The conference aimed to counter the growing division, polarization, and disinformation seen in public life today, as well as the tendency among people of faith either to withdraw from public life or to seek power through politics. It sought to challenge prevailing assumptions and dominant narratives about the role of religion in politics and to encourage students, political activists, and professionals from across Europe to engage thoughtfully and actively in the debates shaping our societies.

Adriana Rus, ECPP Event Manager, introduced the ECPP to participants, explaining the role of a European political party and its place within the European political landscape: “The ECPP is the only party explicitly promoting Christian values in the European Parliament.” She highlighted the coalition nature of the ECPP, bringing together Christian parties from various nations and denominations. ECPP’s seven focus areas include human dignity, healthy families, relational economics, freedom, security and stability, honouring the Christian roots of the EU, and reforming the EU. Its motto “Elevate. Empower. Engage.” reflects ECPP’s mission to amplify the voices of its members, whose perspectives are often sidelined at the EU level, and to empower them to make an impact.

ROM Assistant Director Rachel Ruvarac opened the first day by introducing principles for disagreeing well. An anonymous participant survey confirmed the ideological and political diversity of the group. Because the sessions were designed to spark thoughtful disagreement, the event intentionally set aside time to practice disagreeing with humility and to affirm the dignity of those we engage with.

Professor James Kennedy then provided a historical overview of the rise of nationalism since WWII, with a particular focus on religious nationalism. He emphasized how religious communities can facilitate dialogue.

A panel on “Nationalism, Patriotism, Protest and Dissent” explored the distinction between nationalism and patriotism and examined how nationalism manifests today in Serbia, Romania, the UK, and the US. Panellists shared personal perspectives on navigating these dynamics as people of faith.

Igor Mateski led a workshop on how social media algorithms exploit human emotions and how political messaging is crafted to trigger those emotions. He warned against decision-making driven by algorithmic manipulation and drew a parallel to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, communicating with malicious intent. Mateski urged participants not to engage with such manipulative messaging and instead to assume good intentions, to distinguish between positive and negative communication, and to always consider the humanity of those we disagree with.

The first day closed with an evening session titled “Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Conversation,” where the panel modelled the principles of disagreeing well introduced earlier. The discussion challenged simplistic narratives and binary framing, seeking common ground and shared values within the abortion debate.

On the second day, Dr. Noemi Mena Montes spoke about info entertainment, which she defined as a blend of news and entertainment, focused on emotion, personality, and drama. She explained that it is appealing because of emotional engagement, it’s easy to consume, there is a personal connection, and instant rewards. However, she showed how dangerous it can be because it trivializes complexity, relies on emotion over evidence, polarizes audiences, and erodes trust.

Julia Bicknell reflected on the evolution of the media landscape since her early days at the BBC in the 1980s, highlighting the challenge of reclaiming shared truth today. She offered practical advice on responsible media consumption and how to identify false information.

A panel on “What Is Truth?” built on the morning’s lectures, exploring social media, AI, and disinformation, and underscoring the importance of developing critical thinking skills.

The day ended with a group activity in which participants created proposals for AI regulation. This exercise prompted them to think through the impact of AI on privacy, education, intellectual property, cybersecurity, the environment, medicine, and more, sparking animated debate and many promising ideas.

The third day began with a presentation by Kimberly Hart, who invited participants to examine their own roles in today’s polarization. She argued that healthy political systems depend on healthy communities, and that politics and culture currently reinforce each other in a negative loop. To break this cycle, she encouraged participants to reflect on who they listen to and follow, who shapes their thinking, and to be willing to question their own beliefs.

ECPP Director for Political Relations and former MEP Márton Gyöngyösi spoke about hope: “For people who care about the truth, hope is not naïve. It is an act of resistance and defiance, a source of strength, and a deliberate choice.” He challenged the idea that people of faith should either withdraw from or dominate politics, instead calling for engagement as servants and truth-tellers.

The final plenary session was a panel on hope and politics, exploring the difference between hope and optimism and how hope can be manipulated. Panellists emphasized that hope is active, not passive. One panellist pointed to the American civil rights movement as an example: “Hope is a path through suffering, but also a path of action. It is not about predicting the future, nor a recipe for domination, but a belief in God’s goodness.”

Outside the main sessions, participants visited “Awakening,” an art exhibit by Romanian artist Marius Radu, and attended workshops on art, psychology, burnout, implicit bias, and more. Ample free time allowed for continued conversation and reflection.

Participants returned home with a clearer understanding of the forces dividing societies today and the manipulation of truth in public life, but also with new tools, renewed motivation, and a more active sense of hope.