 2001). This leads to various situations of marginalization, discrimination, and oppression (Hall 1992). In this context, forms of religious and cultural pluralism are strongly interconnected.

As is well known, topics related to religious pluralism have been gaining prominence in current academic debates. Part of this is a response to the sociocultural reality in which, over the past decades, there has been increased visibility of religious difference both in Brazil and worldwide, a heightened discussion about religion and democracy—especially concerning church and state—and also the ambiguity of terms and situations that are both conflictive and involve efforts at dialogue among different religious groups in various areas of social life. Additionally, the number of people in the country who declare themselves “without religion,” as shown by recent censuses, has become more evident, reinforcing the thematic agenda of church and state and related issues.

Based on observations of inter-religious experiences in Brazil and grounded in what we are calling the pluralist principle, we have analyzed key themes relevant to social and theological evaluations. Among these are the value of human beings and social ethics for inter-religious dialogue (Küng 2004), the possibilities of an open, welcoming, and integrative unity within religions, the public importance of religions (Moltmann 2004), religions as codes of communication (Pikaza Ibarrondo 2008), the relationship between imperial power and its theological justifications (Rieger 2009), the conceptual intertwining of spirituality, dialogue, and the inter-religious dimension (Wolff 2016), and the power of religious dialogue—how it influences the defense of human rights, democratic processes, citizenship building, and the respect and affirmation of diversities (Ribeiro 2020). The underlying assumption is that the ecumenical perspective, both in its intra-Christian and inter-religious dynamics, when articulated with social, political, economic, and cultural dimensions within various historical contexts, can provide rich and broad insights into the study of religion.

3. The Pluralist Principle

The logic of a pluralist principle appears in the works of various authors—most of whom will be indicated throughout our investigation—but the expression “pluralist principle” has a novel character in our research. It is true that the terminology, especially because of its sound and constitution, points us toward the idea of “principled pluralism,” as indicated by Claude Geffré (2004), Jacques Dupuis (1999), John Hick (2005), and others. For them, beyond the “factual religious pluralism,” as a feature of social reality, principled pluralism would be a theological platform that recognizes and values the reality of religious diversity as the will and self-manifestation of God so that ultimate truth is revealed through the diversity of cultures and religions.

The pluralist principle encompasses this ecumenical perspective, valuing dialogue and inter-religious approaches, but it is broader, as it also functions as an instrument for evaluating social and cultural realities—especially for better understanding differences (religious or otherwise) that emerge in the intersections of cultures. It is a hermeneutic tool for the theological and analytical mediation of sociocultural and religious realities, seeking to give visibility to experiences, groups, and positions that arise in the spaces, edges, and borders of cultures and institutional spheres. It also enables new divergences and convergences, alternative viewpoints, critical and self-critical perspectives for dialogue, the empowerment of marginalized groups and subaltern visions, and forms of alterity and inclusion—both considering and making explicit the power differentials present in society (Ribeiro 2020).

Our assumption is that the pluralist principle, formulated based on ecumenical and alterity logics, fosters a better understanding of the diversity within the religious landscape and human actions. It is not merely an ethical or “catechetical” indication; with it, analyses become more consistent because they better facilitate the identification of the “other,” especially people and groups that have become invisible within the sociological logic of “absences.” Sensitivity to different cultural or religious expressions—whether they be a majority or minority, border-crossing or not—contributes to a “sociology of emergence” of new faces and diverse religious profiles, as well as a multiplicity of perspectives and forms of action (Santos 2010b).

These perspectives align with studies emphasizing the emergence of modernity as an act of violence, which generated brutal intrinsic consequences that persist to this day (Hall 1992). It is the view that the notion of “modern” (associated with the “West”) is an ideological way of establishing a power differential and standard of knowledge to subordinate cultures and peoples through economic domination. In this context, a dual process occurs: the idea of the West is both a product of historical means of domination and a tool, paradigm, to exercise that very domination. The pluralist principle is based on this socio-historical view.

