Time to Move On: Religion Has Cost Too MuchThe Causes of Fundamentalism, Intolerance and Extremism in World Religions, and Some SolutionsReligion, Violence, Crime and Mass SuicideMorals With or Without ReligionChristian Moral Theory and Morality in Action: Biblical Morals and Social DisasterGrowing Fundamentalism in Islam: How Moderates are Subjugated by Muslim Hardliners
This page is about the psychological, societal and religious sources of violent religious extremism, fundamentalism and terrorism. Religious freedom and tolerance is most commonly upheld by secular democracies, minority religions, paganism, new age spiritualism and many new religious movements, and by the non-religious. The horrific spectre of oppression and violent coercion have resulted mostly from Abrahamic monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity (mostly in the past) and Islam (particularly prone to it at present1), and to a lesser extent from other traditional religions such as Hinduism, especially as a result of battles against multiculturalism. The declining strength of religion in the face of secularisation means there are fewer middle-ground religionists to rein in extremists. Fundamentalist branches of religion across various religions tend to share certain traits and features2, in particular scriptural literalism and active resistance against multiculturalism.
In the context of monotheism fundamentalism is the type of religious behaviour that takes a central religious text and places in such a holy, sacred place that it becomes considered infallible and from God rather than from man - in Islam, Muhammad didn't write the Qur'an, he merely recited the copy of it that Allah created in Heaven. Fundamentalists take the tenets of their religion so seriously that Earthly evidence will not dissuade them from their religious views, and morality itself pales in comparison to what they think God's will is. Fundamentalism is often seen as violent, intolerant, stubbornly backwards, sometimes inhuman, godly and sectarian. It often involves an obsession with controlling female sexuality3. These traits arise because the 'fundamentals' of a religion are held to be those morals, behaviours and beliefs held by the earliest followers, hence, fundamentalist ideas tend to clash with modern society and modern morality.
Earlier in the 1970s 'fundamentalist' referred only to those groups that also engaged in political or militant behaviour. Before that in 1920, Curtis Lee Laws 'coined the term in 1920' to create distance from the negative connotations of the word 'conservative', but since then fundamentalism soon became a very extreme form of conservatism. Talk of a return to the 'fundamentals' of religion had been around for some preceding decades, although of course throughout all time, there have been groups and peoples who have been fundamentalist in the modern use of the world.4
Terrorism and fundamentalism are not synonymous. There are many fundamentalist groups that are completely free from any hints of terrorism; for example Amish Christians. And there are many acts of terrorism that are more likely sourced from insanity than personal religiosity. Often, a group's religious identity is not truly the main impetus behind acts of illegal violence. So be warned not to confuse all religious violence with terrorism.
“Similar tensions between ideological purists [... and] realists [...] in all political and cultural movements. [...] Virtually every movement, from animal rights to feminism, will embrace a spectrum ranging from uncompromising radicalism or extremism, to pragmatic accommodationism.”
Full page on this topic: "Why Question Beliefs? Dangers of Placing Ideas Beyond Doubt, and Advantages of Freethought" by Vexen Crabtree (2009)
There is a constant need for us to question our own beliefs, and the beliefs of those around us. It creates a healthy atmosphere of skepticism and intelligence, and prevents people from coming to unreasonable conclusions. The way our brains work mean that we frequently misinterpret events and data, and in particular, we always think there is more rationality and evidence for our beliefs than there is. This all matters because when beliefs become unquestioned, a community can become increasingly divorced from reality. This is especially true when individual leaders or belief-based authorities claim to be acting in accord with a divine principle, such as God's will. When it comes to disputes, religionists can come to deny any chance of compromise. In the adult world of democratic politics, compromise in disputes is what keeps things from breaking down: you give a little in one area, but have to give up in another. However arguments based on differences in religion or belief often contain parties that believe the issue has universal, absolute and cosmic significance. They will not compromise on their position. Malise Ruthven in his book on fundamentalism warns that this is particularly dangerous7. It is how religious cults are formed. In extreme cases this leads to complete social rejection and the possibility of suicide cults, as has been seen many times in history for example with Charles Manson's followers and the 900 who died when the People's Temple suicided. These groups always start out with borderline, but common, beliefs and slowly become more delusional over time. In all cases followers lacked an instinct to ask questions about the beliefs. It is religion that gains most when people cease asking deep questions about beliefs, and it is truth that suffers most. Thomas Paine famously remarked that "it is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry"8. In the name of truth and common sense, do not let even trivial-seeming beliefs take hold without double-checking them, because once beliefs are trivialised, a slippery slope can take you down into madness!
Full page on apostasy: "Apostasy: Thought Crime in Christianity and Islam" by Vexen Crabtree (2013).
Take the very concept of apostasy, for example, which is an idea entertained only by those who have rejected any honest approach to truth, and compare it to the secular concept of freedom of belief. Apostasy is the act of leaving a religion. It is deconversion. Normally it involves taking up another religion, sometimes it involves the taking up of a stance skeptical of all religions. If deconversion is the result of no longer believing that gods exist, then, the result is atheism. "Heresy" is the holding of beliefs that central religious authorities (or mobs) deem to be unacceptable. Religions often engage in a lot of internal suppression in these matters, subjecting their own followers to careful scrutiny to make sure that they are not merely believers, but, that they believe precisely the correct things. Dominant monotheistic religions often consider heresy to be the same as apostasy because they reject the concept of diversity or freedom of thought. They have often made deconversion and heresy punishable by death, especially in historical Christianity and in present-day Islam.
In the modern world freedom of religion and belief is a basic human right. It is essential that in order to govern well, you cannot discriminate against non-sanctioned religions, even if the majority of the population don't like the beliefs of the minority religions. Anything else is undemocratic. It is only religion and totalitarian states that even have the concept of heresy; in all other disciplines, a variance of belief is seen as good and healthy because it fosters debate, truth-seeking and diversity. The concept of thought crime can have no basis in moral law, so, traditional religions are often in conflict with modernity, human rights, moral goodness, democracy and liberty.
From cave walls to carvings and stone constructions, from trinkets and hieroglyphs to writing on paper, and now in massively databases and linked hypertext documents online, the usefulness of the written word has pushed Human development onwards. Its practical utility in industry and technology speeds up change, however, the written word has a tendency to slow down cultural change. Once something is codified in writing, it becomes "set in stone": the longer it persists, and the more people who read it out, the more it defines cultural truths. The more often it is written down, the harder it is to challenge. From this point of view, literalism and fundamentalism are clearly linked.
Superstition, religion and belief may have been the first things we as a species attempted to put on to displayable records. Or a very close second, after stories of hunting and practical life. The general trend is that religious texts have become more solid and interpreted more literally as time goes on. All religions have experienced, over time, increased literalism and legalism, even Buddhism and Hinduism. But it is Christianity and Islam that have taken to literalism most whole heartedly.
