Extremism's theological roots

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:32 PM

You wouldn't get very far, Charlie. Theology is "faith seeking understanding" - seeking a rational understanding of belief. Extremism is tied to ideology, not faith. It doesn't allow for understanding - it seeks "blind faith" and absolute obedience.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Chicken Charlie
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:01 PM

Instead of talking about the theological roots of extremism, can we talk about the extremist roots of theology?

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:55 PM

Let me make it absolutely clear that I was not trying to fling aspersions about religous thought or individual convictions of a religous nature.

There is a place to take things on faith and a place where you may not surrender your sovereign freedom to use your own integrity to see your own truth.

The classof organizing acts I was referring to are those which establish some humans as arbiters of doctrine and spiritual principle which judgements are then passed on to others as convictions. Especially so at the poinbt where those convictions are THEN used to advise adherents where they should place their money, energy, or actions in the world.

Thinking "for" others, meaning insisting on doing their thinking for them as distinguished from offering your best thoughts to others for their consideration, is a serious ethical compromise, especially if it leads others into acts of infamy such as crusades, carbombings, or other forms of insanity.

It is easy to assert that that was then, and this is now.

The seeds of the Crusades are still being acted out by the same kind of oppressive nut cases who drive the fundanetalist Islamic armies. The fertile ground is those people who not only want to take some things on faith, in a spiritual sense, but want to extend that idea to giving up their own thinking and standards of right action to others' determination.

A

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:26 PM

Russ, I would contend that the Roman Catholic Church is not as monolithic as it might seem. Yes, it has a structure of doctrine and operation, but that structure is in a constant state of change and reinterpretation. Disagreement and discussion among Catholics is nothing new - many of the Catholic saints are people who disagreed with those who were in power in Rome.

But let's get back to the original subject.
I think there is a common thread among religious extremists. Most systems of belief are based on lofty, abstract ideals, on visions of a better existence that is just beyond us. The founders of religions may have seen their visions with crystal clarity, but visions are very difficult to put into words. Nonetheless we have a need to put our beliefs into writing, and the major reliegions have produced remarkable pieces of literature. The language in these writings in often highly symbolic, and heavily nuanced and dependent upon context. If they are to be understood, they must be read with an open mind, a mind that is capable of abstract thinking.

Many, many people have neither the capacity nor the desire for abstract thinking. They want quick, easy answers - so they gloss over all the nuances and develop a very simplistic, concrete interpretation of something that was once complex and abstract. They see what they believe very clearly - but the scope of their vision is narrow. The platform that supports their beliefs is narrow and weak, so they must suppress all who doubt or challenge them. They respond to opposition with blind self-righteousness, and can even resort to violence in their response. They are very vocal in defense of their simplistic beliefs, to the point where they overshadow the mainstream members of their religions. From the outside, the extremists appear to be the spokespersons for a belief system, and outsiders often get a very cloudy view of what may well be something very good and positive.

So, that's Joe's theory of religious extremists/fundamentalists. Every religion has 'em.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:00 PM

In the Calgary Herald today, there is an editorial which calls on the "God of Abraham" to "keep our land glorious and free. Sounds to me like Jihad from the other side. At the time of the mythical Abraham, the Middle East was filled with warring city states and tribes. Mankind has not advanced much beyond the primitive stage insofar as relationships among peoples are concerned. Religion is called upon to support the most horrendous crimes, but since religion is man-made, that is to be expected.

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 10:39 AM

Mark,

I have problems with the question "to what degree does any religion bear responsibility for those who speak in its name." It seems to me to be both vague and naive. The presupposition to such a question seems to be that a "religion" is a monolithic entity with a clearly defined hierarchy, set of beliefs, and code of conduct. Your reference to the Roman Catholic Church in your example is telling. It is the most monolithic of the big world religions. It is quite unusual in that respect.

I agree that "Muslims, like Jews, recognize no central doctrinal authority, rendering it more difficult, even for believers, to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy and heresy." However, that does not go far enough. Such a situation renders it impossible (not just difficult) to hold those religions responsible for those who speak in its name. You cannot have "corporate" responsibility without a corporation.

So if there's no organization all we've got to bring to trial is scripture.

However, the notion that any of the scriptures of the world's big religions have a clear unequivocal meaning and a patently obvious interpretation to those who read it with an clear eye and open heart is IMHO naive and clearly false.

