Archivefundamentalism

The Influence of Jewish Fundamentalism on Legislation in Israel

A threat to religious freedom in the only democracy in the Near East

Overall, national religious political parties currently receive about 15% of the vote. And yet as small coalition partners they have gained an astonishing amount of influence. By law there are an increasing number of Israelis who have to live as the minority of Orthodox Jews envisage, although these individuals in part actually reject the existence of a State of Israel and for this reason are for instance freed from military service. This is all the more astonishing since most Jews in Israel do not share in the following laws. This is due to the fact that they are even more liberal than members of Reform Judaism or only nominally belong to their religion, i. e., belong to the religion for reasons of ancestry. Here are some of the laws which have been passed:

Sabbath law: The Sabbath rest is also being more strictly implemented outside of Orthodox quarters by the state. The airline El-Al is not allowed to fly into or out of the country on the Sabbath. A governmental institute is developing robots able to conduct all types of work on the Sabbath that otherwise would be considered sins for people to do.

Jewish dietary laws: Hotels and restaurants have to pay ‘kosher guards’ who are to ensure that foodstuffs are not offered anywhere which do not conform to rabbinic guidelines of ‘kosher’ preparation or which, such as pork, are completely forbidden. These ‘chaplains’ are found in many areas of society, for instance in the army.

Marital law: Jewish marriages may only be conducted by rabbis, and other religious marriages may only be conducted by representatives of the respective religions. There is no such thing as a civil marriage. That is tragic for interfaith couples, of which one always – at least feignedly – has to change religions.

Law of Return: Whoever immigrates and is allowed to become an Israeli citizen is an issue decided according to strict Orthodox regulations. Reform Jews and especially Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians) are often rejected as non-Jewish. Reform Jewish rabbis are not allowed to carry out religious activities, although internationally Reform Jews represent the largest wing of the Jewish religion.

Medicine: Autopsies and transplants are almost impossible according to law.

Archaeology: Excavations are forbidden where Orthodox officials suspect Jewish graves. Important planned excavations in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Tiberius are thereby affected.

This progressive takeover of Orthodox Jewish laws in state legislation is primarily being advanced by ‘Agudath Israel’ and the ‘Schas’ which emerged from it, in which the leaders of the Talmud schools (jeshibot) and Hasidic communities set the tone.

Why one should not define “fundamentalism” by the use of a scripture

If by definition one wants to use recourse to the infallible Scriptures of early Protestant fundamentalism in the USA, it is not necessary to ask all religious movements which canonical writings they have and how they go about using them. Rather, the question is who or what their respective ultimate, justifying authority is and whether or not they consider it to be infallible.

If the concept of fundamentalism is to have anything to do with the word ‘fundament,’ one has to ask every school of thought what they understand to be their primary fundament and not to impose the concept found in one religious movement on all others.

If one strictly goes by whether the Scriptures are considered to be infallible, then all Muslims would be fundamentalists – (whereby one gladly block out that the written records of Mohammed’s sayings and his associates, the hadith, are likewise taken to be infallible and for instance are of great importance for the sharia). Perhaps the most important western historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis, calls the application of the term fundamentalism to Islam unfortunate and misleading, since it was originally used with respect to Christianity. Use of the Protestant concept cannot be applied to Islam since the belief in the divine origin of the Koran is one of the foundations of the religion. For that reason every Muslims, insofar as the meaning of the word is concerned, would be a fundamentalist.

Under this scheme no Catholics would be fundamentalists, save those who reject the historico-critical method in contrast to the guidelines given in Rome, or save those lay people whose readings associated with the Bible are often undistinguishable from Evangelical standards.

In Judaism all Orthodox and Ultraorthodox Jews would be fundamentalists, since they either take the entire Torah or at least the commandments in the Torah to have been given directly by God to Moses. Alternatively they could all be seen as non-fundamentalist, since they take the rest of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, and interpret it very freely and with much variation.

Practically all separate groups arising out of Christianity, such as the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also all such novel eastern religions in which the founder left behind seminal writings, would be completely fundamentalist.

Religions such as Bahai, which accept the writings of multiple world religions, would be harder to classify.

All eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism as well as all nature religions would be unassailable. This is due to the fact that they either have no writings or have a large collection of writings at their disposal, with no single writing standing out as particularly ‘canonical.’ If, however, a movement chooses a certain writing and holds it to be divine and inarguable, as is the case for instance in neo-Hinduism or in Sri Lanka’s Buddhism, then they are automatically fundamentalist. Among revered writings are the Bhagavad Gita in Hinduism, the Sutta Pitaka in Buddhism, the Avesta in Parsism, and the Adi Granth in Sikhism. Within all of these religions there are movements which give these writings canonical position similar to the Bible or the Koran.

In short: If ‘fundamentalism’ is to have something to do with the word from which it originates, ‘fundament,’ this cannot be done by basing it on the question as to whether a religion uses the concept of canonical writings and whether such is held to be infallible. Instead, the question has to be asked about what the inviolable element is that justifies everything else. Then comes the question of whether this is used as a justification for violence against those who think differently, for political activities, or whether it is otherwise used in a fundamentalist manner.

Example: Political Hinduism, which seeks to make India into a purely Hindu state and does not refrain from either strict legal steps or violence against Muslims and Christians, is surely one of the newer ‘fundamentalist’ movements with grave consequences. One has to note, however: To which degree can an individual speak about a ‘fundament’ or a reversion to some sort of writings or truths in this connection? Hinduism is certainly not a uniform religion but rather an assessable diversity of traditions, divinities, and points of view that does not possess anything that would approach a common dogma. Furthermore there is no religious leader or an organized church. Its idea pluralism always integrates other religions. In spite of that, it can wrest maintenance of old Indian order, above all the caste system and religious practice, independent of its own justification. Furthermore, it decries the religiously neutral state as well as religious freedom. “At this point one has to allude to a distinct difference to Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. In Hinduism we are confronted with a form that does not place a certain interpretation of dogma above all others and then declares these other interpretations to be wrong and invalid. Rather, it is one that holds religious practice to be unalterable. Hindu fundamentalism is based on the belief in the immutability of an all-determining dharma and a societal form that is tied to that, the caste system and the cultic differentiation between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean.’ Even Hindu fundamentalists have little difficulty with the universalistic and basic concept of their religion. They interpret Allah, God, Ahura Mazda, etc. as manifestations of reality that are unable to be articulated. Every change in the existing system of order is a violation of the divine order, which receives negative sanctions or even has to be prevented at the outset. Hindu fundamentalism is for that reason a fundamentalism of orthopraxis and not one of orthodoxy.” (Katharina Ceming. “Hinduismus“. http://them.polylog.org/5/ack-de.htm).

Example: Buddhism: Buddhist theologians use the Mahavamsa writings to justify the exercise of force to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka, which in actuality are not canonical texts but rather central writings which substantiate the inseparable connection between religion and the state. One could almost come to the conclusion that the role of these writings first gained untypical significance through their political use.

Example: In the Compact Series volume Koran and Bible, I compared the understandings of scripture found in Islam and Christianity, which could not be more different. If one only asks if God’s word exists, then one overlooks the profound differences that the formulation ‘God’s word’ has already had in each of these two religions for hundreds of years. At this point the term fundamentalism resembles the view when looking through a pair of glasses that give a blurry picture, and as such it is something that distracts from a true appraisal of the basics of a religion.

Among Christian denominations, fundamentalism should not simply be attached to the manner in which the Scriptures are dealt with. Rather, it should be tied to what acts as the final authority, for instance the papal teaching authority in the Catholic Church.

Gottfried Posch aggressively assails Evangelical groups, because they would seem to allow for an infallible basis. Regarding the Catholic Church, however, he says that due to the papal office (which does not let itself be outdone by zealots), an “underlying Catholic fundamentalism . . . according to its self-image, is conceptually excluded” and can only exist in splinter groups. Here one can again see: It is always the others who are fundamentalists, for which reason he is unable to take off his Catholic glasses. It has little to do with academic propriety. And that the infallible pope is the guarantee against a set of fallible Scriptures, which after all are interpreted and discussed by millions of fallible Protestants, is sociologically incomprehensible.