As we know from the Reformation, the ability to read and write allowed the believing masses to come to better terms with the tenets of their religion. Text is (literally) black and white. Correct beliefs can be underlined and highlighted. Incorrect ones can be thrown out. There is something more compelling and demanding in the written word. As soon as people start writing down official statements and creeds, then, it is more possible to oust people if their statements differ from the group's official norm.
The very word "fundamentalism" was once wholly synonymous with "religious literalism" and is still used that way today by many9. Therefore it seems that increasing fundamentalism is a sign of increased literary competence; the cause isn't that more people are obnoxious, but simply that more people are able to get very precise with the beliefs of their religions. This precision, combined with modern individualism and other forces in society, can produce vitriolic and committed fundamentalists who have no lateral ties to society around them.
The solution is to avoid codifying beliefs that can't be questioned, and to actively seek new evidence, permit argumentation, and endorse a genuine and continual search for improvement in theory. Texts must be open to amendment as new evidence comes in. Such safe approaches to truth did of course become known by another name: science and the scientific method. As our understanding of the truths of the world improve over time, those traditionalists for whom the written word became set in stone, have become increasingly at odds with society at large especially as modern multiculturalism requires greater tolerance of others' beliefs and appearances.
Judaism arose from pre-history in a culture where tribal and village religion was spread by word of mouth and down the families, in an era that predated organised religion. This represents the least literalist form of religion possible and is a feature of nearly all ancient civilisations. But, as the power of the written word spread it came with related side-effects: centralisation and organisation of ideas, often because those who could devote themselves to learning to read and write were often the rich and powerful or those employed by them.
“The publication of the book of Deuteronomy was nothing less than a providence in the development of Hebrew religion. It was accompanied, of course, by incidental and perhaps inevitable evils. By its centralization of worship at the Jerusalem temple, it tended to rob life in other parts of the country of those religious interests and sanctions which had received their satisfaction from the local sanctuaries; and by its attempt to regulate by written statute the religious life of the people, it probably contributed indirectly to the decline of prophecy, and started Israel upon that fatal path by which she ultimately became "the people of the book."”
"Introduction to the Old Testament" by John Edgar McFadyen (1905)10
The trend towards textualism continued to spread with monotheism, almost becoming a defining feature. But literalism and centralisation led to fundamentalism and intolerance of diverse beliefs, as religious purists can use the texts to justify and expound very narrow definitions of what is acceptable.
The literature of Jewish Christianity was often of a highly symbolic kind, with much wordplay and hidden meanings to be found in texts. Gnosticism and Roman Mystery religions, and then Gnostic Christianity, used an intensely non-literal and symbolic form of writing. Text was two-tier. The outer religion was the kind seen by the populace. It was a simple story, a myth, often a rewriting of existing myths in to a more modern form or using updated characters. The inner religion was revealed to initiates. They were told the true meaning of the story and what each character, event, word and object in it represents and means. The illusion of the story of a literal event was revealed to be meaningless and ahistorical. Gnostic Christianity, closer to these, was suppressed by the fledgling roman Christian church, and the oppressor was naturally more literalistic and legalistic. Pauline Christianity - the type that prevailed - accepts Christian texts purely on the basis of the outer religion, the outer meaning: the literal text.
With the Council of Nicea, and onwards, an authoritive collection of texts was compiled (canonized), and as was already customary, competing texts were burnt, suppressed, and heretics who stood by them were killed and vanquished. This is a continuation of the process of literalisation -- a final complete authorized version is inherently a more legalistic formation than a loose and open canon. From the 4th century, the literalist written word in Christianity grew to be utterly dominant and had paved the way for fundamentalists ever since.
I've already written of the deleterious effects of such literalism on science and knowledge:
The stubborn stance against science and real-world knowledge in Christianity stems from the very founders of that religion. Take Tertullian, one of the great and powerful Christian speakers of very early Christianity, who in 200CE was defending Christianity against its critics. 'Before he closes his defense, Tertullian renews an assertion which, carried into practice, as it subsequently was, affected the intellectual development of all Europe. He declares that the Holy Scriptures are a treasure from which all the true wisdom in the world has been drawn; that every philosopher and every poet is indebted to them. He labors to show that they are the standard and measure of all truth, and that whatever is inconsistent with them must necessarily be false'12. And what a terrible legacy became of that mode of thought: it is only true if it says so in the Bible. The hallmark of ignorant, dangerous barbarianism and fundamentalism.
Thankfully for the study of truth, the process of secularisation has diminished the strength of religion across the West, and since the Enlightenment, when religious institutions started to lose control of public life, education continues to act as an anti-religion force in the world: the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to be religious. Education is the key to leading successful, happy and above all, a meaningful life devoid of nonsense. The future looks bright for many. Although Europe excels (in a patchy way) in all-faiths education where religions cannot stamp their particular dogmas over science education, this is not the case in much of the rest of the world, so there is much work yet to do in combatting anti-science religiosity.”
In Islam, the formation of the Qur'an followed a similar path. Muhammad instructed his followers not to write down his teachings, but to pass them on. However it became necessary to write them down because during war, many of the caliphs who had memorized the suras were killed, and people feared that the Koran would be lost for good, so it was written down. Previously leaders kept their own collections according to their own will, hence the religion was less legalistic as a whole, but after time official collections of Suras came to dominate all others. In brief, Islam rapidly became literalistic, and once there it seems the way back is permanently blocked. Those official words became unarguable doctrine, debatable only under pain of death. In Christianity fundamentalist literalism is extreme. In Islam, it is the norm almost everywhere13.
The Muslim world has never (apparently!) produced any critical analysis of the texts of the Qur'an and the Hadiths, in the manner of serious academic investigation to its sources and generation - what is called "Higher Criticism". There is lots of Arabic commentary on the sources, oral transmission, and respectability of individual verses and hadiths and this is invaluable, but, all of them are from the point of view that the canon is holy. Their starting point is literalist and accepting, rather than neutral. Because of their conclusions, all of the scholars that we know about who ventured forth with impartial analysis have been shunned, punished, silenced and even when they have fled their countries of origin, have found themselves harassed even in Western countries. It sometimes feels as if Western scholars are going to have to do the entire historical analysis themselves, but relying on the most fragmentary historical data (as most of the evidence is lost).
“Higher Critical scholarship of the Koran, using methodologies adapted from biblical criticism, is still largely confined to scholars working in Western universities. So sensitive is this area for Muslims that `Ibn Warraq´, a Muslim-born writer trained in Arabic who accepts the findings of radical Western scholarship, has felt it necessary to publish his work under a pseudonym. [...] The Egyptian academic Nasr Abu Zaid, who ventured to use modern literary critical methodology in his approach to the Koran, was forced into exile. Higher criticism of the Koran, where the text is deconstructed in accordance with methods developed by biblical scholars since the 18th century, is still very largely confined to scholars who are not Muslims. Examples include the work of John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, and Gerald Hawting, Western scholars of Islam who do not accept the traditional view of its origins as related in the earliest texts.”
