Lessons from Norway: It's Fundamentalism, Not Islam
In the moments after the news of the latest terror incident broke, this one in Norway, there was an immediate assumption that Muslims were behind the violence. Within minutes, one Facebook friend posted a link that said that a rise in rape in Norway corresponded to a rise in Muslim immigration. We in the West are quick to blame Islam for every act of senseless violence that crosses our consciousness, in a 'blame now ask questions later' frenzy. Now we know that the perpetrator was a blonde-haired, blue-eyed fundamental Christian.
It's convenient and easy to blame Islam because we all know that those people are crazy. The other day I actually heard one Republican presidential candidate, who calls himself a Constitutional expert, say that The Bill of Rights does not apply to Islam because they are a government and not a religion. He cited the very existence of Sharia Law as proof, saying that making laws makes you a government. Apparently if you call it a commandment, you're off the hook.
People ask me why I'm so hard on religion in my essays. The answer is that fundamentalism is dangerous, whether it be Christian, Muslim or any other belief system based on the writings of superstitious ancients. I am an advocate for replacing our superstition-based beliefs with sanity, facts and reason. If we ever succeed in doing that, we will have the antidote for not only terror, but most of the social problems our world faces.
The Hope and the Fallacy
During the height of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque debate, I wrote a post in which I praised the reasoned and rational words of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf when he called for moderates on all sides to carry the day. I believe that the reasonable people far outnumber the extremists on all sides and that they represent our best hope for learning how to get along in the world.
That said, there's just one problem with religious moderation: it's a lie.
“Have you read The Koran?” one Mosque detractor replied to every point I tried to make.
“Have you read The Bible?” I answered each and every time.
The problem is that the fundamentalists are right in regard to those ancient texts. Their intolerant and often violent points of view are exactly what those books espouse. As much as I appreciate the reasonable folk of all religions, as much as I believe they are our best hope, when it comes to “God's word” according to the ancient texts, they are just flat in denial. Either you're a fundamentalist or you don't truly believe that the Bible or the Koran are the word of God or Allah. Simple as that.
Then What is the Answer?
Fundamentalism, my friends, is the enemy, be it Christian or Muslim, and moderation is a big, fat lie. So what is the answer? Trust your heart. You don't need TV preachers with bad hair and dimples to tell you what is right, or even that nice young pastor down at the local Baptist Church, and you certainly don't need morally bankrupt political leaders to calibrate your moral compass. In your heart, you know that intolerance of all shades is wrong. You know that useless wars and killing are wrong.
Trust yourself and let go of your ancient superstitions. Then, and only then, will things get better.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Mr. Culture
Out on a limb
Miguela Holt y Roybal
Margaret Feike
Trudge164
Charles Yoo
Salon.com
Comments
The truth of all things is available at all times to all people. Yet, we choose to close our eyes and look for something mystical and magical to explain existence, rather than celebrate the beauty of existence. It is incomprehensible that one lousy person was capable of so much damage, so we must seek to find the hidden clue, the key, of so much hatred coming from somewhere else. Hatred is the fuel of fundamentalism, sexism, racism, all bigotry and bias and violence. Hate of that which is not self.
Thank nature for godless heathens, Mojo. I believe that what is "god" is what is innate in all of us, the spark of consciousness that transcends individual thought. I think that is a gift of the universe, not the property of any individual group. Sadly, many people believe that in order to be special, they must be better than others, and in order to be better, they must be hateful.
You make some good points! I still had to report you to the Feds for such 'forward' thinking which we all know leads to a breakdown in the mind and then terrorism!! You are now on a Watch List and soon will be arrested and sent to Cuba to face a rum squad.
I'm sorry. It had to be done!! :D
I love that, Oryoki. I think there may be a facebook status in that.
It is about the middle, dianna, whatever that may be.
We have to have someone to blame, why not blame the Muslims or you, damn Godless Heathen!! :D
**Wanders off**
As for what to do, maybe buy body armor, and a gun, or get really good at dodging bombs and bullets. Seriously though, it seems like it is open season on the open minded. Whether it is the Taliban, or the Palin-band, the forces of intolerance seem to be mounting an offensive.