Karl Lehmann thinks that ‘Scripture fundamentalism’ in Catholicism is not very widespread. How could it be? That was precisely the reason why Protestants broke away and why the Catholic Church condemned Protestants. In the Catholic Church what counts is not the Scriptures as they are interpreted by every individual, but rather the papal teaching office and its interpretation of Scripture and tradition.

Wolfgang Beinert maintains that Catholic fundamentalism is in itself an utter contradiction. Fundamentalism is structurally heretical. This may be the expression of faith of a Catholic, but it is surely not a fair comparison from a religious studies point of view.

The Evangelical understanding of Scripture has led to an unbelievable diversity of opinions and groups, and among them are fundamentalist opinions and groups. In contrast, the Catholic view of the teaching office makes such a lay theological democracy impossible. For example, the Evangelical world discusses in a broadly exegetical and ethical manner how divorce and remarriage are to be assessed, and in the meantime has predominantly offered room to both in theology and the everyday life of the church. With respect to the Catholic renunciation of both of these issues, there is nothing to change as long as the papal teaching office does not undertake to do so.

What we are dealing with here is not a retrieval of Evangelicals’ honor (how does a person want to evaluate half a billion people?) or a cheap criticism of Catholics (the same applies to another half a billion people), but rather to show that the concept of fundamentalism can easily lead to a premature contortion of reality and covers up just how everyday theology and faith really look.

Confessional Foundations of Christianity that can be used in a fundamentalist manner

• Traditional Protestantism: The Bible and confessional writings
• Evangelical Protestantism: The Bible (and Experience?)
• Pentecostal Protestantism: The Bible and direct divine inspiration (primarily to leaders)
• Liberal Protestantism: The results of theologians working in academia
• Catholicism: The papal teaching office of the pope, which interprets the Bible and tradition
• Schismatic Catholicism: The teaching office of the pope in written documents prior to 1962
• Orthodoxy: The tradition found in the early centuries of Christianity as it interpreted the Bible
• Separate groups, e.g., Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons: the Bible and the writings of group founders

The opposite also applies: Not everyone who dogmatically holds to the infallibility of some sort of founding authority is for that reason a fundamentalist and guaranteed to be unprepared to find democratic solutions through discourse with others.

It is often the case that a ‘fundamentalist understanding of Scripture’ is in itself seen as a “danger.” I consider that to be nonsense. The question of what justifies that viewpoint always has to be posed. There are pacifistic, completely apolitical groups who interpret the Bible literally. A person can theologically hold their attitude towards Scripture to be wrong, and yet they are politically and socially completely innocuous. Still, they are wrongly warded off together with terrorists with the use of a fundamentalist cudgel.

In addition to that, a person still has to ask what ‘infallible’ means in practice. For instance the Evangelical world traditionally holds the Bible to be infallible, and yet at the same time via hundreds of universities, thousands of researching and publishing biblical scholars, professional journals on the Old and New Testaments, and dozens of series of commentaries, there is a global and well organized continuous discussion about how the biblical texts are actually to be understood and applied. With this there is not a single question that is left untouched in the discussion. For instance the question of the ordination of women is an issue that is running rampant in the Evangelical movement, and it is being conducted with exegetical justification.

Example: USA: Naturally it is not understandable to a European to hear that 50% of Americans state that the Bible is God’s word that has to be literally interpreted, that is to say, a number which goes far beyond the number of Evangelicals there. Among these Americans, there are those who derive a justification of capital punishment from the Bible, and there are those against capital punishment who call upon the Bible as inerrant. There are those who directly find democracy in the Bible, and there are those who think that the Bible enjoins all political activity. In earlier times there were some southerners who found slavery in the Bible, and their opponents called even more vehemently upon the Bible.

Example: The Jehovah’s Witnesses have perhaps the most literal and most radical understanding of the Bible, since there has not yet even been a discussion regarding interpretation. I consider them as completely fallacious, and from top to bottom I do not share their leadership style. I consider their style of mission to be offensive, and I know the psychological problems of individuals who have dropped out. Yet dangerous to society? Where have Jehovah’s Witnesses ever conducted attacks or just even made political demands? At this point, when compared to the old sect concept –which had appeared to be largely overcome – a much worse verbal cudgel was taken out of the bag: fundamentalism.

