Why Fundamentalism Reflects The Unevolved Mind

f

In March 2008, the outspoken Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his short film, entitled “Fitna” onto the Internet. The piece is a savage critique of fundamentalist Islam, and purports that the religion as a whole has an intrinsically bellicose nature.

Wilders supports this suggestion with a selection of warlike quotes from the Koran, such as:

“They but wish that ye should reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

In order to indicate a link between these modern-day atrocities and the age-old texts, he shows us images of 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings and footage of the beheading of hostage Eugene Armstrong. We see clips of various extremist Islamic preachers, proclaiming in no uncertain terms that it is the Muslim’s duty to terminate any non-believers with extreme prejudice; “Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists”, “Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed”, etc.

Wilders’ film ends with a written postscript:

“It is not up to me, but up to Moslems themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Koran. Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you. The government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you. Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western civilization. In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989, Communism was defeated in Europe. Now, the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.”

The International community was acutely aware of the film’s prospective impact, even before it was released. When a video alleged to be a trailer for the short film was put on YouTube, Pakistan blocked the site from being accessed across the entire country. This actually resulted in the site going offline around the world for two hours.

When the film became available on the Internet, tensions grew. Political condemnation was worldwide and virtually unanimous. Public protests took place in Dam Square, Amsterdam. On the 7th of April, Indonesia blocked and continues to block YouTube because of its refusal to remove Fitna from its servers. Muslim nations have invariably threatened, at the very least, a review of their diplomatic relations with the Netherlands.

And a Fatwa has been put out on the life of Wilders himself. This is no empty threat; another Dutch filmmaker, Theo Vah Gogh (a descendant of Vincent’s family) was murdered after he made a film entitled “Submission”, about the physical and mental abuse that women often suffer in Islamic societies. The film was well received by some, but caused an uproar in Muslim communities.

As a result, on November 2nd 2004, a Muslim extremist named Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in Amsterdam as he cycled to work. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh eight times, slashed his throat (almost to the point of decapitation) and stabbed him in the chest. He also left a note pinned to the body, threatening jihad against Jews and Western governments. That was the climate in which Wilders made his own, arguably more controversial film.

Considering the circumstances, it seems very difficult for any non-religious person to side with Wilders’ film. Certainly, yes, it only presents one side of the story, but regardless of the film, the evidence seems highly stacked in favour of his argument. Fitna‘s featured preachers unequivocally desire conflict against the kuffars (non-believers) and believe that Islam can and should be the world’s sole religion.

The problem is that religious intolerance is considered such an awful taboo, such anathema to the mores of Western civilization, that it allows hate speech, indoctrination and mob mentality to exist untouched as long as it poses as the free expression of religious tenets. This allows aspects of fundamentalism to insinuate themselves into mainstream culture.

Islam is just one example of this phenomenon; Christian fundamentalism is rife in the USA; children are sent to camps to learn total submission to antiquated Catholic values. They speak in glossolalia and shed tears of joy, believing themselves to be conduits of the good Lord’s will. Of course, this all has practical uses, it creates an army of non-questioning youths who disdain abortion, divorce, sex before marriage etc; and who support totally the actions of a Christian president who wants to spread democracy overseas.

(Indeed, there’s been a lot of controversy recently about Barack Obama’s preacher, Jeremiah Wright, mainly because he has stated that 9/11 was a direct result of US’ interference with Middle Eastern nations. The very idea that America may have actually been partially responsible for the attacks that day is abhorrent to good American Christians, so they call the man a “traitor”.)

I don’t think that any religion is immune to this phenomenon (except possibly Buddhism, which embraces the questioning of even its most sacred beliefs), and Islam tends to enforce its rules with particular brutality. And it does so at the expense of countries that allow it to flourish. Indeed, the tremendous hypocrisy is that it abuses the open laws of countries that allow people of varying religions to settle there. They are allowed to practice their religions unmolested, and then preach hatred against the openness of the very cultures that allow them the freedoms of speech to do so in the first place.

I’m aware that it’s quite difficult to make this argument without getting into countrified “Not In My Back Yard” moralities. But there is a line. For example, the Latvian government recently jailed an Englishman for urinating on the Freedom Monument in Riga. The Freedom Monument is a tribute to those who fought and died in the Latvian War of Independence, and some drunken guy taking a piss on it was a terrible insult to the Latvian people. The Latvian foreign minister called the English “pigs” and threw the man in jail. And there was no international condemnation of the action.

