A/66/156 great irony that, in spite of the explicit intention of finding common ground, some dialogue projects may thus inadvertently solidify existing stereotypes. This danger is particularly pronounced in short-term dialogue projects. In order to counter such dangers, due account needs to be taken of the existing or emerging internal pluralism within the various religious or belief communities. Long-term dialogue projects will more likely reveal the relevance of internal diversity, which in some settings may be more significant than the differences between religious or belief groups. 57. Yet another problem that may occur in interreligious dialogue projects concerns the false pretence of inclusiveness. As elaborated above, conceptual inclusiveness functions as an indispensable reminder that State-promoted interreligious dialogue projects — at least in their sum total — should do justice to all interested parties. However, no concrete dialogue project will ever be able to fully represent that idea of inclusiveness. Bearing this in mind, it is important to refrain from making a problematic pretence of full inclusiveness. For instance, if a Government claims to have invited “all relevant actors” to a given project, this will most likely imply the marginalization of some groups. To symbolically demonstrate the awareness that human diversity in questions of religion or belief will never fully be reflected in any concrete communicative setting, it might be a good idea to reserve and publicly display some empty seats as a reminder of those not represented. 58. It is not easy to develop appropriate coping strategies for the purpose of overcoming or at least alleviating the unintended side effects mentioned above, and no one can present a blueprint suitable for all contexts and communicative settings. Again, one way to at least alleviate the problem is by paying more systematic attention to informal interreligious communication. As mentioned earlier, it would be wrong to see formal and informal interreligious communication as contradictory; rather, they mutually complement each other. Creating better conditions for informal interreligious communication can be one way of coping with risks and unintended side effects of formal interreligious dialogue projects, such as downplaying internal pluralism, bipolarization or false pretence of inclusiveness. 59. Whereas formal interreligious projects have been increasingly recognized in their significance for the promotion of a culture of religious tolerance, the potential of informal interreligious communication still needs to be further explored. In his latest thematic report to the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur, addressing freedom of religion or belief in the context of public schools, makes the point that, just as it would be wrong to ignore religious differences that may come up, it would be equally problematic to organize communication primarily under the auspices of interreligious exchange between predefined groupings. Instead, respect for difference based on freedom of religion or belief requires an attitude of giving individuals the possibility to decide for themselves whether, to which degree and on which occasions they wish to manifest, or not manifest, their religion or belief. Such an atmosphere of relaxed openness provides a fertile ground for developing a sense of diversity as being a normal feature of modern pluralistic societies (see A/HRC/16/53, para. 40). 20 11-41943