Are Religious Fundamentalism and Violence Always Intertwined - Essay Example

ARE RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND VIOLENCE ALWAYS INTERTWINED? by The of the The of the School (University) The City and State where it is located The Date Are religious fundamentalism and violence always intertwined? Introduction If one takes a close look at the role that religion has played in the history of the development of the human civilization, one cannot help noticing that has shaped not only spiritual values, but also the very fabric of the social environment. Indeed, as the humanity evolved old religions gave their places to the new ones which often put emphasis on issues that were more significant to the contemporary society. Nevertheless, nowadays the world has adopted the principle of separation of Church and State, making religious institution less important and more limited to a particular area of social life. This gave rise to various interpretation of formerly established beliefs and also contributed to counter-action, often known under a broad term of fundamentalism. This paper will focus on the latter and argue that while there is no direct connection between religious fundamentalism as well as violence, the former features numerous preconditions for the occurrence of the latter, so to a certain extent these two concepts are always intertwined. In order to prove this point of view the analysis would carefully examine the idea of fundamentalism and violence separately; afterwards it will explore each of the following characteristic features of fundamentalism, suggesting that they ultimately cause violence in one form or another: the literalist approach; the desire to restore the ideal; the only source of objective truth; the impossibility of proving; rejection of diversity of opinion; the peculiarities of in group and out group relations; the call for increase of religious significance. In other words, while fundamentalism does not necessarily call for violence, many aspects of its nature result in almost inevitable emergence of violence. The definition of religious fundamentalism While exploring the connection between religious fundamentalism and violence it may be logical to pay close attention to each of the elements in order to gain a correct understanding of these concepts. That is why it may be highly beneficial to briefly explore the phenomenon of fundamentalism first. Thus, the very term was first used with regard to a group of Christians in the United Stated of America in the beginning of the previous century (Keller, 2006, p. 443). It is suggested that at the time many Christian denominations spread their own liberal views with regard to the nature of their faith and important dogmas, often featuring Modernist influence (Kukathas, 2003, p. 153). Contrary to that in 1910 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church was gathered and they articulated principles of their approach towards Christian faith which were latter called “five fundamentals”. Hence the term fundamentalism was coined. However, it would be a great mistake to suggest that “Christian” origin of the term defined its nature. In reality, this term can be applied to any other religious group that features certain characteristics. It is understandable that Christian fundamentalists can not be referred to as model fundamentalists since there are dependent on dogmas of Christianity and many of these theological principles are absent in other religions (Herriot, 2009, p. 280). In addition to that, one should note that the phrase “Islamic fundamentalists” is more frequently used, especially in the media covering the contemporary terroristic acts (Choueiri, 1990, p. 73). This means that that a certain extent “Islamic fundamentalism” is regarded as synonym for “radical Islam”, but it would wrong to suggest that this makes fundamentalism and radical interchangeable. The definition of violence It is rather obvious that this section would not focus on the definition of violence as physical activity since it can be found in virtually every dictionary. Quite the opposite, it will put emphasis on several aspects that make violence that is connected to fundamentalism different from any other kind of violence. First of all, one should note that violence that is associated with religious fundamentalism often involves planned acts of aggression that are justified by religion (Whitehouse, 2009, p. 138). However, it is crucial to be able to differentiate between those groups and individuals who use a particular spiritual framework as a screen for their true nature and those groups and individuals who think of violence as the last resort. For example, the infamous terroristic organisation of Al-Qaeda is known to have performed planned acts of terrorism, justifying them with their adherence to the fundamental beliefs of Islam (Guidère, 2012, p. 285). However, it is obvious that these people use the latter is merely as a pretext for what they would call “holy war”. On the other hand, there are known instances when Orthodox Jews attacked representatives of LGBT community, causing severe violence (Hawley, 1994, p. 142). In this case, the former might be regarded as true fundamentalists since they are always faithful to their principles and are known for exactly that and not for violence. Moreover, one should also note that violence should not be understood in its physical form exclusively. Indeed, it is quite possible that religious fundamentalists would be engaged in verbal or emotional violence (Strozier, 2010, p. 216). In spite of the fact that this may not constitute an act that is recognized as a crime