Therefore, the pluralist principle, built upon notions of alterity, ecumenicity, and polydoxia, can reinforce religious experiences that deepen processes of humanization, democracy, citizenship, anthropological, and cultural diversity, and counter-hegemonic capacity in defending human rights and the land. The same applies to the need for these experiences to be seen and analyzed considering the asymmetric power relations present in society. In both cases, alterity, an ecumenical vision, and polydoxia are key interpretative tools for understanding the landscape of religious pluralism.

The concept of alterity, originating from anthropology and philosophy, is closely linked to the ecumenical perspective. The capacity for alterity is recognizing an “other” beyond one’s own subjectivity—beyond oneself, one’s group, or institution. Thinkers like Emmanuel Lévinas (2002) and Martin Buber (1987) have deepened this theme. It involves a stance, method, or system of scientific tools that allows for re-scaling reality in perspective. Thus, the plausibility of a religious or cultural system is evidenced in coexistence with the “other,” rather than in apologetic confrontation attempting to disqualify it. This opens up a creative possibility for approaching and coexisting, leading to a better understanding of the “other,” who is no longer seen as exotic, the enemy, inferior, or any other form of disqualification.

Understanding the conflictual situation of religions allows us to perceive them not only as negative, since they are able to carry a new sensitivity regarding the need to overcome antagonisms and intolerance. Therefore, despite the negative aspects of the interfaces between religion, culture, and politics—such as those generating violence—analyses of religions should be attentive to the dialogical openness present in life as an anthropological element. Dialogue elevates human capacity for self-realization and for realizing the other, recognizing that the other allows for a transition to a new position. This situation encourages and enables practices of becoming human and simultaneously creates conditions for the theoretical processes of understanding life to be more consistent and complete. “When dialogue is established, not only is a theoretical concern experienced (who is dialoguing with us), but a practical commitment is also manifested, which furthermore requires mutual understanding” (Santa Ana 2010, p. 112). This is the “I and Thou” of Martin Buber. It is consciousness discovering itself as existence thanks to the other. This has been and continues to be one of the fundamental sources of inspiration for ecumenical religious movements.

In addition to the notions of alterity and ecumenicity, the pluralist principle is connected with another equally prominent one: polydoxia (Pui-Lan 2015). This is important because it inhibits bipolar interpretations and actions (such as orthodoxy versus heterodoxy or even truth versus heresy). Constituted through critique and the unmasking of monolithic thinking, it is understood within the context of multiplicity, non-knowledge, and the relationality of religious conceptions.

As a framework for analyzing cultural and religious differences, we also point to a second guiding element in our analyses: the notions of inter-place and border. Fundamental to the formulation of the pluralist principle, these emerge from the search for a more appropriate balancing of relations between religion and culture, especially within the context of the increased focus and valuation that cultural studies have received in academic spaces.

One of the most acute critical challenges to dualistic, bipolar, almost Manichean understandings of socioeconomic reality comes from contributions to cultural studies. For our reflections—particularly regarding what we often refer to as the need to broaden methodological horizons—the “location of culture” is essential in establishing socio-analytical mediations for interpretations about religious pluralism.

Therefore, we follow Homi Bhabha’s conception of inter-place as a borderland work of culture, as indicated in his work The Location of Culture (2001), which requires an encounter with “the new” that is not merely reproduction or continuity of past and present. The concept of inter-place relates to how subaltern groups position themselves against power and how they promote strategies of empowerment. Such positions generate inter-places where community, social, and political issues become more sharply visible. The borderland position allows for greater visibility into structures of power and knowledge, which can aid in understanding the subjectivities of subaltern peoples. This perspective has a strong confluence with the notion of diasporic hybridity. Both refer to the set of experiences of uprooting from one’s places of origin, for various reasons, in view of a new location, often experienced in precarious, unfavorable, or inhospitable situations, where individuals and communities reconstruct their identities, which become hybrid, complex, and intertwined with different worlds (Hall 1992).