Example from the USA: It is, of course, not fathomable for Europeans when 50% of Americans indicate that the Bible is God’s word that has to be literally interpreted. That is a number that far exceeds the number of Evangelicals. Among these Americans are individuals who derive capital punishment from the Bible and those who without fail call upon the Bible in opposition to capital punishment There are those who find democracy directly in the Bible and those who think that the Bible disallows all political activity. It used to be that some Southerners found slavery in the Bible while their opponents all the more fervently referred to the Bible.

„Charge of Fundamentalism often reflects western thoughts of superiority“

Director of the IIRF holds guest lecture in Nepal

(Bonner Querschnitte 173, Bonn, 04.07.2011) In a guest lecture at the largest university in Nepal, the sociologist of religion and director of the International Institute of Religious Freedom, Thomas Schirrmacher, met with the applause of hundreds of largely Hindu students as he represented the view that the term fundamentalism often is used in the west in order to denigrate people of all faiths in the southern hemisphere in one broad stroke.

Schirrmacher had been invited by the head of the Department of Conflict, Peace and Development Studies in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Tribhuvan University, Professor Dr. Hem Raj Subedee, to speak in connection with the topic “Fundamentalism as a militant truth claim: How religious freedom overcomes fundamentalism towards a peaceful society.” The state university, founded in 1959 and located in a suburb of the capital city of Kathmandu, is the largest in the country. The prime minister of Nepal is the chancellor of the university, and the minister of education is the pro-chancellor.

The background for the invitation is that the constitution of Nepal has only guaranteed freedom of religion since 2007 – only proselytizing remains forbidden. However, the interim constitution is still to be replaced by a final version by the middle of 2011.

Indeed it is correct, according to Schirrmacher, that religious fundamentalism presents a real threat for the global south. There is, for example, Hindu fundamentalism in Nepal, which has been responsible for a series of bloody bomb attacks on the Catholic cathedral built in 1995. However, one cannot simply equate fundamentalism with every truth claim or there would be more fundamentalists on earth than other types of people. In Schirrmacher’s own words, “I hold the view that a religious and world view community, which stands for, propagates, and in practice respects freedom of religion cannot be fundamentalist and should not be called fundamentalist!” According to Schirrmacher, the reverse also applies. The rejection of religious freedom is a clear indicator of a fundamentalist direction, albeit not the sole indicator. “In my opinion one should only speak of fundamentalism when violence is involved or a true danger for internal security exists.”, Schirrmacher said.

What more can one demand from a religious community in a ‘modern,’ democratic state than that it advocate freedom of religion, and with it, the religious neutrality of the state, the separation of church and religious structures from the state, and respect for other religions and worldviews in a political setting?

Prior thereto, Schirrmacher had visited Archbishop Anthony Francis Sharma, S.J., Vicar Apostolic. Sharma has been the highest ranking Catholic dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church in Nepal since 1984 and since 2007 has held the rank of Vicar Apostolic. For many years Sharma performed forbidden Easter masses at different location and was arrested each time at the end of the worship service. His cathedral, the Church of the Assumption, was built in 1995 as the first Catholic church in the country. Previously, from 1952 onwards, there had only been scattered Evangelical churches. Several bomb attacks have been made on the cathedral. Most recently a home-made pressure cooker bomb with sharp nails exploded on May 23, 2009 amidst 500 visitors at a Sunday mass, killing three participants and severely injuring 14 others. A small organization from within Hindi fundamentalism, the National Defence Army, acknowledged responsibility for the attack. The assailants and their initiator were arrested a few weeks later, but up to this time they have not been charged, probably because they are serving time for other crimes.

Additionally, Schirrmacher met with the leader of the International Human Rights Organization Rights Without Frontiers in Nepal, Raju Thapa, who introduced him to the current human rights situation in Nepal and its small neighboring countries.