by the applicable legislation, it still should be seen as a manifestation of violence. The literalist approach Now, it may be particularly important to pay a close attention towards features of religious fundamentalism that are regarded as characteristic to it and the way they cause violence. The first one that will be explored focuses on the literalist approach that employed by such groups. This means such communities often see the texts that they regard as sacred to be the only standard that should be followed and believe inerrancy of them (Geisler, 1980, p. 386). In other words, if the text does not feature something the existence of which can be proven by other facts, it is not the view of the text that is being dismissed, but the evidence. A good example is the controversy of dinosaurs and the Bible: the latter have no record about them, but science is able to provide a vast array of evidence that can hardly be dismissed (Walker, 2010, p. 243). The existence of such approach has two negative consequences that condition the further violence. First of all, the members of the group are forced to comply with the above mentioned standard and are not allowed to act contrary to it. As one can easily see, it can be classified as direct violence over an individual (Gutmann, 1997, p. 121). Secondly, strict and rigorous adherence to the text makes it almost impossible for the fundamentalists to interact with people who have a different point of view since the former will always point to their text as the only way of verification that they acknowledge (Woods, 2005, p. 380). That is why every argument which might benefit from careful examination of each other position will inevitable face emergence of violence on one side or another. The desire to restore the ideal The next irreplaceable element of point of view of fundamentalists relies on the concept of ideal which flourished in the past and was lost by the contemporary people. The fallacy of this approach lies in the fact that fundamentalists think that past is better than resent which can be explained by various psychological phenomena (Marty, 1993, p. 138). In other words, these people forget about all the negative aspects of the past, focusing exclusively on the positive ones; quite naturally they want the world to return to that state since from their point of view it would be better (Nielsen, 1993, p. 140). It is obvious that fundamentalists rarely reject some of the most helpful innovations; they primarily target the conventional values that are being promoted by the contemporary society. With this in mind, one should note that fundamentalist often take actions not only to defend their position, but also persuade the rest of the population in its validity. In the course of this dialogue the often advocate elimination of many aspects that the contemporary people are accustomed to. As a result, fundamentalists are often seen as people who want the world to return to the Middle ages which is absolutely not the case (Swatos, 1998, p. 199). Nevertheless, it is true that these people promote dramatic changes that are necessary to restore the harmony in the present social environment (Saha, 2004, p. 108). One would make no mistake pointing out that this vector of changes gradually leads to violence as any society would not be willing to change its structure and replace the evolved mechanisms with outdated ones. The only source of objective truth If one takes a close look at the structure of groups that are formed by the fundamentalists, one will be able to see that these groups often have some kind of a leader or a governing body that is proclaimed as the only source of objective truth. It is somewhat similar to literalism, but in this case it is not the text that is able to say the final world, but a person or a group of people (Hill, 2005, p. 48). In other words, fundamentalist groups are often authoritative since there will always be a party that would dominate the environment and be considered to be the representative of the major point of view (Meusburger, 2008, p. 176). What is more important is that this party will be seen as the only arbiter that is able to legitimately judge any conflicts. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that authoritative societies can be successful and prosperous to a certain extent. However, they all share one characteristic feature: there is a vicious cycle of circulation of judicial power. For example, in an empire, the emperor will always be higher than the court; so, the word of the former always has the power to override the decision of the latter. In fundamentalist groups, their leaders or governing bodies are those parties which say the final word in an argument (Ammerman, 1993, p. 133). This means that should there be a member who does not fully share the views of the majority, one has nowhere to go within this framework as the judgement will be made exclusively by representative of the majority (Walborn, 2014, p. 361). It is clear that many people understand it and do not want to present their point of view, being afraid of aggression and violence that might occur. The impossibility of proving Many fundamentalist societies are founded on a handful of principles that are simple and are seen as crucial for the stability of the entire system. In order to prevent any kind of independent proof of them, the group claims them to be valid and no require proof at all, but only faith (Marsden, 1995, p. 9). On the other hand, the group might agree to accept the necessity of obtaining evidence, but it will design such conditions when the required evidence can not be obtained; that is why a certain