We put the "FUN" in fundamentalist dogma
I was reading an article in the Ottawa Citizen several weeks ago and I saw an interesting quote - well, interesting for me, anyhow - from an Ottawa imam (a Muslim cleric, for those who didn't know that):
"I want to practice the religion the same way the Prophet did."
So that got me pondering about the issue of fundamentalism. Figured I'd rant and rave about it on my blog :-) I have to say that, in principle, I'm completely opposed to fundamentalism in any form (be it religious or secular). Runs against my sense of open-mindedness and inclusivity. Also runs counter to my belief in pluralism - that all beliefs and value systems are equally valid or true, and that they can co-exist in peace and harmony. Fundamentalism is inherently exclusionary and divisive - it creates barriers instead of removing them. It stifles open dialogue and discussion instead of promoting it. It strikes me as a simplistic, facile and archaic way of looking at the world - a medieval remnant in the modern world. It refuses to acknowledge or accept the idea of evolutionary progress, a principle which I find valuable and necessary. It's an institution based upon the quality of being judgemental - hardly a positive trait, in my opinion. What's most dangerous about fundamentalism, though, is its propensity for creating bigotry, hatred and, ultimately, violence and bloodshed. Things like terrorism, the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, ethnic cleansing, and others certainly didn't arise from the notion of tolerance, now did they?
In the imam's case, I don't object to his desire to follow his faith as he chooses. My problem is that, by definition, he can't practice the religion as the Prophet did. Times have changed since the days of Muhammad; society is drastically different. Our collective world-view has changed. We don't live in the same "world" as Muhammad or Jesus or Moses anymore; how can we honestly practice the faith as they did, word for word? The "common denominators", if you will, are completely different. Technology (e.g. the printing press, the radio, the television, the Internet) has resulted in ever-increasing contact between those believe differently. This should periodically force us to re-evaluate our thinking and our doctrines accordingly. Our bubbles have been burst; true isolation becomes increasingly difficult and unsustainable. The Bible, the Qu'ran, the Talmud and other holy books were written for a specific time and place. Societal norms and values changed over time, though. Valuable though these texts are metaphorically and allegorically, we have to keep them in proper context and perspective. Thus, a literal reading and interpretation of their verses is absurd. Life isn't the same as it was two thousand years ago! Re-interpretation is crucial. Indeed, my fundamental point (pardon the pun!) is that fundamentalists ignore or don't recognize the need for change, that change is a constant in human history. Change is natural and inevitable; it should be embraced (to an extent), not feared. Fundamentalists, however, always strive to "turn back the clock". The problem, though, is that the clock can't be turned back. History can't be unmade or undone, technology can't be uninvented. As difficult as it can be sometimes, change is necessary for our survival. We ignore this fact at our own peril...
That being said, a paradox ironically presents itself. As my profile states, I consider myself to be a relativist in general terms. In keeping with that (as well as with my sense of pluralism), I must therefore accept that fundamentalist belief systems are equally valid with respect to my own, more liberalized perspective - that fundamentalism has an intrinsic right to exist alongside others. I may personally think it's wrong and misguided, but I have to acknowledge its overall legitimacy in the social framework and tolerate it accordingly. If I start thinking that fundamentalists are inferior and must be excluded, then I risk becoming the very thing I abhor! Basically, for me it comes down to that famous quote by some philosopher (I keep thinking Voltaire, but I know it's not him...): "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
To do otherwise would be a complete betrayal of my ideals and principles. Contradictory, perhaps, but hey...that's life these days, my friends!
"I want to practice the religion the same way the Prophet did."
So that got me pondering about the issue of fundamentalism. Figured I'd rant and rave about it on my blog :-) I have to say that, in principle, I'm completely opposed to fundamentalism in any form (be it religious or secular). Runs against my sense of open-mindedness and inclusivity. Also runs counter to my belief in pluralism - that all beliefs and value systems are equally valid or true, and that they can co-exist in peace and harmony. Fundamentalism is inherently exclusionary and divisive - it creates barriers instead of removing them. It stifles open dialogue and discussion instead of promoting it. It strikes me as a simplistic, facile and archaic way of looking at the world - a medieval remnant in the modern world. It refuses to acknowledge or accept the idea of evolutionary progress, a principle which I find valuable and necessary. It's an institution based upon the quality of being judgemental - hardly a positive trait, in my opinion. What's most dangerous about fundamentalism, though, is its propensity for creating bigotry, hatred and, ultimately, violence and bloodshed. Things like terrorism, the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, ethnic cleansing, and others certainly didn't arise from the notion of tolerance, now did they?
In the imam's case, I don't object to his desire to follow his faith as he chooses. My problem is that, by definition, he can't practice the religion as the Prophet did. Times have changed since the days of Muhammad; society is drastically different. Our collective world-view has changed. We don't live in the same "world" as Muhammad or Jesus or Moses anymore; how can we honestly practice the faith as they did, word for word? The "common denominators", if you will, are completely different. Technology (e.g. the printing press, the radio, the television, the Internet) has resulted in ever-increasing contact between those believe differently. This should periodically force us to re-evaluate our thinking and our doctrines accordingly. Our bubbles have been burst; true isolation becomes increasingly difficult and unsustainable. The Bible, the Qu'ran, the Talmud and other holy books were written for a specific time and place. Societal norms and values changed over time, though. Valuable though these texts are metaphorically and allegorically, we have to keep them in proper context and perspective. Thus, a literal reading and interpretation of their verses is absurd. Life isn't the same as it was two thousand years ago! Re-interpretation is crucial. Indeed, my fundamental point (pardon the pun!) is that fundamentalists ignore or don't recognize the need for change, that change is a constant in human history. Change is natural and inevitable; it should be embraced (to an extent), not feared. Fundamentalists, however, always strive to "turn back the clock". The problem, though, is that the clock can't be turned back. History can't be unmade or undone, technology can't be uninvented. As difficult as it can be sometimes, change is necessary for our survival. We ignore this fact at our own peril...
That being said, a paradox ironically presents itself. As my profile states, I consider myself to be a relativist in general terms. In keeping with that (as well as with my sense of pluralism), I must therefore accept that fundamentalist belief systems are equally valid with respect to my own, more liberalized perspective - that fundamentalism has an intrinsic right to exist alongside others. I may personally think it's wrong and misguided, but I have to acknowledge its overall legitimacy in the social framework and tolerate it accordingly. If I start thinking that fundamentalists are inferior and must be excluded, then I risk becoming the very thing I abhor! Basically, for me it comes down to that famous quote by some philosopher (I keep thinking Voltaire, but I know it's not him...): "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
To do otherwise would be a complete betrayal of my ideals and principles. Contradictory, perhaps, but hey...that's life these days, my friends!
posted by Blake @ 4:05 p.m.
10 Comments
