fundamentalism – Engaging Peace

THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA, CONCLUSION

Posted on January 1, 2017 by kathiemm

by Stefan Schindler

To paraphrase George Santayana: Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Not only is America the most militarized and largest debtor country in the world, it remains the only technologically advanced country lacking universal health care and still clinging to the death penalty.

Since 1985, middle class income in Germany has risen five times faster than middle class income in America. German workers have two months paid vacation per year; guaranteed, taxpayer financed, universal health care; and a higher quality, more egalitarian national education system than America, with generous funding for the arts.

Meanwhile, among the advanced industrial nations of the world, America has one of the highest infant mortality rates, the highest percentage of citizens in prison, and more than 40 million American families deprived of health insurance (a number recently mitigated by Obamacare).

In addition to his militarization and deficit spending, Ronald Reagan’s most profound domestic legacy was the vast expansion of two segments of the American population: billionaires and the homeless.

Instead of being the most militarized, debt ridden, fundamentalist, stupefied, historically illiterate, consumer driven, energy gulping, empire building, sports and celebrity obsessed, advertising drenched, and dangerous nation in the world today, the U.S.A. could, as it once was, be a beacon of hope.

This could easily be accomplished by instituting: a four-day work week, a five-hour work day, universal health care, affordable child care, guaranteed economic security and a living wage, taxpayer-financed life-time educational opportunity, global interfaith dialogue, nuclear disarmament, demilitarization, democratic pluralism with multi-party choice, supremely well-paid full-time teachers across the educational spectrum, a sane and modest teacher-student ratio in classrooms, the teaching of real history instead of mythic mush, the de-monopolization of the media, the “greening” of ecological sustainability, and vastly increased funding for the arts in schools and beyond, with daily street fairs and festivals for everybody and time enough to enjoy them.

Fundamentalism vs. extremism (Intolerance, cohesion, and killing in religion, Part 2)

Posted on October 21, 2013October 29, 2013 by kathiemm

By guest contributor Emmanuel C. Mbaezue

Though intertwined with many beliefs and purposes, religious fundamentalists and extremists depart significantly from each other in their basic operations.

War image mural in Son Severa by Frank Vincentz — Mural in Son Severa by Frank Vincentz, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

Typically, it is the fundamentalist who creates the vision of the group and their religious and moral legitimization for action. While the leaders provide the concept, the followers design the practice or action.

It is usually in the process of implementing those designs that discrepancies between the original ideas held by the group leaders and subsequent actions arise—the traditional “follower fallacy.” Most importantly, it is also at this point that overzealousness, particularly from the followers, tends to magnify discrepancies.

There are a lot more differences between fundamentalism and the extremism that explain the violence-prone nature of religion today. However, it is important to deemphasize the role of religious leaders in religiously-motivated violence and focus instead on the most basic underlying causes of violence—for example, poverty and inequality–which can be manipulated for personal and group purposes.

Basically, the radicalism and blood-stained nature of religion today can be blamed mainly on structural defects. People frequently need something to believe in, particularly in times of crisis. As Karl Marx once opined, religion is the opiate of the masses.

If the violence and killing prevalent in society today are to be reduced, then we must be ready to help people gain the basic necessities of life. This could be achieved through an honest respect for fundamental human rights, recognized by both international and local laws.

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Mbaezue has a Master of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.

Intolerance, cohesion, and killing in religion, Part 1

Posted on October 14, 2013October 20, 2013 by kathiemm

By guest contributor Emmanuel C. Mbaezue

Confrontation between mounted archers by Tabriz, 14th century. Image in public domain.

“Terrorists and Peacemakers may grow up in the same community and adhere to the same religious traditions. The killing carried out by one and the reconciliation fostered by the other indicate the range of dramatic and contradictory response to human sufferings by religious actors.” (Scott Appleby, 2000)

Appleby’s quote reflects the ambivalence inherent in religion. Though on the one hand, religious leaders have condemned acts of religiously motivated violence, on the other hand they have also failed to contain the frequency and scope of such acts. According to Little (2007), rather than playing a soothing role in response to societal problems of violence and murder, religion itself seems to contribute to violence in the world today.

Furthermore, the current preponderance of religious violence has presumably been stirred by religious leaders. Most of them have deviated from their spiritual calling and have sometimes deliberately created crisis situations in order to abrogate existent religious laws.

To understand how they are able to accomplish this, we must examine the two practices responsible for the violence-prone nature of religion: fundamentalism and extremism.

As defined by Appleby (2000), fundamentalism is a specified pattern of religious militancy by which self-styled true believers try to: (a) resist the extinction of religious identity; (b) fortify the borders of a religious community; and (c) create viable alternatives to secular structure and processes. The fundamentalist’s main goal is to protect his religious identity while competing with secular authorities, without necessarily employing violent means.

Extremism on the other hand can be viewed as the deliberate use of violence to “purify” society while fighting against external forces. While the fundamentalist does not necessarily see the use of violence as a means to an end, the extremist believes that violence is not only necessary, but also a legitimate way of maintaining order.

REFERENCES

Appleby, Scott. (2000). The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation. Maryland, United States of America: Rowman and Little Field Publishers.

Little, David, ed. 2007. Peacemakers in Action. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Mbaezue has a Masters of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.