principle will be taken for granted (Hughes, 2010, p. 56). For example, Christian fundamentalists argue that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical fact. They are not able to give any direct evidence, but are willing to provide numerous indirect proofs. It is obvious that the only way to prove or disprove this event is going back in time which is impossible. Nevertheless, when such groups are presented with concrete evidence that goes against their point of view, they freely dismiss it suggesting that science is not able to explain the true spiritual matters. For example, Jewish fundamentalists believe that the book of Genesis describes the process of creation of the world accurately and fully (Cantor, 2006, p. 77). There are no lines about ancient creatures or plants. So, when such people are presented with actual fossils, they dismiss this evidence, suggesting the text can not be wrong. It is obvious that such attitude would ignite a harsh conflict which might develop into further violence. That is why one should always keep in mind that fundamentalist groups often operate with notions that can not be proven outside of their frame of reference. Rejection of diversity of opinion Several characteristic aspects of religious fundamentalism that are closely connected to this aspect were analysed in the previous sections of the paper. Indeed, the literalist approach and the existence of a single source of objective truth do not make such a group predisposed to pluralism. However, one should also note that fundamentalist actually reject the need for pluralism (Huff, 2008, p. 8). They often argue that diversity leads to weakness of the structure and think that unity is exactly what the group needs. This means that the concept of diversity is not valued by fundamentalists and this rejection often shapes their behaviour. Indeed, one of the immediate consequences of this approach is forced unification that is carried out by fundamentalists. For example, when the five fundamentals were articulated, every Christian who claimed to be a conservative was checked for compliance with these principles. It is obvious that those who did not accept them in full faced a simple choice: they should whether comply or leave the congregation (Tierney, 2012, p. 174). Keeping in mind that the latter was unthinkable for many people, they often complied just to maintain the connection with the group. That is why the unity of fundamentalists groups that they often present is somewhat artificial since the choice was largely influenced by other factors and was not independent (Warner, 2010, p. 124). Of course, it does not mean that a small minority seized all the power and made other comply. It just reflects the fact that there was violence present when the hard core of the group was formed. The peculiarities of in group and out group relations It may be useful to take a look at the issue from a broader perspective. It has already been noted that one of the peculiarities of the in group relations focuses on the desired uniformity that is often achieved coercively. This does not mean that fundamentalist groups are authoritative sects that limit the freedom of its members. However, it is absolutely nature for environments to have groups within them that do not agree on everything (Frey, 2007, p. 15). Nevertheless, while other organizations are able to keep on moving forward acknowledging these inner controversies, fundamentalist organizations are not afraid to use violence to make the inner environment uniform. Furthermore, one might suggest that the cases of violence may not occur, it is the readiness to cause violence in order to make others adhere that might scare the members. Speaking of the out group relations, one may note that fundamentalist often operate with either/or logic (Braaten, 1995, p. 27). In other words, they believe that everyone should accept their point of view and if one is reluctant to do so, they are enemies. The fallacy of this approach is self evident. It partially reflect the way the inner environment is structured; however, if this might work in a closed framework, the same approach will only lead to violence when it is applied to other people that do not belong to the group. In other words, the relationships of the fundamentalists with the outsiders are doomed to fail because of this one sided approach which divided the world into black and white. The call for increase of religious significance Finally, one should also note one particular aspect that each fundamentalist group features and that is responsible for gradual emergence of violence. It has already been stated that such groups think that the past times are better that the present day. If one takes a look from a broad perspective, one will be able to see that one of the dramatic changes that occurred in the world is the separation of Church and State (Ammerman, 1990, p. 100). That is why in one way or another fundamentalist groups advocate the increase of significance of religious elements in the contemporary society. This might take different forms: for example, Christian fundamentalist argue that legislation should be inspired by the religious terms and practices should be abolished because they are against the teaching of the Church; more radical fundamentalists argue for the necessity to grant religious institutions absolute power when it comes to managing the social environment. One of the reasons why the above mentioned claims are rejected is the experience of the world which was gained about the society became secular. Indeed, nowadays there are several social environments that are guided by the religious norms, but