Our society tends to swing both ways when it comes to lumping religions: We say either that all are basically good, or that at their "fundamentals" they promote violent extremism.
Profile information is trickling in on Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik. We are being told he is Christian and conservative, and that his livelihood is from Breivik Geofarm. By some, Breivik has been called a "Christian fundamentalist."
Is Breivik a Christian fundamentalist a geofarming fundamentalist or crazy? For that matter, was Osama bin Laden a Muslim fundamentalist or crazy?
How can we decide if a person is a fundamentalist? Should we assume every violent person is a fundamental practitioner of whatever demographic group they belong to? Or the reverse, that every fundamental practitioner is at least potentially violent?
This may seem overly obvious, but I propose that a fundamentalist is one who believes and practices their fundamental principles.
Sure, we can and should look at the general way the creed has been practiced over time, the good and bad that have been done by its adherents. But of fundamental importance are the foundational teachings. Look back to the roots -- not the recent spin or politically correct version. What do the primary the source documents say? Are practices based on the principles?
We tend to find it easier to accept preprocessed opinion than to read source documents. Granted, this makes us better able get a superficial grasp on a lot of material, but for deeper understanding we should look directly to the source.
Does a creed or religion in its most fundamental source document, its holy book, teach a violent manifesto? I'm not saying do they record violent deeds, but rather, do they teach promoting the religion by force? Do the lifestyle and teachings of its leader or prophet encourage violent enforcement of the belief?
Can we document a violent manifesto of world domination by whatever means necessary as taught by Jesus Christ, Moses or Buddha from the source documents of these faiths?
In America, we have a chance to learn about everything. We aren't obliged to accept what our parents believed or what we were taught at school. But before we call someone a fundamentalist or choose a creed for ourselves, shouldn't we look into what the fundamentals of that religion or creed really are?
For more information: TerryKelhawk.com
Eirik Bergesen: Norway is Passing the Test of Terror
Gunman's Background Puzzles Police in Norway - FoxNews.com
Oslo, Norway, Terror Attacks Toll Upped to 87: Norwegian Man ...
BBC News - Norway massacre: Police probe killer's links to UK
Norway shooting: live - Telegraph
Norway terror suspect attacked Islam, multiculturalism online ...
Man accused in Norway terror attacks set to appear in court - CNN.com
Norway Terror Attacks: How to Follow the Latest Developments Online
For many the word “fundamentalism” conjures up images of crazed religious lunatics, yet it exists in nearly every organization to some degree. It is most obvious in religion where the stronghold of these massive organizations retain limitless control over the masses of humanity. The stronghold of religious dogma has been responsible for every atrocity known to humankind. We see fundamentalism in the dictatorships and monarchies of our political structures. And we see it the homes where women are not allowed to spend money without asking their husbands for permission.
Fundamentalism of any kind is a massive step backward in our physical, emotional and spiritual evolution. Fundamentalim as a whole fears evolution as it attempts to retain its stronghold over humanity. In order for us to evolve individually and collectively we must free ourselves from the ever present control of fundamentalism.
Read his manifesto and even bothers to say quite clearly, quite specifically, that he is not a "Christian fundamentalist." It's not even clear yet if he meets most folks definition of a Christian, as he seems to treat Christianity more as a traditional and cultural identity than anything to do with his own religious faith or practices.
I'm no fan of Christian fundamentalism, but no good purpose is served by misrepresenting who and what Breivik really is.
In any event, I saw that many people claimed religious affiliation to fit in, but do not practice their chosen religion, nor do they abide by its precepts. Therefore, I opted out. Thank goodness I have that option. Of course, I am not a politician, so do not have to claim to be as hypocritical as my electorate.
Is this something we can accept?
I do not think your interpretation of the God of Christianity is accurate.
The comments submitted are not to the point of my question: Can you quote in the original teachings of great religious founders a mandate for taking over the world by violence? (Frankly, there is one.)
One commented on Moses: yes he killed one Egyptian in a rage, but led defensive wars. There is no teaching in the Torah to spread Judaism by force. The same goes for the New Testament, Socrates' sermons and Buddhist teachings.
There is a general lack of knowledge as to what major religious teachers actually taught. Most people assume they know, figure since they were great they must all agree, or learn from someone's rehash. I challenge everyone to read the original teachings of Moses and Jesus in the Bible, Mohammed in the Koran and hadiths, Socrates (as recorded by Plato) and others. Then you will be better able to understand if a terrorist acts out of his own craziness or in devout, if misguided, following of his teacher.
If a follower's is violence out of line with his leader's teachings, that violence accrues to himself; whereas if it is in accord with the leader's teachings, that leader and the religion he brought share at least some of the blame.
The issue here is not religious fundamentalism per-se....the issue is religious TRIBALISM.
Any system of beliefs can be corrupted and used to serve the purposes of hatred, greed, division and fear. Religion is not exempt from this.
What is going on in the world right now is that we are having a global clash of VALUE systems. Ethnocentrism/tribalism of traditional cultures (and cultural conservatism/traditionalism within developed countries) is clashing Rationality and Modernism....and Post-modernism (liberalism, multiculturalism, etc...) is clashing with Modernism.