Luther, Calvin and the Reformation in general, which saw the rise of Protestantism as a reaction against the widespread abuse of power by the Catholic Church, allowed Christians to go back in search of their moral roots. However the result was not a strengthened body of Christianity. Local languages came to be spoken in sermons rather than the Latin that the churchgoers did not understand. Bibles were produced and consumed in English and in common languages. People could read the scriptures for themselves! It was a disaster for the centralized church.
“The legacy of the religious innovations of Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers strengthened and hastened a variety of social changes which we can understand under the general heading of individualism and which we can see in changes to styles of worship and religious music. [...] Power shifted from religious professionals to the laity ... because it removed the institution of the Church as a source of authority between God and man. [...] ”
"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]15
New problems arose. People could now disagree strongly, and both argue from scripture that their side was correct. Literalism was made possible. Beliefs became debatable. Steve Bruce shows us that now, in the Western history of Christianity, "Believing in the right things came to be more important than making the right ritual actions"15.
The de-centralisation of the Reformation allowed fundamentalism. The emphasis of evangelical groups on local church autonomy and individual correct belief was not possible while central officers asserted what was right and wrong. An explosion of schismatic fundamentalist groups arose, frequently fracturing into yet more groups, over variant interpretations of scripture.
In today's complicated and globalized world, migration and multiculturalism have become the norm. Religion has become a private affair because there is no shared, public religion. Individuals find themselves presented with many foreign religions and cultures, and in these circumstances one's own religion can find itself at the forefront of one's own self-definition even though previously it was a minor technicality. In the sociological analysis of why the USA has such high rates of strict religion for a developed country, this concept became known as "cultural transition and defence", as formulated by Steve Bruce16, explaining how defensiveness can bolster religiosity.
The coming-together of different religions results in much less certainty in religious ideas. It is especially hard for laypeople to explain the things they supposedly believe in. Because of these challenges, belief has massively declined but those who still remain firm are more committed than ever to their religious identities - often irrationally so. The central majority of a religion often works to reign-in extremists, through social pressure. As the central mass of believers dwindle in numbers, the growth of fundamentalist and extremist factions continues unchecked.
“The very fact of being challenged means that those who do choose to believe will often do so with an intensity and enthusiasm which would have surprised those of early periods who simply took their faith for granted. As we see in the efforts of the Methodists or the Scottish Free Church evangelicals, the challenge to evangelize can inspire a powerful movement, but what is gained in individual intensity is lost in background affirmation. Becoming religious is attended by more dramatic behaviour consequences, but fewer people do it. There are now more zealots but fewer believers.”
"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]17
A conference on violent extremism in Dublin was attended by around 60 former violent extremists including ex jihadists, ex neo-Nazis and ex gang members, as reported by The Economist (2011). They had a surprising amount in common no matter how much their former ideologies differed. They talked of abuse suffered as children, "absent fathers, households plagued by alcoholism, lonely teenage years and their frustrated desire to belong" and struggles with cultural and religious identity amidst migrating families.19. In the modern globalized world, people migrate and move faster than communal ties solidify. Therefore, the pace and some of the negative effects of globalisation can produce disaffected individuals with fewer reasons to behave well towards others around them.
The God of the Abrahamic religions, so far as it is concerned in The Bible, The Koran, and in history, hates opposing Gods. The Israelites are described as being commanded by God, time and time again, to wage war against and kill nonbelieving pagans because they dare to worship icons, fake gods, and any number of things that are not-Jehovah. Worshipping wrongly is one of the traditional Ten Commandments, and is consistently one of the most punished crimes in the holy texts of Jews, Christians and Muslims. The emphasis on correctness of individual belief and individual salvation has led monotheism down an intolerant and often violent path in history. It all made the new monotheism sectarian, schismatic and aggressive; social and moral laws were deemed inferior to the new emphasis on textual fundamentalism. It heralded a new type of religion, fundamentally hostile to all other religions.20
“One remarks a singular contrast between the sacred books of the Hebrews, and those of the Indians. The Indian books announce only peace and gentleness; they forbid the killing of animals: the Hebrew books speak only of killing, of the massacre of men and beasts; everything is slaughtered in the name of the Lord; it is quite another order of things.”
"Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary"
Sigmund Freud's book Moses and Monotheism drew the same conclusions: the teachings of Moses are contrary to the peaceful co-existence of religions. "More recently, Bernard Lewis and Mark Cohen have argued that the modern understanding of tolerance, involving concepts of national identity and equal citizenship for persons of different religions, was not considered a value by pre-modern Muslims or Christians, due to the implications of monotheism. The historian G.R. Elton explains that in pre-modern times, monotheists viewed such toleration as a sign of weakness or even wickedness towards God"22. This irrational play-fighting with imaginary friends would be humorous and ridiculous, if it were not for the serious and deadly consequences it has had in history.
The polytheist pagans were naturally tolerant of others' gods, and not so sanctimonious as to consider others' gods 'wrong' or delusional. People worshipped as was appropriate for them in a certain locale or situation and not according to universal doctrines of declared truth.
“To the extent that the [Christian] religion has insisted over the centuries that its way is the only true way and/or that its myths are literally true, it has developed a militancy and a tendency toward fundamentalism.”
"Jealous Gods & Chosen People: The Mythology of the Middle East" by David Leeming (2004)23
In some ways, this matter of being "right" was a concern unique to Christianity. The Roman Empire was populated with religions of all kinds: family religions, local religions, city religions, state religions. Virtually everyone in this mind-boggling complexity, except the Jews, worshipped numerous gods in numerous ways. So far as we can tell, this was almost never recognized as a problem. No one, that is, thought it was contradictory, or even problematic, to worship Jupiter and Venus and Mars and others of the "great" gods, along with local gods of your city and the lesser divine beings who looked over your crops, your daily affairs, your wife in childbirth, your daughter in sickness, and your son in his love life. Multiplicity bred respect and, for the most part, plurality bred tolerance. No one had the sense that if they were right to worship their gods by the means appropriate to them, you were therefore wrong to worship your gods. [...] But then came Christianity.”
“Typically, fundamentalists aim to cleanse 'false believers' from their midst, or to separate themselves from them. This is why fundamentalism sometimes leads to violence and usually leads to schism.”
Harriet A. Harris (2004)4
Do not think that religious tolerance in the classical era was at all liberal, compared to today's secular examples. The Roman Empire surely terrorized various religious minorities but it did for the most part permit all the others to exist peacefully. But after the rise of Pauline Christianity intolerance and oppression cast a shadow upon all other religions. Merely believing the wrong things on even obscure points of theology could result in torture and bookburning, and street battles between rival Christians.