One topic was the status of negotiations on the part of the highest court as to whether children’s rights and human rights of Kumaris are infringed upon. These are prepubescent girls who are worshiped as divine, whereby the most important ones do not go to school but rather always live in a large temple room. Schirrmacher had beforehand observed the worship of the girls together with Raju Thapa. This question is in connection with an IIRF international research project relating to how religious freedom is restricted by other human rights.

Further sources:

• On the status of religious freedom in Nepal: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148798.htm
• On the history of the Apostolic Vicariate in Nepal: http://www.apostolicnunciatureindia.com/nepalhistory.htm
• On the Department: http://dcpds-tu.edu.np/
• On the University: http://www.tribhuvan-university.edu.np/

Terry Jones, please read your Bible and do not place yourself in God’s position!

A comment by Thomas Schirrmacher, Chairman of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance

This blog entry is a supplement to the following German communication in Bonner Querschnitte, translated her from the German:

The World Evangelical Alliance condemns the Murder of UN Workers

But not before Jones had dragged Jesus’ name through the mud

(Bonn, April 1, 2011) The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) has condemned in the strongest possible terms both the burning of the Koran by a miniscule splinter group in the USA as well as the murder of UN workers in Afghanistan. As the General Secretary of the WEA, the Canadian Geoff Tunnicliffe communicated in a statement, a detestable act which has nothing to do with the Christian faith could never be used to justify an even more detestable act. Tunnicliffe expressed his deepest condolences to the family members of the UN workers and called upon Muslim leaders around the world to calm those prepared to commit acts of violence and to make it clear that the burning of the Koran had been condemned by all Christian churches.

The Chairman of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance, Thomas Schirrmacher, declared that the burning of the Koran is an act that occurred against the clear will of Jesus, who prohibited his disciples from using the sword against others as well as calling down fire from heaven. With their act, the congregation in Gainesville, in the presence of Terry Jones, sullied the name of Jesus Christ before the entire world. Terry Jones pointed to the fact that the WEA had repeatedly expressed massive opposition to the Koran burning and in the USA had closed ranks with Muslim leaders on this issue.

Schirrmacher also pointed out that the WEA had warned Jones and others repeatedly that the price for the madness was not to be paid by Jones and others in the safety of America but rather by innocent people around the world. Precisely that has now happened, as little as the burning of a book could justify the murder of people.

The fact that in the attack Hindus and non-religious people were murdered shows, according to Schirrmacher, that Islamism is not only directed against Christianity, but rather that it is a mobilizing agent against all of those who think differently. Peace loving people of all religions and world views have to corporately direct themselves against such a thing. Religious freedom, peace, and justice are indivisible.

German Source: www.bucer.eu

While Jesus prophesied to his followers: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. . . . Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God“ (Matthew 5:5,9), and while the Apostle Paul summons us as follows: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18), Jones decided that playing with fire is the order of the day. In the first place this was literal. It used social networks on the Internet for an international trial against the Koran and then brought a subsequent conviction and burning of a copy of the Koran.

Even if it is the case that everyone is in danger of not living up to the Gospel, there is something special that applies here that God has said: “’God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you‘“ (Romans 2:24). In any event, up to now Terry Jones has made neither the God of love nor Jesus known around the world. He has only made himself known.

Terry Jones is trying to win capital for the faith out of the political mood against Islam. Still: “’ . . . all who draw the sword will die by the sword’” (Matthew 26:52). Over against that is the following: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness . . .” (Galatians 5:22-23). Our mandate is thus another one: “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone“ (Titus 3:1-2).

Terry Jones intertwines the mandate of the church and the mandate of the state over against Islam to a degree that is beyond all recognition. In the end he pledges neither to the church nor to the state, but rather as an individual takes things into his own hands in the place of the supposed too friendly church and the too lax state. The Islamic idea that the individual may exercise violence and force through Islam if the state and society should do it but do not, making every state monopoly with respect to law and the use of force impossible, has found its parallel in pseudo-Christian garb.

