Fundamentalist Christianity as Proxy to Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad, Part II

Because of all of these factors that I have stated in Part I Usama Bin Laden, and other like minded Jihadist leaders, have been able to create a popular following in the Middle East (and at the least, a tolerance to their actions and justifications).

Usama Bin Laden has stated:

These men [the September 11th hijackers] understood that jihad for the sake of God is the way to establish right and defeat falsehood. They understood that jihad for the sake of God is the way to deter the tyranny of the infidels...These men sought to prepare a response fo the Day of Reckoning. Faith in God and the Hereafter and emulating the traditions of Mohammed, may God’s peace be upon him, is what prompted them to leave their homes...So the case is easy, America will not be able to leave this ordeal unless it leaves the Arabian Peninsula, and stops involvement in Palestine, and all the Islamic world...[Because of] Bush’s actions the equation won’t be solved until the swords fall on their heads, with the permission of God.

Usama Bin Laden (in the eyes of the Jihadist Islamist) isn’t saying anything that is completely abhorrent to the society they are in and he isn’t saying something that couldn’t be justified by the Christian Bible if he was to use it for his spiritual and religious justifications. So coming from a Fundamentalist Christian perspective one would be able to wage a “Holy” war against a theoretical super power that was seen to commit atrocities against Christians every day and one could use the Bible to justify the means of violence (especially if one interpreted the Biblical passages above with a Fundamentalist slant). Hereupon we will now look at some quotes from Fundamentalist Christian preachers and from people who view the world in a Fundamentalist Christian slant. First we will look at the Baptist Reverend Jerry Falwell and his views of the world and of America:

The Bible is the inerrant...word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all manners pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science history, etc...We have never been so prosperous. Yet, we have never been so secular and pagan. We are becoming both amoral and immoral. We are making secularism our national religion. The government and the courts have become, not neutral to religion as the Founders intended, but openly hostile to Christianity. And as we look with sadness at our internal demise, we cannot any longer ignore that external enemies are growing. This administration has given our military and nuclear secretes to the Chinese and they to other American foes. We have been victimized by traitorous behavior on the part of our leaders.

Falwell is essentially taking the same view as Usama Bin Laden. Numerous times Bin Laden has stated the inerrant word of God is infallible in all things and he has used Islam as a focal point in his political attacks against the Saudi government. Bin Laden has stated that the Saudi government has become hostile to Islam and that it’s internal demise is due to the fact that it’s leaders opened up it’s borders to Western (i.e. infidel) occupation by allowing Western oil companies and an American military presence within it’s borders and by lending out it’s help to the “Zionist” American enemy and that faithful Muslims must take action. Essentially, Falwell, with his views as such, he is just as justified in using violence and war for his agenda as Bin Laden is in the Fundamentalist Christian perspective (of coarse, the way American history has worked itself out and in part with the way Europe brought itself from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance to Enlightenment, Falwell doesn’t take a stance for violence, but the way his theology works, and from the Biblical examples I’ve used above, he would be justified). Now we will look at the Virginia based televangelist Pat Robertson.

In 1992 Pat Robertson was quoted in the Washington Post saying:

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

In many Islamic countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia women are not treated as equals to their male counterparts, mainly because of pre-Islamic traditions and because of Islamic Sharia law. And in many of those countries when woman have tried to demand equal rights (such as in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan) they have been called heretics who are against the word of God and have been punished. Like Robertson, many fundamentalist Muslims believe that feminist are a menace to society and that they are against their value system. Robertson also uses the socialist accusation against feminists because socialists are seen as atheistic anarchists whom are against capitalism (capitalism being the perceived shining moral system of Christianity). Usama Bin Laden and many Jihadists Islamists have also spoken out against socialists and have sought their ouster from power in Egypt during the 1950s and 60s and when they fought to drive out the Soviet army from Afghanistan in the 1980s. Not incidentally, the CIA conducted operations in Egypt and Afghanistan which was meant to agitate the public and seek the overthrow of the two governments.

During a taping of his show the 700 Club on CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a head of state and a constant critic of America:

He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war...this man is a terrific danger...