“The emperor [Constantine] made it plain that he considered the escalation of doctrinal conflict among high-ranking Christians not only disruptive of Church unity, but disreputable and almost certainly unnecessary. Christ's enemies rejoiced at this disorder. Pagans openly taunted Christians about their internal battles. [...]
When he convened the Great Council of Nicaea, Constantine could not have imagined that the bishops would be meeting almost every year to rule on charges of criminal activity and heresy.”
"When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome" by Richard E. Rubenstein (1999)25
After witnessing the violent street battles and mob warfare between Christians of various flavours, a new Emperor, Julian, who succeeded the Arian Christian Constantine, wanted to restore the Roman Empire to paganism. He enjoyed initial support from the Empire, despite it having been mostly converted so far to Christianity.
“No doubt, the initial enthusiasm for Julian among some of the common people reflected their distaste for the scandalous disunity of the Church. Christianity had conspicuously failed to bring the empire together or to secure it from enemy attack. As the contemporary historian Ammianus said, "no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most Christians in their deadly hatred of one another."”
"When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome"
Richard E. Rubenstein (1999)26
Diocletian was sole Roman Emperor from 284-302. During the rise of Christianity amongst the populace, he witnessed the increasingly uncivil behaviour of converted Christians. He asked why Jesus' followers could not simply live and let live.
“Diocletian could not fathom why the belief in one God should separate the followers of Jesus from other Romans. [...] To question the existence of other gods, worse yet, to brand them demonic spirits, was rude and divisive. A Roman who worshipped the Olympian gods would never call a devotee a Serapis or Isis an atheist or demon worshipper. [...] Why insult one's neighbours by denigrating their deities? [...] The Christians' attitude seemed fanatical, like that of the Jews.”
"When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome"
Richard E. Rubenstein (1999)27
The emergent Christian orthodoxy grew up to become responsible for wiping out many thousands of "heretics", such as the Ebionites and Arians, for not believing the right things about the physical fathership of Jesus, the gnostics, the Marcionites who didn't believe in the Hebrew scriptures, the Waldenses, the Cathars, the Jews and many other unfortunate victims who fell foul of the Mosaic creed of "no other god before Jehovah".
Yet Christianity started out tolerant and peaceful: the first Christians, the gnostics and ebionites, accepted respectively that their religion was one interpretation of the truth amongst many, or that it was a devout, personal path and not something that could be enforced on to others. Centuries later, though, the Nicene Christians arose and murdered their more peaceful predecessors, burning their books and preparing Christianity to embrace the Dark Ages like no other religion could have, or would have.
The Old Testament was rife with occasions when God not only sanctioned the murder, pillage and rape of the enemies of his chosen people, but, often God itself joined in, directly smiting people itself. Jeremiah 48:10 declares: "A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!". It reminds me of Exodus 15:3: "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name".
It is clear that violence has a divine Biblical endorsement. But for what ends? Luke 14:23 says "Compel people to come in!" for the purpose of "filling" the Church. Jesus himself declared "think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). And henceforth, Christian history contains many unfortunate chapters where Christian groups anathematized one another as heretics, and proceeded to burn, torture and murder those who disagreed. Victims have been anyone who disagreed even on confusing technical points of Christian doctrine, members of other religions such as Muslims and Jews, and it seems, many other innocent victims ranging from outcasts who were accused of witchcraft ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - Exodus 22:18), homosexuals and finally, a small number who have genuinely plotted against the Church.
“The death sentence is a necessary and efficacious means for the Church to attain its end when rebels act against it and disturbers of the ecclesiastical unity, especially obstinate heretics and heresiarchs, cannot be restrained by any other penalty. [...] If there be no other remedy for saving its people it can and must put these wicked men to death.”
Pope Leo XII28
The section above is taken from "Is the Christian God Evil? Evidence from Scripture and Nature: 3. Genocides and Divine Incitements to Murder" by Vexen Crabtree (2006), click for a more comprehensive look at the many genocides committed by God, or ordered by God, in the Christian Bible.
Aside from directly endorsing violence and strife, the Bible speaks volumes about the dangers of tolerating other religions. Tolerance and even friendship are sometimes discouraged and sometimes condemned. In the Bible, to be godly you have to be intolerant and shun those who had wrong beliefs.
12Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee; 13But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: 14For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, who is a jealous God. 15Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.
5But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6For thou art a holy people.
Exodus 34:12-15 graphically warns Jews and Christians not to get ensnared by those who believe differently, commanding that foreign altars and images are destroyed, and is repeated in Deuteronomy 7:1-2, 5-6. Making agreements with others will lead to "whoring" after their gods. With terrors like this awaiting true believers, it is no wonder that Abrahamic religions have found themselves centers of sectarian strife and intolerant violence towards others. It is not just foreigners who are subject to this violence. Deuteronomy 13:6-9 says that if your relatives or friends try to get you to worship other gods, firstly you must not give in to them, and secondly, you must kill them. That's right - kill your relatives if they try to draw you away from your religion, "without pity".
So, there are also milder elements of intolerance found in the Hebrew Scriptures / Old Testament. If there was any doubt, believers are certainly not to marry non-believers (Deuteronomy 7:3) as even the greatest men will be turned away from God by non-believing women (1 Kings 11:1-4). And Deuteronomy 28:9 says not to even learn about other religions or peoples. Insolar ignorance was the order of the day and fundamentalist Christians have long since been found withdrawing their children from religious studies classes.
This horrible xenophobia is not confined to the Hebrew Scriptures; the New Testament continues the theme. Matthew 10:34-37 and Luke 12:51-53 repeat the theme that Jesus says "I am not come to send peace, but a sword" and comes to divide families and set them against each other. In the First Epistle of John warns that having wrong beliefs made you worthless before God, and disposable as a human being (1 John 5:1-5,10). 2 John says that if you don't have the right beliefs about the relationship between Jesus-as-god and Jesus-as-man then you are godless (2 John 1:7-9), and Christians can't greet you politely nor welcome you in to church or home (2 John 1:10-11). Just to greet people with wrong beliefs, says 2 John, is to be in league with evil! This has no doubt helped encourage the intolerant and fundamentalist streams in Christian history. The entire book of Jude is dedicated to preaching that those who have erroneous beliefs are ungodly and need to be rescued. All of these verses and many like them set the scene for such institutions as the Inquisition, torturing and burning those who had even the slightest variance of belief from what the Church wanted them to have.
See "Growing Fundamentalism in Islam: How Moderates are Subjugated by Muslim Hardliners" by Vexen Crabtree (2013) for the text on this topic. The menu:
Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs have better and more peaceful histories especially when it comes to religious tolerance. In a book on religion and globalisation, Prof. L. Kurtz writes:
Many Hindus argue that Hinduism is peaceful, "as a religion with countless gods and many sacred texts, it does not lend itself to extremism."