It is naturally wrong that Muslims react to such provocation with violence. However, in spite of this, anyone who so excessively provokes in a manner that knowingly fuels violence and in the process utilizes the language of war is at least in part responsible for the violence that results. For that reason, the World Evangelical Alliance rightly notified Jones of future visits of widows of Christians if there husbands would be could by Islamist violence in reaction to Jones’ deeds.

Christians are glad that God himself is the judge and has retained for himself each and every final judgment. Only God himself can look into the hearts of people, and in the end we cannot see his verdict, since “the Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart“ (1 Samuel 16:7).

God has forbidden us from enforcing any sort of punitive sentence on our critics and punishing people for their ‘unbelief.’ Even Jonah had to experience that God was more merciful than Jonah himself, for Jonah would have rather seen judgment come upon Nineveh (Jonah 4:4:1-10). And Jesus clearly rebuked the thought of his disciples to send down fire from heaven upon any villages that rejected him (Luke 9:51-56). Christian preachers may regret with a bleeding heart that people reject the offer of salvation in Christ, but they never have the right to declare such people to be monsters, to attack them, to incite the state against them, or to entreat judgment against them or carry it out oneself.

According to the biblical understanding, the monopoly on force in this world is a matter held only by the state, which has neither the mandate to proclaim the Gospel nor to increase the size of the Christian church. Indeed it has to stay out of questions of conscience and religion. It is for this reason, conversely, that the state, as ‘God’s servant, expressly has to punish Christians who do evil (Romans 13:1-7). The state has to protect Christians only insofar as they protect everyone who does good, and the state in its efforts to promote justice and peace has to hinder anyone who plans violence or exercises violence, whether they are religiously motivated or not.

Would Jesus probably have burned a Koran? Would Paul have spoken out in favor of it? Indeed Paul was also “distressed” about the many idols in Athens (Acts 17:16), but he then spoke in a friendly manner and with respect for the Greek philosophers (Acts 17:22-23). This is due to the fact that Christians always ‘defend’ their faith “with gentleness and respect“ over against critics (1 Peter 3:15-16).

Dr. Reinhard Hempelmann creates a Basis for Discussions with Evangelicals

Frank Hinkelmann and Thomas Schirrmacher regarding a new Text by the Central Office for World View Issues (Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen – EZW) of the Protestant Church in Germany (EKD)

That the Evangelical Church can report profoundly, fairly, and in an informed and discriminating manner, while not keeping silent on what is rather worrisome and critical, has been demonstrated in the booklet “Movements in Evangelicalism: Articles on the Vibrancy of conservative Protestantism” (German original “Evangelikale Bewegungen: Beiträge zur Resonanz des konservativen Protestantismus,” EZW-Texte 206, Berlin, 2010). The booklet was written by the head of the Evangelical Central Office for World View Issues within the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD). As Evangelicals we can at this point say congratulations and many thanks to Dr. Hempelmann. Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals alike should read this study and use it as a basis for more intensive discussions.

I (Thomas Schirrmacher) openly admit that in my very recently released book Fundamentalism I recommended another notion of fundamentalism than the one Hempelmann uses. Hempelmann uses an intra-Christian notion and, for that reason, he holds the question of how Scripture is understood to be central for the definition of fundamentalism. I, on the other hand, assume a ‘militant claim to truth’ to be fundamentalism and hold the question of Scripture to be secondary (even in the case of the Catholic church, it is not a matter of the Scriptures being the final authority but rather the papal teaching post; in Hinduism and other religions there is violent fundamentalism without reference back to any scriptures).

But since Dr. Hempelmann makes it clear that someone with a very conservative view of Scripture can be tolerant and friendly towards democracy, and that someone who does not hold such a stance can still be unteachable, I can nevertheless relate to almost everything which he writes.

“There is justification for urging the use of differentiated terms” (29), writes Dr. Hempelmann, for instance so as not to equate Evangelicalism with fundamentalism. Also in the case of a fundamentalist understanding of Scripture, he still urges some more differentiation, that is, to see whether one moves openly and appreciatively in a larger community of Christians” or whether the Christianity of Christians who think differently is simply written off (29).

Hempelmann also openly views fundamentalism as an inquiry made to the Church and churches, and it shows “deficits in community building strength, ethical obligation, and religious orientation” (35).