These theoretical aspects, based on the conceptions of Homi Bhabha (2001) and Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2010a), allow us to reinforce the perspective of cultural studies that, on Latin American soil, has gained a new critical content primarily through the works of Aníbal Quijano, Enrique Dussel (2005), Walter Mignolo (2007, 2008), and Catherine Walsh (2009). This is the decolonial perspective. These expressions, which distinguish themselves from post-colonial or decolonial approaches, carry a strategic sense that reveals political and epistemological challenges involved in the reconstruction of cultures, institutions, and social relations. Such critical challenges are marked by a certain propositional and practical character and by concrete actions within cultural and political spheres. The word decolonial indicates an epistemological disobedience without which “the epistemic unleashing will not be possible, and therefore we will remain within the domain of internal opposition to modern and Eurocentric concepts, rooted in categories derived from Greek and Latin concepts and in the experiences and subjectivities formed from these bases” (Mignolo 2008, p. 288).

The decolonial task consists of building life from other categories of thought that go beyond dominant Western thinking. It is a permanent stance and attitude of transgression and intervention in the political and cultural fields—targeting subalternized and invisibilized cultures—where it is possible to identify, make visible, and encourage places of exteriority and alternative, pluralistic critical constructions. “The decolonial paradigm fights to promote the dissemination of another interpretation that highlights a silenced view of events,” while simultaneously revealing “the limits of an imperial ideology that presents itself as the true and only interpretation” (Mignolo 2007, p. 57).

Another prominent conceptual foundation formed by complex thinking, established by Edgar Morin (2010) and other authors, is one which critiques the pillars of modern science without actually denying their effectiveness. Complex thinking seeks to question and critically expand simplistic ideas, starting from the recognition of the incompleteness of knowledge and the acceptance of the diversity of knowledges and perceptions about life and the world. Reality is seen as a fabric of multiple interconnected threads in a constant process of construction and reconstruction. Since everything is intrinsically related, this leads to the relativization of simplistic and dichotomous conceptions, giving way to multidimensional and complex understandings of reality. Hence, the idea of transdisciplinarity, which begins with a critical review of the fragmentation of sciences and its various effects, proposes a holistic view capable of recovering the totality of reality while being both integrative and critical.

This guides us from the transdisciplinary dimension to the transreligious perspective. As Gilbraz Aragão (2023, p. 142, emphasis in original) indicates, “transdisciplinarity engenders a trans-cultural and trans-religious attitude.” He shows that “the trans-cultural attitude designates the openness of all cultures to what traverses and surpasses them, indicating that no culture constitutes a privileged place from which we can universally judge other cultures” (Aragão 2008, p. 142, emphasis in original). Similarly, he affirms that no religion can be considered the only true and universal one, hence the importance of conjunctive interpretations of culture that bring together and articulate contradictions that are present in globality but, above all, do not disregard particularities, singularities, and the concreteness of lived experiences. The formulation of the pluralist principle has been drawn from these sources.

4. Intersectionality in Sociopolitical Struggles

Another element guiding our analyses is the axis connecting the religious concern for peace, justice, and the integrity of creation with the critique of forms and expressions of the Empire (Rieger et al. 2012). It is essential to analyze the value of humanity and social ethics for interfaith dialogue, the public importance of religions, the power of the Empire, and the power of interreligious dialogue. A careful analysis of religious processes flourishing around the world and how they relate to each other, as well as within each tradition, is necessary. This network of relationships, greatly facilitated by globalization processes and the strengthening of international governmental and non-governmental institutions, fosters positive relationships among peoples worldwide. At the same time, there are situations where such rapprochement diminishes, creating possibilities for conflicts to restart.

In social processes of building peace and justice, global analyses of relations of domination are, of course, essential. Many theologians and scholars of religion have examined the North–South relations and the economic and geopolitical interests surrounding the relationships between countries, as well as the role of religions in these processes. We affirm a critique of the relations of domination and exclusion that characterize current times and define the domain of a “new empire,” led by the capitalist economic system, which conditions and directs all forms of thought, ways of living, and systems of values. This critique also arises from religions “to the extent that all of them contain elements of liberation that are activated in experiencing the need to develop critical thinking in response to this system. This is evident in Liberation Theology, which today appears within all religions around the world” (Hinkelammert 2012, p. 60).

