RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AS A GROWING THREAT TO SOCIETY

There is no established and agreed-upon definition of the term fundamentalism. But the basic mainstream description of it refers to an unyielding dogmatic faith in sacred texts in many areas, including religion and philosophy. It is characterised by a steadfast intention to avouch the principle theological doctrines as well as the infallibility of these doctrines.

Religious fundamentalism refers to movements characterised by the encouragement of austere conformity to one's religious scriptures and promotion of the superiority and unrestricted authority of one's religion. There is limited scope for scrutiny or criticism based on rational reasoning. Efforts are directed towards the implementation of rigid and narrow standards in an attempt to gain political power by reinforcing orthodoxical and conservative practices.

The origins of religious fundamentalism lie an orthodox and traditional wave of Protestantism that gained momentum in the late 19th centuries. The movement emerged in opposition to the endeavours by other Protestant groups to modernize their religion. This movement was given the tag of religious fundamentalism as it was accompanied by the publication of a series of booklets (1910- 1915) called "The Fundamentals: A Testimony of the Truth." They were drafted by the evangelical Christian leaders of that time. These pamphlets detailed out the cardinal non-negotiable tenets of the Christian faith. Thus, the term religious fundamentalism was born to refer to the universal principles outlined in the pamphlets.

Some examples of fundamentalism in a few religions:

Christian Fundamentalism

Fundamentalists largely abstained from engaging with the political realm as it was perceived to be controlled by non- Christians. A dominant theme was the detachment of pure Christians from the improper ones and literal inerrancy of the Bible. This was because of their attitude of premillennial eschatology. They believed that the new millennium would be commenced by Jesus Christ, after his return. Hence, they did not find it necessary to direct efforts towards the reformation of society. But, from the 1970s, more fundamentalists came to be associated with the political domain, a move opposed by the more conservative fundamentalists.

Christian fundamentalism was dominant in the 1960s and 1970s as a response to changes that took place in society. These included the civil rights movement, feminist movements, the gay rights movements and teaching of the theory of biological evolution.

Jewish Fundamentalism

Three main forces perceived as religious fundamentalism in Israeli Judaism include the militant religious Zionism, the conservativeness of the Ashkenazim (Jews from Eastern Europe) and that of the Sephardim (Jews from the Middle East). All have a common theme of rigid conformity with the norms detailed out in the Jewish texts.

Islamic Fundamentalism

Strict conformity and literal interpretation of the Quran is preached. They advocate the fusion of religion and politics since they believe that religion is prevalent in all spheres of life. The concept of shahid (martyrdom), which refers to legitimised death, is dominant. Sacrificing one's life in the name of defending religion soon transformed into a willingness to die for the sake of religion. Extremist religious fundamentalism has enlarged this meaning to encompass sanctioned suicide and murder. This branch gained attraction after the September 11 attacks in 2011 in the U.S by an Islamist terrorist group.

Sikh Fundamentalism

It gained momentum in India when fundamentalists accentuated the importance of the absolute authority of their sacred texts and the emergence of the Khalistan movement that sought to establish an independent Sikh state in the Punjab province.

Hindu Fundamentalism

This branch does not attach supremacy to sacred texts or God. But for fundamentalists, the significance is attached to the national identity rather than a code of conduct to be strictly followed. This is expressed in the ideology of right wing organisations. They embody the ideology of Hindutva (Hindu-ness). Hindutva seeks to assert and redefine Indian nationhood and identity in terms of Hindu values.

According to Karen Armstrong, religious fundamentalism is a westernised concept, which emerged as an opposition to modern secularism. According to Max Weber, secularism delegates a more trivial role to religion. The aftermath is the functioning of societies without according a significant part to religion in this operation, due to which religious allegiance becomes highly personalised. This external force is perceived as a threat to fundamentalists and contributes to developing a deep-rooted terror of the destruction of the beliefs they stand for.

According to Emerson and Hartman, religious fundamentalism also emerges as a reaction to modernity. The process of rationalisation, sustained without the influence of religion, is a core component of modernisation. Industrialization and urbanization were next to influence society and gave rise to diversified cultures. The existence of diverse religions, departmentalisation of social life and pre-eminence accorded to economy lead to the presence of religion only in the private sphere. According to Antoun, religious fundamentalism also emerged in opposition to this ideological shift that decreased the role of religion.