“Buddhist tolerance of other religions and its custom of private worship tended to promote a general lack of specific alliance with political elites. [...] One of the most interesting early developments in Buddhism was the conversion of the Indian Emperor Ashoka in the third century B.C.E.. After the conversion of the bloody conquest of most of South Asia, he became a Buddhist. Horrified at the consequences of the wars he had conducted, Ashoka became legendary for his support of Buddhist institutions, his efforts to lead a nonviolent life, and most of all for his "Golden Age" rule, which promoted religious tolerance and high ethical standards. Although not a strict pacifist, Ashoka was opposed to warfare and animal sacrifice and became a vegetarian.”
Ashoka taught multicultural and multi-religious tolerance, 2300 years ago, saying that it is better to support all religions rather than just to support your own. If you only support your own and try to harm other religions, you are "digging a grave" for your own too. This applies, he says, to those who think "I will glorify my own religion" but not others. This wise attitude could not be further from monotheism's "no other gods" doctrines.
The times when Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs have caused violence and terrorism in the name of the religions has generally come from times when they are repulsing multiculturalism (unfortunately placing beliefs ahead of morality). They haven't displayed the internal struggles and sect-based oppression that mainstream Christianity and Islam has.
Hindu "revivalism" in India has shown fundamentalist tendencies. In India an Islamic mosque called Babri Masjid (mosque of Babur) was built in the town of Ayodhya, in the 16th century. That town is also said to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, an incarnation of the great god Vishnu. In 1949, Hindu activists sneakily placed an image of Rama inside. Communal rioting between Hindus and Muslims resulted in deaths, and various compromises (including allowing Hindus to worship in the mosque once a year), all broke down. Hindu activists campaigned in 1989 to build a new Temple at the site which attracted support and donations from all over India, and in 1992 they forcefully destroyed the mosque. Riots erupted in various cities as Muslims protested. Thousands of Muslims lost their lives in a very one-sided series of mob fights. What was demonstrated wasn't just that one group of activists can be violent, but, that inter-religious struggles are almost automatic flashpoints of general upset and aggression across the country.32
In a similar vein of anti-multiculturalism (which also indicates general intolerance of those with alien beliefs), Sikh violence under the militant Bhindranwale, once saw hundreds of innocent Hindus killed, in attempts to assert Sikh identity in a Hindu nation33.
Fundamentalism is rising to power within otherwise moderate or liberal Christian communities. It has been happening since the very beginnings of second century Christian literalism. Many Christian groups do oppose this growing fundamentalism, but their resistance is too slow, too little and too polite... too liberal, too pacifist. If the Church of England, especially its upper management, was to oppose this fundamentalism, the Church would split and the liberals would be financially bankrupt. To guard against this eventuality, Western democracies governments should limit faith schools, and enforce the separation of Church and State so as the fundamentalists gain more power they are powerless to harm society in general.
This topic has been given more interest recently, three respectable books that touch on this are listed below. The voluminous book 'Social Trends in Britain since 1900' can be used to view the raw data that some of these books have also used:
"The Phenomenon Of Religion: A Thematic Approach" by Moojan Momen (1999) [Book Review] notes the rise of fundamentalism as part of universal trends throughout the history of religion. Extreme fundie groups are led by charismatic leaders, then gradually over time their fundamentalism decreases, and a new wave of more extreme groups rise.
"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review] notes the same trend in Christianity in the last century, noting that existing fundie groups have become more liberal, gradually, but that new more-extreme fundamentalist groups are the only growing part of Christianity.
"The C of E: The State It's In" by Monica Furlong (2000) [Book Review] makes the same notes on growing fundamentalist groups although the book is primarily concerned with the decline of the Church of England rather than the proportionally increasing sections within it.
Evangelical & fundamentalist groups within the Church of England include:
“A large number of studies agree that the growth of conservative Protestantism owes little to the recruitment of people who were previously atheists or even liberal Christians. The real difference lies in the retention of children. [...] A survey [...] showed that 72 percent of those who joined in a four-year period were moving from other evangelical churches. Only 28 percent were 'converts' and almost three-quarters of these were the children of evangelists. This suggests that the explanation for the different fate of the denominational and sectarian versions of Protestantism has more to do with the ability to retain children rather than attractiveness to outsiders.”
"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]34
Unless the liberals within religion perform a never-before-seen coup, these trends will continue in the West. The evangelicals and fundamentalists tend to be intensely organized and motivated, whereas the liberals and mainstream adherents are more laid back, living more peacefully. "One embittered liberal rector of a London parish said yesterday: 'The trouble is that the evangelicals are so much better organised than we are. We need to get our act together' "18.
Anglican Mainstream (despite the title, this is a fundamentalist group) and other evangelical groups are funded by rich American evangelical churches that are largely business orientated and middle-class populated. This more-worldly outlook is opposed to moderate Christianity which does not generally pursue business interests and sometimes actively shuns commercialism. Of course this has, unfortunately for the Anglicans, resulted in a history of financial mismanagement. Modern, growing, forms of Christianity have a much better grasp of financial kung-fu.
Sociologists and insiders writings on the Church of England, such as Monica Furlong and Rowan Williams himself, have commented that there is a possible fragmentation of the Anglican Church into Evangelical (and other) groups35. The remaining liberal core, what is traditionally considered to be the center of the C of E, will be bankrupted. It is only the evangelical branches that can financially hold their own. After a series of serious financial scandals ten years ago, after which it reformed its financial management and even lent some of this management to secular businessmen, the Church of England has not been financially comfortable. It is selling churches and property, reducing paraphernalia, and increasingly sharing its staff across multiple sites.35
“Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.”
"The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce (1967)
This section is about fundamentalists who consider their religious text of choice to be completely free of error, human invention or fantasy (i.e., inerrant). In particular I have in mind Christian fundamentalists who consider the Bible to be inerrant, and Muslims who consider the Koran to be inerrant. How do such people arrive at the decision that their text is infallible, and what logical problems does this incur? Do they take the text more or less seriously than liberals?
Fundamentalists largely hold that their scripture is the only authority we have as regards to the truth: It is an absolute truth. However, in order to select which text they consider inerrant there must first be non-scriptural basis for this selection. Before a person considers a text inerrant, they are in a position where their cultural and class position in the world dictate their knowledge of religious texts and their approach to them. These secular and coincidental factors determine whether a person comes to decide that a text is inerrant.
“Koran, n. A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures.”
"The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce (1967)
It is an illogical situation that once a fundamentalist has chosen a text, they then deny that they have no other source of authority: If there is no source of authority other than the text they've chosen, then their reason for selecting the text has become invalid. Beyond this point of self-contradiction it can be seen that the reasons are complex psychological ones.
Fundamentalists have been unable to arrive at a logical criterion for how a secular living person should select which text is true out of all the religious texts available in the world, all of which have adherents who claim their chosen books are inerrant.
