Is Religious Fundamentalism always Totalitarian and Prone to Violence? Fundamentalism is “a belief in returning to the literal meanings of scriptural texts. Fundamentalism may arise as a response to modernization and rationalization, insisting on faith-based answers, and defending tradition by using traditional grounds. ” Fundamentalists believe that their view is only one true view of the world which leaves no room for ambiguity and that this is the true correct belief (Giddens, 2009). Fundamentalist ideas are ideas based on what is thought to be the one ‘essential truth’.
Throughout fundamentalism, there are different strains of thought with regards how to approach the true life. One is Passive, where its members withdraw into their own small communities and share it with only a few on the outside when necessary. The other is Active, which focuses on bringing opposition to the entire modern world until they have their way. There are also different families of fundamentalisms in the world. Examples of these would be Islamic fundamentalism and The Christian Right movements. Fundamentalism shares throughout the different religions a common rejection of ‘liberal attitudes’.
The attitudes rejected are those of morality, the lifestyle of the people and politics of the nation. Instead what are believed in are the traditional values of social order and morality, along with old-fashioned nationalism (Adams, 1993). “Religious fundamentalism may be heavily politicized and, conversely, it can adopt some of the characteristics of totalitarian ideologies” (Freeden, 2003). Fundamentalism is a main feature of the modern world. With it being a reaction to the secularization of the globe, as a moral protest to the modern values, it cannot be ignored.
Several key characteristics of fundamentalism can be identified. It seems that the most serious of these characteristics being that religion and politics are seen as inseparable by its followers. They see the divide in government and religion as letting go of a country’s identity and inviting evil and corruption into the state. Militancy also plays a role in the summation of fundamentalism. The fundamentalists seem to have a heightened or extreme commitment to their cause in securing their core values and beliefs. They very much have an “Us versus Them” mentality to their identity.
They also have a Manichean worldview and thus have an excuse to make the ends justify the means. Sometimes they have claimed that illegal actions are justified because they are supposedly supported by divine law. Christian fundamentalists were the first to use television as a media weapon. It was used to promote their doctrines to a wide media using a single charismatic leader at a time. Islamic fundamentalists fighting off the Russian forces in Chechnya designed and used websites to put forward their views and doctrines (Giddens, 2009).
Another key feature is that of fundamentalist impulse. It is often seen to be taken directly from sacred texts. Often it is by a key charismatic leader in the service of political goals over an issue at the time. Anti-modernism has been seen to be a key characteristic of fundamentalism. They blame the decline and decay around the modern world on being amoral and straying from the basic religious teachings. There is a wide element of conservatism in the fundamentalist approach. However, it does differ from conservatism at several points.
Both are strident and passionate, but the fundamentalists seem to be more populist and egalitarian than the conservatives. Fundamentalism conveys the idea of a religious-political movement or project, rather than just the asserting literal truth of their sacred texts. The Iranian cleric and political leader, Alatollah Khomeini (1900-89), claimed that “politics is religion”. If politics, in effect, is religion, this implies that religious principles are not restricted only to a person’s private life.
They are seen as principles of public existence such as law, social conduct, politics and economics. Islamic fundamentalism aims to construct a theocracy which links ones power with their level in the hierarchy of the religion. The determination to remove any distinction between religion and politics shows a totalitarian tendency. Their style of political activity seems to be vigorous, militant and sometimes it is quite violent (Heywood, 2003). In these fundamentalist religions, the holy men tend to assume large roles of the guardians and the purveyors of truth.
In some instances they may be stage-managed from within the organisation’s midst by people who seem somewhat indistinguishable from political dictators. Political Islam possesses the functions of ideology, meaning that it provides a wide collective political agenda, while maintaining a substantial overlap of religion and politics together. This leaves no space for any other form of political ideology to emerge as a separate and distinct set of ideas from under religion’s control. Also, there is no room for any range of religious interpretations or ambiguity to escape the harsh vice of the political discipline (Freeden, 2003).