Gordon Allport categorises religious orientations into intrinsic and extrinsic. In the intrinsic orientation, religion acts as a motivating feature by fostering motives within the individual. It is the extrinsic orientation that is capable of giving rise to prejudices as this deals with religion being utilised for personal gain.

The burgeoning of religious fundamentalism follows a progression from its first stage to its last. The first phase of the expression of religious fundamentalism is the passive phase. It is characterised with a narrow mindset and aiming towards the deliberate enforcement of an inelastic worldview and follows the non-interference path. After this comes the hard-line stage, where ideological opinions are intensified. The final phase is the impositional fundamentalism, which has the potential to mutate into terrorism. During this stage, hostile attitudes towards members of different religions are augmented due to self-imposed superiority following a process of negation of otherness. The depreciating value of others demonises them and culminates into contemptuous feelings for them. Their outlook is perceived to be authorised through the sanction of divine authority. This perception can be perilous as it legitimises and justifies violence. Once this happens, fundamentalists are capable of engaging in violent, barbaric and inhuman behaviour to achieve their goals.

The potentially violent fundamentalist undergoes two processes. Firstly, the interactions with forces capable of sanctioning theological authorisation of behaviour. Secondly, the association with forces thought to be harmful. For the first process, the fundamentalist either wishes to engage in violent activity before seeking legitimation for the same or desires to engage in violence after justification of the act. The outcomes of the interactions in the second process result in what David Bromley calls 'dramatic denouements.' This phenomenon occurs when social order reach a point, where it is inferred that the required conditions for preserving the essence of society is being undermined and the responsible causal forces are unacceptable. This inference is based on false assumptions of dangers and not real threats. This erroneous evaluation of risks is dangerous for society. These dramatic denouements are resolved in three ways. First, a situation where one party yields to the other. Second, situations where one party retreats from the realm of the other. Third, situations of wars leading to the elimination of one party.

Group formation is an indispensable process for development. Humans aspire to belong to groups that they can identify with in terms of commonality of interests, beliefs, opinions, ideologies, etc. These communities provide a sense of belongingness and opportunities to thrive within these social environments. Religious groups fulfil the same purpose but can endanger society when this transforms into religious fundamentalism, transcending national boundaries. According to Samuel Huntington, culture is not the fractionating element of society anymore. It is ideologies that now contribute to dividing societal life. Religious fundamentalism poses a threat to society since it magnifies existing divisions within societies by fostering feelings of intolerance, giving rise to conflicts and inciting violence.

Religious fundamentalism can lead to a phenomenon of ethnocentrism, the assumption in the innate supremacy of one's culture. Fundamentalists tend to view themselves only in terms of their religious groups due to a situation of exaggerated self-identification, which results in an "us" vs "them" circumstance. The out-group is seen to be possessing objectionable traits. The worldview of fundamentalists constituting their absolute social norms and values is accorded superiority and hence, they view any difference of opinion as inferior.

The pivotal role attached to the in-group fosters deep-rooted discriminations and prejudices for members of the out-group. This can wreak havoc on societal life by eroding social cohesion and diminishing the spirit of civic life.

Fundamentalists seek justifications for initiating conflict upon the members of the out-group. The process of dehumanising the out-group serves this purpose and does not allow identifying with members outside the primary group. Conflicts originated through this process of dehumanising give rise to violent religious intolerance, manifested in terrorism as well. Violence is engaged in to maintain and sustain the social order they deem fit.

Unwavering faith reduces empathy and removes any sentiment of guilt associated with inflicting violence upon others. The members of the out-group, with their foreign theological norms, are perceived as external threats to the faith of the fundamentalists, who think of themselves as the sacred spokespeople of their religion. This leads to the application of an omnipresent false conception of necessity, where the extreme measure of eliminating the out-group is seen as a warranted act of self-defence. At this point, fundamentalists engage in acts of direct physical violence, often resulting in catastrophic massacres.