Surely in the enormously broad spectrum of Evangelicals, charismatics, and Pentecostals, there will also be those who neither desire discussions with other Evangelicals nor with the Evangelical Church. But whoever among Evangelicals holds to Jesus’ command for unity between Christians, and whoever is convinced that we can only attest corporately to the Christian message amidst our nation, will look at these questions self-critically and not reject the outstretched hand, which in light of media pressure is not to be taken for granted. On the contrary, it takes courage.

Drs. Frank Hinkelmann, Chair, Austrian Evangelical Alliance

Prof. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, Chair, Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance

Link: http://www.ekd.de/ezw/Publikationen_2109.php

The Media vs. Religious Freedom!?

In my statement yesterday as an expert in human rights for the parliamentary human rights committee of the German Bundestag (Federal Parliament), my observations on the role of the media and its negative effects on religious freedom were widely discussed. I am publishing this in advance, from that section of my opinion. The comprehensive report will be published together with all the statements and the minutes of the Bundestag committee in November. Six experts gave their opinions on the future of religious freedom in Europe and the role of Islam in it. I was nominated by the MPs of Chancellor Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union.

Media reports are only available in German yet:

• Press release by the federal parliament: www.bundestag.de
• Christian Media: www.pro-medienmagazin.de
• Press service of the Humanist Union: hpd.de
• Baha’i press service: iran.bahai.de

“Far too little attention is paid to the way in which the media, in a broad sense, will determine whether or not the discussion on the integration of Islamic faith communities into Europe will lead to a constructive result. The media talk about the book by Thilo Sarrazin and a phrase in the speech of the President have just proved this again.

An example is the crucial the role of the international (and German) media in dealing with a crazy, isolated preacher in the United States who announced the burning of a Koran. In a world of 2.5 billion Muslims and Christians of numerous varieties, this would be a totally meaningless event, if the media were not involved. People wanted to finally see peaceful evangelicals pulled into a culture war with Muslims – fundamentalists against fundamentalists- since such an event would make the media ratings fly high. (In retrospect, a profound commentary in Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, provides a crown jewel of evidence.) Very quickly people expected violence from Muslims in Afghanistan and in other countries as well. If such acts of violence really related to the threatened Koran burning, no one could know with certainty, but the media was already certain. No one seemed to care that the media took the risk of causing murder and manslaughter. The 420 million-strong World Evangelical Alliance had long spoken out vehemently and loudly against public Koran burning (and also took concrete preventive steps).  And no one from WEA has ever burned a Koran.  Meanwhile, at the same time, the media did not think it was worth a report that worldwide Bibles, churches, and sometimes even Christians, are being burned. Nor did it merit a report that in Iran Baha’i texts were burned and in India Korans were burned.

The media are not contributing to social peace among religions, but for the cheap effect of audience and readership, the media promote emotional confrontations between religious groups. The work of the media in Belgium, in Orthodox countries, and in Turkey provides many further examples that the media like to inflame or exploit religious conflict, and then later to play the role of the moral judge.

The media will play a major role in determining whether religious tensions between the great religions increase or decline, as well as in the treatment of religious minorities. Violent attacks on other religions generally follow malicious misrepresentations or generalizations which have been disseminated and used against people. In such false generalizations, all the people from the highly differentiated Islamic (or evangelical) world are all thrown into one pot and discussed as if they were all the same. On this topic, Germans should study the history of Jew-baiting, which preceded the extermination of the Jews.

Whenever evangelicals as portrayed as violent, the Yezidis as “worshippers of the devil,” Catholic priests as child abusers because of celibacy, Muslims as authorized to lie “against unbelievers;” and if every time the word Islam is on TV pictures of 9/11 appear, or if with evangelicals a picture of George Bush and the war in Iraq is included; then someone is preparing particular religious groups for societal exclusion by means of constant repetition of slander against them.”