The scriptures of the world's big religions are complex and multi-layered and the product of real complex multi-layered human beings in a real complex multi-layered world. They normally seem to tell us a lot more about the people who composed them than the world the purport to portray. There's nothing modern or revolutionary about this view. Almost any theologian from the past few millennia would yawn and grant it.

I agree that it is silly to deny the existence of or ignore scriptural passages with a history of "problematic" interpretations. It is equally silly to look at the Qur'an as having a monopoly on such passages or Islam as having a monopoly on jerks who take advantage of such passages and interpretations.

Now, if all religions (with the possible exception of some forms of Buddhism) have an equally uninspiring record with respect to violence and fanaticism, it seems to me that the source isn't really scripture or problematic interpretations. Most religions acknowledge that most human beings rather consistently fall very short with respect to the ideals of those religions. They provide an interesting variety of explanations for this phenomenon: original sin, avidya (chronic ignorance), demon delusion, etc.

So one problem I have with the thread title is that as soon as you start playing the "proper interpretation of scripture" game (the theology game) you become just another small voice in the theological cacophony. And if you are not an adherent of the religion/scripture in question why should anybody bother to listen to you.

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 09:37 AM

The argument I heard was that religions developed out of a need to understand and explain the forces at work in the world.

They also seem to serve as a perfect excuse not to accept responsibility for your own actions and as a ready made excuse for a lot of pretty bad behavior.

And to justify some pretty positive behavior. Sad when we need to come up with an excuse to do good.

The hierarchal nature may be something that is more a matter of how we organize the world and our knowledge than something specific or necessary to religion. Do we organize knowledge, out of genetic and structural necessity, in hierarchal rankings and structures? If so then religion isn?t the villain in that regard.

As troll comments. Most if not all of our rational, logical beliefs often come down to basic, untestable and unprovable belief. Are they any less ?supernatural? than religious beliefs?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Troll
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 07:35 AM

Guest Boab and Amos, you accept things on faith all the time. Take the philosophies by which you live your lives.
Their tenets cannot be proven in a lab with reproducible results. They can only be proved by argument in which certain things are agreed upon as givens.
And there, gentlemen*, you have faith.

troll

* I don't know if Boab is male or female

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 04:42 AM

I've an open heart and mind for all who believe in something supernatural. They are often more generous and feeling persons than nonbelievers. But I'm afraid of all religious fundamentalists whichever book they (mis)read. I'm glad that over here religious fundamentalism is a thing of the past with extremely few exceptions.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:33 AM

Amos, I don't think religions are initially organized in a "hierarchical, authority-based form." The usual basis of a religion is some sort of head-in-the-clouds idealism.

The hierarchy comes later, once the organization develops structure and acquires property. What people then see from the outside is the structure and the power and the property. Many times, the original idealism may remain and may even thrive, and it is usually the reason it attracts and retains members. The power and property and those who control it are so visible that they seem to be the essence of the organization, but be careful before you jump to that conclusion.

People don't practice religious faith because they want to be controlled by the rich and powerful.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:20 AM

Amos,---agreed!!

Troll---the only time I ever accepted anything on faith, I was under the spell of a stage hypnotist. Perhaps those who saw Christ walk on the waves were in the same boat [ouch!!]

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Troll
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 01:12 AM

It's a common one for those who cannot accept things on faith but demand concrete proof.
I do, however, find the vilification of those who can accept things on faith, to be anti-intellectual at best and, at worst, downright rude.
Of course, Amos may not have meant it that way. Until I hear one way or the other, I'll have to take it on faith that he did not.

troll

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 12:19 AM

Mark's opening post is a cogent exposition, and the responses have been on the same plane. However, I am more inclined toward Amos' most succinct summation.

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: DonMeixner
Date: 08 Oct 01 - 12:07 AM

The Austrian part of my ancestory doesn't doom me to apologize for Adolph Hitler. Any more than my white European ancestory should force me to make reparations for slaves that my ancestors never owned.

I can only apologize for things I've done. I will not apologize for the acts of people unrelated to me from centuries back.

Don

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 01 - 11:59 PM

The reason to organize a religion in any hierarchical, authority based form in the first place is to play a game of power over the minds of others.

Dictating moral codes on the basis of invisible, unverifiable metaphysical structures is just bushwah codwallop disguising a grab for money, power, control, puerile gratification or sex. At least, that's my opinion.

A.

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 01 - 08:45 PM

Mark, in religion as in nature there are mutations. Apologizing for these mutations, as Joe alludes, does not make my Catholic brother in law disavow his bigotry and antisemitism.