People who are logical, rational and value independent thinking don't let ancient works of fiction and superstions control their thoughts and lives.
My point exactly, EOS. Listen to yourself.
Anyway, Cappy, I agree with you and Bill -- not for the first time, either.
I don't get it- but it seems nutcases who are fanatics always have some one perfect belief they consider justifies their actions.
Its sad that Norway isn't immune from this sickness.
Let's hope that some phrases can transcend the books as "infallible words from god" and be nothing more than the Wisdom of the Ages:
Love Your Neighbor as You Love Yourself
You cannot remove the splinter from your brother's eye when there is a beam in yours.
Be thou not angry (from the Koran.)
It's time we made sense of the world by being sensible.
Thanks Sheila.
Ian, I'm afraid nowhere is immune.
donniteowl, those are words I can get behind.
Yep, Scanner, I couldn't agree more. Ironically, those people are often the most afraid of death. Go figure.
Thanks, Erica. I know little about him beyond what I said here but I think more info is what God gave us the internet for.
Laura, we certainly have the gifts of sanity, fact and reason. Where they came from is a matter of some debate but I'm quite sure we don't need any superstitious ancients to help us figure it out.
Look through a telescope and be glad you are here. Forget the burning bushes. The Muslim religion is way worse on many levels. They still stone and behead people and the way they treat women is way worse than any other religion. Do not become too tolerate of intolerance.
Fundamental to what belief or viewpoint?
I think of the "fundamentals" of anything as the basics and building blocks that hold it together. If acts of terrorism are foundational to a belief, then the belief is obviously flawed.
The taking of life is "fundamentally" insane.
Nice write.
I fundamentally thank you, JD.
Welcome to the light side, Trilogy.
Matt, you have a future in the Republican Party.
This incident in Norway, the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11 at the WTC, the suicide bombers in Israel, and many others all bear the same stigmas of great frustration and a terrible anger to do something to right obvious wrongs. When these energies are not given possibilities for rational public political outlet it is sure that many more will re-occur. The actions of the various government repressive forces to prevent open protest is a stimulant to this type of protest. Norway seems to me a most unlikely place for this type of reaction since it appears it is very tolerant place for open public protest so there probably is a strong element of psychological disorder in this incident. But as government repression increases around the world I expect there will be more of these tragedies.
But there IS a "SkypixieZero"......
Major,
You earned your rank today sir. This is great! It pleases me so much to see so many other OSers whom I respect joining in and speaking up as part of we who put reason and sanity above hatred.
It makes me so sad to know that such hatred, itself a product of fear, plays such a large role in the lives of so many people. It is really odd that it does so since EVERY DOGGONE ONE of their "Great Religious Founders" espoused love in preference to hatred.
Check out what the Japanese did in the name of Buddha during WWII. Nothing worst that skimming for religious fantasy.
How do you thing Buddhist nations became powerful? Not killing ants? WOW. Reality check.
Check out what the Japanese did in the name of Buddha during WWII. Nothing worst that skimming for religious fantasy.
How do you thing Buddhist nations became powerful? Not killing ants? WOW. Reality check.
Although he's being labelled a fundamentalist Christian, I think the evidence will show he was a white nationalist, and that this was his primary political identity.
When a European says he wants to emulate the Knights Templar and drive the Muslims from Europe, like a modern day Charles Martel, he is calling on a very specific political tradition and it has nothing to do with Christian Fundamentalism.
"Christian" here is a codeword for "purified" European culture, without a Jewish or Muslim presence, but it is not used, at least by the European neofascists I have studied, in a "religious" sense.
Of course I could be wrong, but the neofascists, and even the original fascists, utilized this rhetoric and imagery, but without really being religious fundamentalists.
They were, in effect, cultural fundamentalists. They want to "purify" Western Culture...
Well said.