they gradually comply with the views that are shared by the rest of the world. In addition to that, many countries make specific reservations against such situations. For example, there is famous establishment clause in the Constitution of the United States that prevents this country from being Christian dominated while in fact the majority of the people want Christian religious norms be incorporated into the legal system (Provenzo, 1990, p. 77). As a result, this call for social changes inevitably leads to violence when such views of implemented since it is natural for the society to protect itself. Conclusion Having examined all the evidence which was brought up in the paragraphs above, one might come to the following conclusion: religious fundamentalism does not advocate directly the necessity of usage of violence; in other words, it is a peaceful movement; however, many of the aspects that define its nature leave the followers a little choice and actually predispose them to violence. That is why one might suggest that it is absolutely possible to be a peace loving fundamentalist, but this situation is not likely to happen. In addition to that, it may be important to differentiate between violence that is being wrongly justified by religious fundamentalism (the example of terroristic cells) and violence that is brought up by representatives of religious fundamentalism as their last resort. These are the aspects of the concept in question that precondition the emergence of violence: the reliance of literalist approach while treating sacred texts; the desire to restore the former ideal and actual efforts to do so; the existence of a single source of verification of truth; the impossibility of obtaining the evidence that is required for proof or disproof of the fundamental claims; the rejection of diversity of opinion within the group; one sided approach towards treating those who do not belong to the group; the call for increase of significance of religious structures. It is obvious that if taken independently, all these aspects do not lead to violence; however, they all they are present together and if the environment is comprise of people with high suggestibility, the emergence of violence is almost inevitable and that is exactly when the evidence from the real life suggests. References Ammerman, N. (1990). Baptist battles: Social change and religious conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Ammerman, N. (1993). Southern Baptists observed: Multiple perspectives on a changing denomination. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Braaten, C. (1995). Either/or: The Gospel or neopaganism. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Cantor, G. (2006). Jewish tradition and the challenge of Darwinism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Choueiri, Y. (1990). Islamic fundamentalism. Boston, MA: Twayne. Frey, R. (2007). Fundamentalism. New York, NY: Facts On File. Geisler, N. (1980). Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House. Guidère, M. (2012). Historical dictionary of Islamic fundamentalism. New York, NY: Scarecrow Press. Gutmann, A. (1997). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hawley, J. (1994). Fundamentalism and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Herriot, P. (2009). Religious fundamentalism global, local and personal. London: Routledge. Hill, P. (2005). The psychology of religious fundamentalism. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Huff, P. (2008). What are they saying about fundamentalisms? Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hughes, G. (2010). Fidelity without fundamentalism a dialogue with tradition. London: Darton. Keller, R. (2006). Encyclopedia of women and religion in North America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Kukathas, C. (2003). John Rawls: Critical assessments of leading political philosophers. London: Routledge. Marsden, G. (1995). Reforming fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the new evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Marty, M. (1993). Fundamentalisms and society: Reclaiming the sciences, the family, and education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Meusburger, P. (2008). Clashes of knowledge orthodoxies and heterodoxies in science and religion. New York, NY: Springer. Nielsen, N. (1993). Fundamentalism, mythos, and world religions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Provenzo, E. (1990). Religious fundamentalism and American education the battle for the public schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Saha, S. (2004). Religious fundamentalism in the contemporary world: Critical social and political issues. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Strozier, C. (2010). The fundamentalist mindset: Psychological perspectives on religion, violence, and history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Swatos, W. (1998). Encyclopedia of religion and society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Tierney, P. (2012). Theocracy: Can democracy survive fundamentalism? : Resolving the conflict between fundamentalism and pluralism. Bloomington, IN: IUniverse. Walborn, F. (2014). Religion in personality theory. Burlington, VT: Elsevier Science. Walker, B. (2010). Man made god: A collection of essays. Seattle, WA: Stellar House Publishing. Warner, R. (2010). Secularization and its discontents. London: Continuum. Whitehouse, B. (2009). Unveiling terrorism, fundamentalism, and spiritual abuse. New York, NY: Bilquees Press. Woods, R. (2005). Quest for identity: America since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More