Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Pluralist mindset »

Intolerance, radicalism, and violence towards groups with divergent ideas continue to be a concerning issue in Indonesia. One reason is that the religious education paradigm offered does not promote a mindset of religious pluralism. This study aims to examine the substance of religious pluralism education in Catholic Religious Education (PAK) designed for Senior High School (SMA/SMK) students following the 2013 Curriculum. This study employs a qualitative methodology, utilizing text analysis techniques. This study discovered that using PAK content significantly contributes to cultivating a religiously pluralistic mindset among students. The pluralistic content in the resources, objectives, competencies, procedures, and tasks for students enhances and reinforces the students' pluralist nature. If PAK is effectively developed, pupils have the potential to become individuals who embrace pluralism, engage in dialogue, and possess an open mindset. Intoleransi, radikalisme dan kekerasan terhadap kelompok yang memiliki keyakinan berbeda masih menjadi masalah memprihatinkan di Indonesia. Salah satu penyebabnya adalah karena model pendidikan agama yang diberikan tidak mendukung sikap pluralisme beragama. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis muatan edukasi pluralisme beragama dalam Materi Pendidikan Agama Katolik (PAK) bagi siswa SMA/SMK Kurikulum 2013. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan metode analisis teks. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa materi PAK memiliki edukasi yang kuat untuk membentuk sikap pluralisme agama bagi siswa. Hal ini ditemukan dalam materi, tujuan, kompetensi, proses dan penugasan bagi para siswa yang mengandung muatan pluralisme dan memperkuat karakter siswa yang pluralis. Jika PAK dikembangkan dengan baik maka siswa dapat menjadi insan yang pluralis, dialogal dan terbuka.

Inclusive theology manifests itself in religious plurality, particularly in Indonesia, a pluralistic country with many diverse races, ethnicities, and religions. Islam, through its holy text Al-Qur'an, instructs its people to appreciate one another and forbids religious disputes. This paper attempts to reinterpret the verses of religious tolerance by combining the theme interpretation method and content analysis with an inclusive theological approach to address the challenge of interpreting the verses of tolerance. This paper leads to an understanding that a pluralist mindset is required in building inter-religious interactions in Indonesia by embracing the reality of other religions while maintaining one's Muslim identity.

Pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy is not possible without making compromises. Yet the spirit of compromise is in short supply in contemporary American politics. The permanent campaign has made compromise more difficult to achieve, as the uncompromising mindset suitable for campaigning has come to dominate the task of governing. To begin to make compromise more feasible and the common good more attainable, we need to appreciate the distinctive value of compromise and recognize the misconceptions that stand in its way. A common mistake is to assume that compromise requires finding the common ground on which all can agree. That undermines more realistic efforts to seek classic compromises, in which each party gains by sacrificing something valuable to the other, and together they serve the common good by improving upon the status quo. Institutional reforms are desirable, but they, too, cannot get off the ground without the support of leaders and citizens who learn how and when to adopt a compromising mindset.

The September 11 attacks on the United States have had many dire conse­quences. In addition to destroying innocent lives and devastating the lively dreams of the individuals and families caught in the web of death and destruction, the attacks have reinvigorated a few bigoted spirits who found an excellent opportunity to spread their bigotry in the name of fighting intolerance in post-September 11 's murky atmosphere of fear and uncer­tainty. Since that horrific date, a new unholy alliance has been formed among leading members of the Religious Right. Its avowed aim is to vilify Islam and demonize even the most moderate Muslim voices. The most recent, vicious, and mean-spirited attacks to date on .Islam have created a new paradox: Islam, which historically has provided an out­standing model of religious accommodation and tolerance, stands accused of intolerance by intolerant and bigoted people. This paradox deserves extensive attention and study . .In addition, the worldview and mindset behind the mean-spirited attacks on Islam by individuals whose outlooks and spir­its recall those of the Middle Ages must be analyzed deeply and understood thoroughly. ln this editorial, I will argue briefly that the accusation of intol­erance leveled against Islam is unfounded and that Islam is an essential part­ner in any effort to develop a more tolerant and peaceful world. Islam is essential for developing a gentler and more caring world, because it holds in high esteem the most fundamental values that make a tolerant and pluralist society possible: equality, freedom, and justice, as well as interracial and interreligious solidarity. The emphasis that Islam places on these values is manifested in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the Companions' exemplary lives; in the Muslim society's historical experi­ence; and in the ethos of contemporary Islamic reform movements ...