Through Prophecy? All claim that correct prophecies validate their text, and all claim that all the other texts don't really have correct prophecies. It is impossible to investigate all such claims yourself, in one lifetime, so it appears that a logical intellectual choice based on prophecy is impossible. Or it is ignorant: A choice can't be made without ignorance until a person has actively investigated all claims of prophecy by all religious texts. Until the individual has done this, they're merely guessing which one can be judged, by criteria of its prophecies, to be "more" divine than other texts.
Sensible possibility: That God has inspired multiple correct prophecies in multiple religious texts or that magic operates as part of the natural laws of the universe, and supernatural prophecy making is possible whether or not God has a part in it. Of all the prophecies that have not come true (such as the thousands made about the end of the world, etc), you could very sensibly infer that any true prophecies are only true by coincidence and luck, not by supernatural means. In all cases, it can be seen that judging religious texts by their prophecies is a poor method.
Through Faith? Decisions by "faith" are determined in 99% of cases by cultural and societal factors, by psychology, and not by virtue of which text is true. Faith is a cultural and psychological phenomenon. Or, of course there is the chance that a God does actually support multiple (even contradictory) religions, and therefore that it doesn't really matter which one you pick.
Through Morals? It is circular logic to claim that a text is an absolute authority on morals, and then to claim that you can judge a text by the morals contained in it, before knowing which text is true. If you assume particular morals, then look at religious texts, you will end up selecting the text that most matches your own morals. If you select a text then claim that its morals are absolutely correct, you could have drawn exactly the same conclusion no matter which religious text you'd selected. The factors which determine which one you select in the first place are therefore purely cultural and psychological - not moral. We have no rational basis for claims of what morals God considers best. Selection by morals is a fundamentally flawed selection criteria, requiring either genuine stupidity, ignorance or doublethink.
By Popularity? If you judged by popularity you would conclude that at the moment the Christian text is 'absolute' and correct. But, in previous centuries, Roman paganism was absolute and correct, and before that, the animist worship of multiple simple spirits was the correct set of beliefs. It makes no sense that to say that now, at the moment, a particular religion is true merely because it is popular. Especially given that within a religion such as Christianity, there are many varied beliefs. To base claims on popularity is to undermine the idea that one particular religion has correct beliefs.
We have very little of the original texts of our major religions. We know that from very early on numerous mistranslations have been introduced [Ehrman (2003) p49.], such as the mistaken usage of the word "virgin" to describe the prophecy of Jesus' birth since the major Septuagint translation (which was the version used for nearly all modern Bibles until academics have discovered older (and some original) Biblical text).
Thankfully, one thing that fundamentalists do get right is their determined and enviable attempts to read scripture in its original language. Obviously this is much easier for Muslim Arabs who still speak the same language the Koran was written in. By learning and reading it in the original language, or in very early translations, we minimize the translation errors (and assumptions) that slowly crept into later version.
However, we only have portions of the original texts and mostly we do rely on translations. Also, we can only possibly read the text from within our own cultural framework. We read text literally, chronologically and philosophically, where both The Koran and much of The Bible was written in prose, in poetry, was not written literally but written with many symbolic aspects, word games, shifts in time and place and many cultural references that we cannot possibly understand now. All these add up to create fearsome troubles with translating these texts and understanding them across hundreds of years of cultural difference. The longer the time difference between when something was written and when it is read, the less of the original meaning is preserved.
This is a major problem with all divine text. When we read things, our brain takes in the text and interprets the information. Such interpretation is subjective. There is no "clear" meaning except what our brains give to what we take in through our sense. All people read different nuances and subtexts into text, and read the very text differently, according to their own experience of life and reality.
“Subjectivism describes the fact that we cannot know everything, or even know anything for sure. Because everyone's mind is wired different everyone experiences events differently. This is epistemology 101, as debated by the most ancient philosophers thousands of years ago36.
Our brain is an imperfect organic machine, not a mystical repository of truth. Our senses are imperfect, our point of view limited, and the reality we experience is never the total picture. Human thought is infused with systematic thinking errors. We can logically deduce that any given experience may be untrue, and any particular thought could be a mistake. The result is that our total take on reality is a mix of guesses and patchwork. No two people ever experience the same event or thing in the same way, because the complexities and depths of their errors and assumptions are different for every person: every event is experienced slightly differently. No-one has precisely the same point of view on any event.”
This subjectivism applies especially to written text. The longer ago something was written, the less the context is clear to us today, and this opens the way for much subjective opinion. The legal profession has much experience with determining the accurate meaning of texts, and one author warns us:
“Law is not merely an attempt to subject human conduct to the governance of rules; it is an attempt to guide the future through the use of rules. [...] It is an attempt through the use of language to devise rules. The problem which this presents is that language has an open-textured quality; language, we might say, has a limited grip over reality. There is an inherent vagueness in the ordinary use of language and, because of this, rules - even if we accept that they have a core of settled meaning - are often surrounded by a penumbra of uncertainty. [...] Words do not always have simple, literal meanings: they often acquire meaning within particular contexts.”
"Sword and Scales: An Examination of the Relationship Between Law and Politics" by Martin Loughlin (2000)37
Robert G Ingersol wrote of how the problem of subjectivism applies to Christianity:
“It is probably safe to say that not one-third of the inhabitants of this world ever heard of the Bible, and not one- tenth ever read it. It is also safe to say that no two persons who ever read it agreed as to its meaning, and it is not likely that even one person has ever understood it. Nothing is more needed at the present time than an inspired translator. Then we shall need an inspired commentator, and the translation and the commentary should be written in an inspired universal language, incapable of change, and then the whole world should be inspired to understand this language precisely the same. Until these things are accomplished, all written revelations from God will fill the world with contending sects, contradictory creeds and opinions.
All persons who know anything of constitutions and laws know how impossible it is to use words that will convey the same ideas to all. The best statesmen, the profoundest lawyers, differ as widely about the real meaning of treaties and statutes as do theologians about the Bible. When the differences of lawyers are left to courts, and the courts give written decisions, the lawyers will again differ as to the real meaning of the opinions. Probably no two lawyers in the United States understand our Constitution alike. To allow a few men to tell what the Constitution means, and to hang for treason all who refuse to accept the opinions of these few men, would accomplish in politics what most churches have asked for in religion.”
Combined with the problems of translation that we opened this text with, it is surprising that anyone thinks a god would attempt to communicate with us in any particular language, let alone ancient ones. If I was god, I would transmit my message directly into everyone's brain. That way problems with translation and subjectivism would be removed and people could make informed decisions and moral choices based on the full facts, rather than miscommunicated ideals.
There would be none of this "inspired" scripture, no culturally-bound religious founders, no revelation to random roaming mystics in the middle East, but instead it would impart such knowledge to everyone. This would end all translation problems, all transmission problems and be somewhat more instantaneous than the historically hap-hazard and slow spread of religious text. The conservatives are severely limiting God's power by saying that it itself is bound by a book of text, they are saying that God itself is short-sighted, inefficient and somewhat haphazard in its methods.