On the other hand, when an English teacher in the Sudan allowed a class to name a teddy bear “Mohammad”, she was convicted of “insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs” by Islamic authorities. She was sentenced to 15 days in jail and was deported upon release. Not only that, but

“…approximately 400 protesters took to the streets, some of them waving swords and machetes, demanding Gibbons’s execution after imams denounced her during Friday prayers. During the march, chants of “Shame, shame on the UK”, “No tolerance – execution” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad” were heard. Witnesses reported that government employees were involved in inciting the protests.” Wikipedia

Wanting to end someone’s life because of the name they gave a teddy bear suggests something more to me than simple religious offence. I think that many people, and certainly those who subscribe to the fundamentalist aspects of any religion, are assuming a personality type; the kind that tends towards the total abdication of individual responsibility.

True responsibility is an imposing prospect. It involves a lot of work. It involves searching the Gods, quite literally, for the meaning of life. It involves the realization that everyone else’s actions make just as much sense to them as yours do to you. It involves the admission that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions; if you insult your friend, beat your wife, kill someone, it’s because you chose to do it, not because some ancient text gave you permission. It’s liberating, but it also deletes a huge portion of one’s ego and cuts you adrift from the woolly cotton braids of what at least purports to be “tradition”.

In that sense, it’s interesting that the word Islam actually means “submission”. Because that’s what fundamentalism demands. And it’s attractive. It entices so many because it offers the promise of an easier life. It offers a psychological return to the womb, where some all-powerful entity will provide you with all you need to survive; you don’t need to make any decisions for yourself, because everything has been already decided for you.

The problem with that, though, is that when these people see others taking responsibility for their lives, exploring the wonders and limits of existence, it drives them hog-wild. It wounds them so deeply because in their heart of hearts, they know that they are missing out. If there is any spark of human curiosity left in them, it flares up and reminds them that they have cravenly abandoned their duties. It’s like ol’ Fred Nietszche says; “Fear is the mother of morality”.

It seems similar, to me at least, to the actions of the classic sociopath. This person indulges in anti-social behaviour, but, when confronted with the the truth (or any criticism whatsoever) of their actions, reacts with furious disdain. It’s similar to a child who has been caught lying, but who continues lying to maintain their innocence. They know they’re in the wrong, and the only way they can react is with anger, tears and even violence.

Fortunately for religious zealots, this anger, these tears and violence can be channeled through the untouchable medium of religious outrage. Claiming insult of one’s theistic persuasion is thus used as the basis to lash out at others for any and all of man’s frailties; sexual frustration, mortality, depression, fear. All of this encourages a regression to tribalism – mob mentalities that rail against centuries of progress in racial integration. The non-believers are less worthy than believers, and that’s non-negotiable.

To reiterate, this is certainly not confined to Islam. And like other religions, Islam has an introspective, mystic tradition that encourages reflection, non-violence and self-discovery (Sufism). Christianity had a similar tradition, known as Gnosticism. In fact, it could be argued that religion regularly seems to reflect different personalities, or at least, personalities at different levels of maturity. People are drawn to whatever aspects of  their religion that tend to echo their own beliefs and experiences. If you desire peace and love, both Christianity and Islam can be argued to justify that. If you want violence and bloodshed, both can be argued to justify that, too.

(I wonder if so many of these old religious texts, written in such vague aphorisms, are actually meant to be gauges of man’s maturity as a civilization. Since they seem to be textual Rorschach tests, people tend to draw from them what they will; love, hatred, peace, violence, whatever.)

But what if the believers in violence and bloodshed start to encroach on the progress of peace? Well, that’s the heart of the problem; the cultures that have embraced racial and religious integration are slow to do anything for fear of violating their own democratic ideals. In doing so, they may allow hate speech to flow and the warlike traits of the collective psyche to grow.

I recently came across a proverb that went something like this:

“The problem with the world is that wise people are open-minded and unsure, but the foolish are absolutely certain.”

I think that sums it up. The heads of our democracies must be wary of and penalize those who would preach racism, insularity and violence. Doing so does not violate the tenets of democracy, it encourages them.

As I have argued, religion tends to reflect aspects of the individual personality. In the same way that the most peaceful person may sometimes feel a jolt of fury or jealousy, they must dispel these feelings instead of letting them fester and grow. But that involves a personal decision and personal action.

And it’s action that must be taken; otherwise, the fears and tribalisms can take hold from within and undo so much of the progress of personal and social evolution. Although a world of total peace and integration would be wonderful, we haven’t reached it yet. And if the road to it is left unpoliced, we never will.

f

f

Further Viewing:

Geert Wilders’ “Fitna”

Channel 4 Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Documentary featuring undercover investigation into the influence of religious extremism throughout the UK.

Should We Ignore Or Help Difficult People?

In my last article, “The Secret: Fact Or Fiction?”, I  said that “It is certainly flawed in places, and offers rather simplistic views of, for example, why bad events sometimes befall people (they draw it upon themselves, apparently).” Some people have argued that “The Secret” implies a  shunning of these people, that negative thoughts are contagious and that you must not draw them – or the people who think them – upon yourself.