The Indonesian state has the characteristic of legal system plurality in a national legal system, it is interesting to be observed from law making, licencing, law implementation, to judiciary process. State organizers in the context of government (executive power) as the licensors of business activities and the judiciary (judicial power) State Administration, as absolute competence over the objects of environmental administration disputes require optical and comprehensive holistic understanding, amidst the very diverse conditions of the legal system (legal pluralism) and a pluralistic society to be bound in a single national legal system (unification). The problem formulation in this paper is: (1) How is the interaction of continental European legal system and customary law system on kendeng case in the tiered judicial process? And (2) how does the interaction affect the legal system on the judge's mindset over environmental permit disputes objects? In relation to executive power as a licensor, the involvement of the public in the process of publishing environmental documents becomes a very important matter. Kendeng Community of Rembang Regency Central Java Province is fighting for its rights and various access to justice, finally choosing the judicial route as the main tool against the state, namely the State Administrative Court (PTUN) Semarang, High Administrative Court (PT TUN) Surabaya, Until the most recent legal remedy in the judicial system in Indonesia, namely the Review Supreme of Court. In this paper, it shows the interaction between the legal system, the continental European legal system and the customary law system in the process of tiered justice as an access to justice for the kendeng mountain community.

Substantially, the term progressive Muslim in Islamic discourse is not a new thing. Progressive Muslims are Muslims who have a forward and open mindset. There are three major missions carried out, such as justice, gender equality, and accepting plurality. The purpose of this study is to find the root cause of the problem of religious exclusivism and how the role of progressive Muslims in solving this problem. Because misunderstandings about the meaning of plurality can then give birth to an attitude of radicalism that endangers many people. As a result, Islam is interpreted as a religion that is hard and rigid because some people criticize it in a narrow and way. How should a progressive Muslim try to reconstruct his thinking in facing plurality according to Omid Safi? The researcher uses descriptive and interpretive methods to explain the problem of plurality and Omid Safi's theory is related to contemporary problems. This research is library research by utilizing reading sources such as books and journals. From the research, it is found that Omid Safi uses multiple critiques as a progressive Muslim thinking method. According to him, multiple criticism or double criticism is an attempt to criticize Western and Islamic thought. Constructive criticism is necessary. Not only criticizing the hegemony of the West, but progressive Muslims also need to be criticized if they display an attitude that tends to be rigid, dogmatic, and authoritarian towards plurality. Safi associates plurality with humanism and open knowledge. Seeing that humans have the same values justice is one of the elements that must be upheld. Safi defines plurality as a form that goes beyond tolerance (Beyond pluralism). According to him, there is still a distance between tolerance in accepting differences. Like a poison that can still be tolerated by the human body. Plurality is when we can say “we” even though we have different beliefs. In the end, the idea of ​​plurality encourages us to be humanist and dynamic towards the times.

Abstract This article1 compares and contrasts the practices of preaching between Christ Embassy and nasfat in the city of Abuja. The preaching of the two groups responds to the social situation of Abuja, which includes hard economic conditions and religious pluralism. The article analyses the preaching styles in Christ Embassy and nasfat within the framework of performance theory. It argues that preaching is an important instrument for empowering urban residents with the necessary mental resources for meeting the challenges of the urban environment. Moreover, the article argues that preaching is a practice of mediation that is facilitated by aspects such as stage design, dress, background music, eloquence, and preaching assistants. In Christ Embassy, one of the purposes of preaching is a total transformation of the individual mindset and the cultivation of new norms and values. Preaching in nasfat has the purpose of producing modern and pious Muslims who can live comfortably in pluralistic urban settings and project a positive image of Islam.