I had read about what happened in Norway today. I was sad for their nation and those who were killed and injured.
r.
Second, you saying fundmentalism is the faith really doesn't stand up to the evidence. Fundamentalism is about hundred years old and the religions you tag dwarf that age span.
in our development out of mythological thinking
and into rational thought.
and beyond Reason is
eternity, the forgiveness of errors.
the intellectual palace of allah/buddha/christ.
the
very
now...
Well apparently there is a lot of insanity.
Ever heard of this thing called abortion.
What if he was a Jew. I guess that wold be all the more reason to implicate a religion as motivation.
Seems to me liberals are always looking to find religious and or conservative views as the reason for a nut case.
Seems liberals where chomping at the bit for the Tucson nut to
be a tea party member. But the nut at Ft. Hood gets a pass. No chance he is a Muslim fundamentalist.
This guy seems just like the Tucson guy. They both had their reasons in their heads, but they are representative of themselves or maybe a few others.
These guys are nut jobs regardless of what, of many, groups you can place them in.
The point is not that a Muslim person is not afforded the Bill of Right. The point is that the Bill of Rights does not provide protection or defense of criminal activity by claiming "my religious law allows me to violate the gov laws. "
If a man thinks he can abuse his wife because his religion says so (as he interprets it) its not going to fly. Go to jail without passing go.
have a public forum like TV and radio, I don't think that number measures up to any "we".
Terrorist acts by Christians (or people who consider themselves to be Christians) are overwhelmingly of the "lone wolf" variety. The acts are typically committed by a single person, sometimes with the assistance of a handful of others, in the country in which the individual lives.
Islamic terrorism is very different. It tends to be done by larger groups of people, and is highly organized. The terrorists often receive assistance from international terrorist organizations. Such assistance can include training, weapons, financing, communications, logistics, transportation, recruitment, and so on. Sometimes assistance is even provided by governments. Multiple, coordinated, attacks by Islamic terrorists, even simultaneous attacks in different countries are not uncommon.
In short, it simply makes no sense to put everyone into the "fundamentalist" category. Islamic terrorism is far more dangerous, has a vastly wider scope, and involves many more people.
Religious moderation can work. It has to work. It's too much to expect to extirpate all traces of religion from the human mind but somehow leave the spiritual untouched. There is a continuum in our minds from the awe and innate respect we feel for nature, to the belief that gods live in the trees, to the conviction that there is one powerful god who wants the state run a particular way. Humans tend to incubate extremism, and the opposing force to religious extremism is not extreme atheism but an encouragement of religious moderation in those who can't resist the siren song of belief. I say this as an atheist myself.
The religious moderates I know take the philosophy, the meditative practices, and the charitable tradition of Christianity, and interpret the Biblical stories as metaphor. They shrink the credulity factor to the minimum consistent with a belief in something like a god, but without the bells and whistles of resurrections and ascensions, the thunder and lightning of hell and religious war. It works for them, and they do good work in the name of their beliefs. Real Christians exist who don't believe that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus was, for that matter. (A Jewish friend explained that if Jesus were not married, no one would would have taken him seriously as a teacher because he would not have been considered quite grown up.)
Essentially, belief in a god is no more irrational than a constitutional optimism, or a temperamental pessimism. Either one sustains belief in the unseen. Gentleness, cooperation, non-violence, restraint--these are cultural values that can co-exist with, and moderate, even long established, well-elaborated religions. The problem of violence is in our cultures, because those are what shape behavior, whatever gloss we put on our actions, whether religion, politics, business, or free-ranging spite and desperation.
Although there's sense in your arguments, you didn't convince me. Especially when you say about getting rid of the believers ... we will have the antidote for not only terror, but most of the social problems our world faces.
That would be something!
But to me it seems that you very strongly link fundamentalism to violence and violence to fundamentalism.
I could inform you about the Italian Mario Borghezio, who applauded the ideas of Breivik; he thought it was not Breivik's fundamentalism, neither his madness, but the invasion of Muslims that caused him to become violent!
