Religious Fundamentalism Spreads... Beyond Islam

In the same week that Hindu fundamentalists obliterated plans to build a Charlie Chaplin statue, on the grounds that Chaplin was a Christian who made no contribution to India, video clips of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Varun Gandhi surfaced online, showing him glorifyingly speaking of "cutting the throats" of Muslims, and mocking their "scary" names.

Meanwhile, the Hindu nationalist group Sri Ram Sena vowed to continue its attacks on women drinking in bars and couples courting in public -- expanding their target population to include female British tourists in the city of Goa.

In the Varun Gandhi videos, Hindu extremist groups like the Taliban-inspired anti-statue, anti-woman Sri Ram Sena may feel as if they've found a high-profile voice: Varun is the grandson of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and the great-grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, a declared secularist and atheist who couldn't have been more removed from his descendant's crazed religion-fueled nationalist diatribes.

It isn't just the Hindus. Mere days after ending the controversy over his lifting of the excommunication of Holocaust denier and 9/11 conpiracy theorist Bishop Richard Williamson, Pope Benedict XVI decided to elaborate further on his view that abstinence works 100% of the time as a birth control method (right, ask The Virgin Mary how well that worked for her) by declaring that the use of condoms aggravates the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Now, the Pope has publicly pulled several other Ahmedinejads in the past. He has written that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" and an "objective disorder". He has also claimed that non-Catholics are in a "gravely deficient situation", without the "fullness of the means of salvation". Most recently, the Vatican declared its support for the Brazilian Church's decision to excommunicate a group of doctors who performed an abortion on a 9-year old girl -- pregnant with twins -- as a result of being raped by her stepfather.

The Pope's homophobia and bigoted statements about non-Catholics who don't necessarily think Jesus is their savior aren't all that different from Varun Gandhi's Muslim-bashing -- which, in turn, isn't all that different from the sentiments that fuel the ideology of the Taliban. There are millions of people in the world who think that way.

However, these two examples are unique: one of these men is the most significant spiritual and religious leader in the world, and the other belongs to a family that gave the world's largest democracy three of its most legendary prime ministers, including its first.

So, is Talibanization going mainstream? To religions beyond Islam?

Well, we know that the Catholic authorities aren't throwing acid on teenage girls' faces like the Taliban do. That, actually, is something that Jerusalem's Jewish Haredi Modesty Patrol did to a 14 year old girl last year. Her crime? Wearing pants. In the same week as the Pope's condom controversy and Varun's inflammatory videos made news, a member of the Modesty Patrol was sentenced to four years in prison in a separate incident -- a sexual gang assault on a divorced woman.

Although it's tempting to dismiss these incidents as aberrations, religious extremism and bigotry do seem to be going mainstream in Israel. On the same day that the Modesty Patrol mercenary was sentenced, news broke that Avigdor Lieberman, the right-wing hardliner whose Israel Beiteinu party had a strong showing in Israel's recent elections, is in consideration as Israel's next foreign minister.

Lieberman is a man who has, among other things, openly advocated the expulsion of Israeli Arabs from the Promised Land, and offered to provide buses to transport Palestinian prisoners to the Dead Sea, where he has recommended drowning them.

More disturbingly, Lieberman suggested in 2006 that Israel should conduct itself in Gaza like Russia did in Chechnya, that is, without any concern for civilian deaths. This moves the issue beyond the realm of aberrant extremist ideology, not only because Lieberman is now a prominent leader in the Knesset possibly destined to become Israel's foreign minister, but because his suggestion was put into practice in a significant way during Israel's recent offensive in Gaza.

In last week's investigation into the Israel-Gaza conflict, IDF soldiers talked about how they were encouraged to kill Palestinian civilians. They also described how the assault was framed as a religious war by military rabbis, who distributed literature to the troops saying among other things that this was a holy war, that "we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land" and that they needed to "fight to expel the Gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land." Somehow, Israeli authorities appear to be drawing inspiration -- like Hamas -- from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Taliban.