Despite tributes paid to Fuller as an intellectual father of ADR, little attention has been paid within the ADR field to the broader interactionist vision that underlies Fuller’s discussion about process. A closer reading of Fuller’s study of mediation, however, reveals that he intended that study to substantiate his interactionist thesis about the nature of social ordering. He understood ordering to be generated by and to reflect a particular experience of social interaction. Fuller’s interactionist vision recognizes the creative, choice-making and purposive dimensions of human reality, emphasizes participation as a normative criterion for institutional design, and gives rise to a pluralistic notion of power arrangements. It appears in Fuller’s thinking about process as a kind of dialectic and integrative mindset that pervades his means-ends analysis, functional analytical approach and his emphasis on institutional design. This interactionist vision has particular relevance for the practice and research of ADR, for example, in helping to develop a more integrative approach to process pluralism.

En philosophie, les controverses ont coutume de mobiliser les chercheurs de façon passionnée. Dans cette dynamique, notre travail de thèse intervient dans le débat actuel en histoire et philosophie des sciences opposant les pluralistes d’une part et les monistes d’autre part. D’un point de vue conceptuel, être pluraliste à propos des sciences, consiste à valoriser et à cultiver la pluralité (par exemple au niveau des registres théorique, méthodologique et ontologique). En revanche, en valorisant l’unicité, les monistes considèrent la pluralité plutôt comme un problème à résoudre. Ils cherchent, par conséquent, l’unique théorie (méthode ou ontologie) censée guider inévitablement l’intervention sur l’objet étudié. Cette thèse nous permet d’éclairer les enjeux épistémiques et didactiques de la controverse. Nous nous sommes intéressés à la production des connaissances scientifiques (enjeux épistémiques) et à l’enseignement des sciences (enjeux didactiques). La question centrale qui a guidé notre travail est de savoir s’il vaut mieux, pour la science et pour la société en général, embrasser un régime scientifique plutôt moniste ou plutôt pluraliste. Après avoir présenté les cadres ontologiques, théoriques et méthodologiques accueillant le pluralisme et le monisme à propos des sciences, nous avons proposé une défense du pluralisme scientifique. Relativement aux enjeux épistémiques, notre défense du pluralisme scientifique se traduit par l’idée d’un « pluralisme scientifique collaboratif » épistémologiquement motivé. En ce qui concerne les enjeux didactiques, nous proposons ce qu’il convient d’appeler un « pluralisme didactique »
In philosophy, controversies usually mobilize researchers in a passionate way. In this context, our doctoral dissertation is part of the current debate in history and philosophy of science between pluralists on the one hand, and monists on the other. Conceptually speaking, to be a pluralist about the sciences consists in valuing and cultivating plurality (for example at the theoretical, methodological and ontological level). On the contrary, by valuing uniqueness or unicity, monists see plurality more as a problem to be solved. As a result, they look for the only one theory (method or ontology) that is supposed to inevitably guide the intervention on the subject matter. This work sheds light on the epistemic and didactic issues of the debate. In other words, we are interested in the production of scientific knowledge (epistemic issues) and the teaching and learning science (didactic issues). After presenting the ontological, theoretical and methodological frameworks for pluralism and monism about the sciences, we propose a defense of scientific pluralism. From the point of view of the epistemic issues, our defense of scientific pluralism is characterized by the idea of “collaborative scientific pluralism”. As far as the didactic issues are concerned, we propose “didactic pluralism”