Such perspectives are related to the notion of counter-hegemonic globalization. The fragility of human rights—and here we should include land rights, as do the main theological voices in the Latin American context (Boff 2009)—is due to the assimilation in our context of only one dimension of these rights. These are primarily those established by formal liberal democracy, which, in turn, have been incorporated into the processes of hegemonic economic globalization. Among them are individual rights, electoral processes, the institutional abolition of slavery and colonialism, religious freedom, and other achievements. However, hegemonic globalization processes, where the economic and geopolitical interests of the elite prevail, sometimes encounter turbulence. This occurs when the “contact zone” between these interests and the most degraded situations of life reveals sharp conflicts, such as minimal living conditions and severe situations of violence and social oppression (Santos 2013).

Our research has been conducted with the awareness that there are limits to discourses related to religious pluralism, including those constructed in practices defending human rights and valuing processes of humanization and citizenship. Often, such discourses are co-opted by the imperial force of the capitalist system and can coexist with it in a certain harmony and mutual assimilation. At times, there is a lack of critique of the power of the economic system, which is responsible for fundamental violations of rights, leading to forms of cooptation, assimilation, and harmonization with views originating from formal liberal democracy.

Therefore, we adopt the perspective of a counter-hegemonic view of human rights and social processes. We believe that to fulfill this concept, inter-religious dialogues and experiences should encompass both service and compassion for human suffering, as well as public actions and manifestations of protest and contestation against social injustice in its various forms. Counter-hegemonic struggles for human rights aim to change the social and economic structures responsible for unjust suffering, social segregation, and the destruction of human life and nature. These are material struggles related to a political economy underlying the production and reproduction of unequal social relations (Santos 2013).

The religious field, with all its plurality, is situated within the context of social conflicts and is based on the tension between hegemonic globalization and counter-hegemonic globalization. It is enough to remember that the first, “neoliberal globalization continues with the global imperial project, based on principles that are clearly Western and Christian, entirely consistent with conventional human rights” (Santos 2013, p. 78). The second, counter-hegemonic globalization, occurs through the active participation of religious groups, which find in their different doctrinal bases justifications for critical social engagement with the system.

With this conceptual framework, we have assessed the scope and limits of some of the most prominent inter-religious movements in Brazil. To develop this research, we consider that theological visions of different religions formed from the critiques of the hegemonic project of social and economic domination (such as liberationist, feminist, pluralist, and progressive perspectives) have been proposing new approaches to society that consider a deeper, not just formal, view of democracy, human rights, and land rights. This is a path aimed at promoting human rights—economic, social, cultural, and environmental (DHESCA). Many significant ecumenical movements today, both intra-Christian and inter-religious, have engaged in practical experiences moving in this direction. Despite their limitations and ambiguities, they reinforce spaces for social consciousness, coexistence, alterity, cordiality, humanization, and cosmic integration (Boff and Hathaway 2012).

Several perspectives can be presented as a counterpoint to the colonial view. Within this framework, considering the pluralist principle, it is essential that academic and sociopolitical spaces pay greater attention to non-hegemonic religions and spiritualities, which have been historically invisible. Such a perspective would represent a concrete vision of the decolonial turn as a theoretical, practical, political, and epistemological movement of resistance to the logic of modernity/coloniality. It involves constructing an epistemology “from” and “in” the “crossroads,” in the meanings attributed by Afro-Brazilian epistemologies, especially the notion of enchantment (Simas and Rufino 2020; Carneiro 2014).

The same attention should be given to the limitations of Westernized perspectives regarding the understanding of traditional Indigenous spiritualities. Following decolonial studies, the category of religion is inadequate for a better understanding of Indigenous cosmo-perceptions (Simões 2023). It is also important to highlight, for example, the experience of a collective consciousness as a channel of knowledge guiding choices (Krenak 2020), the ecofeminist perspective that begins by demystifying hierarchical, anthropocentric, and androcentric views within patriarchal epistemology (Segato 2022), and the valorization of dissident, dissonant, and divergent identities that resist power structures based on the crystallization of identities aimed at maintaining the heteronormative regime (Freire 2022).

