Religion In Intercultural Communication

The paper by Watt and Wolf are both concerned with the study of religion in the discourse of intercultural communication. Watt’s main argument is that religion plays an important role in intercultural communication, it helps unite people from diverse culture. People with the same religion from all around the world have their belief originated from the same language. Wolf’s paper explores the relationship between inter-religious dialogue and dialogical identity and questions the privileging of the secular state in discussions of intercultural communication. His discussion is predicated on the idea that to be intercultural is to be inter-religious, it is to place ourselves in a fundamentally holy space.

As a handbook chapter, Watt’s article

The former refers to where religions tend to resist social innovations and lend themselves to anti-modernization. One example includes the Christians’ preference for the King James Version of the Bible, which involves the use of archaic languages and style, which are perceived as respect for what is holy and traditional, even if they are performed inconsistently with the original grammar. The latter states that all religious belief systems include some beliefs about language. The veneration of language is apparent in religious discourse. In Muslim’s realm, the Qur’an can only be read or recited in Arabic. The permissibility of translation is disputable. This become relevant to cross-cultural contact because religion is global. Language ideology that was housed in that religion becomes transported to the new cultural setting. People from all around the world share the same belief. Muslims not knowing Arabic still need to recite the Qur’an in the same

He wants to demonstrate that the contemporary privileging of the secular state is problematic by pointing out the dangers of an inclusivist approach as well as the vapidity of multiculturalism with its empty desire to respect differences whilst not living them out to the full. Serious understanding of inter-religious encounters is vital to make an intercultural dialogue proper. It is necessary for us to combine the linguistic form with the specific context of the utterance in order to determine the full meaning of an utterance. Wolf finally talks about the approaches that nation states should take in dealing with religions. He suggests that they need to take into consideration the three preconditions for dialogue outlined in the previous discussion: (1) calculus of interpretation, (2) dialogical co-construction, and (3) performativity. The most ardent secularists should try (1) to work out the inferences generated by religious propositions, (2) to discover a common ground in the bridging of two differing teloi, (3) to be aware of the need ‘to transcend’