In a setting of a globalizing cultural environment where differing cultures and value systems are being thrown into close proximity in a way that is historically unprecidented...and it is creating upheaval.
You argue for the perspective of Modernism. Where Truth is to be discovered (not revealed). Where there human rights (not just religious and cultural duties), and people are free to chart their own path. Not culturally pre-ordained duties imposed by societal authority figures.
The problem is that not everyone is comfortable with, or agree with this approach to life. They are uncomfortable with the open-ended nature of this worldview. They need certainty to manage their fears. They are uncomfortable with being in close proximity with difference, and living with it on equal terms. In order to feel safe, they most either dominate or destroy that which is different from themselves.
Personally, I really do not consider persons who use the Old Testament passages for supporting violence Christian. A reading of the Sermon on the Mount shows Christ rejected this type of thinking. Early Christians refused to enter the military because to do so would require them to kill. Killing for Christ is a contradiction.
There is no room for a fundamentalist of any stripe in an adult debate, in a nation's political system, in decent company of mature people.
A fundamentalist must be treated as an addict, as a child possibly incapable of making rational, mature choices without help, without education, without guidance.
A fundamentalist must be denied access to tools of destruction. Fundamentalists have proven too many times to document exactly what they will do to 'prove' they are right and we are wrong.
When folks call Breivik a "Christian fundamentalist," that term has an existing and specific meaning which the author ignores, or pretends not to know about. If the author somehow really does not know what is meant by the term, she can always look it up.
From the more detailed news account, it also appears that Breivik is a Christian, and may be all kinds of extremist, but he may not be a "Christian fundamentalist" at all. He may well not adhere to the key beliefs of a "Christian fundamentalist," and he may not even be a devout Christian at all.
The one police official who described Breivik may be as wrong about that as the Norwegian police were about the initial body count.
He writes of Christianity in his manifesto, less so than he writes about his other motivations and beliefs, and it looks like any religious notions he holds are *subsidiary* to his political, racial, cultural, and ideological concerns.
And that is certainly NOT the hallmark of a "Christian fundamentalist."
This term is essentially a Christian term, used erroneously to apply to other religions, especially Islam.
The better term to describe an interpretation of Islam that is literal and non-traditional and non-moderate is "Puritanical".
OBL was not a Muslim; rather, he was a "Kharijite". Look this term up.
My challenge to the readers however is to look at the original teachings - the words and actions of the founders of religions to see if a "fundamentalist" can use them to justify a violent manifesto. I say for Buddha, Moses, and Jesus Christ - even Socrates - one can not justify promoting their teachings through violence. If one violently promotes these faiths it is against the teachings of their leaders. Feel free to post quotes from holy books to the contrary (again, I am not looking for an isolated incidence, but manifesto.)
There is however one major leader whom I believe can be quoted and cited to justify a violent manifesto of world domination. He is an exception in the story of great religions. (See my previous HP articles for some references.)
One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and saw their forced labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsfolk. He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
If I found another would that constitute a "manifesto". Or do I need at 10, or 20, or 30.
You use words like "fundamentalist" and "manifesto" as if they had within them the same certainity of agreement of understanding and reality as the word "ball". Were I to find myself in the company of a large and diverse group of folks from another culture it is likely I could without use of their language expect them to understand my attempts at expressing through words and actions I was talking about a "ball". Not so with words with meanings and history as complex as "fundamentalist" and "manifesto".
It is our ability to express our understanding of reason and compassion to others and our willingness and ability to understand theirs that is at the heart of useful religion.
Beside, merely because a lunatic or a collection of lunatics write a "manifesto" what in the world would cause us to follow it? Perhaps something like "the devil made me do it."
"Manifesto of world dominion" in my question, refers simply to the goal of taking over the world by violence and enforcing one religion. I am claiming that if we look at their words, there is only one great religious teacher who taught and modeled the use of violence in promoting his religion with this goal.
The story of Moses leading the Hebrews through their long years in the desert is the story of great violence against the Hebrews themselves, with God instructing them to use violence against anyone who violated his laws.
The story of Joshua then leading the Hebrews into Canaan to kill and conquer is pretty darn violent, as are all the stories of the genocide against the Amalekites and the utter destruction of Canaanite cities.
And this creates great problems for the religion founded by Jesus Christ, as the founders insist its grounded in those Old Testament traditions of bloodshed, violence, and destruction in the name of righteousness.
In today's news climate, it seems, however, that the functional definition of "fundamentalist" is anyone who is more than 1 or 2 steps more religious than the writer. So does fundamentalism lead to violence? On this basis, it depends on the writer's inclinations. The (self-described) Christian fundamentalists that I have known may disagree with me vociferously, but would still help me change a tire.
As Sir Stephen Runciman said in his famous History of the Crusades that the notion of getting into heaven by murdering infidels was a complete perversion of traditional Christian doctrine by the Roman Catholic Papacy of the 11th century. It would be a stretch to equate Knights Templar theology with Protestant Fundamentalism-- all the moreso in the case of Breivik's video-game version of the "Templars."