Fundamentalism is a militant Truth Claim

My German paperback Fundamentalism was published in the ‘compact’ series (Publisher: SCM Hänssler). In that book I allow myself, as a sociologist of religion, to throw my definition of fundamentalism into the ring. In my opinion one should only refer to fundamentalism if violence is involved or when a true danger for domestic safety exists.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks fundamentalism is mostly understood among the general public to be radical, violence prone, religiously motivated extremists or simply religious terrorists. What in the vernacular is meant by ‘fundamentalism’ is a militant claim to truth and precisely that is what I find to be the shortest definition.

In my opinion there are only two possibilities open to saving the term ‘fundamentalism’ for legitimate usage: either bring the term fundamentalism closer to how it is used in everyday language and relate it to truly near-violent movements. Alternatively, applying the term widely to all movements could be desirable, in which case the term is in desperate need of being de-emotionalized so that it achieves a neutral, non-pejorative meaning. For this to be achieved there has to be large scale action requiring experts who oppose the mass media, which at the moment is an illusion.

In my opinion those who warn the public about fundamentalist movements should limit themselves to those groups who are dangerous due to the principal justification they offer for the use of violence, or who demonstrate an inclination towards violence, or who even use violence, and lastly those from whom the danger at least emanates that they might want to achieve political power over dissenters by the use of undemocratic means. For that reason my definition in the book which is soon to be released is as follows:

Fundamentalism is a militant truth claim which derives its claim to power from non-disputable, higher revelation, people, values, or ideologies. It is aimed against religious freedom and peace offers and justifies, urges, or uses non-state or state-based non-democratic force in order to accomplish its goals. In the process it often invokes opposition to certain achievements of modernity in favor of historical grandeur and bygone eras, and at the same time uses these modern achievements mostly in order to extend and produce a modern variation of older religions and world views. Fundamentalism is a transformation of a religion or world view conditioned by modernity.

Suicide Attacks in Islam

The fundamentalism debate often makes the incorrect assumption that violent, religious fundamentalists want a return to a premodern era. Journalists, who so eagerly want to link everything and everyone to fundamentalism, take little notice of what is scientifically demonstrable or not. However, theories on fundamentalism are often established in the ivory tower before any sort of concrete movements has been investigated in detail. Actually, fundamentalist movements are often very modern, in that they develop completely new theological concepts and put them into action. The hope that in time they would become ‘more modern,‘ and for that reason more peaceful, is illusory.

The justification of suicide attacks in Islamism is a modern development that continues. Indeed there used to be the concept of martyrs as warriors who died in Jihad, which is a concept that has never existed in Christianity (though it has been found in the nationalistic garb of European states or, for instance, in Japan in world wars). But it has always been a war called for by a leader – for instance a caliph or a sultan. One died in battle against unbelievers, and one naturally tried to live as long as possible. This is to say that the individual did not commit suicide. (Exceptions were assassins between the 11th and 13th centuries, for which no line leads to the present.)

Terror attacks during the time of Yassir Arafat were hardly able to be justified religiously and did not consist of an actual suicide attack. The concept of the suicide attack is something that has progressively developed in modern Islamism in increasingly intensive phases, which anyone who has followed the last 25 years of reports in the media can understand.

Phases in the Development of the Theology and Practice of Suicide Attacks in the last 25 Years

1. Jihad no longer has to be called for. Rather, military Jihad is a permanent condition against unbelievers. An individuals can designate himself, or a small group can designate themselves. Whoever dies in the process goes to paradise as a martyr.
2. An individual is allowed to kill himself, if in the process unbelievers are also killed.
3. Male children are also able to be suicide attackers (initially in the Intifada)
4. An individual is allowed to do the same if in the process, as collateral damage, Muslims also die (this occurred initially in Israel, then on September 11, 2001).
5. An individual is allowed to do the same if in the process almost exclusively or exclusively Muslims die but unbelievers are disquieted (initially in Iraq).
6. Women can also be suicide attackers who up till now have only appeared as proud mothers of suicide attackers (a very recent phenomenon).
7. In the most immediate past girls have emerged as suicide attackers. In short: a girl who with an explosive kills other Muslims and, for that reason, is lauded as a martyr used to be unthinkable in Islam. It is, rather, a completely new theological and practical development that has little in common with premodern Islam.