Peoples of living faiths have been at odds for centuries. The relations between them, with few exceptions, have been marred by conflict, discrimination, or isolationism. The main characteristics of these relationships involve suspicion, to say the least, and anger, to say the worst. This is inevitable, because the deepest and most intense passions among the peoples of faiths (citing the examples of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam) are those having to do with identity, recognition and dignity.

 

In any country, whether in the Middle East, North Africa, or Asia, the relationships are bound to collide or sour when they deal with rights and privileges, especially when these rights and privileges are not equally shared. The negative experiences are further exacerbated when viewed from the perspective of religions that have not transcended their usual exclusivist molds.

 

The ancient historian Thucydides and the philosopher Hobbes pointed out the “three basic passions: 1) fear; 2) the search for security, appetite, material goods, honor or pride; and 3) the search for glory, status or recognition of one’s merits or rights.”

 

In relationships between and among peoples of faiths, the first two types of passions (fear and security) are present everywhere, and the third (status/recognition) is particularly important.

 

The denial of these passions often leads to anger. And when there is perceived or real injustice, the relationships become explosive or at least volatile.

 

The search for a peace formula in the Southern Philippines is also a passionate search for identity. Within this context, the identity – Bangsamoro – should be understood.

 

One of the many characteristics of a globalized community in the 21st century is the fact that practically all individuals and peoples have multiple identities and they do have a choice.

 

This is true, especially when there is a clash between the identities, or, at least, there arises the problem of the priority between the different feelings of belonging and the different solidarities they entail.

 

Between the individual and the world, the number of alternative or complementary loyalties, which vary according to time and place, is considerable. They can be familial or tribal, national or religious. At times, the “collision” is between the heirs of past empires or belonging to transborder religious communities, on the one hand, and being the “citizens” of recently-created states, on the other hand.

 

The search for, and affirmation of, identity become truly passionate when these have to do with reactions for or against past, present, and future inequalities or injustices compounded by humiliation for the loss of perceived golden era in the past and exacerbated by nostalgia for the past, and hope or fear for the future.

 

In this respect, the passion which, at the minimum, is most common to all becomes the revolt against “conquest,” “colonialism” and “occupation” of “homelands” by “outsiders” and foreign powers, and against the suffering and humiliation imposed on the “native” populations.

 

The whole issue become more problematic when the “outsiders” and “natives” are shaped by static cultural stereotypes. A simple return to the past cultural molds characterized by nostalgia for a mythical illo tempore (the perceived golden time) is NOT facing the challenges of modern and competing multiple identities. This is NOW labeled as cultural FUNDAMENTALISM. And this becomes very dangerous when mixed with yet another fundamentalism, that is, the religious type.

 

The real challenge of multiple and competing identities lies in the capacity of individuals and communities to navigate safely and “securely” into the perilous waters of cultures and religions.

 

The simplistic return to the “perceived” golden era is both illusory and NOT sustainable. CUIDATE!