HLSS523Wk3

Journal of Ecumenical Studies • 53:4608

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Extremism*

•

R esponding to the current and very worrying political and religious crises, we seek guidance from the wisdom of our interreligious

Jewish- Christian traditions and dialogue. A number of questions emerge: Can these sources provide any wisdom? Is there a kernel of insight that might shed light on our disturbing times? Can we hope to help create a sociopolitical atmosphere that seeks peace and that critiques a political and religious agenda obsessed with extremism? In an age of the politics of rage and conspiracy theorists, where truth is being challenged by so- called “alternative facts,” where can one seek political and religious sanity? Add- ing fuel to the fires of paranoia is the fact that wages are frozen, while capi- tal is exploding. This brings to mind the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s observation that in America there is “socialism for the wealthy and capital- ism for the poor.” In the past three decades, religion has been criticized as the cause of wars and hatred and hailed as an unparalleled source of meaning. Jonathan Swift’s caustic observation—“We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another”1—summarizes the for- mer position and seems as pertinent today as it was during his lifetime (1667–1745). There has been a plethora of books since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States that conceptually have employed Swift’s position as their point of departure. One thinks of authors such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking, and Christopher Hitchens, each of whom in some form or other wishes to demonstrate the flaws in or the irrelevancy of religious faith.2 Collectively, their works are

*This is a greatly expanded version of a presentation made on June 26, 2018, at the interna- tional conference of the International Council of Christians and Jews, held in Budapest.

1 In his Thoughts on Various Subjects (Adelaide: University of Adelaide, 2014), n.p. 2 See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2008); Daniel

C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin, 2007); Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: Norton, 2005); Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Knopf, 2006); Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam, 2010); and Christopher

19275-JES_53.4.indd 608 12/21/18 5:11 PM

609• Explorations and Responses

the intellectual grandchildren of Sigmund Freud’s skewed understanding of religion as an illusion. Religion in both the modern and the post- modern world is derided as having lost credibility. Yet, one of the abiding truths that emerged from the carnage of 9/11 and the rapidly changing demographics in America and elsewhere is that Modernity’s assumptions about society are under radical assault. Com- pounding this situation is the fear of massive immigration that is roiling Europe, which, in turn, has spawned the politics of rage and the paranoid style of governance that appeals to emotions and abhors reason. Religion has also undergone a great transformation. It frequently appears in the guise of fundamentalism, a belief that absolutizes what a given set of believers assert is the truth and that pits “true believers” against the Other, that is, one defined as either a nonbeliever or a secularist. It is significant here to note the 2014 Pew Research Center study, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape.” This study reports a drop in the number of religiously affiliated Christian adults. Certain critical think- ers do advocate the positive role religion can play both in society and in the lives of individuals. Prominent works include Mary Boys, Redeeming Our Sacred Story (2013); Philip Cunningham, Seeking Shalom (2015); and the works of Lord Rabbi Jonathan Saks, The Dignity of Difference (2002), To Heal a Fractured World (2005), The Home We Build Together (2007), and Not in God’s Name (2015)—that come immediately to mind. The Pew report states that only members of non- Christian faiths and the unaffili- ated are increasing. Consequently, we need to expand conceptually the rubric “Christian- Jewish dialogue” when considering responses to the cur- rent religious and political crises. Fundamentalism views the world through a Manichaean lens: good (us) and bad (them). A worldview such as this has no use for dialogue or respecting the views of those whom it deems Other. Historically, both political extremism and religious fundamentalism appear to be growing in size and impact. Moreover, they are never on the side of rational discus- sion but appear as the twin pillars of an aggressive and ignorant assault on pluralism.

Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007). Each of these works presents a reductionist and, therefore, flawed vision of religion and its role in human existence.

19275-JES_53.4.indd 609 12/21/18 5:11 PM

Journal of Ecumenical Studies • 53:4610

The sociologist Peter Berger attested that “Modernity tends to under- mine the taken- for- granted certainties by which people lived through most of history.”3 “This is an uncomfortable state of affairs,” Berger main- tained, and “for many an intolerable one, and religious movements that claim to give certainty have great appeal.”4 There is, of course, no greater certainty than that possessed by the fanatic. Berger astutely contended, “Very probably religion in the modern world more often fosters war, both between and within nations.”5 Religion is, however, as noted, a two- edged sword. On the one hand, religion can serve as a “sacred canopy” for adher- ents, providing a “plausibility structure” against the absurdity of evil, while giving meaning to their existence and a transcendent purpose to their death.6 Yet, on the other hand, religion can also provide justification for terror and mass murder of those defined as infidels religiously—or as irredeemably Other. Religion may also hold a vital key to opening the door to peaceful co- existence, but the challenge is daunting. The Catholic thinker Hans Küng, addressing a 1989 UNESCO Conference on world peace and dialogue among religions, pointedly observed, “There will be no peace among nations without peace among the religions, but there can be no dialogue between the religions without each religion engaging in a fundamental re- examination of its basic assumptions.”7 Küng’s powerful insight is both a stimulus and a warning. On the one hand, he is calling for religious plural- ism. Modernity means interaction among peoples and cultures previously isolated and insulated from each other. There is also a need for mutual learning and for informed teaching. On the other hand, he sounds a cau- tion against triumphalist assertions. After the Holocaust and subsequent genocides, no religion laying claim to moral standing is entitled to assert a cognitive monopoly on theological truth or on salvation.