This framework of social and political contestation is experienced within various tensions and situations, many of which are shaped by experiences constructed in contexts of diasporic hybridity. In these contexts, processes of identity reconstruction are found, along with a mixing and recombination of cultural and religious elements from different origins, resulting from the dispersion, diaspora, and migration of peoples (Bhabha 2001).

From a theoretical point of view, it is important to note that the references to Afro-Indigenous thought, as well as to dissident sexual groups, popular movements, and impoverished sectors of society—urban or rural—are categories marginalized from the axis that sustains Eurocentric thought, which dominates Brazilian academia, including religious studies. Marked by Enlightenment logics, Westernized thinking reproduces a form of knowledge that exclusively relies on a model of reason positioning an idealized human being (white, heterosexual, and part of the economic elite) and their formal rationality at the center of theoretical constructions. The pluralist principle, in opposition to these logics, emphasizes the multiple references and practices of power, knowledge, and being that emerge from society’s margins and institutions.

5. Interfaith Experiences in Focus

Based on the conceptual foundations presented so far, we have analyzed various interfaith experiences. Although in a preliminary and inconclusive manner, we briefly describe the overall picture of some of them.2

5.1. Transdisciplinary Observatory of Religions in Recife-PE

This group brings together more than twenty religious traditions in the northeast of Brazil and seeks to collaborate in building a culture of peace among the various religions in the region. It reflects on the challenges of freedom of belief and conviction and fosters coexistence among diverse spiritualities. The aim is to analyze events related to the encounters and divergences between religions and convictions in the region, and to promote intercultural, interreligious, and interfaith dialogue.

Historically, the initiative is linked to the Interreligious Forum of Recife-PE, later renamed Dialogues, Forum for Religious Diversity in Pernambuco, organized by the Observatory affiliated with the Catholic University of Pernambuco (Unicap). After an initial phase of recognizing the variety of religious groups present in the state, the Forum began addressing issues that cut across spiritual traditions, such as “Religiosity and Education in Schools,” “Sacrifice and Religious Comparisons,” “Postmodern Times, Post-Religious Spaces?!” and “Compared Religious Devotions.”

This interreligious initiative promotes actions involving individuals and groups from different religious traditions to reflect, in a trans-religious spirit, on themes and situations marked by libertarian political struggles, aiming at a pluralistic and democratic society, grounded in the principles of secularism and the defense of human and land rights. It organizes gatherings of leaders from the region’s religious traditions with the goal of fostering mutual understanding and the practice of cultural tolerance to cultivate a pluralistic reverence for the sacred.

The group seeks to cultivate times and spaces devoted to listening, silence, and meditation on experiences of faith, including their post-religious forms. It carries out a practice of communion with alternative spiritual paths, in the silence nourished by religion and culture itself, aspiring to contribute to a trans-religious attitude that should resonate among educators and religious groups in Pernambuco.

In addition to the practical aspects of interreligious dialogue and cooperation, the Observatory aims to analyze the landscape of religious pluralism, particularly the practices of movements that foster dialogue among religions, spiritualities, and convictions in the region. It explores the reality that is being shaped both between and beyond spiritual traditions, in the border zones of religious cultures and in the in-between spaces of scientific approaches.

Thus, the work seeks to systematize conceptual foundations by articulating the pluralist principle with ternary and inclusive logics, in search of epistemological and methodological frameworks to deepen the understanding and promotion of respect for spiritual diversity and of interreligious, interfaith, and intercultural dialogue. This contributes to the construction of a broadly participatory and democratic society (Observatório transdisciplinar das religiões no Recife n.d.).3

5.2. Ecumenical Center for Service to Evangelization and Popular Education (CESEEP)

CESEEP was founded in 1982 with the aim of providing services to leaders of social movements and communities from various Christian churches in their pastoral and human development work. Inspired by the popular education approach developed by educator Paulo Freire, it has been committed, since its inception, to serving grassroots movements, social pastoral ministries, communities, and churches by supporting their actions and projects. The courses it offers are always held in an environment of ecumenical, intra-Christian, and interreligious dialogue among different political, social, religious, and cultural experiences. Its headquarters are in São Paulo, but its scope of activity extends throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

In its interreligious ecumenical education activities, CESEEP recognizes that religious diversity is increasingly present in many areas of today’s society: families, schools, workplaces, and other everyday spaces. This calls for greater openness and understanding of different religious expressions.

