Not long ago, one of the networks was covering a Bush rally, and I remember seeing a female Bush supporter holding a sign that read, “Islam supports Kerry.” My first reaction to that sign was, “Yeah, so?” But, being familiar with the mindset of the Christian Right, it struck me that the line of reasoning that accompanies that sign is something to be addressed.
This woman’s unspoken proposition is: “All Muslims are fundamentalists and terrorists.” This proposition is, of course, patently false.
My goal here is not to discuss the finer points of what exactly fundamentalism is, only to posit that fundamentalism is not the sole property of Islamic terrorists. In fact, we Americans are more familiar with fundamentalism and terrorism than we might remember. And the terrorism of which I speak is a much more home-grown variety. For a technical definition of fundamentalism, and an excellent write-up on the subject, click here
I propose to you, dear reader, that the scourge of “fundamentalism” finds a voice in the Islamic tradition as well as in the Christian ‘Right.’ Granted, with the 9/11 attacks, we see fundamentalism expressed in violence to the ‘nth’ degree. But lets talk about fundamentalism expressed on a smaller, more easily recognizable scale. Some months ago, I read an article in the newspaper which detailed how, since the fall of the Hussein regime, Islamic fundamentalists were firebombing local Iraqi merchants out of business. These merchant’s crimes? Selling alcohol, the consumption of which is prohibited by the Islamic faith. Under Saddam Hussein’s non-religious government, alcohol was tolerated. But in the power vacuum created by the U.S.’s invasion, strict Islamic fundamentalists wish to try to ‘correct’ some of Saddam’s perceived lapses of faith and impose their own idea of Islamic Truth on the rest of society. Sound familiar?
The astute reader is saying by now, “Yes well, this may be fundamentalism expressed on a smaller scale. But you said you would show fundamentalism on a ‘smaller, more easily recognizable scale,’ and this isn’t very recognizable to me.”
Alright, consider the case of doctors who perform abortions that have been murdered by Christian fundamentalists. Click here for a link to CNN’s site for an article on Dr. Barnett Slepian’s murder in 1998. Click here for coverage of the 1998 bombing of a women’s clinic in Birmingham Alabama. The “Army of God” took responsibility for that one. One will remember from the coverage of these and other events that the Christian fundamentalist terrorists claim responsibility for their crimes in the same way the Islamic ones do. In fact, it seems to me that one could make the argument that we have a Christian ‘Taliban,’ right here in the United States. The only difference between the Christian version here and the Islamic one in Afghanistan is the one here isn’t in complete control of the government. For a discussion of the “Christian Taliban,” click here.
My point here is to illustrate, as I said above, that fundamentalism is not the sole domain of persons who are Muslim. As a result of that proposition, I further propose that acts of violence to further a religious agenda are not the sole property of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
This woman’s unspoken proposition is: “All Muslims are fundamentalists and terrorists.” This proposition is, of course, patently false.
My goal here is not to discuss the finer points of what exactly fundamentalism is, only to posit that fundamentalism is not the sole property of Islamic terrorists. In fact, we Americans are more familiar with fundamentalism and terrorism than we might remember. And the terrorism of which I speak is a much more home-grown variety. For a technical definition of fundamentalism, and an excellent write-up on the subject, click here
I propose to you, dear reader, that the scourge of “fundamentalism” finds a voice in the Islamic tradition as well as in the Christian ‘Right.’ Granted, with the 9/11 attacks, we see fundamentalism expressed in violence to the ‘nth’ degree. But lets talk about fundamentalism expressed on a smaller, more easily recognizable scale. Some months ago, I read an article in the newspaper which detailed how, since the fall of the Hussein regime, Islamic fundamentalists were firebombing local Iraqi merchants out of business. These merchant’s crimes? Selling alcohol, the consumption of which is prohibited by the Islamic faith. Under Saddam Hussein’s non-religious government, alcohol was tolerated. But in the power vacuum created by the U.S.’s invasion, strict Islamic fundamentalists wish to try to ‘correct’ some of Saddam’s perceived lapses of faith and impose their own idea of Islamic Truth on the rest of society. Sound familiar?
The astute reader is saying by now, “Yes well, this may be fundamentalism expressed on a smaller scale. But you said you would show fundamentalism on a ‘smaller, more easily recognizable scale,’ and this isn’t very recognizable to me.”
Alright, consider the case of doctors who perform abortions that have been murdered by Christian fundamentalists. Click here for a link to CNN’s site for an article on Dr. Barnett Slepian’s murder in 1998. Click here for coverage of the 1998 bombing of a women’s clinic in Birmingham Alabama. The “Army of God” took responsibility for that one. One will remember from the coverage of these and other events that the Christian fundamentalist terrorists claim responsibility for their crimes in the same way the Islamic ones do. In fact, it seems to me that one could make the argument that we have a Christian ‘Taliban,’ right here in the United States. The only difference between the Christian version here and the Islamic one in Afghanistan is the one here isn’t in complete control of the government. For a discussion of the “Christian Taliban,” click here.
My point here is to illustrate, as I said above, that fundamentalism is not the sole domain of persons who are Muslim. As a result of that proposition, I further propose that acts of violence to further a religious agenda are not the sole property of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
Comments