I regard "fantasy" as being less serious than reality. For example, wishful-thinking about a woman and her character is to take her less seriously as a person than to honestly look at the reality of the woman. To give her more respect and to take her more seriously you'd have to accept her as she is, plainly, and without personal fantasy corrupting your approach to her.
The conservatives do not take scripture seriously, nor give it as much respect, as liberals. They allow personal fantasies to distort its reality and therefore corrupt it with their own wishful thinking rather than approaching it realistically. They must, subconsciously and partially-consciously, know that their wishful thinking is overriding a realistic respect for scripture.
To respect scripture should be to view it realistically, as-it-is, and not as you want it to be. A persons' want for an authoritive text (so they don't have to make their own choices or justify their own beliefs) is not an honest or respectful bias to take to a religious text: Such an approach corrupts the text and produces a caricature and distortion of truth. To understand the cultural differences between its composition and your understanding, between the symbolism and poetry of the original and the context-removed dry atmosphere in which we place religious texts, is to be more aware of both the beauty and truth of the text.
The Roman Empire's early Christians equated textual literalism to be the modus operandi of the hylics, the least spiritual class of Christians. Fundamentalism is in opposition to early Christianity on a number of counts, including scriptural admonitions of legalism. St Paul's "the letter kills, while the spirit gives life" (2 Corin. 3:4-6) is the most famous verse against fundamentalism.
“The Gnostics called those who identified with their body 'Hylics', because they were so utterly dead to spiritual things that they were like unconscious matter, or hyle. Those who identified with their personality, or psyche, were known as 'Psychics'. Those who identified with their Spirit were known as 'Pneumatics', which means 'Spirituals'. Those who completely ceased to identify with any level of their separate identity [...] and realized their true identity [...] transformed the initiate into a true 'Gnostic', or 'Knower'”
In Islam, it is also the case that more those with deeper spiritual connections to their faith consider the literalist to have only understood the first 7 layers of interpretation (which were equivalent to understanding the Koran in seven local dialects, each with slightly different possible meanings for some words).
“Uberweb points out that, according to the mystic, every text of the Koran had 7 or 70 or 700 layers of interpretation, the literal meaning being only for the ignorant vulgar. [...] In the Muhammaden world, however, the ignorant seem to have objected to all learning that went beyond a [surface] knowledge of the Holy Book; it was dangerous, even if no specific heresy could be demonstrated. The view of the mystics, that the populace should take the Koran literally but wise people need not do so, was hardly likely to win wide popular acceptance.”
Christianity and Islam have mystical orders. Mainstream Christianity is quite mystical in its liberalism, whereas Sufi Islam is widely held to be the closest equivalent. In both, however, the fundamentalist literalists have a strong presence (overwhelmingly so in Islam). These simple masses, the vulgar and the hylic, surely represent the biggest threat to true religious understanding. To be a literalist is to destroy the majority of depth and emotion of any written religion. The only advantage of the fundamentalist attitude to scripture is that it caters for the simplistic minded.
“In an internet video in September 2007 Abu Yahya al-Libi, a prominent al-Qaeda leader, mockingly gave the West six tips to wage ideological warfare: highlight the views of jihadists who renounce violence; publicise stories about jihadist atrocities against Muslims; enlist Muslim religious leaders to denounce jihadists as heretics; back Islamic movements that emphasize politics over jihad; discredit and neutralize jihadist ideologues; and play up personal or doctrinal disputes among jihadists. These would indeed be good starting-points.”
The extremists who attended the Dublin meeting as mentioned earlier, who found they had a lot in common in terms of broken families and the negative effects of globalisation, stated that another factor of modernism helped bring them back from the brink. Access to discussions, variant interpretations and debates over doctrine on the Internet was a major help, and they asked experts to promote these kinds of websites. Freedom of speech online undermines culturally assumed certainties which can be bad for religions but can also help undermine the certainties of extremists. Hence we return to our question above when we point out that bringing back religious certainty also brings back other problems.19
Good governance has the potential to promote social cohesion and tolerance, and therefore limit the spread of religious fundamentalism. Good practices should include:
Joining groups such as the National Secular Society allow you to take a more active and useful interest in secular politics, and so does bringing to our attention various local events.
However nonsensical you may consider New Age beliefs to be in general, their approach to religious tolerance is commendable. It is naturally peaceful. It does, however, have a shortcoming. Some beliefs and practices are deluded and wrong, and unfortunately the let-be attitude of many modern spiritualists leaves many people with few tools to determine what is actually true. The New Age veers so far towards unconditional acceptance that it loses its critical faculties. A half-way point is ideal: you allow intellectual debate, but in practice you do not actively discriminate between religious groups. Luckily, this is the model held at the heart of secular methods of governance.
Governments cannot return to the barbarism of history by trying to enforce one religion at the expense of others. It results in bloodshed and suffering. Democratic governance rules over all people, no matter what their beliefs are. Freedom of conscience and belief are democratic values, and they entail the separation of church and state. This allows and ensures religious freedom, as long no religion tries to 'capture the flag' and discriminate against others. If freedom is valued, one religion cannot discriminate against others even if they are compelled to by their creed. This keeps the monotheists and extremists within the reach of the law, and is the firm structure that allows pluralism to work, granting the greatest amount of intellectual and religious freedom and denying rights only to those who would reduce the freedom of others.
Many powerful religions become oppressive, monstrous brutes. They annex schools and subvert national education to their own ends, they enforce strict moral codes in accordance with their beliefs, and sometimes even such as during the Christian Dark Ages, they violently and bloodily suppress dissent. During such times, minor religious groups have no choice but to argue for religious tolerance as a matter of self-survival. But even during less stressful centuries, it tends to be the tolerant small religions that become national celebrities whereas intolerant religions tend to whither away. Those who argue for religious freedom (whether they mean it or not) will become both popular and officially recognized, and all the new recruits will stand by the doctrine of toleration. So even if the original authorities really wanted religions to be considered equal, their followers will embrace such an idea. Therefore, the history of developing societies has been that growing religious movements are generally tolerant and existing institutionalized religions were normally oppressive. All of this occurs no matter if the underlying beliefs of the religion are open or closed to others' beliefs. This general trend can emerge even from exclusivist beliefs. The sociologist of religion Steve Bruce describes the example of the Secession and the Free Church:
“Despite having begun as firm believers in religious coercion, the Secession and the Free Church gradually came to argue for religious freedom, in defence first of their own rights, and then of the rights of dissenters generally; finally they came to see the value of the general principal of religious toleration. But the evolution was a slow and painful process, often scarred by the expulsion of those clergymen who promoted the cause of toleration ten years too early. [...]
