Religious fanaticism is fanaticism related to a person's, or a group's, devotion to a religion. However, religious fanaticism is a subjective evaluation defined by the culture context that is performing the evaluation. What constitutes fanaticism in another's behavior or belief is determined by the core assumptions of the one doing the evaluation. As such, there is currently no constant academic standard for what defines a fanatical religious position. As with any fanaticism (e.g. militantism, and anti-religious fanaticism), it has the danger to be bigoted, rely largely on sweeping statements (in some cases entirely) and generalizations often twisting what its opponents are actually saying (or the meaning) to what the speaker wishes their opponent had actually said or meant. Often the arguments come across as bigoted, completely unwilling and unable to fully take on an opponent's point at any stage, just like their religious extremist counterparts, whom they openly despise (although they are often assertions and not arguments, again just like many religious fanatics) and will actively demonize those they oppose.
In his book, Holy War, Just War, Lloyd Steffen says, "[Religious] fanaticism . . . invokes the idea of ultimacy, and its presence in religious life is undeniable."[1] He goes on to say, "[Religious] fanatics are persons who attach to some object an ultimate valuation and then attend to that overvalued object with what is recognizable as a kind of religious devotion."[2]
Contents |
Steffen gives several features associated with religious fanaticism or extremism. Calling it "the demonic", he says:
Ever since Catholicism was brought to power, those in authority have sought to expand and control the church, often through the fanatical use of force. Grant Shafer says, "Jesus of Nazareth is best known as a preacher of nonviolence. [6] The start of Christian fanatic rule came with the Roman Emperor Constantine I as Catholicism. Ellens says, "When Christianity came to power in the empire of Constantine, it proceeded almost to viciously repress all non-Christians and all Christians who did not line up with official Orthodox ideology, policy, and practice".[7] An example of Christians who didn't line up with Orthodox ideology is the Donatists, who "refused to accept repentant clergy who had formerly given way to apostasy when persecuted".[8] Fanatic Christian activity, as Catholicism, continued into the Middle Ages with the Crusades. These wars were attempts by the Catholics, sanctioned by the Pope, to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims. Charles Selengut, in his book Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence, said:
The Crusades . . . were very much holy wars waged to maintain Christianity's theological and social control . . . On their way to conquering the Holy Land from the Muslims by force of arms, the crusaders destroyed dozens of Jewish communities and killed thousands because the Jews would not accept the Christian faith. Jews had to be killed in the religious campaign because their very existence challenged the sole truth espoused by the Christian Church.[9]
Shafer adds that, "When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed Muslims, Jews, and native Christians indiscriminately".[10] Another prominent form of fanaticism came a few centuries later with the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition was the monarchy's way of making sure their people stayed within Catholic Christianity. Selengut said, "The inquisitions were attempts at self-protection and targeted primarily "internal enemies" of the church".[11] The driving force of the Inquisition was the Inquisitors, who were responsible for spreading the truth of Christianity. Selengut continues, saying:
The inquisitors generally saw themselves as educators helping people maintain correct beliefs by pointing out errors in knowledge and judgment. . . .Punishment and death came only to those who refused to admit their errors. . . .during the Spanish Inquisitions of the fifteenth century, the clear distinction between confession and innocence and remaining in error became muddled. . . .The investigators had to invent all sorts of techniques, including torture, to ascertain whether . . . new converts' beliefs were genuine.[11]
In addition, John Edwards, in a review of an article called "Was the Spanish Inquisition Truthful?" says, "Ferdinand and Isabella's Inquisition . . . repressed . . . the natural yearnings of . . . Jews who had converted to Christianity . . . after the attacks mounted against numerous Jewish communities in the early summer of 1391." [12]
During the 19th century, most Christian nations have adopted the principle of separation between church and state. Religious fanaticism is since an internal problem of the Christian churches or merely a personal (psychological) problem. However, this is not so in most modern Muslim countries (except, for example, Turkey under Ataturk.)
Charles Selengut explains in his book "Sacred Fury" that Christianly calls on the fact that they offer their body to God, just like many other religions do. Christians make many sacrifices also, as Charles Selegnut states, "[Christianity] places great value upon avoiding bodily temptations and accepting pain and sufferings as sacred activity and promises religious rewards to those who do so." He also describes the Christian "martyrdom" which is more literally referring to all who offer their life and well-being for the cause of God and religion.[13]
Islam has become the most publicized religion with members who display fanatic tendencies. Ever since Osama bin Laden's fatwa in 1998, the world has known about radical jihad. Bin Laden's concept, though, is very different from the actual meaning of the term. In the religious context, jihad most nearly means "working urgently for a certain godly objective, generally a positive one".[14] According to Steffen, there are portions of the Qur'an where military jihad is used. As Steffen says, though, "Jihad in these uses is always defensive. Not only does ‘jihad' not endorse acts of military aggression, but ‘jihad' is invoked in Qur'anic passages to indicate how uses of force are always subject to restraint and qualification".[15] This kind of jihad differs greatly from the kind most commonly discussed today.
Thomas Farr, in an essay titled "Islam's Way to Freedom", says that, "Even though most Muslims reject violence, the extremists' use of sacred texts lends their actions authenticity and recruiting power". (Freedom 24) He goes on to say, "The radicals insist that their central claim—God's desire for Islam's triumph—requires no interpretation. According to them, true Muslims will pursue it by any means necessary, including dissimulation, civil coercion, and the killing of innocents". (Freedom 24)
According to certain observers this disregard for others and rampant use of violence is markedly different than the peaceful message that jihad is meant to employ. Although fanatic jihadists have committed many terroristic acts throughout the world, perhaps the best known is the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to Ellens, the al-Qaeda members who took part in the terrorist attacks did so out of their belief that, by doing it, they would "enact a devastating blow against the evil of secularized and non-Muslim America. They were cleansing this world, God's temple".[16]