Concept of Religious Fundamentalism and Violence

Concept of Religious Fundamentalism and Violence The intersection of religion and violence is a complex conversation which continues to progress (Gluck, 2010). This essay will critically assess whether religious fundamentalism and violence are always intertwined. To come to a decision, we must get a better understanding of the term fundamentalism and why a negative connotation of religion is attached to it. This involves discussing the roots and historical context in which the term was first presented and how it became applied to Islam. We will then consider whether Political objectives behind fundamentalists cause the violence rather than the fundamental ideologies itself or if it is a mixture of both. This will involve discussing the political goals behind the gunpower plot which invoked the marginalisation of Catholics. If religion was protected successfully over history would there be fundamentalist groups, particularly extremists. We will determine if religious fundamentalism has become shorthand to represent whats genuinely p olitics. Furthermore, well look at two extreme fundamentalists groups and how far they went to defend their beliefs and why violence is connected. This will be rivalled with the behaviour of more conservative fundamentalists who respond to the failure of the nation state in a less destructive way. Finally, we will conclude whether religious fundamentalism and violence are always intertwined and if that is the populist belief. Fundamentalism is as an explanatory term which is employed and exploited when used to describe a distinguishing religious movement in the 20th and 21st century and its affiliation with modern society. The term is used in relation to traditional faiths in a 20th century reality and to reaffirm the beliefs and ideologies in a situation which has been influenced by social and economic beliefs (Davie, 2013). Fundamentalism is the rational response of traditionally religious people to social, political and economic changes that downgrade and constrain the role of religion in the public world (Bruce 2008:120). This definition by Bruce, is akin to the ideas of Davie who maintains, that fundamentalism is an outcome of traditional values which were originally protected but have become disrupted and challenged from the outside. Davie goes on to distinguish the way which the threat occurs, from the outside in the form of modernity and from members who develop new ideals (Davie, 2013). We begin to unravel the term fundamentalism and associate its relationship with religion and in what manner it is presented. Fundamentalism originated from American Protestantism, there was great concern for believers who were replacing the biblical view for a more liberal understanding (Welnber Pedahzur, 2003). Religious Fundamentalism involves believers returning to the fixed laws whereby only one interpretation can be used amongst all to preserve religious laws over profane laws. We begin to see how religious fundamentalism has set precedence in the company of believers. Those in support of Christian fundamentalism were marginalised because of modernisation (Koopmans, 2015).ÂÂ   Fundamentalism is believed to be a reactive situation to modernization and secularisation, which will be explained via the loss of religious identify across Christianity, Islam and Jews. A Marxist view suggests that through the reaction of losing members to the materialistic world there has been a rise in fundamentalism whereby recessions and unemployment creates attitudes and a loss of identity amongst groups who edge tow ards fundamentalist groups to stabilize the marginalization of their religion (Almond, Appleby Sivan, 2003; Rarsch, 2015). Through discussing Modernization and the secular world we begin to see how specific Fundamentalist groups came about. Christian Fundamentalists became known following the urbanization of society, creating a decline in tradition and belief in sacred texts. The term fundamentalism in Christianity has become popular among Catholics and Protestants who believe the word of the bible comes directly from God and discard historical and modern interpretations of the word. Fundamentalism in Islam however is excessively used by the media and the state to refer to terrorists as Muslim, this view is not a true depiction of Fundamentalists in Islam. Those known as terrorists are on the extremist side whereas most Muslim Fundamentalists attend the mosque, encourage reading the Quran and follow teachings of Mohammed (Almond, Appleby and Sivan, 2003). This leads us to understand that although fundamentalism occurs in Islam and Christianity it is also a movement within Hinduism, Judaism and other religious communities (Pratt, 2010). Recognizing these fundamentalist groups, we initiate the discussion of fundamentalist groups who set off the violence, damage people and property and whose mentality involves an us versus them outlook (Davie 2013). There is an intolerable relationship when discussing fundamentalism and politics, theres an unwillingness to be accepting of the similarities and differences between groups (Mason, Feldman 2011). The leadership of the state and it actions towards society particularly changes in government or policy which shape the developments and roles of religious based movements. Moreover, fundamentalist extremists have turned to violence to progress their religious movement and reach political goals (Almond, Appleby and Sivan, 2003). When exploring the case of Guy Fawkes and the establishment of the Gun Powder Plot there are well built links with the religion and the state. The plot surfaced to assassinate James I and the ruling Protestant elite after there was an attack on Roman Catholics by introducing an anti-Catholic legislation, once again separating the church and state which left the Catholics feeling excluded which they reacted to by plotting to murder James I. This violent event occurre d because of the fundamentalist ideological route which in certain circumstances produce a terrorist however, not all fundamentalists result to violent behaviour. Although the Plot failed, it demonstrated how the state can use religion as a tool for control consequently leading to desperate measures involving violence. This had significant consequences for Catholics who had to deal with the new laws being passed which blocked their ability to vote in parliamentary elections and