Regarding the link to Whahabbi Islam, the west did not create this fundamental sect but it did violate the "prime directive" in the last century and has led to the current wild fire.

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Oct 01 - 08:27 PM

Hi, Mark - I get a little nervous about the current trend of demands for apologies for past offenses. I'm not sure it does any good - I think it tends to de-legitimize the current good efforts of an organization, because of some offense in the past. I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm quite aware of the antisemitism and other prejudice my church had in the past. In the past 50 years of more, it has done an admirable job of promoting justice for all religious and ethnic groups - why dwell on the past? And yes, there are still Catholics who use their religion as an excuse for their bigotry - but am I bound to apologize or take responsibility for them if I have taken no part in their conduct?
For that matter, I disagree with the Pope's refusal to ordain women and view it as sexism hiding behind the veil of papal authority - as a Catholic, am I bound to apologize and take responsibility for a sexist policy I do not support?

Same goes with Muslims, or with anyone - we can expect them to take responsibility for the things they do or support themselves or the things that they can affect - but it's unfair for us to hold others to responsible for every wrong done in the name of their belief.

Let's not go overboard in expecting apologies.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots
From: Troll
Date: 07 Oct 01 - 05:49 PM

Some People Call Them Wahhabi Islamo-Fascists By Stephen Schwartz 10-6-1 - click here

troll

Subject: Extremism's theological roots
From: GUEST,Mark Lilla
Date: 07 Oct 01 - 04:35 PM

If there is any consensus among spokesmen and students of religion commenting on the events of Sept. 11, it is that those behind them do not in any way represent the Islamic faith. As the distinguished scholar of fundamentalisms, Martin E. Marty, put it in last week's New York Times Magazine, "this is not Islam." The desire to exculpate Islam is understandable, not only on grounds of toleration and good sense, but also given the very real dangers some of our Muslim citizens have faced in recent weeks. Yet a larger question looms: to what degree does any religion bear responsibility for those who speak in its name?

Here the specialists are clearly of two minds. Over the past decade there has been a growing movement to hold secular and religious institutions responsible for past harms they caused, either by apologizing or by providing restitution. The results have been mixed, and in some cases questionable. But certainly one good result is that the Roman Catholic church has been forced to confront its past in relation to European Jewry. The deep issue this confrontation has raised is not whether individual church authorities abused their powers or distorted church teaching, but whether there is something in traditional church doctrine — said or unsaid — that made official anti-Semitism possible for centuries.

It is all very well for Catholics today to insist that their faith, properly interpreted, does not condone anti-Semitism. But that does not get us closer to understanding how millions of Catholics over a millennium could have thought that it did. Any Catholic who is serious about his faith must pose this question to himself.

The Vatican can and should be held responsible for the history of the Roman Catholic Church because it has the sole right to determine doctrines of faith. Muslims, like Jews, recognize no central doctrinal authority, rendering it more difficult, even for believers, to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy and heresy. Yet if any religion is to cope with these deviations it must recognize that they do not arise from nowhere but have roots, however twisted, in the faith itself. Christians who bomb abortion clinics appeal to the Christian Bible and persuade others to join them on Biblical grounds. That Islamic fundamentalism and its militant offshoots appeal to the Koran is therefore not an incidental matter. It means that they have found a way to breed in the religious space opened up by the revelation Islam presupposes.

Muslims the world over bristled when President Bush spoke of the campaign against terrorism as a "crusade," a word they still associate with the slaughters of medieval Christian incursions. And they are not wrong to do so: there is a plausible "crusading" interpretation of Christianity that appears periodically in Christian history, and which the Christian churches need to protect themselves against. The same temptation exists in Judaism today, as one sees in the more radical branches of the Israeli settlers movement, which is fired by the eschatological belief that reclaiming the land will hasten the coming of the Messiah. All the great monotheistic faiths have had, and continue to have, trouble reconciling their understanding of revelation with the reasonable demands of political life — yet reconcile it they must.

This is why those concerned with Islam's place in the world today are obliged to study seriously the theological sources of Islamic fundamentalism and the apparent absence of theological defenses against the spread of political extremism. Recent public discussions of Islam have been informed by a humane spirit of toleration, but they mark an abdication of intellectual responsibility among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Reflection on this matter must begin with the uncomfortable fact that in religion, as in nature, there is no such thing as spontaneous generation.