The Challenge For Fundamentalism

Copyright © 2002 Dorian Scott Cole

This commentary is about the fundamentalist mindset, and the susceptibility of this mindset to becoming hijacked by leaders, to become radical and violent.

Religion is one of the most controversial topics to write about, and most writers wisely avoid it. It is one of those topics that people argue passionately about, and when cornered sometimes pick up a rock and clout someone in the head. Religion shouldn't lead to violence, but it sometimes does. Argh! Apparently I'm not wise enough to avoid the topic. But at least I critique from once having experienced fundamentalism, and not as a complete outsider.

This Web site explores the human condition that writers write about, and religion is part of the human condition. Most (not all) of the writers whose work I see in movies and TV, who dare explore the topic of religion, I think do a great job. They seem to have a broad understanding of their topic, and treat it sensitively, often using humor as a buffer. For example, the TV series, Everyone Loves Raymond, occasionally gets into very delicate areas, and they are handled with great skill so that they aren't offensive. I am probably not that skillful, so if critiquing religion offends you, please put down that rock and stop reading this article.

My father used to quote an old saw: "There are three ways of doing things, the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way. This modern proverb has some truth to it, but it reflects a way of thinking that is very polarized. The polarized idea is that there is a perfect way to do everything, and everything else is wrong. The question is posed as a binary, permitting only two answers: right and wrong. The choice is obvious, as even the Army way is posed contemptuously so that we know it is not the "right way."

By posing the question as a binary, the listener is set up for binary thinking - he is unlikely to think outside of the box he is in. "Right way, wrong way" is a myth that we buy into hook, line, and sinker. I hear it all of the time. "If they had only done it the right way..." But the myth isn't true. There isn't a perfect way to do everything. Everything comes down to choices that involve trade-offs. Choice depends on which trade-offs we are willing to live with.

I once inherited a counseling client *¹ from a therapist when the client brought himself into my purview and announced that marriage counseling was doing him no good, so he had quit going. He had shot himself in the foot (literally) during an argument with his wife. His wife left him, and he needed someone who could help him. I soon discovered that the therapist had overlooked a number of egregious circumstances that were bound to interfere in their life. She was blinded by her client's male chauvinist attitude and could not get past it. His attitude was a major problem, to be sure. In discussing him with the therapist, I found that her agenda was in the way of helping her client. Her sense of "right way" was an obstruction.

Few things are simply black or white with no in-between. It is certainly easier to view the world in these terms. It is certainly easy to criticize others from this point of view, as in, "If they had only done it the right way... my way." I've come to realize that we each own a piece of this real estate called "the right way," and it is usually either a mythological answer that no one has seen, but we believe to exist, or it is the way that we personally believe that things should be done.

If you recognize yourself in the preceding paragraph, welcome to just a taste of the shortsighted world of radical fundamentalism. We all manage to drift into it occasionally with nonsense ideas that make us a little crazy. This article is really about all of us.

The way that we pose things, polarizes us. Politicians are highly skilled at this. The goal of political rhetoric typically is to create a polarizing image. For example, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" (See definitions at the bottom) are terms that we use to polarize people to reject one agenda or person and support another. We commonly use these terms to brand others. For example, the terms liberal and conservative are typically thrown at people like poison darts. Barry Goldwater, when a Presidential candidate, was branded as too conservative, inferring in his case, "too hawkish," to become President. Since that election followed the Vietnam war era, and no one wanted to be mired in another difficult war, the label hurt Goldwater and cost him the Presidency.

Most politicians and most people in today's world would probably consider themselves "liberal" on most things, and "conservative" on a few. Actually today's political makeup is largely composed of moderates, with the Democratic "left" having migrated there with the population. Liberals are people who don't feel constrained by the argument, "We've always done it this way," and will embrace reform when they think it is necessary. For example, it is difficult to find a politician who didn't talk about reforming welfare, or who today talks about reforming the Social Security system. They differ on the "how." Politicians convince us that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, so we must vote for them to "reform" it. Reform. Very popular action among politicians and voters. Classically Liberal activity.