This thesis is an investigation into the phenomenon which Shozo Ohmori (1921-1997) considered “a peculiar manner of awareness”, and to which he attributed the term ‘fancy’. The objective is to achieve an approximate understanding of Ohmori’s theory of ‘fancy’, as it relates to awareness of entities in three-dimensional space, and the extensions mentioned in his only publication in English: “Beyond Hume’s Fancy” (1974). This objective will be realized by asking three questions. The first question is how we are to understand the demarcation of the different phenomena of awareness which Ohmori identifies. The second question that this thesis asks is what applications that the phenomenon ‘fancy’ mentioned in Ohmori’s account have, as Ohmori saw it. Having answered these questions, I will then make an assessment of another salient consideration: how does Ohmori’s employment of the term ‘fancy’ relate to Hume’s employment of the same term (seeing as the name of Ohmori’s article makes such a reference). As we shall see, Ohmori is attempting to identify a more specific phenomenon than the widely discussed issue of thinking about something that is not currently perceivable in our perceptual field. The third and final question that this thesis asks is whether there are any salient issues with Ohmori’s theory of ‘fancy’ and, if so, whether those issues can be resolved. When we are aware of entities in three-dimensional space, we are subject to various mental processes. Our awareness, seemingly, uses different modes of interpretation and orientation. In other words, our ‘point of view’ (which is something that not only pertains to the use of our visual sensory organs) determines both our place and relation towards other entities. One salient issue when considering the notion of awareness is how and by which order awareness emerges. Impressions, as David Hume would call them, seemingly precede our ideas. Sense-data, as Shozo Ohmori phrased it, is unquestionably inseparable from conceptions. Our conceptions, in turn, seem to inform our perceptions with expectations and predictions of how things are. When we perceive an entity, we are ready to make judgements about its being at this moment. When we see the front of a desk, we are ready to claim awareness of said desk-front as part of a desk (which entails the ontology of a desk, namely, being a three-dimensional construction of a particular variety). In everyday situations we simply speak of such an awareness as ‘perception’ when in actuality, all we see (which constitutes the sense-data or content of a perception) is the front of a desk. It seems we cannot regard our awareness of a desk (a three-dimensional entity) as a perception simpliciter. Of course, by having a notion of what a desk is, our awareness is pregnant with a ‘conception’ in the form of an idea that is informing our awareness of said desk. But our conceptual understanding of the notion of something being a desk is not enough to explain what our awareness of a desk-at-this-moment is. At least, that is what Ohmori thought.

Abstract Fernando Pessoa (1888–1935) is the quintessential philosophical outsider. Affiliated with no institution and associated with no traditional school, in his prose fiction and poetry Pessoa invents a new philosophy of the human subject. Writing both in Portuguese and English, Pessoa argues that imagination is key to human flourishing and human self-enrichment. Each of us, he claims, can use our powers of imagination to pluralize ourselves—that is to say, to live, simultaneously and in sequence, as a plurality of distinct subjects. Calling these artefact minds “heteronyms,” Pessoan synthetic selves are new ways to poetically experience the world. Pessoa’s new theory of the human subject is a radical departure from the history of Christian or Islamic thought. It is, on the other hand, deeply resonant with strands of thinking about the nature of self found in classical India. Reconstructing ourselves in imagination is a theme central to the great philosophical storybook of India, the Mokṣopāya or Yogavāsiṣṭha, a metaphysical tale of nested virtual realities and virtual selves. There are anticipations of Pessoa’s ideas too in the Mahābhārata. Fernando Pessoa, whose time in Durban briefly overlapped with that of Mahatma Gandhi, was well-read in Indian literature, having in his library the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore and books about Indian philosophy. He discusses the Upaniṣads and what he calls “the Indian ideal.” Indeed, from in of his more esoteric writings it is possible to identify a new variety of panpsychism in the spirit of Coleridge and Whitman.

Philosophical liberalism is largely an abstract and ideal-type normative approach invoking an ostensibly supra-political, universal, and decontextualized social ethics towards which all right-minded individuals should aim. ‘Philosophical liberalism: idealizing justice’ looks at this form of liberalism and some of the key characters in its development. It begins with the most influential theorist of philosophical liberalism in the 20th century, John Rawls (1921–2002), and goes on to discuss ideal-type liberalism; liberal neutrality as exemplified by Ronald Dworkin (1931–2013); the insistence on standards of public life; and liberal philosophical pluralism with reference to Isaiah Berlin (1909–97). It concludes that philosophical liberalism is a complex field of argument, assessment, and ideational experimentation, but that it differs in many ways from the actual liberal beliefs that exist in the political arena.

William James (1842–1910) contributed groundbreaking ideas to empirical philosophy, metaphysics, and psychology, and influenced some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, including Edmund Husserl, Alfred North Whitehead, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. This chapter explores James’s contributions to management studies. Focusing on James’s first major work, Principles of Psychology (1890), the chapter traces his influence on three major streams of social research––process philosophy, phenomenology, and functionalism––and follows these streams as they flowed into research on organizations and management. James believed that experience could not be forced into static systems or grand unified theories, but was ‘a snowflake caught in the warm hand’. For social scientists, his work shows the virtues of embracing human experience in all its pluralism, and reawakening the mind to forgotten potentialities.