Through diversity, it is possible to discover the richness of histories, beliefs, and values that exist outside one’s own religion or worldview. Diversity challenges individuals and groups to reflect on life and to understand the Mystery, which manifests itself in a plural way. Religions, in their different expressions, are also invited to be more open and understanding toward one another and to commit themselves to the causes of humanity—especially those that seek to eradicate hunger and poverty, overcome discrimination and injustice, build peace, and safeguard the integrity of creation.

Ecumenical coexistence, marked by respect for religious diversity, welcoming of differences, and the recognition of religious freedom, is one of the major challenges facing religions today. They are called to respect differences and build paths of coexistence and fair cooperation, thus contributing to more open, plural, and democratic societies. They are also called to bear witness to respect in a plural context, especially at a time when many conflicts are fueled by religious conceptions that promote intolerance or values that oppose diversity. Faced with this reality, religions (and all individuals and groups who practice their faith) are tasked with educating their members to become open-minded, understanding, compassionate, and tolerant people in order to build a more just and humane world. CESEEP seeks to contribute to these challenges through the educational processes it offers (Centro ecumênico de serviço à Evangelização e à educação popular n.d.).4

5.3. Koinonia Ecumenical Presence and Service

Founded in 1994 as a continuation of the work of the Ecumenical Center for Documentation and Information (CEDI), Koinonia is headquartered in Rio de Janeiro (RJ) and operates both nationally and internationally. It is an ecumenical service organization composed of individuals from different religious traditions, brought together as a non-profit civil association. It is part of the ecumenical movement and provides services to the broader social movement.

Koinonia’s mission is to mobilize ecumenical solidarity and provide services to historically and culturally vulnerable groups undergoing social and political emancipation. Its activities take place at intersections of different spaces, and the services offered can be understood as in-between spaces—between religion and society—and among various social actors aiming for social emancipation.

The organization provides services and builds alliances with the organized Black population in urban and rural communities, rural workers, women, youth, those working with people living with HIV/AIDS, and intermediate-level leaders from Christian churches and Candomblé communities. Its educational initiatives—especially those involving youth—have identified pathways to overcome rights violations and religious intolerance. A key example is the work fostering interactions between young religious communities from Candomblé in Bahia and Christian religious communities across Brazil, particularly through the events called ‘ecumenical journeys’.

Koinonia promotes practical actions with strong public impact in the field of rights. In coordination with other institutions and movements, it strives to effect political and social changes that result in the protection and expansion of rights for historically and culturally vulnerable groups. To this end, it is also engaged in producing contextual analyses and knowledge on strategic issues, particularly in its critique of the economic system. This process contributes to the monitoring of public policies and the enforcement of international commitments by the State, especially in the area of human rights.

The ecumenical organization also focuses on the political education of various social actors involved in building a democratic society. To this end, it highlights in its activities a range of issues, such as coexistence with diversity, the need to confront all forms of intolerance, and the importance of mobilizing and raising awareness among religious communities around these topics.

In the educational dimension, its work reflects a commitment to fostering dialogue and promoting interfaith actions on health and sexual and reproductive rights, especially among religious communities from different traditions. This is carried out through three main lines of action: (i) conducting educational activities on health and rights, primarily within religious communities; (ii) contributing to the reduction in stigma and discrimination against people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS; and (iii) encouraging and supporting local leaders to develop initiatives in the fields of health, sexual education, sexual and reproductive rights, and gender equality.

