Vad vi har gemensamt : En studie av berättigandet av interreligiösa ställningstaganden

Sammanfattning: Today, several interreligious organisations are publishing joint statements of obvious moral character. These may regard such things as environmental issues, peacebuilding, or freedom of thought. This raises the question of how such statements are to be justified and what role different theological and religious traditions play in justifying joint values. This study seeks to understand and critically examine these questions.  The theoretical foundation is derived from Marianne Moyaert's development of Paul Ricœur's critique of joint interreligious ethics. From this, three main areas are analysed in four interreligious documents. First, what space is given to individual traditions as a source of moral knowledge? Second, to what degree is an ethic of consensus or compromise expressed? Third, how are pluralism, particularism, and radical pluralism expressed?  The study suggests three conclusions for justifying interreligious statements. First, joint published documents should include both theological resources from different traditions and an explicit invitation to dialogue. Second, a dialogue that seeks common values but accepts tension, seen as a critical instance, should be appreciated. Third, interreligious dialogue and its statements could be understood as a way of, with the help of different faith traditions, examining their own and other instances' values.