“Religion, World Order, and Peace” Ten Years Later David Little Problems and challenges as they looked a decade ago Composed as the background paper for the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders, held at the United Nations in 2000, “Religion, World Order, and Peace” had two basic purposes. It was intended to provide a general orientation to the subject of religion and peace by introducing key considerations and complications; it was also intended to identify some of the pressing concerns that ought to be addressed in any serious engagement with the topic. The paper stressed that by initiating, as proposed, informal contacts between the UN and religious organizations around the world, religious and spiritual leaders need to appreciate both the promise and the frustration accompanying international efforts, like those of the UN, in the areas of social and economic development and the resolution of conflict. That would mean embracing at once an expansive spirit of cooperation and public responsibility, and a deepened awareness of the challenges posed by collaborative effort, both among different communities as well as within them. It would, in addition, mean taking a very hard look at the record of achievement of the different traditions represented and sharing best practices only after worst practices had honestly been acknowledged. The paper urged that religious actors be looked at as forces for both peace and violence and that an effort be made to account for and address the difference. It also called for attention to the constructive as well as the destructive effects of political, economic, and social conditions on religious thought and action. Second, the paper listed seven “Topics of Special Concern” (TSCs), or areas of particular challenge, as urgently pertinent to the subject of religion and peace: 1. Treatment of Minorities; 2. Conflicting Interpretations of Religious Freedom; 3. Force and Non‐violence; 4. Religion and Human Rights; 5. Religion and Public Life; 6. Coping with the Aftermath of Violence; and 7. The Meaning of Tolerance. The objective of inviting retrospective reflections on the background document from representatives or scholars of six religious traditions is to reconsider how the proposed orientation and list of challenges look a decade later. Where things stand today As to the paper’s general orientation, all six authors agree, or at least imply, that the desirable spirit of cooperation and public responsibility toward peacemaking and development can satisfactorily advance among religious and spiritual leaders only when combined with a clear‐eyed examination of obstacles that exist either among different traditions or within the same one. They all find heartening examples of peace‐oriented thinking and action within their respective communities, though most of the authors either state explicitly or hint that such efforts are by no means uniformly accepted within the communities they represent. In one way or another, all give fairly concrete guidance regarding what must be done to advance the peacemaking inclinations of their traditions over forces inside and out that oppose or retard those inclinations. As to specific commentary on the TSCs, all seven topics are addressed, and several are helpfully reframed and expanded to include urgent issues not identified in the original paper. As would be expected, the responses overlap in respect to one or another of the topics and will be so reviewed. The comments of the authors will occasionally be used as a basis for further reflection on the topics under consideration and their implications for religion and peace. Wande Abimbola takes up concerns jointly touched on in regard to TSCs 1. Treatment of Minorities, 2. Conflicting Interpretations of Religious Freedom, and 7. The Meaning of Tolerance. In addition, he combines his reflections with an urgent appeal for UN assistance. He is particularly distressed by perceived abuses against indigenous minority religions in Africa, the Americas, and Australia caused by “shameful and violent” attempts at conversion by well‐supported Christian and Muslim evangelists. This is the result of a failure to consider that “what some regard as a legitimate effort at peaceful persuasion, others take to be a coercive intrusion that unfairly threatens the right to practice religion free of outside harassment and disruption,” in the language of “Religion, World Order, and Peace.” Abimbola implies...