This book examines the operation of the rule of law in the non-liberal democracy of Singapore. The rule of law in Singapore has been both lauded for anchoring efficient and effective government and lambasted for being procedural and statist. 21st-century Singapore has experienced modest political liberalisation, manifesting a paternal democracy where the governor-governed relationship is evolving, from a ‘father knows best’ paternalistic mindset to a more consultative approach to governance, where dialogue rather than diktat is the norm in a post-deferential era. The Singapore case study helps pluralise the rule of law as a universal principle which moderates power, and may be variously implemented. The book examines the reception of the rule of law within the Singapore legal order, and how it interacts with constitutional principles like the separation of powers and democracy in the design of constitutional institutions and forging of structural and rights-oriented judicial review. It considers how the rule of law, contoured by legal communitarianism, sustains a managed democracy in relation to legislation governing internal security, public assemblies, religious harmony and online falsehoods. It questions whether the chilling of political speech by strict laws on political defamation and contempt of court has been significantly defrosted by important developments which seek ordered liberty through a more calibrated form of review. Lucid and engaging, this book will be of interest to researchers working in constitutional law.

The post-1945 exile from East Central Europe was characterized by extreme ideological pluralism and political fragmentation, ranging from post-fascist to radical leftist streams. Given this initial diversity and the permanent reconfiguration due to the arrival of new waves, it remained an extremely variegated phenomenon with limited ideological coherence. However the specific exile experience produced a certain type of political thought offering a choice between interventionist, gradualist, or passivist stances. Whereas in the first post-war decades the exile’s main drive was to preserve the “authentic” cultural and political traditions, in the course of the 1960s and the 1970s they became the transmitters of the local dissident discourses. These developments validated the ideas of the best strategic minds in emigration arguing that it was the pressure from the domestic public and opposition, not the émigré groups or Western powers, which could become a main catalyst of democratization.

This chapter locates Emerson’s late-phase interest in aggregated, communal forms of intellection within similar fixations that permeated a broader cultural ambience during the 1850s and 1860s. This milieu included the oceanographer Matthew Fontaine Maury, whose crowdsourced researches captured public imagination as a model of communal thought; Herman Melville, whose mention of Maury in Moby-Dick (1856) portends his own vision of a proliferating and ever-closer association upon the waves; Walt Whitman, whose similar interests in communality inform the oceanic and liquid setting of “Sun-Down Poem” from the second edition of Leaves of Grass (1856); and indeed Emerson, whose 1862 “Perpetual Forces” foreran the even more fluid social subjectivity of Natural History of Intellect (1870–71). Finally, the chapter argues that Emerson’s ideas in these last two works provided a template for the radical pluralism of William James’s Principles of Psychology (1890) and “How Can Two Minds Know One Thing?” (1905).

This book articulates a participatory conception of deliberative democracy that takes the democratic ideal of self-government seriously. It aims to improve citizens’ democratic control and vindicate the value of citizens’ participation against conceptions that threaten to undermine it. The book critically analyzes deep pluralist, epistocratic, and lottocratic conceptions of democracy. Their defenders propose various institutional “shortcuts” to help solve problems of democratic governance such as overcoming disagreements, citizens’ political ignorance, or poor-quality deliberation. However, it turns out that these shortcut proposals all require citizens to blindly defer to actors over whose decisions they cannot exercise control. Implementing such proposals would therefore undermine democracy. Moreover, it seems naïve to assume that a community can reach better outcomes “faster” if it bypasses the beliefs and attitudes of its citizens. Unfortunately, there are no “shortcuts” to making a community better than its members. The only road to better outcomes is the long, participatory road that is taken when citizens forge a collective will by changing one another’s hearts and minds. However difficult the process of justifying political decisions to one another may be, skipping it cannot get us any closer to the democratic ideal. Starting from this conviction, the author defends a conception of democracy “without shortcuts.” This conception sheds new light on long-standing debates about the proper scope of public reason, the role of religion in politics, and the democratic legitimacy of judicial review. It also proposes new ways to unleash the democratic potential of institutional innovations such as deliberative minipublics.