Here, instead of a quote that can lead to an abstract argument that states it’s on par with Jihadist Islam, we have a quote from a mainstream evangelical (who ran for president in 1988) who is openly calling for the killing of an enemy of America (which in turn means an enemy of Christianity and God). Since Chavez is a critic of American foreign policy (and since America, in the eyes of the Fundamentalist Christian, is the sovereign nation of God, Chavez has attacked God) and has set up socialist programs in the government (since socialism is considered a Godless ideology which God finds an affront to him)he needs to be taken care of by any means necessary, in this case, assassination.

What we have seen is that a Fundamentalist Christian perspective supplanted into Jihadist Islamic doctrine can yield the same results, with the same justifications, as the actions of an Jihadist Islamist. So what does this mean for the Fundamentalist Christian American who subscribes to the unequivocal view that the Bible, the Holy Bible, is the word of God which supersedes all other wisdom and law? It means: [1] that the Fundamentalist Christian must look within his or herself to see if there indeed is a difference between any form of fundamentalism, [2] look at the Bible with a critical eye to see its contradictions to find out what it means to be a “true” Christian, and [3] it means that in order to live in a rational modern world(1) one must accept certain truths about the Bible, about religion and fundamentalism, and modernity.

For the Fundamentalist Christian to look within one’s self to see that all forms of fundamentalism are the same he or she must acknowledge the paradox of being a Fundamentalist Christian.(2) Even though the Fundamentalist Christian claims that the Bible is the word of God and that God never changes over time the Fundamentalist Christian essentially chooses and discards certain Biblical precepts based on how he or she wants to see the world. For one, this explains why there are numerous Fundamentalist Christian sects (i.e. United Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, Jehova’s Witness, and numerous non-denominational churches) because not everyone agrees which precepts to follow and which to discard. Yet this also highlights the paradox, because, essentially, almost all churches with certain rules and regulations are Biblically correct (if one takes a fundamentalist look at the Bible) in having those rules and regulations; the dividing line between certain Fundamentalist Christian churches is what those churches leave out instead of keep in.

Some churches, especially older Baptist and pre-Vatican II Catholic churches, don’t or didn’t allow women into the church unless they had something covering their head, adhering to what is said in 1st Corinthians 11:6-10:

For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair...she should wear a veil...For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Over the years though many fundamentalist churches have become laxed with this rule, yet they still adhere to a fundamentalist tilt. Many of these churches are on the forefront of the “culture war,” that the mainstream media loves to talk about, speaking out against “attacks” on Biblical principles. Yet many of these churches allow women to go into church unveiled and to even have women preachers, contrary to Biblical precepts. 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 states:

Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Yet these same Fundamentalist Christians will speak out against homosexuality, abortion, secularism, and other religious faiths because of certain precepts in the Bible. When the Fundamentalist Christian truly acknowledges this paradox (hypothetically) of Fundamentalist Christianity he or she can see that deep down they don’t hold an all encompassing fundamentalist view of the Bible because of the certain absurdity that some of these precepts seem to the modern mind. So if certain Biblical precepts are indeed absurd in a modern day context, and in a Fundamentalist Christian view the Bible is the word of God, then there is something wrong with fundamentalism.

Many Fundamentalist Christians speak out against Islam(3) stating that it is based on a violent book and is based on violent, terrorist like, principles. Yet in this essay it is shown that the Bible is just as violent (if not more) then the Qu’ran, and that if a Jihadist Islamist wanted to use the Bible instead of the Qu’ran and other Muslim literature, to justify attacks against civilians, he or she could. Yet the Fundamentalist Christian speaks out against this Fundamentalist form of Islam. Since, essentially, all forms of fundamentalism are the same and fall apart after critical study, when the Fundamentalist Christian is attacking Fundamentalist Jihadist Islam he or she is, in actuality, attacking his or her own faith, the faith of fundamentalism with a Christian tilt.