I have wondered about this for a long time; what are you supposed to do with people who are just, well, negative?

A few years back, I suffered from panic attacks and an obsessive thought disorder known as depersonalization. Despite my initial enthusiasm for the Internet as a research tool, I found that using it as such in this case was extremely dangerous. Why? Because almost all of the forums in which you would expect to find support were actually inhabited by people who had no intention of getting better. It’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s true. People logged in day after day, broadcasting their self-pity on a digital soapbox. These posts usually amounted to little more than reassurance of the grimness of everyone’s situation, which is particularly demoralising to an individual with an obsessive thinking disorder. According to these people, nobody ever gets better from these conditions, and most people who logged on to say they had were branded a liar (I was one of them).

After my recovery, I wrote and began selling a guide on how to deal with obsessive thinking; one of the golden rules of that book was to never, ever go into a forum again. I have told everybody, and I mean hundreds of buyers, everyone who has read the book – to never speak to the people in the forums again, to have nothing to do with them. Because they will drag you down, they will infect you via emotional osmosis and make your own recovery that much more difficult. It happened to me many, many times before I noticed the pattern and stopped it.

And that’s the dilemma. Is it our duty to help and be kind to people who are, on the surface at least, cruel and hurtful? Or, to be exact, is it our duty to do this continually for that person?

I have been blessed with a wonderful family, with whom I get on very well; but I know people who have had to practically cut relatives out of their lives, purely for the sake of ease. Again, it sounds terrible, but if that person’s mood and demeanour affects yours (as it almost always must), how do you deal with a regular barrage of pessimism and ignorance that sucks the energy and vitality from yourself? And let me be clear; I am not talking about depression or sadness in a person. Of course, these absolutely must be dealt with, thoroughly and attentively. But in this case I am talking about negativity, insults, put-downs, bullying, manipulation and exploitation.

I had the experience of spending a good deal of time with one individual who had been “cut off” by another close member of their family, simply because the latter was totally unable to deal with the irresponsible behaviour of the former. Despite my initial scepticism towards this way of dealing with the situation, I had to eventually conclude that it was the only practical way of doing so. The assumption, however hopeful, would be that the person in question would in the future, find a level of maturity on their own to allow for a reconciliation.

But until then, is there really any other alternative? Talking things out is not always a viable option. Often, when someone is confronted with what they perceive to be an assault on their ego, they can respond with tears, shouts or even violence. Indeed, arguing one worldview versus another is generally a exercise in futility. For example, take your average college debate. Let’s say that one side comes up with a long list of trump reasonings for their argument, while the other side fails to respond with anything remotely cohesive. Do you think that at any point, any member of the latter team will stand up and say “You know what? You’re right”, and join the other side?

Of course not. Why? Because most of us have developed this silly idea that our viewpoint is somehow connected to our ego, that changing one’s mind is somehow evidence of defeat, of not having thought things through. A healthier stance would be that changing one’s mind is evidence of adaptability, of willingness to change and evolve.

That’s why confronting someone who you believe to be mistreating others or acting in an ignorant manner can be so dangerous; because you are criticizing their behaviour, the way they interact with the world – and deep offence can be taken.

On the other hand, let’s consider the audience of the debate. These people are prone to great variances in opinion between the beginning and end of the verbal contest. In an excellent, ongoing series of podcasts, the moderators measure the listeners’ attitudes before and after the debate, which often produces huge differences. Why does this happen to the audience and not the debaters? Because the audience are spectators; they have no immediate social investment in the belief being contested. Not only that, but they are part of a gathering where the adaptation of thought is accepted and even encouraged.

They weigh up the evidence, and decide for themselves. And that’s a great microcosm for one’s personal ascent to maturity. Telling someone to change won’t make them change; demonstrating the value of change will allow them to make the decision for themselves. The famous therapeutic hypnotist Milton Erickson accomplished this brilliantly: For example, he had a rule of never telling his patients what not to do (i.e., “Don’t laugh”, “Don’t worry”). Also, he used techniques such as metaphorical stories to insinuate that the patient could get better. The bottom line was that everything was accomplished on the patient’s terms, a revolutionary approach that allowed for full recoveries in astonishingly short periods of time. Why? Because the patient figured out for themselves that they could do just that, for themselves.

It’s like the Buddhist saying, “When the student is ready, the lesson presents itself.” And the Desiderata says, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit.” If we take these sayings together, we might conclude that sometimes, it’s necessary to just leave some people alone and hope that they figure certain things out for themselves. This can be very tough, especially if that person is or has been close to you.

r

But if the student isn’t ready, maybe there is little you can do but wait and hope for the best.

r