Interfaith dialogue is pointless without intra-faith reflection

Every day, another interfaith conference or dialogue seems to pop up somewhere in the world.

Recently in Israel, the Pope met with several religious leaders to promote tolerance and understanding between the three Abrahamic faiths.

Last year, Saudi King Abdullah hosted "The World Conference on Dialogue"in Madrid, during which religious leaders of all strands and sects convened to discuss various issues relating to religious tolerance.

There are also countless organizations out there promoting interfaith tolerance, such as the Interfaith Alliance and the Interfaith Dialog Center.

On the surface, this seems like a wonderful, positive step in the right direction. However, as much as I enjoy gathering around in a circle singing 'kumbaya; with my fellow people of the Book and my non-pork consuming cousins, there is something inherently flawed about this approach to ending religious intolerance.

It should be obvious to most that tolerance and respect between religions is generally a positive thing, but I argue that this conviction can only flourish when it becomes a part of the different religions themselves.

Moreover, tragic historic examples of religious bigotry, such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, had nothing to do with a lack of interfaith non-profit organizations in the world.

My own young, naive interpretation of the need for interfaith dialogue is that, at some point in history, various religious groups clashed and caused harm to each other.

Upon reviewing my rather skeletal notes taken years ago during World History 101, that seems indeed to be the case.

As it turns out, violent clashes of religious groups happened quite often and continue to ravage our world on a daily basis. So, in recent years leaders of various religions decided the time had come to arrange catered gatherings and schmooze about how to avert apocalyptic religious war.

The nature of interfaith dialogue seems to be gathering members of differing religions in the face of religious intolerance happening in the world, often in lieu of analyzing one's own religious doctrine and its implications.

By focusing on dialogue with other religions, religious leaders are not forced to ask themselves the important question: "How are my religious convictions contributing to a world in which aggressive acts of religious intolerance occur?"

Furthermore, religious leaders might ask how one's own religion can reform itself so that coexistence and tolerance of others become an intrinsic part of their faith, thus eliminating the need for interfaith conferences and non-profit organizations.

One of the more divisive of religious convictions is the supposed ownership and espousing of the Truth or the Way.

The supposed ownership of the Truth presents one's own religion as being the best available belief system. This particular religious conviction is present in the world's two largest monortheistic religions - Christianity and Islam.

Claiming to own the universal truth is an idea that has proven to produce violence and division between people of different faiths.

Generally speaking, people do not appreciate being told they are going to Hell or being referred to as 'infidels' for adhering to a less popular or different belief system. Being pressured to convert to a "better" religion is not so popular either.

By not analyzing divisive tendencies such as these, conflict resolution in the interfaith arena skips an important step of recognizing one's own problematic beliefs and behavior.

So, while interfaith dialogues often produce results that celebrate the commonalities between faiths or initiatives that combat extremism, no one seems to be asking: "how did we get here in the first place?" For me, this is a basic step in the course of promoting coexistence between religious groups.

As a Jew, my qualms with the trend in interfaith dialogue allow me to reflect on Jews' interactions with other religious groups. While Judaism might not be perfect in how it views other belief systems, a certain amount of credit is due to its approach .

Jews do not feel compelled to convert others to Judaism and we offer no set of consequences for those who prefer a different brand of monotheism.

What I have continuously internalized from Judaism, is that what works for a Jew is Judaism, what works for a Christian is Christianity, and so on.

These small examples of Jewish tradition make it seem well suited to coexist with other belief systems in the modern world. While there are certainly fringe elements of Jewish extremism that are detrimental to coexistence between faiths, Jews have much to be proud of in how we acknowledge those who hold different beliefs.

Many Jews, myself included, feel that until other religious groups abandon the desire to spread their religion to the entire world, interfaith dialogue is quite pointless.

An analogy that comes to mind when I think about interfaith dialogue would be the case of an abusive husband who approaches his wife about establishing a revitalized relationship free of violence towards the wife.

They both agree that as long as the wife does not pressure the husband to do household chores, she will not have to worry about being abused. While this might curb the abuse in the relationship, this agreement has done nothing to reform the abusive behavior of the husband, which is the root problem.

The couple's arrangement is then enabling the husband to maintain violence as part of his value system. To use an old adage: "Two wrongs do not make a right."

More by Elliott Antman on Haaretz.com:An American Jew's guide to living in IsraelReflections of an American Jew in IsraelWhy marry Jewish? It's just a personal preference