Liberals are probably identified more for their associations with various causes, such as their support for social programs and individual rights. But today's conservatives are supporting medical and prescription drug plans. Liberals also generally seem more reserved about going to war. The name "liberal" is also frequently thrown at the press and academicians, to my mind trying to identify them as "wimpy bleeding hearts and pacifists." The label "pacifist" would probably be a better term for liberals, however being a pacifist rather than "hawkish" has been more positively regarded in the last twenty years and wouldn't have the negative impact that the dreaded word liberal seems to have. However, the last ten years, beginning with the successful military campaign in 1991 against Saddam Hussein and then in Kosovo, accelerated by 9-11 and the war on terrorism, and then today's feelings against Saddam Hussein, all have brought military power back in vogue. (Hopefully we haven't become radical through overconfidence and power, and lost the idea of restraint and searching for better solutions.)

Most politicians really don't like "authoritarian attitudes" - a form bordering on tyranny - and are tolerant of other's attitudes and opinions. Yet social assistance, reform, and rejecting authoritarianism comprise the classic stance of a liberal. Yet many conservatives have the same characteristics. Whenever a politician stands up to say something that others oppose, he is often called a "liberal," hoping the label will discredit his opinion. The real fear is usually that the politician might be too open with money and take on too much social assistance - more of an ultra-liberal.

What is a "conservative" all about? The word "conservative" is currently in vogue, and politicians are eager to be associated with the label. Conservatives resist change. This goes way beyond, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The conservative is the stick-in-the-mud who says, "I'm not moving. I have my ideology, we have always done it this way, we stick with our traditions and values, and I refuse to even think about it. I oppose any kind of change - things are good enough." Many conservative Republicans have recently disavowed themselves from this stance. A real political conservative, besides being hesitant to change, is also closely associated with strict budgetary controls reflected in a hesitancy (read "refusal") to spend, and they often vote for cutbacks. Saving money is a bandwagon that even liberals can generally get on. However the last few conservative presidents who campaigned on this issue increased the national debt more than the Democrats.

Conservatives are more likely to focus on just the basics. One day I was sitting in an airliner and talking to a pilot who was flying as a passenger. A stewardess asked us both to move back and over a seat. We had both selected the wrong row and wrong seat. I commented that we needed to get back to ABCs and 123s. Somehow the best of us manage to lose focus of our initial objectives. Conservatives are more likely to push for "readin', writin' and 'rithmatic' in the school system and shift funds away from other programs. When it comes to war, conservatives are generally no more hawkish than liberals are pacifistic.

A lot of politicians and other people call themselves conservative, as the US goes through a more conservative phase, but I wonder if they realize what they are calling themselves.

My opinion is that most of us, like most politicians, and like myself, are actually moderates with leanings. I refuse to be branded with either label. I hate labels - they are shortcuts that cause misrepresentations. We are a little liberal here, a little conservative there. We're liberal conservatives. Moderates. We have strong views but they usually aren't far off center. Rather than brand ourselves with misleading labels that present false illusions, we should avoid the labels... and think.

What does this have to do with fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is not just a religious position that you can stick a label on. The conservative view is similar in ways to the fundamentalist view. Both emphasize basics. Fundamentalism is a mindset that is rigid. Binaries of right and wrong come naturally to it, and typically fundamentalists will admit to no other positions. Fundamentalism resists change. Like the rest of us, most fundamentalists have fundamentalist ideologies but are moderates at heart. Religious fundamentalists live in a religious atmosphere with the dominant dichotomy: the God of fear and punishment, and the God of forgiveness and love.

Some of the nicest people that I know are religious fundamentalists. They have a rich faith, would never harm anyone, are always looking for ways to help others, and are very self-sacrificing for others' benefit. This describes most fundamentalists in all religions and those who have a fundamentalist mindset in all nations. Fundamentalists in all religions are a welcome voice that continually asks us airline pilots and passengers if we are straying from the basics to the point that we have lost them. I appreciate them for what they are, and refuse to disparage them.

What is a Fundamentalism mindset?

Fundamentalism is only vaguely definable. The religious fundamentalist movements have few beliefs in common with each other. There are literally thousands of differing beliefs as free thinking people in all religions, who emphasize basics in religion, react to things within their religion or the world that they hope to rectify or emphasize. There are very basic (fundamental) things which they hold true, which are unique to each of them, and they hold rigidly to these beliefs. Generally they don't twist beliefs, but emphasize some aspect of their religion, or feel led in a different direction by their interpretation of some religious writing. But as different as each is, they all have the same dangerous vulnerabilities (not that we all don't). Fundamentalist thought has similarities regardless of whether it is in law, constitution, nationalism, news journalism, or in religions such as Islam/Muslim, Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or whether speaking Farci, English, or Arabic.