Behind the reasoning of this rigid mindset, characteristic of religious fundamentalists, is an interplay of a plethora of forces influenced by personal and social factors. By accepting religious norms as the absolute authority and reservoir of theological wisdom, fundamentalists gain insights and solutions for inexplicable questions. This gives them their purpose of life, towards which all efforts are directed to achieve this goal. This reduces anxiety associated with being unable to find one's purpose in life. The vexation that arises with not being in command of certain injustices one faces is also removed as they are given the assurance of justice, by whatever steps they deem necessary.

Often, the current generation tries to settle unresolved past conflicts and traumas of their ancestors. Hence, they justify the violent agitations they initiate against these historical adversaries as well.

The objective of extremist religious fundamentalists is the reinstatement of religion to its original position of power, embedded within the public sphere which results in politics become increasingly "religionised." The warfare that is kickstarted to achieve this objective is disastrous. According to Mark Juergensmeyer, fundamentalist groups engage in "performative violence" in the name of sacrificing for the amelioration of their religion. These dramatised symbolic acts of violence reinforce one's identity within the religious group.

Because theological battles are thought to fulfil the victory of good over evil, there is no limit on the length of the period of the combats. There is little scope for reaching a modus vivendi. The outcome of these endless wars is an increase in power given to terrorism through extremist religious violence.

Religious fundamentalism also induces discriminatory notions about women. Fundamentalists have conservative opinions on gender relations and with non-negotiable demarcated roles for men and women within the institution of the family. They regard women as lesser beings, which justifies prejudices against them. They propagate misogynistic and sexist opinions and attempt to curtail women's sexuality and reproductive rights. In the U.S, religious fundamentalists started anti-abortion campaigns while trying to curb access to contraceptives. Their obstinate nature could explain their perception of women as inferior to an extent. At its point of conception, feminism strove to bring about social changes seeking improvement in unequal gender relations and liberation of oppressed women. This was seen as threatening the treasured ideas of religious fundamentalism. But these are not satisfactory explanations as most religions preach benevolent attitudes towards everyone.

Religious fundamentalists are also prejudiced against homosexuals, perceiving them as endangering their rigid conceptions of familial organisations. They oppose any alternate arrangement of the family that does not conform to their narrow mindset.

The escalation of intolerance leads to corroding of multiculturalism, pluralistic perspectives of adherents of other faiths and diversified opinions based upon the tenets of tolerance. Social fragmentation is augmented with every socio- religious conflict. Non-conformist communities that did not give in to these unvarying views fear judgement and the possibility of forceful imposition of stringent guidelines of the fundamentalists. This imposition is intrusive and denies people their basic human rights like the right to follow the religion of their choice, among other fundamental rights.

Extreme religious fundamentalism does not enable a quality development of individuals by disallowing the evolution of their thought processes and constricting their flow into a single and narrow course. The foundation upon which democracies are based is public participation and taking into consideration a plurality of diversified viewpoints. Intolerance of differences of opinions and restricting dissent is an encumbrance to the smooth functioning of democratic societies. By establishing strict ideas of what is right and wrong, religious fundamentalism is also capable of negatively influencing decision making. Those who, under ordinary circumstances, do not advocate violent behaviour could be vulnerable to being manipulated into condoning it.

In current parlance, religious fundamentalism is associated with negative connotations like bigotry, xenophobia, militancy and fanaticism. It is influenced by a myriad of motives and subjective interpretations. From a modern secular viewpoint, it is seen as an attempt to seize power to reinforce conservative ideas and regress to a society characterised by oppression, intolerance and dogmatism. However, it is important to note two things. Firstly, not every religious fundamentalist group is violent. Secondly, religiously-motivated violence is not restricted to only one religion. It is only when these groups progress from the passive phase to an advanced stage that they are capable of violence and incompatible with democratic institutions. With the advent of globalization, religious fundamentalism is capable of jeopardizing regional and international safety. Misguided fundamentalists, through their misinformed notions, brainwash people and breed terror into their minds. There is a separation of conservative fundamentalists from the secular realm. While religion promotes peace, social harmony, a sense of belongingness and spiritual development, religious fundamentalism is a divisive phenomenon and threatens the very foundation of a civic society.