Mari Borghezio, is certainly not a fundamentalist, neither does his party stem from anti-muslim-feelings. And, being an Italian man, he is a catholic but probably no more a believer than you are.
I could inform you about the distance the Dutch Wilders wants to see between him and Breivik. Still, Wilders holds exactly the same ideas as Breivik; just Wilders is a politician who knows exactly what does bring him voters and what will take voters away. So, he was as eager as opportunistic to call Breivik a mad man. With his tongue he’s very insulting, very aggressive – I would say: violent. And because of that: inciting violence and making people like Breivik mad men.
Geert Wilders is indifferent towards Christianism, as far as it is not identical with Western culture.
But, being an American, perhaps you can answer this question: what exactly is the fundamental difference between Bush and Breivik?
I see one difference: Bush had important friends.
It seems there was another difference: Breivik was on his own, Bush got a coalition. But that is not really true. Bush wanted to go alone on his crusade. It was Powell who forced Bush at the UNO-trail.
Do you see other differences?
As I said, I think the moderates, the reasonable people of the world are our best hope. The problem is that the religious fundamentalists are the only ones who truly believe the ancient texts and, therefore, have the only claim to legitimacy. That, in my mind, is a big problem.
If you take the good and leave the bad from those texts, that's a wonderful thing but if they are truly divine, then you aren't really a believer if you do that. Since I don't think you are wrong to do so, then the logical conclusion is that those texts are the superstitious ramblings of ancient people, full of good wisdom buried under a bed of hateful insanity.
Either those texts are God's word or they are not, plain and simple. It's disingenuous to think they can be both. That was my real thesis.
So by the same token, perhaps the Mad Norweigan is simply reacting defensively to all the nasty things that Islamic terrorists have done and are doing.
Nothing like following a theory to its local extension to expose how truly stupid it is.
The real fallacy and pipe-dream is thinking that with enough education, the perfect diet, improved socio-economic status, or letting the enlightened chattering class run our life, we can perfect humanness humanely. Admonitions about "the middle ground" and "reason" are ironically "fundamentalist" in their own right.
Reason and logic can tell me how to build a children's hospital, or it can tell me how to build a gas chamber; but they don't inform which one is "better" or "right".
The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart.
Where do you get from what I said that I believe that the Bill of Rights should provide protection or defense of criminal activity by claiming "my religious law allows me to violate the gov laws? That's not what I said at all. The Bill of Rights statement was in the context of building Mosques. I did not even vaguely imply that we should allow anyone to break the law in the name of religion. Quite the contrary.
I just saw a Bill O'Reilly clip in that you seem to have parroted in you other comments: http://tinyurl.com/3hnlaut
OSLO — The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination, according to Norwegian and American officials familiar with the investigation.
As stunned Norwegians grappled with the deadliest attack in the country since World War II, a portrait began to emerge of the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, 32. The police identified him as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian, while acquaintances described him as a gun-loving Norwegian obsessed with what he saw as the threats of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration.
Science itself proves that the existence of God is a possibility; due to their not being able to prove the big bang theory and what caused the big bang. At one point, something always had to Be. Science cannot prove what it is and where it came from. It was always just there. By their own admonition, they are proving that God was just always there and the big bang was from God speaking everything into existence. Face it, you cannot get something from nothing, which means at one point, something had to always have existed. A super dense particle or God, each one is equally possible. If it is a super dense molecule, you will be alright, as you will just die. If it is God, you have chosen poorly grasshopper, and will have a destiny of eternal torment. The choice is yours.
I don't think "Fundamentalism" is the word you are looking for. "Ideology" is the word you are looking for.
Good luck ridding the world of that.
I'm also saying that there's little evidence that "reason" and "moderation" are sufficient to secure a humane society. Fundamentalism is no more an explanation for the Norway shootings than reason, science, or medicine are the blame for the Gulag archipelago, napalm, or Dr. Mengele. Likewise, a "moderate" approach is impotent to deal with issues such as genocide, slavery, or rape.