The vulnerability is for fundamentalism to become radical. The radicals are the ones who claim to be on a mission from God, who twist the faith to mean all kinds of hateful and violent things, and who go to any extreme to accomplish their mission. They are no longer examples and promoters, but judges and enforcers.

Radical fundamentalism leads to a bad end. The unexamined and unrestrained exercise of religion (and politics) has historically led to violent radicalism with horrible consequences. Sometimes it is a mission, and sometimes it is just used to justify meanness. These include many atrocities: The crusades during which Christians invaded the Christian/Jewish/Muslim Holy Land and killed the Muslims. Burning at the stake of women accused of being witches (the inquisition). Justifying slavery. Shootings of abortion clinic doctors. Ethnic cleansing that has killed or displaced entire ethnic and religious populations.

Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly through the ages, such as the driving from Czarist Russia of the Jews and the Muslim Turks (300,000), and was done by Hitler and the Nazis against 6 million Jews in Germany. Turkey killed 14,000 Kurds and 200,000 Greeks inside Turkey. Israel forced the exit of large numbers of Palestinians from their homeland (some of whom would have exterminated them). Islamic terrorists murdered 300,000 Kashmiri Pandit (Hindu), and the Serbs carried out campaigns in the former Yugoslavia, against Albanians in Kosovo, and 200,000 people in Bosnia and Croatia.

Saddam Hussein murdered as many Kurds as he could, many of the Kuwaities whose land he invaded, and he attempted to murder the Israelis. Invading militaries, settlers, and governments, often with a quasi-religious justification, mistreated, killed, and displaced the native people in Africa, the Americas, and Australia. The Ku Klux Klan and White Supremacists in the US and other countries twist religious beliefs to justify killing or displacing blacks and Jews. The killing of the Ba'Hai *² in Iran (1985 - set on fire to force them to renounce beliefs; 1999 - forced from their homes and persecuted). The Protestant/Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland. Terrorists have struck against a long list of countries, including the US, killing thousands. The list unfortunately goes on and on, and the action has had a presence in all countries. Preventing the fundamentalist mindset from being hijacked into radicalism is a worthwhile goal.

Religion typically encourages the opposite of isolation, intolerance, and rejection. So why does fundamentalism get hijacked? On one hand, I have difficulty appreciating how people can subject others to such mistreatment. I have been unable to watch two films about the Salem witch trials (The Crucible and a recent one on TV). It is hard for me to appreciate that people could actually allow their relatives to be tortured and burned at the stake with no actual evidence and forced confessions, and I have a strong stomach and a strong sense of administering legitimate justice. Most of us could neither do these horrible and tragic things nor let them happen. But radical fundamentalism loses all sense of conscience, believes that God is supporting their cause, and becomes violent, even killing innocent people as in the case of Al Qaeda and the destruction of the World Trade Center. I have no answers, but I do have some insights, and I think the discussion is worth having.

Human beings have the capacity to go bad regardless of beliefs - it isn't a belief problem. It is the direction chosen by believers that is the problem. Fundamentalist thought at its worst slides into extremism and becomes a rejection and surrender of individual responsibility to an authority outside of themselves. "To thine own self be true," is a repressed option. Ultimate Truth gets hung up on a sour note. Conscience becomes subservient to the beliefs of the organization. It is sometimes shaped by guilt and extremes, and objections of conscience are repressed by self-reproach. It is preoccupied by a search for endless rules from outside to provide perfect direction for every situation and contingency. It keeps followers in isolation by judgment and rejection of others and paranoia, gleefully watching as the entire world presumably slides into the flames of Hell, and ever eager and willing to withhold the water of life and stir the flames believing that they have no responsibility to help anyone since God has already planned to crush most of the world. These same people fight within themselves over "doubtful disputes" that accomplish nothing, are never able to help others in any meaningful way, are full of condemnation and wrath, poisoning themselves with guilt, fear, and hate, and telling a perverted message that repels the entire world.

This kind of extreme mindset rejects everything and everyone that is different or threatens the status quo. It is a perfect perversion of religion and ripe for any leader like Usama bin Laden to hijack it into radicalism and violence. The result is movements like the Taliban (Afghanistan) which emphasize violence, fear, restrictions, and control, by a permanently and predominantly vengeful God, and an "us against them" mentality. It is the same story in any religion, and is like a self-sustaining neurotic syndrome from which it is very difficult for those caught in it to break free.

