| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
___________________________________________________________EDITORIAL__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Fundamentalism: East and West
As we chart our way through an
international crisis, we should recognize the tensions between modernity and
tradition, toleration and moral absolutes, Christianity and Islam.
CLike any society facing a crisis, America has taken a long, hard look at herself in the weeks since September 11. Confronted by danger of a sort we had not seen in decades, we began to ask ourselves some probing questions: about physical security, about our democratic principles, about our constitutional tradition.
To a remarkable degree, America has united behind President Bush in the war on terrorism. For the first time since World War II there is an overwhelming consensus that we are fighting a necessary battle, for a just cause. That national unity is a clear sign of strength, and a clear warning to our enemies.
Nevertheless, beneath the surface of that consensus the careful observer can still detect signs of the fault lines within American society. We are united against terrorists, but divided among ourselves.
Consider, for example, how the September 11 attacks have shaped the discussion of that most contentious of contemporary political issues: abortion. A few Evangelical preachers dared to suggest that the terrorist attack was God’s punishment on America for the sin of legal abortion. Yet at the same time, more than a few secular liberals suggested that we should fight in Afghanistan in order to secure women’s right to abortion. So is abortion the cause of our misfortune, or the goal for which we are fighting? Those two views are clearly irreconcilable.
Or take the much broader, philosophical question of freedom. Most Americans would agree that we should fight for freedom. But most Americans would also agree that there are circumstances under which freedom can legitimately be restricted; the quest for freedom is not a moral absolute. However, Christian moralists teach that the prohibition on the intentional killing of innocent human beings is an absolute precept, admitting no exceptions. (It is because they violated that moral law that the terrorists of September 11 were justly condemned.) Yet many Americans—a substantial minority, if not an outright majority—are prepared to break that moral law, in justifying abortion, euthanasia, or research on embryonic stem cells.
So then what is our ultimate goal in this conflict? Are we fighting to expand human freedom, or to defend innocent life? Are we willing to compromise one goal for the sake of the other? If so, which one?
Who is a fundamentalist?
We are—it is generally understood—caught up in a struggle against Islamic
fundamentalism. But in that sentence, should the stress be on “Islamic” or on
“fundamentalism?” Is our quarrel with the religion, or with a small minority of
its most extreme adherents?
Some liberal commentators would have us believe that the struggle cannot be won until we defeat all forms of fundamentalism, Muslim and Christian alike. The American quest, they say, should be to rid the world of dogmaticism, mysticism, and moral absolutism —the characteristics of religious belief that conflict with the smooth functioning of modern society.
In his provocative book The Long Truce, A.J. Conyers argues the modern exaltation of tolerance—a virtue that was rarely mentioned prior to the Enlightenment—goes hand in hand with the rise of centralized government authority. The modern state, he explains, encourages citizens not to press their claims on religious questions—to tolerate differences on those issues—so that they can unite in support of the nation’s business. Religious faith, with its tendency to make absolute claims, is held to be a strictly personal affair; believers are discouraged from making public claims on the basis of their private beliefs. The practice of tolerance is always limited; the liberal ideal does not “tolerate” absolute claims.
The foes of “fundamentalism” assure us that we can make a lasting peace with the leaders of “moderate” Islam—just as they have already formed alliances with the representatives of “moderate” Christianity. But those of us who have been tagged with the “fundamentalist” label—those of us who believe in the existence of absolute truth—should be wary of such claims. Are the leaders of “moderate” Islam truly representative of devout Muslims? Or have they watered down their faith—as so many liberal Christians have done—to avoid giving offense to modern society?
Some Muslim religious leaders say that theirs is a religion of peace; others proclaim the glory of the jihad. Which view is really representative of the Islamic faith? Let me put the question in a very direct (and not very fashionable) form: How can we discern the true version of a false religion?
This issue of CWR is largely devoted to the study of Islam, and of the relationship between the Muslim and Christian faiths. We must certainly find a way to live at peace with our Muslim neighbors without forsaking our Christian beliefs. We are unlikely to do so until we first recognize the reality of a very difficult situation.
—By Philip F. Lawler
Back to Catholic World Report January 2002 Table of Contents