Meantime, the Adiv fabric-printing shop in south Tel Aviv sold hundreds of T-shirts, caps, and other items of clothing custom-made for Israel soldiers, featuring pictures of dead children and bombed mosques. Included was one of a dead baby clutching his teddy bear, his mother weeping at his side, bearing the inscription, "Better Use Durex".

In Canada, a different aspect of religious fundamentalism surfaced last week, when Federal Science and Technology Minister Gary Goodyear, a central figure in the controversy over the science funding crunch in the country, was asked whether he believed in evolution. He refused to answer. "I'm not going to answer that question," he said. "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate." The Pope, I'm guessing, would have been a little more unequivocal in his response.

These events, most of which occurred in the span of one week, are reflective of a dangerous resurgence of religious fundamentalism in non-Islamic countries. The most perplexing part of it is that it isn't just limited to a few seemingly random incidents fueled by fringe extremist groups. The characters in these stories -- the Pope, a member of India's Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, a powerful Knesset leader, and a Canadian federal minister -- are influential, mainstream figures whose ideas and decisions impact the lives of billions of people every day.

In the early days after 9/11, a lot of false dichotomies were created in an attempt to place the attacks in some sort of context. It was said that terrorism has no place in Islam. That it is not religion, but the "cultural distortion" and "misinterpretation" of it that's the problem. That Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. That Sharia law has nothing to do with Islam. That all religions preach love and peace.

Unfortunately for the apologists, people who couldn't reconcile these assertions with the events they were witnessing around the world found it easier to see through them than ever before.

The Torah, Bible, Quran, and other ancient religious scriptures are easily available online in their entirety, complete with translations in multiple languages, by multiple translators, supplemented with commentary. Easy -- and searchable -- access to these these texts has opened them up to intense scrutiny, and the anonymity-driven confrontation-friendly forum provided by the internet has resulted in unprecedented, taboo-shattering, critical discussions on their contents.

One consequence of this is that religious people who believe that the scripture of their respective faith is truly the word of God -- the majority of whom only selectively familiar with it -- have found reinforcement for their beliefs.

For example, it isn't difficult to sell the idea of a holy war to Israeli soldiers when passages from the Torah such as Shmot 23:31-33 instruct them to drive non-Jewish inhabitants out of the land promised to them by God himself (described in detail as "from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines"), and to "make no covenant with them." This gives some hefty, divine weight to Avigdor Lieberman's arguments, and shatters the misconception that Zionism is merely the "politicization" of Judaism.

While the religious Jewish community has remained adherent to these scriptural accounts of the Promised Land, it has, for the most part, been quick to brush aside other passages from the Torah that advocate, for instance, death by stoning for everything from not being a virgin on your wedding night (Devarim 22:20-21) to blasphemy (Vayikra 24:16). Interestingly, stoning people to death is a practice associated more widely with Islamic law, probably because it is still practiced widely in many parts of the Muslim world. This is not without reason: while not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, stoning is widely accepted as punishment for sins such as adultery in the hadith (traditions of the prophet Muhammad).

Also, even though the majority of Muslims are horrified by the idea of child marriage or domestic violence, both of these practices have strong footing in Islamic history and scripture, and it would be naive to dismiss them simply as "cultural distortions". By almost all accounts, Muhammad did take a nine year old bride as his eleventh wife; and beating your wife if you "fear disobedience" is permitted in Islamic scripture (Quran, verse 4:34). Other concepts like armed jihad against infidels (9:5) and resistance against Christians and Jews (5:51) are also present in the Quran.

The Christian Bible, which recognizes the five books of the Torah as the Old Testament, forms the basis for the beliefs of Pope Benedict XVI and evangelists like Pat Robertson about issues like homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13). And the aggression against women practiced by Indian extremist groups such as Sri Ram Sena has its roots in the sacred Hindu text Manu Smriti, which purportedly contains the word of Brahma, the god of creation, and allows men to have virtually complete, unfettered authority over women.