3 Peter L. Berger. “The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview,” in Peter L. Berger, ed., The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), p. 11.

4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., p. 15. 6 See Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New

York: Anchor Books, 1969), chap. 3. 7 Hans Kūng, Christianity: Essence, History, Future, tr. John Bowden (New York: Contin-

uum, 1995).

19275-JES_53.4.indd 610 12/21/18 5:11 PM

611• Explorations and Responses

A further important primary point about contemporary religious fun- damentalism is that religious pluralism and Modernity itself are under deadly assault from religious absolutists who have no interest in dialogue. The parallel here is provided by a secular culture that, feeling itself unfet- tered, frequently ends in tyranny and fascism, whose duration may vary. Fanatical religion follows a similar path with a significant difference. Its adherents do not feel themselves free of all restraint. Rather, leaders of fundamentalist religions are convinced that they alone know theological truth, which results in triumphalist teachings. Fanatics are convinced either that they are acting in the name of their God or, worse, that they themselves have displaced their deity. There is no need for dialogue if one has all the answers. Moreover, if God is on one’s side, one is by definition always correct. Our contemporary historical moment is facing a wholesale rejection of the Enlightenment goal of universalism. In its place, there has emerged a turn toward an exclusivist tribalism that fosters either hatred of the Other or, just as bad, indifference. This moment coincides with Moderni- ty’s increasingly sophisticated technological skills, but it seems far less capable of providing meaning to individuals. Subsequently, we have a clas- sic case of increasing skills without a corresponding emphasis on humane values. Religion at its best provides its adherents with a coherent and life- affirming identity. However, when this identity yields an “us versus them” worldview, tension ensues rather than dialogue. This is clearly the case with migrants who are collectively portrayed as dreaded and feared Oth- ers, labeled criminals (“murderers and rapists,” in the intemperate and inaccurate words of President Donald Trump) against whom one must do battle, or as those who “steal” our jobs. Emerging from the devastation of World War II and the horror of the Holocaust, the Western democracies charted a course that, for the most part, emphasized progressive values economically, politically, and reli- giously. However, the era of comradeship and cohesion was not to last long. The erosion of these progressive values began appearing in all three areas. The war was over; it was time to get back to business. Morality had a very short lifespan. In America, Rabbi A. James Rudin’s important book, The Baptizing of America, traces the fundamentalists’ assault on the separation of church and state. Breaking down this wall of separation means that politics is on

19275-JES_53.4.indd 611 12/21/18 5:11 PM

Journal of Ecumenical Studies • 53:4612

the way to becoming subservient to religion. Those who would baptize America assert biblical inerrancy; if there is a conflict between the Bible and the Constitution, biblical assertions take priority. However, there is nothing resembling scientific biblical study. Rather, this biblical suprem- acy is based on fundamentalist readings and attitudes toward the text. Rudin utilized the term “Christocrats” to describe those intent on “con- verting America into a Christocracy.”8 He also alerted his readers to the movement known as “Dominionism,” which is a “strident form of evangeli- cal Protestant Christianity (seeking) total ‘dominion’ over the United States, its people, and ultimately the entire world.”9 These two phenomena have found great political acceptance among the Republican Party, many of whose adherents believe that “GOP” stands for “God’s Own Party.” Many of Rudin’s most worrisome predictions seem pale in comparison with the contemporary American religiopolitical rhetoric emerging from the Republican leadership. Alongside this development, there has emerged a loss of trust in politi- cians and political democracy. Presidential assassinations, resignations, impeachments, and the rise of the Tea Party have bred a cynicism that yields fertile soil for the emergence of grievance politics and a kind of ersatz populism that masks an unprecedented political and moral corruption. Many in the evangelical community appear to have relinquished morality in favor of getting the “right” Supreme Court justices appointed. Massive amounts of money are spent on political campaigns and on influence ped- dling. King long ago noted three evils of American society: racism, exces- sive materialism, and excessive militarism. These three cancers continue to metastasize. There is, however, some good news to report. Progressive voices con- tinue to be heard. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Professor of Jewish Mysti- cism and Social Ethics at the Jewish Theological Seminary, marched with King in Selma, Alabama. Afterward, Heschel observed, “Even without words, our march was worship. I felt my legs were praying.”10 The great

8 A. James Rudin, The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right’s Plans for the Rest of Us (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2006), p. 9.