There is no mystery about the circumstance which led to the reluctant acceptance of pluralism: their own failure to win over the majority of the Church of Scotland. Only when each wave of dissent realized that it could not succeed in taking over the instruments of state coercion did it begin to find the use of such instruments offensive.
Fission created a plurality of organizations and the divisions of the people of God meant that the price of enforcing conformity was too high for a modern democratic state. The consequence, quite undesired by most of those who brought it about, was religious toleration and the rise of the secular state.”
"Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults" by Steve Bruce (1996) [Book Review]43
So although some types of religion, such as polytheism, are naturally tolerant towards others' beliefs, and others such as Abrahamic monotheism (e.g. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are largely hostile to 'heathens', the existence of different beliefs side-by-side has had the effect of eventually convincing everyone responsible of the benefits of peaceful pluralism. Although many religionists wish no such thing as to have others' beliefs made equal to their own, their voices are only heard in the first place because of the very secular principal of equality. When a singular religion becomes entrenched, and encroaches upon the arenas of public education and politics, though, a very dangerous possibility emerges: That its leaders, comfortable in power, will decreasingly see the need for tolerance. Secular government needs to always be cautious of a possible new dark age.
Most forms of Paganism and the New Age are accepting, tolerant and respectful towards other's beliefs and practices. There is very little in the way of an impulse towards correcting others, telling them they're wrong and criticizing their beliefs. Even if two believers' theories about important aspects of their crafts are contradictory and impossibly conflicting, there is rarely much in the way of hatred, or even dislike, between them.
“Pagans believe that no one belief system is correct and that each person should have the freedom to come themselves to the path of their choice. [...] For all Pagans there is no place for either dogma or proselytising.”
Academic researchers have been pleased to note that although some of the these new religious movements emerged from within an anti-Christian milieu many groups simply never took up an aggressive stance, or, if they did, they mostly quickly moved on (within a few decades) to a neutral and tolerant stance. Pearson (2002) puts it like this: "Wiccans and Pagans have been, and are at present, involved in the development of interfaith meetings with members of other religions, and [...] no longer requires legitimization through false histories or hatred of the Christian Church"45.
It seems natural and ascendant that modern religions such as the various forms of Paganism and New Age-style belief systems should abandon strict claims about their exclusive access to truth. In a world where fundamentalism seems forever on the rise many new religious movements represent a better side of religion, free from powermongering and free from the urge to enforce its doctrines on people for their own good.
The text in this section is taken from "The Forms of Modern Paganism (Neopaganism)" by Vexen Crabtree (2014).
So here is a simple scale proceeding then from the religions and institutions that have represented the most tolerant and moral approaches to religious diversity, to those who have historically been oppressive, against human rights, genocidal and intolerant of people with diverse beliefs:
Secular ideas of tolerance and individual human rights assure the greatest amount of freedom of religion, and secular ideals such as separation of church and state ensure that no religion is given undue prominence, and is therefore the most democratic and peaceable approach to religious tolerance. Embodying these ideas are pseudo-religions like Humanism.
Atheist religions such as Buddhism and morality-based philosophies of the East have by far the best record as far as human rights and tolerance go. Scientific pantheism and other modern ethical movements have the same potential as the secular approach.
Monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity are the undisputed champions of historical evil, and their class of religion smashes the bloodiest and most barbaric records throughout history. Theirs is a history of wars, genocides, internal witch hunts, oppression, lack of freedom of thought and lack of freedom of religion. Large denominations of monotheistic religions have eradicated smaller denominations for simply believing the wrong things. No other class of religion compares with monotheism in its tendency for intolerant violence.
By Vexen Crabtree 2012 Nov 04
Second edition 2008 Jan 23
First published 2003 Oct 26
Last Updated: 2014 Apr 26
Parent page: Human Religions
The Economist. Published by The Economist Group, Ltd. A weekly newspaper in magazine format, famed for its accuracy, wide scope and intelligent content. See vexen.co.uk/references.html#Economist for some commentary on this source.
Skeptical Inquirer. Pro-science magazine published bimonthly by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, New York, USA.
The Bible (NIV). The NIV is the best translation for accuracy whilst maintaining readability. Multiple authors, a compendium of multiple previously published books. I prefer to take quotes from the NIV but where I quote the Bible en masse I must quote from the KJV because it is not copyrighted, whilst the NIV is. [Book Review]
Bierce, Ambrose. (1842-1914?)
(1967) The Devil's Dictionary. Published in Great Britain by Victor Gollancz. Published by Penguin Books in 1971, and quotes taken from a 2001 Penguin Classics reprint. Penguin Group, London, UK.
(1996) Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK [Book Review]
Draper, John William. (1811-1882)
(1881) History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. 8th edition published by D. Appleston and Co, New York. Digital version accessed via Amazon.co.uk.
(2003) Lost Christianities. Hardback. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
(1995) The Dark Side of Christian History. Published by Morningstar & Lark, Windermere, FL, USA.
Fenn, Richard K.
(2009) Key Thinkers in the Sociology of Religion. A look at what 11 sociologists of religion think of "the sacred". Be warned that Fenn's book contains one chapter on each sociologist of religion but that his own mystical and specific take on 'the sacrad' is heavily intermingled with his commentary - see the book review for a proper description. Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, London, UK. [Book Review]
Ingersol, Robert. G.
(1900) Complete Lectures of Col. R. G. Ingersol (1900). Kessinger Publishing, 1998.
Kurtz, Lester R.
(2007) Gods in the Global Village. 2nd edition. Published by Pine Forge Press, California, USA. Was previously Director of Religious Studies at Texas and holds a master's in Religion from Yale Divinity School and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Chicago. Kurtz is Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas, USA.
(2004, Ed.) Jealous Gods & Chosen People: The Mythology of the Middle East. Hardback. Published by Oxford University Press.
(2000) Sword and Scales: An Examination of the Relationship Between Law and Politics. Hart Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK. Prof. Loughlin is Professor of Law at the University of Manchester, UK, and Professor of Public Law-elect at the London School of Economics & Political Science, UK.
McFadyen, John Edgar. (1870-1933)
(1905) Introduction to the Old Testament. Amazon's Kindle digital edition.
(2004, Ed.) Encyclopedia of New Religions. Hardback. Published by Lion Publishing, Oxford, UK.
(2002, Ed.) Belief Beyond Boundaries: Wicca, Celtic Spirituality and the New Age. Published by Ashgate, Aldershot, UK and The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Rubenstein, Richard E.
(1999) When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome. First Harvest edition, 2000. Published by Harcourt, Inc. Orlando, USA.
Russell, Bertrand. (1872-1970)
(1946) History of Western Philosophy. Quotes from 2000 edition published by Routledge, London, UK.
(2007) Fundamentalism. First edition 2005. New edition now published as part of the “Very Short Introduction” series. Published by Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
(1764) Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. Digital edition produced by Juliet Sutherland, Lisa Riegel and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team. Accessed via Amazon.co.uk