AbstractThe chapters in this Handbook provide evidence of the plurality of theories, models, methods, and perspectives relevant to positive education. Chapters highlight the diverse ways in which positive education is conceptualized and implemented, complexities inherent to school environments, and the need to rigorously study the impact of activities. Chapters describe core ingredients of positive education, including basic psychological needs, mindset, character strengths, coping skills, empathy, engagement, gratitude, social relationships, emotions, kindness, meaning and purpose, mindfulness, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and wellbeing literacy. These ingredients primarily emphasize the skills and attributes of the person. Yet other chapters remind us of the importance of the social and environmental context, including the impact that trauma, disadvantage, culture, socioeconomic pressures, and broader systemic pressures have. Together, the chapters speak to both the possibilities and challenges of what positive education might become.

AbstractWithin the general frame of the conference enquiring about the plurality of architecture as a discipline, the two sessions dedicated to the ways of teaching specifically addressed the different teaching approaches questioning two of the six dichotomies characterizing the contemporary debate on architectural education. The first tension explored is the supposed opposition between architecture considered as a discipline, with its specific field of knowledge and epistemology, and, on the other hand, architecture is regarded as a method, a mindset, a modus operandi that can be applied to other fields than the built environment. The second dichotomy concerns the origin of architectural education which can be grounded on the study and imitation of the Masters of Architecture, as it was when architecture was taught in the frame of the École des Beaux-arts, or can be grounded in training the student to face specific topics or burning issues of the architectural discipline.

Open-minded is identified as an economic key quality in the 21st century due to special abilities in the dissemination of innovations. The impact of dissemination is increasing due to the rise of the creative class including the open-minded. The long-term consumer profile—the most open-minded state of cognition—is identified as simple living contrasting consumerism. The modern prototype of an entrepreneur is “pilot-in-plane” à la Saraswathy, who fits best to the open-mindedness personality. Open-minded entrepreneurs strive for revenue of capital (ROI). A simple ROI formula is presented for business check by entrepreneurs. In all, four heuristics are presented for the doughnut agent. The chapter is complemented by a portrait of the serial entrepreneur Martin Thorborg and a minireview of the author and specialist of “Simple Living” Ole D. Nielsen.

Intersubjective interactions are highly complex processes that integrate a variety of contextual aspects—physical, pragmatic, social, cultural, normative, institutional—into which embodied individuals, with varying emotions, intents, desires, and motivations, enter. We elucidate the role of context in different varieties of social understanding. We defend a pluralist approach to social cognition and in that framework consider the limited role of mindreading understood as a form of theoretical inference or simulation, as well as the importance of embodied interaction. We argue that all of these practices need to be considered in order to comprehend the rich effects of context on social cognition. We exemplify the bidirectional influence between social understanding and context specifically by focusing on communicative practices and material engagements.

This chapter discusses the gradual erosion of democracy in world politics, beginning with the rise of the welfare state and the second political convergence of the postwar era—conservative retrenchment. Confronted with resurgent conservatism, reform-minded leaders worked to renovate left-leaning parties and brought the next convergence of Western politics, the Third Way. For some years, international Third Way forces had the wind in their sails, however, the Great Recession ended this era. Across the West, governments struggled to stave off financial collapse, halt the downward slide of output and employment, and restart economic growth. Meanwhile, a populist surge threatens the assumptions and achievements of mainstream politicians and policymakers from the center left to the center-right.