While this renewed interest in scripture has affirmed the beliefs of many, giving legitimacy to their extremist leanings and possibly even radicalizing them, it has also allowed skeptics, rationalists, and even some moderately religious people to question that which was previously unquestionable. Many who believed that it wasn't religion at fault but the people who "misinterpret" it, are beginning to ask whether it might actually be the other way around. And they're speaking out. How do you condemn the occupation of Palestinian lands and still defend the Bible or Torah -- which command it explicitly as an instruction from God -- as sacred books? Can you denounce a 47 year old Yemeni man's marriage to an 8 year old girl while you defend the prophet Muhammad's child marriage with an even wider age difference? If you speak out against the Torah/Old Testament-endorsed execution of gay men and stoning of non-virginal single women, does that make you anti-Semitic? Or a "Christophobe"?

Questions like this, which would easily have made one an outcast in the recent past -- or worse, invited a death fatwa -- are now being asked more frequently and more loudly. Most of the response to these completely legitimate and important questions has come in the form of ad hominem accusations of religious bigotry directed at the questioners, taking offense, and hurt feelings. Flawed terms like "Islamophobia" and "Christophobia" have emerged, and accusations of anti-Semitism are being flung around so loosely that the phrase is in danger of losing its deserved significance.

And this is where a fundamental distinction needs to be made.

Hating Jews, Muslims, or Christians for what they believe is clearly wrong. Criticizing the belief systems themselves, however, is not. Human beings have rights. Cultures, religions, and ideological belief systems do not.

This basic concept was sadly lost on the United Nations when it passed a non-binding anti-blasphemy resolution last year, curtailing any criticism of religious belief. The resolution, brought forth by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), is a massive impediment in the fight against human rights abuses carried out under systems such as Islamic Sharia law. Rational, reasonable people worldwide are rightly outraged by this move to put ideology before human beings.

There is now a push by the OIC, a group of 57 Muslim countries, to make the resolution a binding one. But this isn't a one way street. Will Arab and Muslim countries still be able to criticize the Torah-supported Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory under the same legislation?

Or is Islam finally losing its long-held monopoly on fundamentalism?

The Middle East Conflict is Still a Religion-Fueled One

Forty four percent of America is a large voting bloc.

That is the percentage of Americans - 44% - who, according to a 2003 Pew Research poll, said they believed that the land of Israel was given to the Jews by God.

According to the same poll, 36% believed that the creation of the state of Israel is a step toward the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

One in three that supported Israel cited their religious beliefs as their primary reason for doing so.

These numbers can be difficult to dismiss - specially if you're trying to get elected, whether as a Democrat or a Republican.

Despite the current contention that the Arab-Israeli conflict is rooted in politics and economics - it is naive and dangerous to overlook its religious roots.

A video of Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss is making the rounds on YouTube where he accuses Zionists of hijacking Judaism and politicizing it, while he stands in front of a sign that says "Torah Forbids a Jewish State."

Unfortunately, apart from losing credibility even among non-Zionist Jews by attending and speaking at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's Holocaust denial conference in Tehran in 2006 (Weiss' parents were Holocaust survivors), and being skewered by Bill Maher in his comedy Religulous last year, Weiss' statements and the sign he stands in front of are very, very wrong.

Zionism, often thought to be a politicization of Judaism, takes root in the Torah which Jews believe is the word of God revealed to Moses, and is also accepted by Christians as part of the Bible, where it forms the first five books of the Old Testament.

There are numerous passages in the book that are explicitly consistent with the Zionist goal of a Jewish state in the Middle East. Genesis 15:18 states:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

Exodus 23:31 gives us an idea of geography of the Promised Land:

"I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you."

Deuteronomy 1:8 reiterates the promise:

"See, I have placed the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to them and their descendants after them."

Several other passages descibe the borders of this land in great detail.

Christians - who make up most of those that the Pew poll surveyed - rely on the presence of the Jews in the Promised Land for the Second Coming of Christ and subsequent salvation to happen.

In 2006, Pat Robertson - the American evangelist whose considerable influence among American Christians is evidenced partially by his defeating George H. W. Bush in the 1988 Republican presidential caucuses in Iowa - declared that then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for "dividing God's land."

He was widely denounced for his statement, but again - Scripture backs him up.

Although they'll play the role of mere pawns when it happens, the return of the Jews to Israel is promised by God in the Bible as a prelude to the Second Coming of Christ. Again, of many passages, here are two:

Ezekiel 20:34:

"I will bring you from the nations and gather you from the countries where you have been scattered - with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath."

