Fundamentalism is dangerous

According to a recent Barna research poll, only 13% of people under 36 believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. This is down substantially from previous years. Former President Bill Clinton may have summed up this view in a recent speech at Georgetown University. Speaking of the war on terror he said the following:

"This battle fundamentally is about what you think of the nature of truth...You're at a university, which basically believes that no one ever has the whole truth, ever, because you're human. It's part of being a human being. It's part of the limitation imposed on us by God. We are incapable of ever having the whole truth. They believe they got it. Because we don't believe you can have the whole truth, we think everybody counts and life is a journey. Hopefully we get wiser as we make this journey, and we learn from each other, and we think everybody ought to be entitled to make the journey. They believe that because they have the truth you either share their truths or you don't. If you're not a Muslim, you're an infidel. If you are and you don't agree with them, you're a heretic, and you're a legitimate target. Even a six-year old girl who went to work with her mother at the World Trade Center on September 11th."

Looking at the events of 9/11, one is tempted to say, simply, "He's right." Absolute truth, by this logic, is a dangerous idea. But is it? Let's consider the idea - and the former president's argument -- a little more closely.

One might assume, based on the former president's example, that religion is the crux of the problem, at least religion of the fundamentalist variety. After all, the 9/11 terrorists aren't claiming to have the whole truth about computers, stamp collecting or McDonald's special sauce. What they claim to have is the whole MORAL truth. And it is this claim that ultimately leads adherents to violence and intolerance.

However, a brief glance at history will demonstrate that belief in God is not a prerequisite for violence and intolerance. Consider the French revolution based on the Enlightenment ideal of pure reason. The result was a "reign of terror" in which 200,000 dissenters were arrested and tens of thousands guillotined. Similarly, the Bolsheviks who took over the Russian Empire in 1917 claimed to have the whole economic truth (Marxism). Their collectivization programs were eventually responsible for the starvation of 10 million people. Chairman Mao of China went even further. He not only changed the political and economic landscape, but attempted to do the same with the culture as well. You were either for him (and his little red book) or you wound up in a re-education camp or worse. Much the same could be said of Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, etc. World history is simply rife with examples of political claims to the "whole truth" that resulted in terror and bloodshed. Of course, this does not invalidate the former president's argument. On the contrary, it seems merely to broaden it beyond religion.

In our own country, the Declaration of Independence begins "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." The men who founded the United States were essentially claiming an absolute political truth, one which gave them the right to violently overthrow their king. Nevertheless, few would suggest that these American patriots were the same as the French Revolutionaries a mere twelve years later. Similarly, few would argue that what occurred in the USSR under Stalin (secret police, work camps for political dissidents) has ever or is ever likely to occur in the U.S. Why? Are we less committed to our political ideals? The evidence of one revolutionary and two World Wars would suggest otherwise.

Hopefully, the flaw in the former president's argument is plain. The significant difference is not the level of our commitment (implied today by the designation of fundamentalist), but what it is we are committed to. Absolute commitment to Marxism leads to one set of consequences, while absolute commitment to representative democracy leads to an entirely different set. In short, all governments are not equal.

What is true of governments is also true of religions. Danger lies not in the "absoluteness" of the claims of truth, but in the actual specifics of the claims. To prove the point, consider a few facts about the world's two largest religions. First, a few facts about Islam:

  1. Mohammed led dozens of military campaigns during his lifetime (around 600 AD).
  2. "Jihad" or struggle is one of the foundational tenets of the faith.

    3.
  3. Because of specific restrictions, women under Islamic law are second class citizens.

    4.
  4. The Koran divides the world into two camps the "abode of peace" ruled by Islam and the "abode of war" or unbelieving world.

    5.
  5. The Koran indicates that anyone who abandons Islam for another religion should be killed.

    6.
  6. For the Muslim, there is no separation between church and state. Islamic law is policy.
    7.

(Of course religious scholars may debate the proper interpretation of the Koran, but it is clear to anyone who reads the newspaper that millions of Muslims believe Allah approves of the killing of his enemies. Osama Bin Laden, far from being an outcast, is a hero to Muslims around the world.)

Second, consider the competing (and contradictory) claims of Christianity:

  1. Jesus led no military campaigns. On the one occasion someone (Peter) raised a sword on his behalf, he ordered him to put it away.

    2.
  2. Jesus taught that God is love.

    3.
  3. Jesus told his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecuted them.

    4.
  4. The Bible states that for Christians there is no Jew or gentile, slave or free, man or woman. All are equal before God.

    5.
  5. The apostle Paul says that Christians must exhibit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control. A Christian without love, he says, is nothing.

    6.
  6. Upon being rejected by a town in ancient Judea, the disciples asked Jesus if they should "call down fire from heaven" to consume the offending town. Jesus replies, "You don't know what you're talking about."

    7.
  7. Jesus told his followers to "render unto Caesar" what belonged to Caesar, by which he meant paying taxes and general submission to civic authority. Paul also tells Christians to pray for the civic authorities.
    8.

The contrast is striking and it is significant. Absolute commitment to the idea that God wants us to love our neighbor and pray for our enemies leads to one kind of person or society, while absolute commitment to the idea that God expects us to kill our enemies leads to an altogether different sort of person or society. Suggesting that all religious claims of truth lead to intolerance is about as sensible as suggesting that all governments lead to freedom. In fact, this argument is little more than ignorance disguised as pseudo-intellectual insight.

Consider: A skater arrives at a frozen pond. Being 100% confident that the ice will hold, she glides out across the lake and SPLASH! She disappears through a crack in thin ice. Another skater arrives hours later. Looking at the hole, she is only 10% sure the ice will hold. However, she sticks to the thick ice near the edge of the pond and skates without incident. What matters is not the confidence of the skater, but the thickness of the ice.