9 Ibid., p. 50. 10 Quoted in Susannah Heschel, “Praying with Their Feet: Remembering Abraham Joshua

Heschel and Martin Luther King,” Peacework 33 (December, 2006): 29

19275-JES_53.4.indd 612 12/21/18 5:11 PM

613• Explorations and Responses

Protestant thinker Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”11 From these examples, one learns that theological acumen needs to be wed to practical ethical action in the political sphere. This includes exercising the right to vote, a fundamental pillar of the dem- ocratic process. Economically driven dislocation, unemployment, a growing gap between the rich and poor, and a feeling on the part of those less fortunate of being ignored by the elites combined to form the breeding ground for the likes of Trump. Abraham Lincoln in his failed Illinois senatorial bid, stated the sit- uation in poetic terms: “A house divided,” he said, “cannot stand.” On the micro level, we see the sad results of Lincoln’s prophetic words unfolding in America where the spectacle of the demise of civility and the growth of hatred are all too prominent. We are also experiencing the dangerous and combustible messages of incitement stemming from the highest office in the land. On the macro- cosmic level, we see these same forces at work in Ameri- ca’s relations with the European Union and NATO, long- term American allies whom Trump regularly bashes while simultaneously embracing Russian President Putin, a dangerous enemy of America and the sponsor of an assault on democracy and the European Union. Moreover, given the American signal, far- right anti- democratic and xenophobic political move- ments feel emboldened in their determination to stymie political democ- racy. We are confronting a sad moment. It is not, however, the first such moment and doubtless will not be the last. In 1944, Albert Camus was writing a novel in a farm house not far from the village of Le Chambon- sur- lignon where 5,000 mainly Protestant vil- lagers saved 5,000 Jews. The novel’s title: La Peste (The Plague). The book told the tale of events in Oran, a town overrun by rats who had emerged from their subterranean hiding places and were spreading plague among the town’s terrified residents. Following a long struggle and after many fatalities, the rats disappeared, and the town folk celebrated wildly. How- ever, Dr. Bernard Rieux, Oran’s heroic physician, knew that the rats would one day reappear.

11 Reinhold Niebuhr, “Democracy: A Christian Imperative,” Transformation, vol. 7, no. 4 (1990), p. 2.

19275-JES_53.4.indd 613 12/21/18 5:11 PM

Journal of Ecumenical Studies • 53:4614

The Plague is a parabolic novel about Antisemitism and Nazism. I think it not too far off course to suggest that the rats—symbolized by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayip Erdogan, Xi Jingping, Kim Jong Un, and Rodrigo Dutarte—have reappeared. I do not call these men rats, but I believe they have a rodent’s instincts to sow fear and discord. Seizing on popular unrest and anxiety, they exacerbate rather than ame- liorate feeling of unease, especially concerning immigrants, who are accused of threatening the country. Moreover, Trump routinely terms the free press “the enemy of the people.” Of course, this seems almost tame in contrast to his friend Putin, who orders the murders of journalists. The above- mentioned politicians have no tolerance for dissent but demand personal loyalty. Ruling by fear and lies, they disdain civil discourse and an independent judiciary. To combat extremism and fundamentalism, what are some steps to take? The first step is to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. Given the anxiety of contemporary culture, it is best to face squarely the threat to religious pluralism and individual freedom. The next step is to form coalitions to protest and fight for justice. Professor Ruth Langer reports that all branches of Judaism joined together, a near- messianic phe- nomenon, to protest Trump’s cruel and heartless separation of migrant children from their parents—in effect, kidnapping them. Rabbi David Sandmel noted that two large financial gifts were made to the Anti- Defamation League following Trump’s absurdist claim that there were “good people on both sides” in the August 11, 2017, riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, where neo- Nazis chanted slogans such as “the Jews will not replace us.” One neo- Nazi dove his car into a crowd of democracy advo- cates, killing a young woman and injuring many others. Coalitions of Catholic and Protestant groups have rallied against racist and antisemetic behavior and actions. While the Pew Report caused considerable agoniz- ing on the part of many mainstream Christian and Jewish leaders, one additional encouraging sign is that secularists and nonreligious altruists have joined in the considerable pushback against extremism. This will cer- tainly focus attention on the question of whether one needs to be religious to have an ethic that demands response in the face of intolerance. A final observation: Rebbe Nachman of Bratslav, great- grandson of Israel ben Eliezer, founder of the Hasidic movement, and precursor of Franz

19275-JES_53.4.indd 614 12/21/18 5:11 PM

615• Explorations and Responses

Kafka, asserted: “There is nothing so whole as a broken heart.”12 I take this to mean in the present crisis that, knowing the worst, we can fight even harder for the best. This means that it is imperative to take seriously the demands of civic responsibility and to advocate for democratic values. I have already stressed the importance of voting. Free and fair elections are a cornerstone of democracies, but so are temperate and thoughtful language and a recognition of humility. We might all pause for a moment and reflect on the text Pirke Avot (Chapters of the Fathers), which puts forth a “trinity” of observations: “If I am not for myself, than who will be for me? If not now, when? If I am for myself alone, than what am I?” (1,14). Political extremism and religious fundamentalism, unfortunately, stop after the first assertion.

Alan L. Berger Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL;

and University of Haifa, Israel

12 Cited in Irving Abrahamson, ed., Against Silence: The Voice and Vision of Elie Wiesel, vol. 1 (New York: Holocaust Library, 1985), p. 144.

19275-JES_53.4.indd 615 12/21/18 5:11 PM

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.