Isaiah 11:11-12:

"In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth."

Even Scripture-adhering Christians, who believe as per Biblical teaching that Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior will end up in hell, tend to be pro-Israel largely because they still need for the Jews to be in the Promised Land for Christ to return.

Remember - forty four percent.

Islam is the third and latest of the Abrahamic religions. Although the Muslims in the conflict are probably the most unabashed and vocal in associating their struggle with their religion, the Quran - which they believe to be the indisputable, undeniable word of God as revealed to Muhammad - isn't as unequivocal about granting any specific chunk of real estate to them.

However, the Palestinians elected Hamas in what is considered to be a free, fair democratic election, a party whose Covenant clearly defines the group's program as an "Islamic movement" in Article One, and quotes profusely from the Quran and the hadith (the traditions of the prophet Muhammad) throughout its text, which begins with verses 3:110-111:

"Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah. And if they who have received the scriptures had believed, it had surely been the better for them: there are believers among them, but the greater part of them are transgressors. They shall not hurt you, unless with a slight hurt; and if they fight against you, they shall turn their backs to you, and they shall not be helped..."

Article 13 of the Covenant references another unflattering verse, 2:120:

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah."

It is true that the Middle East conflict has devolved into a conglomeration of political, geographic, economic, and human rights issues in the thousands of years since these texts were written.

The dynamics, however, remain tribalistic.

The Arab-Israeli schism isn't one between the rich and the poor - Israel's economic might is balanced well by oil-rich Arab states. In the same way, there are both men and women, people of varying ethnicities, different levels of education, and of different political leanings - conservative, liberal, or otherwise - on both sides.

The dividing factor, by and large, is that of religious heritage and religious belief. Worldwide, those born in Muslim families overwhelmingly and almost unconditionally side with the Palestinian struggle; and Jews and Christians, whose scriptural teachings are more in line with the Israeli cause, support Israel.

The phenomenon is that of tribalistic loyalty, which is indoctrinated according to identity at birth: if you know deep down that you may have supported the other side if you were born into a different family, you've been indoctrinated, and it's most likely this partially blind loyalty, not rationality or conscience, that dictates what rally you attend, what your sign says, which consulate you're protesting in front of, and yes - whether you're praying to Yahweh for Israel or Allah for Palestine.

European Christians learned their lessons the hard way, over centuries, before they embraced secularism and the separation of religion and state as the only workable way to a peaceful coexistence with others. Secularism is not about taking religion out of society, but about dissociating it from government, politics, and legislation.

Israel claims to have done this, but this is a difficult claim to substantiate. If a non-Jewish majority in Israel as the consequence of a one-state solution is unacceptable because it would interfere with Israel's character as a "Jewish" state, Israel is not truly a secular state. If all Jews are automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship (including converts to Judaism who may be of any ethnicity or race) over those of other religions or no religion, Israel is blatantly engaging in religious discrimination, against secular principles, in the way that Jordan and Saudi Arabia do.

Arabs and Muslims on the other hand could take a lesson from studying the Jewish and Japanese communities after both underwent horrible atrocities during World War II. If, after sixty years of struggle and occupation, you're still throwing shoes instead of having the patience and long-term vision to educate your next generation, build your economy, and embrace modernity - you're missing the big picture.

A distinct separation of religion and state is the starting point for any kind of resolution, as has been seen often throughout recent history. In the Middle East, this would mean an unequivocal abandonment - at the state level - of archaic scriptural concepts like a Promised Land from Yahweh, or armed jihad in the way of Allah. These texts and their spokespersons should have no more influence over state policy and legislation than a Harry Potter book or an astrologer.

Pointing fingers, protesting, and praying can be very satisfying, but the new generation that's going to inherit these issues will need to do a much more courageous thing: consciously make an effort to break out of the shackles of a rigidly conditioned, tribalistic, indoctrination-borne loyalty in order to embrace rationality, reason, and an all-encompassing humanistic approach to this conflict, which for now seems to have almost limitless staying power.

Decades have passed. Thousands are dead.

The other approach - obviously - has not worked.