Modern Religious Extremism - Essay Example

Modern Religious Extremism School Affiliation: While religious extremism may not be a 21st century occurrence, the modern one is rather disturbing. It threaten people’s livelihoods, especially those who are not affiliated to any religion. Even though it had deadly effects in the past, the current problem is made volatile since some of these groups utilize their religious beliefs to fight political ideologies. In the past, the sufferers of cruelty of religious extremism would seek refuge in other countries. However, the current situation is a bit complex. It is common to find even some Western countries hosting individuals who have extreme stance, albeit unknowingly. The innocent people who often suffer the atrocities orchestrated by these barbaric groups have nothing to do with their ideologies. This paper seeks to scrutinize religious extremism including investigating whether faith-motivated activism is a constructive force for change. Moreover, if faith-based natural law justify acts of violence, when a character of faith motivated activism become extremism or terrorism. -Is faith-motivated activism a constructive force for change? History shows an intriguing trend when it comes to activism based on religious beliefs where some individuals have positively transformed the society. For instance, Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian activist who used Christian beliefs to bring about change in the society. Worth noting about this case is that despite exhibiting unfathomable tenacity in the extremism, Luther never resorted to violent approaches to bring change as Miller (2013) reveals. Unlike the case today where some religious groups are seeking coerce people into agreeing with their ideologies, Luther’s approach was instrumental yet nonviolence. For this reason, faith-based activism could be a constructive force for change so long as the activists involved are embrace nonviolence means. Additionally, Mahatma Gandhi was another individual who offers a scenario where change can emanate from a religious person or a group without necessarily turning violent. When the British and the French sought to colonize India, they encountered some violent opposition from the locals. However, upon return from South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi successfully persuaded the Indians to change tactics. Instead of fighting the colonizers, the Indians boycotted the British products including salt and clothes where substitution of local materials was on rise. Since the British were encountering opposition elsewhere, their resources were stretched and could not compel the Indians to buy their products. Eventually, the colonizers had no choice but to leave India since the effects of the boycott were adverse to their economic capabilities as Makowsky (2009) purports. Mahatma Gandhi was a spiritual leader, and this approach based on the religious beliefs. Evidently, religious extremism is not necessarily bad for the society if it directed towards fighting vices, and if the methods applied, are not violent. Sadly, the modern-day religious extremism is complicated for a number of things, one of which is the tendency to force others to follow their ideologies. In some countries, this extremism is not a group affair but one that even governments practice. A case in point is Egypt where freedom of expression is not fully allowed in addition to prohibiting propagation of other religions. As stated by Miller (2013), extremism in today’s world is further complicated due to other countries or individuals supporting them for political gains. In the end, the extremists no longer fight for any rights, and instead are used by others for their own benefit. Therefore, while in the past there has been positive change courtesy of some extremist groups, the modern –day groups are not genuine. Surprisingly, even other countries where extremism is not rife, the citizens have expressed fears of seeing their country encounter the same fate. For instance, 62% of the Americans are highly concerned about the rise of Islamic State (IS) with 52% expressing concern at the government’s seemingly nonchalance. Similarly, a majority of Indians- 58% to be precise- fear that the IS may pose a threat to the stability of other countries in the world (Pew Research Center 2015). These figures are replicated in other countries meaning that modern-day extremism could become an issue in the future if not quelled. -At what point is a character of faith motivated activism become extremism or terrorism? As already stated, extremists groups in the past have been credited for bringing about change in the society but this has since changed. In fact, the term radical is derived from a notion that one is committed to fighting the root cause of a problem. Many groups that purport to be extremists often start with a sense of fighting vices. However, as they progress, the agenda is either hijacked or changed to fit elsewhere. First there is the issue of commitment to the religious beliefs where some extremist groups go against the same narratives their beliefs are based on. For instance, there is a portrayal of Islam as a religion of peace where the faithful are warned against hurting other people. Ironically, some groups professing such faith go ahead and form groups, which practice vilest human rights, abuse (Makowsky, 2009). Therefore, one could conclude that a lack of commitment and the tendency to misquote religious texts is the beginning of faith-motivated activism to turn violent. Miller (2013) did echo the above sentiments. He did report that in addition to defying their own religious laws, extremism turns violent when ideologies are stretched too far. Often, religions have their texts from where they derive their moral conduct. Unfortunately, the same texts have less important impression to other followers. Once this perception is burned in the mind, the groups proceed to main, kill and torture those who do not follow their religion. The tenacity portrayed by these groups is shocking evidenced by the number of people killed and the manner in which this happens. Again, whenever a religious group may perceive itself as the perfect or one that deserves to have some things in life, then turning violent becomes inevitable. Interestingly, many, if not all, of the religious groups have teachings that seem to exalt them above others. According to Miller (2013) when these texts are taken literally, the groups feel justified in exerting violence and injustices on others in a