Fundamentalism isn't normally radical and violent. At its best it motivates by compassion and a zeal for making life better for others by presenting what is moral, presenting what gives and sustains life, reaches out hands to all others in love, friendship, and aid, and presents a message of forgiveness, love, hope, and peace. These are the best traditions of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Muslim. These reflect a God whose heart is open to all, who loves to forgive, and leads all into the best, for all who open their hearts and minds to His leading.

There are two things that I think are common to people who think of the world in a fundamentalist way. These things aren't common to all, and some only apply to religious thought. These two things which make fundamentalism vulnerable are, 1. isolation that comes from an overemphasis on literalism and truth, and 2. isolation that comes from a preoccupation with sin and messianism.

First is an overemphasis on the literal interpretation of law and religious literature than can isolate fundamentalist groups from others. Strict interpretation often seems to miss the point, to most of us. For example, government officials who stick to the letter of the law, often infuriate people with meaningless actions. Enforcement against some things that people want or do may be far removed from the authors' intentions. Similarly in religion, the notion is that Truth, with a capital T, meaning absolute truth, is what is spelled out in black and white. It admits to no flexibility, meaning exactly what it says. The idea of the "spirit of the law," which invites understanding and interpreting the author's intention, has little or no validity.

Things change very slowly. We understand that it is better not to stone misbehaving children or prostitutes, as some ancients required. Interpretation actually changes, especially when viewed through the mature lens of higher truth. The number of fundamentalist movements in any religion is in the hundreds to thousands, each with its own interpretation of Scripture, and each believing that it is unerringly right in its interpretation, and many of these movements are open to the right of the individual to individual interpretation. These leave open the question of how valid the notion is that these beliefs are literally interpreted. Each fundamentalist movement is a new interpretation. However there typically is a core of beliefs that most in any larger movement tend to hold true.

Vulnerability: Literal interpretation leaves itself open to less tolerance for others' interpretation, and a sense of truth that is limited to what is written in a specific passage. Gaining a sense of intention is less likely to be seen in the perspective of the entire book, or in its historical context, or the language meaning of the day, although all of this knowledge is available in fundamentalist seminaries and in religious bookstores, and is taught in many places of worship. Topical studies which cut across many of these factors, and sermons which are inherently contextual are rarely heard, while exposition of a single verse (statement) is most common in fundamentalist services.

The vulnerability of literalism is seen clearly in the joke about the man who prayed for God to show him what he wanted him to do. He anticipated specific instructions from a specific Bible passage, leaving everything up to God. So he closed his eyes, opened the Bible, and pointed to a passage. When he opened his eyes, the passage read, "And Judas went out and hanged himself." He gasped and quickly made another stab at it. This time the passage read, "Go and do likewise." Based on yanking a passage out of context and using a literal interpretation, his next move might have been one of great overemphasis of some Bible passage. Understanding intention and context are essential parts of understanding law and religious literature, whether it is religious law, the country's constitution, the laws of the nation, or the rules of the house.

The worst kind of misinterpretation is done by those who become exclusionary in their beliefs. A statement like, "A house of prayer for all nations," (nations are the people of groups, such as the Christian nation, or the nation of Islam, not necessarily political boundaries), is ignored, or apologists go to great lengths to nullify it for current history. Groups become isolationist and nationalistic, believing God to be exclusively on their side, whether within a political boundary or as a group within a community. They see others as lost, heathens, savages, and damned (bound for Hell). Whoever is not in their group is expendable and is simply a pawn in God's plan. This is isolation. You wonder, in the minds of these people are others turned into objects without human characteristics, except for negative ones? When people are dehumanized and treated as objects, how will they be treated? How can fundamentalist thought avoid allowing people to begin thinking of others as objects?

Meaning is constructed, providing an understanding of beliefs that is unique to the individual, and forms the meaning structure in his life. For example, one person may interpret Scripture and events to mean that God is helping him in small tasks (even finding a parking space), and another may interpret this as simple luck, believing that God helps him get through emotional strain through his message.

