Religious fundamentalists have existed for centuries, but it is only in the later 20th Century where religious fundamentalism has emerged as a political force capable of challenging existing orders and regional security. In its modern form, Fundamentalism takes religion out of the personal and private sphere and places it very much in the public and political.
In short, the phenomenon constitutes the politicization of religion where secular politicians are judged against religious criteria, such as poor Sadat when he was assassinated for not being Islamic enough, however half-witted and dubious such a criteria is. Political failures are also seen to be remedied by a return to traditional religious beliefs and political, economic, social orders determined by traditionalist religious teachings.
Although there were certainly antecedents, it was not until the 1970s that politicized religion has gained the kind of currency and value that would catapult it into a global force of some reckoning. And more unnervingly so, it has emerged in quite disparate parts of the world, and amongst virtually all major religious communities, from Algeria to Amsterdam, from Cairo to Jakarta, from the Caucasus mountains to the gleaming cities of the USA.
So my questions to you are, what is your take on religious fundamentalism? Do you see it as a remedy for the dire conditions some countries are in now? Will it emerge fully fledged as an ideology or will it simply wilt away into oblivion? Will it cause the same sort of polarization as the Cold War did? Or just about anything related really.
Do note that this discussion isn't about the validity and truth in religion, bring your tiresome and mundane pre-written rants about religion elsewhere.
Well it is possible that this turns into a cold war like state. It has started the moment USA bombed Afghanistan. but it may take some time in that as religious governments are coming into power in Middle East (like in Tunisia, Turkey and possibly Egypt) World will again be divided into two.Islamic conservatives(or extremists, fundamentalists depends on who u ask) and west. Clash of civilizations is inevitable.
Started way before that.....just take a look at Hamas, or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Muslim brother hood(u can call it Akhwan in short) o preached their thoughts in M E. And were not in contact with westren civilization until recently. as for hamas, they are more of freedom fihters than anything else.
but it is only in the later 20th Century where religious fundamentalism has emerged as a political force capable of challenging existing orders and regional security.
Are you talking about when the king of france tried to take back that holy place that the Muslims took over?
yes i'm talking about the thousends of knights all over europe that didn't had a job. and went working for the church / god. being a knight ment they kill people. and they knew this was against the bible. (they were religious non the less) they thought by fighting for god they had permision to kill the muslims. and still go to heaven. and make a good coin aswell. (beter then most people could give them)
i'm talking about those "religious fundamentalists" indeed.
Religious fundamentalists have existed for centuries, but it is only in the later 20th Century where religious fundamentalism has emerged as a political force capable of challenging existing orders and regional security.
Religion being part of the political ring isn't anything new. We have had it that way for hundreds of years. I was only in more recent times religion became less of a driving force and even more recently seen a reemergence.
I recently watched this video which I think gives a pretty interesting look on how fundamentalism views politics. Separation between Church and State
Do you see it as a remedy for the dire conditions some countries are in now?
It most definitely is not a remedy. We aren't going to bother with better energy sources or worry about the damage being done to the planet with the mentality that the end is near. Praying isn't going to make the deficit go away. The belief that God is on "there" side and wants group X to convert the rest of the world to (insert religion here) only puts fuel on harmful wars. If anything it could be better described as a symptom if not the cause of some problems.
Will it emerge fully fledged as an ideology or will it simply wilt away into oblivion?
I've heard some refer to what we are seeing now as the "death throes" of religion. Referring not to the end of religion but it's end in the public sphere. This is evidenced by the number of those professing a non religious stance going up and fewer young people attending church services. It's thought this upsurge in activity in the political ring is just the last and brightest flares before it dies, just becoming more personal than public.
Are you talking about when the king of france tried to take back that holy place that the Muslims took over?
No, not that. Read the opening post.
Religion being part of the political ring isn't anything new. We have had it that way for hundreds of years. I was only in more recent times religion became less of a driving force and even more recently seen a reemergence.
Of course religion isn't a new tool when it comes to politics; What I'm getting at, is ''fundamentalism'' as a modern political concept. The term ''fundamentalism'' was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century. It has since been applied to other religions.