Koinonia also engages in initiatives to defend rights and strengthen the political capacity of Afro-descendant communities traditionally established in what are commonly known as “Black territories.” The main focus is on Candomblé religious communities (terreiros) and the remaining quilombo communities, territories where escaped slaves gathered in the past, across different regions of Brazil. Among its activities, technical training initiatives are especially notable for incorporating traditional knowledge, enabling traditional communities to develop productive practices, engaging in solidarity economy efforts, utilizing formal mechanisms to defend their rights, and presenting new political and social demands (Koinonia—Presença ecumênica e serviço n.d.).5

5.4. Faith in Climate Program, from the Institute for Religious Studies (ISER)

Faith in Climate, coordinated by people of different faiths, is an initiative of the Institute for Religious Studies (ISER) whose mission is to bring together and engage religious leaders and individuals committed to environmental issues and raise awareness within their faith communities about the climate crisis. This effort takes place through dialogue among religious leaders, representatives of Indigenous peoples, scientists, and environmentalists, with the goal of identifying actions and attitudes that promote adaptation, resilience, and climate justice.

The program was created in 2015, in the context of two major events that year: the publication of Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si and the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Paris. It includes debates between scientists, religious leaders, and traditional communities; conversations with faith community leaders; participation in climate networks and forums; and the production and dissemination of information on environmental and climate-related issues.

The foundational understanding behind Faith in Climate is that discussions about climate change cannot be separated from social and economic issues. The challenge is to address climate change while reflecting on its impact in worsening social inequalities and fueling disputes over global economic policy. The initiative seeks to offer living testimony to the possibility of a shared vision, united aspirations, and concrete actions aimed at building a more just society—one founded on respectful relationships amid diverse beliefs and religious affiliations, including secular ways of living (Fé no clima (Iser) n.d.).6

6. Final Considerations

As previously mentioned, the overall aim of this research is to present the basic elements of the profile of interreligious organizations and movements in Brazil, along with an interpretation of their role in society. Our hypothesis is that the interreligious movements in question—through their practical actions, educational initiatives, and mobilization processes, particularly via their channels of interaction with civil society and the public sphere—seem to express, despite their limitations and ambiguities, a critical perspective toward the logic of Empire, aligned with decolonial visions and tasks. These movements, at least most of them, by valuing human life and nature over economic interests and by giving visibility to poor people and subaltern groups of various kinds, challenge and expose the spirit of Empire and thereby reveal a reserve of counter-hegemonic meaning.

These movements appear to stand out as significant sources of symbolic re-creation through practices that contest the economic system and promote the appreciation of ethnic, sexual, and gender diversity, as well as overcoming the destruction caused by that system to both human and environmental rights. A large part of these experiences is lived within the context of diasporic hybridity. As a result, they experience the creation of new cultural and religious forms that emerge from the interaction between the original culture of their members and the culture of the new host locations, or also between different cultures and religious experiences within the very situation of diaspora, in a constant process of the dynamic reconfiguration of identities.

So far, we have gathered several examples of interreligious experiences in Brazil that demonstrate critical potential against forms of domination and emphasize the need to confront the hegemonic and imperial character of current political and economic actions. Other initiatives mentioned also show, to varying degrees, counter-hegemonic perspectives in their practices and proposals for action and will be further investigated as the research continues. Most appear to align with a broader set of initiatives in Brazil that work toward deepening democracy and advocating for human and land rights. Considering their social work and outreach, these initiatives constitute fruitful interreligious spaces that go beyond the formalities of official religious representation.

For these reflections, it is vitally important to distinguish the practices and discourses of the movements and organizations under study according to at least two perspectives. The first, with a more explicitly religious connotation and interreligious nature, does not align with conservative or closed doctrinal views. However, as a trend, it tends not to explicitly address more politically defined issues, such as the struggle for human rights and related matters like combating racism, sexism, and homophobia. Additionally, it does not engage directly with economic issues, especially criticism of capitalism as a producer of social inequalities. The second group consists of those with a more implicit religious connotation, which includes criticism of the economic system and a focus on reflection and action around the root causes of societal divisions.

To better understand the impact of interreligious experiences on processes of democratic deepening and the strengthening of human rights, we consider it essential to pay attention to decolonial tasks, especially the critique of single-mode thinking and center-centrism; the questioning of universalism, particularly in science and ethics; the political and academic–scientific recognition of traditional peoples’ knowledge; the critical analysis of the supremacy of technical–scientific rationality over forms of subjectivity and embodied knowledge; the revision of the notion of the individual as detached from the community, history, nature, and the cosmos; and the examination of the ideology of fixed identities.