While the appeal of ‘civilisational dialogue’ is on the rise, its sources, functions, and con- sequences arouse controversy within and between faith communities. Some religious lead- ers have attempted to clarify the religious foundations for such dialogue. Among them are Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth, Edward Idris, Cardinal Cassidy of the Catholic Church, and Fethullah Gülen. The paper compares the approach of these three religious leaders from the Abrahamic tra- dition as presented in their scholarly works – Sacks’ The Dignity of Difference, Cardinal Cassidy’s Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue, and Gülen’s Advocate of Dialogue. The discussion attempts to answer the following questions: Can monotheistic traditions accom- modate the dignity of followers of other monotheistic and polytheistic religions as well as non-theistic religions and philosophies? Is a belief in the unity of God compatible with an acceptance of the religious dignity of others? The paper also explores their arguments for why civilisational and interfaith dialogue is necessary, the parameters of such dialogue and its anticipated consequences: how and how far can dialogue bridge the claims of unity of God and diversity of faiths? Islam’s emphasis on diversity and the Quran’s accommodation of ear- lier religious traditions put Islam and Fethullah Gülen in the best position to offer a religious justification for valuing and cherishing the dignity of followers of other religions. The plea for a dialogue of civilizations is on the rise among some policymakers and politi- cians. Many of them believe a dialogue between Islam and the West has become more urgent in the new millennium. For example following the 2005 Cartoon Wars, the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conferences, and the European Union used a joint statement to condemn violent protests and call for respect toward religious traditions. They pled for an exchange of ideas rather than blows: We urge everyone to resist provocation, overreaction and violence, and turn to dialogue. Without dialogue, we cannot hope to appeal to reason, to heal resentment, or to overcome mistrust. Globalization disperses people and ideas throughout the world; it brings families individuals with different beliefs into close contact. Today, more than any period in history, religious di- versity characterizes daily life in many communities. Proponents of interfaith dialogue claim that, in an increasingly global world, interfaith dialogue can facilitate mutual understanding, respect for other religions, and, thus, the peaceful coexistence of people of different faiths. One key factor for the success of the interfaith dialogue is religious leaders’ ability to provide an inclusive interfaith theology in order to reconcile their commitment to their own faith with the reality of religious diversity in their communities. I argue that prominent leaders of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are already offering separate but overlapping theologies to legitimize interfaith dialogue. A balanced analysis of multi-faith interactions is overdue in political science. The discipline characterises religious interactions solely from the perspective of schism and exclusion. The literature asserts that interactions among believers of different faiths will breed conflict, in- cluding terrorism, civil wars, interstate wars, and global wars. According to this conven- tional depiction, interfaith cooperation is especially challenging to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam due to their monotheism; each claims it is “the one true path”. The so-called “monothe- istic exclusion” refers to an all-or-nothing theological view: you are a believer or you are an infidel. Judaism identifies the chosen people, while outsiders are gentiles; Christians believe that no salvation is possible outside of Jesus; Islam seems to call for a perennial jihad against non-Muslims. Each faith would claim ‘religious other’ is a stranger to God. Political “us versus them” thinking evolves from this “believer versus infidel” worldview. This mindset, in turn, initiates the blaming, dehumanizing, and demonization of the believers of other reli- gious traditions. Eventually, it leads to inter-religious violence and conflict. Disputing this grim characterization of religious interactions, scholars of religion offer a tripartite typology of religious attitude towards the ‘religious other.’ They are: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. Exclusivism suggests a binary opposition of religious claims: one is truth, the other is falsehood. In this dichotomy, salvation requires affirmation of truths of one’s particular religion. Inclusivism integrates other religious traditions with one’s own. In this integration, one’s own religion represents the complete and pure, while other religions represent the incomplete, the corrupted, or both. Pluralism accepts that no religious tradi- tion has a privileged access to religious truth, and all religions are potentially equally valid paths. This paper examines the theology of interfaith dialogue (or interfaith theology) in the Abrahamic religions by means of analyzing the works of three prominent religious lead- ers, a Rabbi, a Pope, and a Muslim scholar. First, Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth, offers a framework for the dialogue of civilizations in his book Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations. Rather than mere tolerance and multiculturalism, he advocates what he calls the dignity of difference—an active engagement to value and cherish cultural and religious differences. Second, Pope John Paul II’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope argues that holiness and truth might exist in other religions because the Holy Spirit works beyond the for- mal boundaries of Church. Third, the Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen’s Advocate of Dialogue describes a Muslim approach to interfaith dialogue based on the Muslim belief in prophecy and revelation. I analyze the interfaith theologies of these religious leaders in five sections: First, I explore variations on the definition of ‘interfaith dialogue’ in their works. Second, I examine the structural and strategic reasons for the emergence and development of the interfaith theologies. Third, I respond to four common doubts about the possibility and utility of interfaith di- alogue and theologies. Fourth, I use John Rawls’ overlapping consensus approach to develop a framework with which to analyze religious leaders’ support for interfaith dialogue. Fifth, I discuss the religious rationales of each religious leader as it relates to interfaith dialogue.