practice law (The Socialist Newspaper, 2005). This violent act of terrorism by the Fundamentalists is a historical moment which was not the last and not only within Christianity. Terrorism can be defined as an act intended to hurt more than one person and to instigate change, this term has no roots within fundamentalism which is having faith on the road to having a religious belief system. The term was originally used to describe political groups but has altered to a focus on religion, which no longer focuses solely on Christianity but includes other religions. Many Muslims are concerned with the violent link of terrorism and their religion, the focus should be on Islamic fundamentalism and politics rather than the religion itself. A link ought to be made between religious groups and violent incidents taking place as a reaction to lack of religious freedom whilst, being conscious that violence doesnt take place with all members of the fundamentalist movement (Rausch, 2015). Using France as an example, in 2005 Frances National Assembly declared the removal of signs or dress by which students ostensibly express a religious belonging, wearing a hijab was conside red a threatening act by Muslim fundamentalists (Alan, 2013). The disguised attack on Islam has created a social division in France and has led to various violent attacks taking place with the objective to have an ultimate battle with believers and non-believers by means of achieving their goals through violence (Burke, 2016). This discussion directs us to consider acts of violence by extreme fundamentalists as on going, their goals are long term and for God, terrorists do not expect to live long enough to see how the attacks play out (Rausch, 2015). If religious Fundamentalism and violence are intertwined it is because of western societys disapproval of the Islamic religion or because of fundamentalist groups viewing themselves as superior (Alan, 2013). If we look at the terrorist attacks of 9/11 although it may have been directed at the economic and political structures of the USA it effected the whole world, followed by attacks in Madrid 2004 and London 2005. The terrorist attacks have also wounded Muslims in Nigeria and Sudan suggesting the motivation for the attacks belong to globalisation whereby people are dependent on the market and tradition is overlooked. The association religion and violence have in the 21st century exposes the control of politics, and people deal with this by finding religious fundamentalism movements who use violence to help make sense of the secular world (Huber, 2011). Societies inevitably secularise as they modernize: it is contradictory to be modern and religious, this is the definition used when discussing secularisation theories (Woodhead, 2012:3). Religious fundamentalists are judged badly whereas secularists are deemed good and great when truthfully have played a part in the privatisation of religion (Alan, 2013). Due to secularisation, the education system has become more modernised and schools have limited religious freedom. The state encourages misleading behaviour via material which Is offensive and immoral for religious groups with no intent to protect the religion of others which isolates them and encourages them to challenge the situation (Almond, Appleby and Sivan, 2003) (Bruce, 2011). Therefore, although certain religious fundamentalist groups have resulted to violence to achieve their goals it is more intertwined with the state and how they impact the decisions made. Furthermore, there is an increasing appeal to claim that religion and politics is not an ideal combination and the reason for the war and violence is because of religion. Whenever fundamentalism and secularism is discussed, its within a violent connotation and asserts the behaviour of religious fundamentalists is revenge against the state for trying to separate religion from politics and an aim to bring religion back to public life which unfortunately involves violence (Armstrong, 2014). Secularisation can also be discussed using a legislation from France where they separated religion from the state through a policy La Laicite whereby the practice of religion is privatised and the state removes their involvement with religion (Trigg, 2007). Yet again we see the involvement of politics associating religious fundamentalism with violence instead of relating the detrimental effects legislations, isolation, disregard for moral values can have on others particularly the youth, diminishing the importance of religion (AbdulRahim, 2010). Most Muslims who feel like they are losing their religious identity are not prepared to practice their religion in a private space. Dress code and dietary values are embedded in their beliefs which makes it difficult to disconnect that from their practices. Isolation of many young Muslims in the western world because of economic and political marginalisation leads them to feeling distant and hostile towards the state which can lead to the construction of sub cultures which arrange events such as the July 2005 terror attacks (Gole, 2014). We cant solely link Islam to violence there are other groups who engage in illegal activity due to being subjected to social and economic marginalisation (Abbas, 2007). Discussing the political goals of Islamic fundamentalists who are terrorists we can see similarities between what steered them to violent acts when looking at Guy Fawkes 17th Century Terrorism. Guy Fawkes was a Catholic who wanted to rid England of its Protestant state by assassinating James I, who was failing the church. It can be argued he fought like a jihadist today who are described as a military movement as they fight for what they identify as right similar with Guy Fawkes. Fawkes believed the best way to spread the Catholic ideology was through terrorist force, he believed Catholicism was the dominant faith and was determined to promote their doctrines rather than the laws of the country. The goal was ultimately politically similar with Islam who resort to terrorist attacks to promote their political ideology through the state by means of the sharia law. Fawkes plot targeted members from another Christian Sect, this demonstrates fundamentalists who promote their violent behaviour through a religious ideology. It is a product of the individual movement in the case of Islam, not all who believe in the Salafi sect and their chosen behaviour are extremists who resort to violent