Secondly, to look at the Bible with a critical eye in order to find out what it means to be a “true” Christian a Fundamentalist Christian must fully study what the Bible actually says in context to how it was created and in context to the history behind it. Modern day exegesis(4) has shown how the Bible was essentially created and edited over the centuries and has borrowed concepts and stories from many other religions in the area surrounding the land of the Israelites, such as the religion of the Canaanites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Mesopotamians, etc. Assuming that the Fundamentalist Christian accepted the fact of the Fundamentalist Christian paradox, and that all fundamentalism is essentially the same, he or she can now see how there are certain precepts to the Bible that do not make sense to the modern day mind. The Fundamentalist Christian, through modern day exegesis, can see and understand why certain Biblical precepts came about, such as woman not being allowed to be preachers or homosexuals being considered sinners. They came about because of the cultural beliefs at the time, and naturally, those cultural beliefs were written down into the religious texts. What the Fundamentalist Christian can do is look at the certain Biblical precepts as the products of past thought and culture, such as not allowing the consumption of pork and blood vengeance, and then try to find the precepts that transcend culture and time, such as a universal love for mankind and a compassion for the downtrodden, and use those as his or her corner stone for their own Christian thought.

Thirdly, and in conclusion to this long-winded seven paragraph wrap-up, the Fundamentalist Christian with the above stated truths of the Bible, can then accept certain facts about religion and fundamentalism in the modern day world. When a Fundamentalist Christian can see (after accepting the previous two steps) that a Jihadist Islamist can use precepts from the Christian Bible for purposes of terrorism and can justify those violent attacks Biblically (as the previous Christian Crusaders did during the Middle Ages) it should essentially give the Fundamentalist Christian pause to his or her fundamentalist religious beliefs in this modern day world and should give him or her pause to criticism of Islam and any other religion. Firstly, about religion and fundamentalism, the Fundamentalist Christian should see that all structured religions that purport to give the answers to all of life’s questions are always prone to fundamentalist perversions, whether the religion is Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc. With structured religion there is always a hierarchy that naturally appears(5) and will try to mold the religion into a certain viewpoint, people such as a Pat Robertson or a James Dobson can affect many people with their religious rigidity and in turn they can mold their “flock” into their likening because structured religion forces the removal of critical thought from the Fundamentalist Christian who is apart of the “flock.” This is the essence of what fundamentalism is. With this newly attained view on fundamentalism the Fundamentalist Christian can then see the modern world with a clear view instead of through the prism of fundamentalist religiosity and can accept a more encompassing and critical view of his or her religion, the Bible, fundamentalism, and the world.

Now the Fundamentalist Christian who has (hypothetically) realized all three of these steps can get to the true essence of Christianity which had been kept out of his or her view because of the Fundamentalist Christian box they entrapped themselves in.(6) Realizing the context of the Bible and putting into perspective the teachings and miracles of Jesus and having them stand alone by themselves, the now ex-fundamentalist can realize the kernel of truth that is Christianity which was previously surrounded by a fundamentalist world view. He or she can now have a more compassionate Christianity that can allow for critical thought, self expression, true compassion for mankind, a genuine empathy for the oppressed, and a non-religious spiritual connect with God which couldn’t be previously realized before.

Notes

1. To not be divorced from the reality that is the world that surrounds him or her. To realize that turning into one’s self and using the Bible as a shield to “protect” one’s fundamentalist values is by no means healthy or the “answer” to the world.
2. Which is, being a Fundamentalist Christian (therefore adhering to all laws in the Bible) one must realize that he or she doesn’t actually live according to all of the Biblical principles. The Fundamentalist Christian lives by some principles that he or she (or his or her respective church) chooses and ignores others that he or she doesn’t deem important enough. This is the classic term for a paradox.
3. Not the Jihadist concept of Islam but of all of Islam. The whole religion of Islam.
4. Which I will not get into detail about because the subject of modern exegesis and critical study of the Bible would span a whole term paper, in fact, it could be a dissertation in itself.
5. One example of that is that the original ministry of Jesus turned, after Jesus’ death, from 12 apostles into a Catholic Church with a hierarchical system with a Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests in charge of over 1 billion people (with similar systems in the Eastern Orthodox Church).
6. Similar to Plato’s Cave.