Each person interprets the events in their lives within their own construct, which is created by their individual beliefs. For example, one group may believe that those who die are simply "asleep" and with their bodies until the resurrection at the end of time. Because of this they may place a lot of emphasis on preparing the body, elaborate preservation, frequently visiting the cemetery plot, etc. Another group may believe that their dead relative may be in Purgatory, and may offer prayers of concession to get them to Heaven. Another group may believe that the dead are with God. They are in a better place, and so comforted, they may place little emphasis on the funeral arrangements, and more on the memory and hope of being reunited at their own death.

Another group of beliefs centers around judgment and where they are going when they die. For some, any sin is believed to separate them from God and send them in the wrong direction. Because of this, they may have a preoccupation with not hurting others, and the idea of helping others may be repressed. Some may believe that they will be judged on their entire life. Everything will be OK if they have built up enough good points on the balance sheet, so they may be unconcerned about any singular bad thing that they have done, and find the balance sheet motivates them to do good occasionally. Still others may believe that once they have given themselves to God, then they can never be lost again. They may interpret this as being able to hurt others with impunity, or they may find great comfort in forgiveness and be able to climb out of the morass of guilt that keeps many people permanently down.

While tolerating individual belief and meaning, and supposedly only being inflexible about their creed, individual belief is ignored by literalism (this is an oversimplification). And then most people, as they grow in spiritual understanding, see much more meaning in what is written. For example, the Sufi Muslims, and many Christian traditions, and the Hindu, are open to finding more meaning in religious written passages than a strict reading of the words in a passage would present. Would being more in tune with the idea that people construct meaning in their own way have any impact on fundamentalism?

The vulnerability here is a limitation on spiritual growth and understanding, which can lead to a stilted view of others and misinterpretations. Leave the person open to forced misinterpretation and taking things out of context, and then this overemphasis on literalism and truth can lead to a growing isolation of groups and rejection of others, resulting in hostility toward others and insurmountable divisions.

In summary about literalism leading to isolation, beliefs tend to be dictated by the individual organization and its leader, and a supposed literal interpretation of individual passages of scripture. Literalism tends to ignore the reason behind a passage, while blindly obeying. Individual conscience and rational judgment can be repressed. The result is physical isolation from others into small groups, and isolation in thought from other groups. In this isolated condition, the group can begin a downward spiral, becoming paranoid and becoming more and more radical in their interpretation of scripture. To prevent this, I suspect that the groups need to be turned outward, reaching out to others, rather than turned inward, growing away from others.

The second major area that can isolate fundamentalism and leave it vulnerable is a preoccupation with sin and messianism. The roots of these are from the historical emphasis of religions. Messianism conveys the idea that God is coming to save mankind when we have ultimately failed, and this idea is strongly associated with a day of judgment. On one hand, the emphasis on messianism can be good in that it points us toward looking at how we live as a society. Collectively we may encourage the wrong things. Sometimes we need to get back to ABC and 123 if other things are preventing us from doing them.

The emphasis on sin and messianism can form a symbiotic relationship that is fatalistic and isolating. The belief is that the sin of the world pushes mankind into an inevitable final conflict and destruction. Man is unable to prevent his own demise, and only God can intervene. Believing that others are basically sinful and that you should stay away from them, and believing that their destruction is inevitable, can be interpreted to relieve believers of any responsibility to reach out to others. They are damned anyway, and you will just get poisoned by their sin, so why bother. The ideas of individual and collective responsibility for reaching out to others are lost. In its most aberrant form, the believer sees it as his duty to strike out at those who are "lost in sin," rather than reach out to them. In contrast, how would others regard the Christ who hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes, and other "sinners" of the day, and reached out to them? Would this action have no purpose in the religious meaning construct of those whose focus is sin and messianism?

This emphasis is destructive in another way. The constant talking about sin results in considerable guilt feelings and self-criticism for the "true believer." This is a classic demotivator, and keeps the person preoccupied with himself and his difficulties, and constantly condemning of others' sin. It is simply negative, rejecting, and devisive. (The results of this type of atmosphere are illustrated in the article, Building Effective Organizations," (See link at the end.) The person rejects himself and others. The overall emphasis is on the negative and demotivating aspects of religion, and not on the positive and transformative aspects of religion. Perfection is a guiding beacon that sets a direction to go in, but is a destination that we are all unlikely to ever attain. Expecting perfection of ourselves is like trying to carve a beautiful sculpture, but staying preoccupied with the shavings so that the sculpture never appears.