The point is that in many cases contemporary religious fundamentalism is rooted in the failed promise of modernity, reactive against perceived unwelcome manifestations of modernisation, such as declining morals. To many fundamentalists the current era is one where God is in danger of being superseded by a gospel of technical progress accompanying sweeping socio-economic changes. The pace of change, especially since World War II, strongly challenged traditional habits, beliefs and cultures which were under considerable pressure to adapt. In an increasingly materialist world oneâs individual worth was increasingly measured according to standards of wealth and status, with religion ignored or belittled. Such cultural and economic changes were regarded by many as the root cause of a perceived, generalised decline of the societal salience of religion. And it was this development which led to the growth of religious militancy and account in general terms for the recent rise of what is widely - if loosely - known as religious fundamentalism.
That's the distinction of fundamentalism as a modern concept and religion used in politics in the past.
Take for example, the Shah of Iran. Certainly an Islamic figure, but the Iranian Revolution that ousted him, was set into motion because of the secular image he perpetuated, and the perceived socio-economic failure of that secularism and pro-Western stance. In many ways, it is an anti-modern concept spawned only in modern times.
as for hamas, they are more of freedom fihters than anything else.
No...they're terrorists...
I think that religious fundamentalism is going to fade eventually, however it will probably be around for the next 25-50 years, simply because of the Church's still large sphere of influence in America, radical Islamic parties in the Middle East, and the Haredi parties in Israel.
Freedom fighter is another term for those engaged in a struggle to achieve political freedom for themselves or obtain freedom for others.
To the Palestinians and much world opinion, Israel does illegally occupy land that belongs rightfully and legally to the Palestinians; Hamas' main goal apart from the destruction of Israel is the ultimate aim of freeing the Palestinians from oppression and creating a proper Palestinian state. Methods do not matter; the USA has classified the mujahedeen of Afghanistan as freedom fighters in the 1970s-80s, the Contras of Nicaragua amongst dozens of others, and the world stood witness to the atrocities they committed. Yet they're classified as ''freedom fighters'', and similar groups employing similar methods such as Hamas considered ''terrorists'' just because a few top dogs in Washington decided to have a fun little game with semantics and linguistics.
But back to the topic on hand; will religious fundamentalism really fade away that quickly? The evangelical churches get all the more stronger in the USA, Iran doesn't seem to be wilting, and Saudi Arabia continues to pump in millions into its overseas madrasas to spread it's Puritanical Wahhabism, which incidentally, has been the source of much of the mujahedeen spread across the world today. What with Israel's Orthodox and more conservative Jews increasing in numbers, and the influx of angry young Muslims in Europe, remember that socio-economic disparities are a main cause of such a surge of fundamentalism today, can one really say that fundamentalism is a spent and fading force?
I dunno anythin' about this subject except from some stuff I saw in Sleeper Cell: American Terror.
But! That doesn't mean I don't have an informed opinion.
The fact that I'm not too sure what the actual subject here is DOES mean that I don't have an informed opinion.
Anyways.
Religion should generally be seperated from government if the culture is built around business, money, immorality. If the system is 65%+ based around a pre-existing cultural conformity of a certain religion, then by all means taht religion should be taken into account be the officials.
If the system is 65%+ based around a pre-existing cultural conformity of a certain religion, then by all means taht religion should be taken into account be the officials.
Hamas' main goal apart from the destruction of Israel
That makes them terrorists. A terrorist is defined as a person who tries to influence or destroy a government by the use of violence. Therefore, Hamas is a terrorist organization.
and why should it be taken into accaunt?
Because that is the foundation of that country and it could be assumed that most of its citizens adhere to said religion. For instance, you don't see any Americans under the rule of a king. That is because America was founded on democracy, and all people subject to her laws practice that form of government.
Religion should generally be seperated from government if the culture is built around business, money, immorality. If the system is 65%+ based around a pre-existing cultural conformity of a certain religion, then by all means taht religion should be taken into account be the officials.
In America, most businesses are filled with a majority of religious people so of course theye'd be showing of some culture there. I see no problem with some culture being in a business. Not to mention the fact that if some govenment officials decide they can't have religion in there they would be botcotted. As long as religion doesn't interfere with a job or gets forced on a nonreligious employee it's fine.
What exactly did you mean by money?
I see no problem with religion being used for immorality (christian view). I mean the founding fathers used the bible to for our laws, and things have been fine from those. I guess you probably want those laws to be gone since some of them have to do with religion.