bid to fulfil that which their beliefs dictate. In essence, misinterpretation of the texts coupled with a weak ideology is the root cause of all religious extremism. In other words, self-importance by these groups is to blame for violence and terrorism. Intolerance cannot be overlooked- as it is a prime reason as to why faith-based groups turn to violent and terror means. While religious extremist may vary in terms of conducting violence and ideologies, one similarity is that they are all intolerant. Many times, whenever a religious group is started, it portrays signs of commitment to peace. However, upon becoming popular and influential the stance changes and others who do not share the same view are undergo oppression (Makowsky, 2009). Historically, intolerant groups could trace as the source of immense violence that erupted to the tendency. -Does faith-based natural law justify acts of violence? Often, these groups seek to justify their actions on natural laws but as noted by Miller (2013), when it comes to violence, it is never a solution to anything. As highlighted earlier, the approach by Mahatma Gandhi to fight colonization in a nonviolent manner bore more fruit than other countries who embraced violence as a way of decolonization. Instead, persistence in peacefully fighting for that, which is right, will eventually have a positive impact as evidenced by past cases. It was noted that extremist groups are extreme in their beliefs, and tend to act violently whenever other groups do not follow their teachings. Therefore, when it comes to faith-based natural laws, violence exerted on the victims cannot be justifiable. Apparently, many of these groups do not themselves observe their doctrine to the letter but are quick to act violently on others when shortcomings are evident (Martin, 2011). Clearly, violence will never be justifiable even when natural laws are being practised since the groups too can seldom meet all their demands. Why do religious traditions that supposedly promote peace, justice and rewards for spiritual devotion have so many followers who piously engage in violence, repression and intolerance? It sometimes seems more of a paradox when religious teachings are on impact to various followers especially when it comes to the rewards. The perception of the Christians is that they are consistently peaceful where they hardly retaliate even when provoked. However, the history shows some Christian groups who despite having texts that encouraged coexistence still engaged in terror-like activities. Miller (2013) reported that one of the reasons religious groups have well-crafted texts but still engage in violent conduct is brainwashing. Many teachers are masters of manipulation where followers are viewed as resources to fulfil a leader’s ambitions. No wonder these leaders are seldom involved in these wars directly but instead use their brainwashed members. Take, for instance, the recently killed terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden who would never fight but recruited others. Besides brainwashing, the supposedly peaceful religions are easily manipulated by external forces all in a bid to fight a common enemy. For example, Syria supports some religious extremists who are eager to fight against the perceived government’s enemies. With the same token, the Iranian government is notorious for using religious movements to quell any opposition (Martin, 2011). These cases reveal that religious groups are not always motivated by the need to change evils bedevilling a society, but rather serving the interests of others so long as there is some sort of compensation. Sadly, even after demonstrating vigorous commitment to carrying out vicious attacks on the supposed enemy, the followers seldom benefits. Instead, it is the leaders who never fought that are beneficially of these outcomes. Furthermore, the fact that each religion has texts showing it as the only one that ought to be followed by everybody else justifies their repressive actions. In Islam, even some of the most educated scholars hold the view that no other religion ought to be embraced except Islam. Similarly, Christians believe and propagate that Christianity is the only one that will see people live a happy afterlife. The script is the same with other religion, and the only difference is the manner in which this stand is applied (Martin, 2011). Even though this stand is evident in the Christianity and other religions, violence is not accompanied by the propagation. In addition, there is the issue of scepticism in both the leaders and the followers in regard to the promises in the religious books. It beats logic how one would passionately preach about the need to be peaceful with all people yet act violently at the slightest provocation. Martin (2011) asserted that while religious leaders and followers seem to be committed to their beliefs, deep down their hearts are high levels of uncertainty, doubts and even dismissal of the same things they outwardly show to be their belief. Consequently, it becomes easier for the heart to be swayed especially with physical things. In conclusion, modern religious extremism is a real menace that ought to be addressed with much sobriety. While religious groups have been blamed in the past for committing insurmountable atrocities, this ought not to be used to make a judgment today. Radicalisation is a real problem in today’s world especially with economic status in many countries deteriorating. Due to desperation coupled with naiveté, extremism has been prevalent in almost every part of the world where young people undergoes recruitment daily. In light of the above, it would be prudent to first analyse the issues pushing many into these groups. Then, decisive measures ought to be taken one of which is separating politics from religious extremism. As reported, some politicians capitalize on the existence of these groups to realize their ambitions. Therefore, religious extremism is rife and cannot be overlooked any further. References Makowsky, M. (2009). Emergent Extremism in A Multi-Agent Model Of Religious Clubs. Economic Inquiry, 50(2), 327-347. Martin, G. (2011). Essentials of terrorism: Concepts and controversies. Los Angeles: SAGE. Miller, J. (2013). Resilience, violent extremism and religious education. British Journal Of Religious Education, 35(2), 188-200. Pewresearch center 2015). Religious Extremism | Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 February 2015, from http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/religious-extremism/ Read More