behaviour (Mason Feldman, 2011). The tragic events of 9/11 and 7/7 have a left a hostile reaction from the world towards Muslims and Islam, the reactions of the government have been made public and influenced the minds of society (Abbas, 2007). The consequences for the attacks has left Muslims susceptible to racial and ethnic profiling in the criminal justice system and the aftermath is the government focusing on legislation rather than seeing the situation from the view of society similar to the events after the Gun Power Plot (Mason Feldman, 2011). Instead, the government allow the public to accept the belief that those responsible for the terrorist attacks are Muslims, history continues to repeat itself (Abbas, 2007). Deliberating religious fundamentalism and violence reminds us of the Golden rule rooted across religion, to treat your neighbour as you would want to be treated which ultimately shouldnt lead to violence. Yet, in most religion there has never been a hint of no violence across the board, in one way or another all religions have had to deal with the globalised world where violence is unavoidable. For Christians who rejected all forms of violence the moral compass was Jesus and his teachings of love particularly since his death on the cross was extremely violent which could have led to Christianitys turn away from violence (Huber, 2011). Notably for some fundamentalists the belief in the bible scriptures is a manual for how they should live their lives and they oppose those who dont adopt their ideals which can lead to a damaging relationship with fundamentalism, especially those unwilling to be accepting of similarities and differences (Mason Feldman, 2011). We need to continue discus sing how far fundamentalist groups will go to defend beliefs and values. Granting most fundamental religious beliefs have a trace of violent activities not all groups result to violent behaviour despite the politics and secularisation. Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their values involves having a strong moral compass and regularly attending religious meetings to discuss how to be a nonviolent active member of the church whilst living in a secular world which diminishes traditional values (Cornwall, Heaton Young 2001). This is similar with Jehovah Witnesses, a more conservative group who base their decisions on a matter of conscience and try to live a life with no immoral actions. They also condemn angry behaviour which leads to violent actions and try to live a life central to Gods teachings and protect society from a corrupt and sinful lifestyle without the use of violence (BBC 2009; Holden, 2005). Both conservative groups demonstrate nonviolent behaviour which leads us to consider that religious fundamentalis m and violence may not be intertwined. When discussing extremist fundamentalist groups, most assert their violent behaviour being taken from biblical ideologies, they believe that they are practicing the one true faith and this religious ideology is known as Christian Identity is a (Perlmutter, 2003; Sharpe 2000). The norms of the Christian Identity are influenced by the Ku Klux Klan who justify acts of violence against the government, Jews, homosexuals and non-whites who they believe are not human or a part of Gods creation. Ultimately believing that aggressive behaviour against marginalised groups is part of the plan to restore Gods supreme white race and establish protestant Christian values (Sharpe, 2000). Whilst this ideology was popular among members it was not accepted by ministers and other Christians who prohibited the connection with Protestant Christianity (Baker, 2009). This view was held in particular because of Klansmen who would perform cross burnings which they understood to be a symbol of respect for Jesu s which they felt was rooted in Christian tradition (Wade, 1998). This interpretation which has been taken from the bible has created a fight where they believe whites are the supreme race fighting for God and non-whites are fighting for Satan (Selepak Sutherland, 2012). The apocalyptic belief extremists hold which emphasises a violent war between good and bad is evidence of the religion being used to defend violent actions and recruit members to join extremist fundamentalist groups (Perlmutter, 2003). This is reinforced in Biblical literature filled with murder stories thereby legitimising violent behaviour and allowing young people to steer towards non-conventional fundamentalist groups with charismatic leaders when feeling distant (Sharpe, 2000). The faith fundamentalist groups have for their charismatic leaders and the justifications for the violent behaviour which they encourage has strengthened the number of members for both the Ku Klux Klan and ISIS whilst ignoring the traditional values from the founders of both Islam and Christianity whic h endorses peace and love for others (Fieudberg, 2014). This suggests that although religious fundamentalist groups will use violence to defend their beliefs they only use parts of their religious literature as a means of achieving this. This question has allowed us to discuss whether religious fundamentalism and violence are always intertwined. From defining religious fundamentalism and examining the term in a historical and political context to deliberating fundamentalist groups who have used acts of violence to make their voice heard. We also looked at the misconceptions of conservative fundamentalist groups who do not use violence as a means of displaying their anger even if the nation state is failing them. Weve discovered that acts of violence and terrorism does not only belong to religious fundamentalism and is the result of a fundamentalist ideological route, more so the behaviour rather than the religious traditions. This is the issue that faces us today. Whats more is Religious fundamentalism and the state are more intertwined and despite secularisation and the lack of support culturally and economically when violence occurs the media and the state create a story which links a religious group to violence. W hat needs to be publicised is when the nation state fails society by isolating the oppressed in many different conditions. We need to appreciate what broader purpose is being served by linking religious fundamentalism to violence. Violence occurs as a consequence of extreme political legislations and marginalisation of groups rather than as a result of religious beliefs.