More stuff on the muslim issue

[pale__fire]

http://www.slate.com/id/2135820/

Point is though, this is the fundamentalist viewpoint. The American Christian or Israeli Jewish fundamentalist viewpoint would likely be as rigid.

Comments

[sidur_mishpacha]

Sorry--you're making a critical error in assuming all fundamentalisms are alike. They are alike in some important ways--patriarchal structure, rigid thinking, etc.--but are not in their behaviors. The activist fundamentalisms act in the world to change it--Crusades, for example. Jewish fundamentalists, while troubling, are far more limited in scope than the Muslims. The Christians are midway--while they have a broad agenda, their methods are largely political (which can lead to military action, etc., but can also be fought in a "rational" manner--that is, the rules of modernity apply).
One thing that deeply troubles me about Western thinking is the idea that a fundamentalism is a fundamentalism. But numbers count--what percentage of a pop is fundy? The response of the overall group matters--how does a much larger non-fundy population treat/control the fundies? Method matters-how does the fundy group act in the world? By lobbying or by bombing? And scope matters--how much of the world does the fundy group intend to change?
If you can't answer these questions, you can't deal effectively with any given group.

Kinsey's response

[pale__fire]

http://www.slate.com/id/2135917/

This was a very good article on the subject of the cartoons, and makes some of the points I made previously.

I am skeptical about the fundamentalist behavior, and whether it can even be quantified as wholly religious. Most of the most severe casualties of fundamentalist mindset--and I think that in part depends on how you define fundamentalist mindset--would be from Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot. Not strictly religious, but wanting to define human behavior by rigid rules. I guess there is also an issue of charismatic or feared leader in these examples as well. How does that figure into relgious-based fundamentalism?

Regarding strictly religious fundamentalism, I think it's hard to definitively define how each group will behave. For the time being, rationality governs Christain fundamentalists. I could see that changning if there was some kind of radical political shift, or if the right person took office. Regarding Jews, I think they are too small a group to assess. Given the same population of fundy Jews in Israel (who really are different than fundies here) and put them in as oppressive a situation as the palestinians, and they might well react in a similar way.

I also wonder to what extent Bush might be considered an activist fundamentalist.

Re: Kinsey's response

[sidur_mishpacha]

Couldn't get a good look at the last posting on Mom and Dad's computer--I'll try again when I get home. As to the article above, yes, I do agree with it.
The term fundamentalist originated in the Protestant world, but has been commonly and appropriately applied to other religions and, yes, other ways of thinking, including the political. I'd have to think about the charismatic leader--there's a problem there which is that, in a religion or way or approaching the world (fundamentalist or not) you have to move from leader to system or the religion, etc. doesn't survive. So it's probably necessary, but also creates other problems.
As to the groups, yes, one my points above was that it is not the religion per se, but other factors that determine HOW the fundamentalism will manifest. Judaism had a very active "fundamentalist" branch during the Roman times--that's what the Zealots were, or the Sicarii. But the consequences of that group were so dire (destruction of Temple, expulsion from Palestine) that it radically changed the nature of Judaism, essentially closing that activist path for 2000 years. Doesn't mean it couldn't come back--but it hasn't and the sheer number problem suggests that it can't. (Note, I am not saying that the nature of Judaism means that kind of fundamentalism would never exist--it could, but I think other forces make it unlikely.) Islam and Christianity both have had quiescent and active periods of fundamentalism for different reasons. So, yes, historical, economic, political forces all affect the form of fundamentalism.
One other note: you say as oppressive a situation as the palestinians, and they might well react in a similar way. Again, what are the historical antecedents to that oppression? When I read the sentence, I hear "bad Israelis forced poor Palestinians into bad situation and created the mess." I hope what you mean is more nuanced than that--the situation the Palestinians are in was not created wholesale by the Israelis, nor is it maintained by the Israelis alone.
And I don't know about Bush himself--but whether he is an active fundy or not, there is ample evidence that he is advised and supported by active fundies. Absolutely and that is one of the more terrifying things about where our country is going.

Another interesting article

[pale__fire]

If true, this is really interesting as well. What does it say about how our own government operates?

http://www.weblog.ro/soj/2006-02-05/Muslim+Cartoon+Controversy:+What+the+Media+Isn't+Telling+You.html#66675