In religious fundamentalism, the access to the exact meaning of the scripture is restricted to a small set of privileged ‘interpreters’ such as priests, clergy or other religious leaders. This gives these leaders a great amount of authority, not only in religious matters, but in political matters as well. Religious fundamentalists have been known to become powerful political figures in society. They are most widely seen in opposition movements and within main-stream political parties in the United States and as heads of state in Iran (Giddens, 2009).
The main set of fundamentalism in America is a group on the evangelical wing of American Protestantism. They are often seen referring to themselves as ‘born-again Christians’. They solely believe in the entire literal truth of the Christian bible. Along with this, they reject the Darwinian theory of evolution and uphold what they call religious values in personal and social matters (Adams, 1993). A political side of them is highly noticeable in their bitter opposition to anything that has a link to communism which they believe is an atheist’s system which is opposed to everything Christianity and America stands for.
Their outlook is authoritarian by nature and is in direct conflict with the modern libertarian wing of the ‘New Right’. Often times they campaign on issues such as pro-life, sex education, anti-homosexual rights and pornography among others (Adams, 1993). Fundamentalism seems to be a reaction to secularization and the modern society. They see the world today as having devalued cultures and weakened identities. This anti-modernism has led very much to an “Us versus them” mentality. They see themselves as the possessors of the only truth.
They see the literal truth of their scriptures as the only way to live life in the modern world. This leads to an aggressive approach to sharing their doctrines. They very much have a Manichean perspective in their approach. To them, spreading the word and lifestyle is a war of good versus evil in the world. Throughout the globalising age of the world, there seems to be a desperate need of mutual understanding and dialogue between fundamentalists and everyone else if society is to progress and flourish. It is not unjust to claim that religious fundamentalism has shown that it can be a destructive force.
Fundamentalism itself is edged with a wide possibility of fanatical violence. In cases of the Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, examples of violence inspired by religious allegiance are not uncommon. There have also been numerous violent clashes between the two groups in Lebanon and Indonesia amongst other countries (Giddens, 2009). Christian fundamentalism shares the common rejection of most liberal views to issues of the present such as morality, lifestyles and politics. They much prefer the traditional values of social morality, order and nationalistic patriotism (Adams, 1993).
Fundamentalists look for ways to seize or at the very least exert influence over the modern state. They see it as an instrument or a weapon of moral regeneration for society. Their criticism of fundamentalism argues that it is this sheer determination to remove or destroy the distinction between religion and politics that puts forward their tendency towards violent totalitarianism. Their style of activity on the political scene is vigorously militant and sometimes violent. However, many fundamentalists are actually quite happy to see themselves being depicted as committed militants.
This is in the sense that their militancy shows their highly passionate commitment to their doctrines and religion (Heywood, 2003). Often time fundamentalism is quite heavily politicized and it has the strong tendency to adopt some of the characteristics shown throughout the range of totalitarian ideologies. One of which is the expansionist and highly aggressive attitude towards non-believers. It is in their belief that those standing in the way of the fundamentalist society must either be converted or dispatched by any means (Freeden, 2003). A state founded on religious principles is, almost by definition, unencumbered by constraints that arise out of the public/private divide. However, the degree to which particular fundamentalisms have succumbed to this totalitarian impulse varies greatly’ (Heywood, 2003). It appears that religious fundamentalism is usually highly shadowed by tendencies toward totalitarian ideology. However, this is to be somewhat expected as most extremist groups have similar theories. It also seems that there is a side of the fundamentalist regimes that are edged with violence.
This also is another example of something which should be expected. Most fanatical associations do have an extreme violent side to them but still, it is important to not tar all fundamentalists with the same brush. Reference. Michael Freeden, Ideology: A Very Short Introduction, (New York: Oxford University Press inc., 2003). Ian Adams, Political Ideology Today, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993). Anthony Giddens, Sociology, (Cambridge: Polity, 2009). Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies: An introduction, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).