This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what the programs mean to you.

Where do you draw the line between faith and extremism?
Share Your Reflection

Absolutes in Fundamentalism (January 8, 2005)
One might first start by asking the question "Does a given person have a religion/belief system based on love, or one based on fear?" It is my belief that what Jesus taught was a belief and practice of love. (While the Bible may say that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom," the operative word here is beginning. Elsewhere in the Bible, it reminds us that "Perfect love casteth out all fear."

A person who is driven by fear generally has a need for absolutes. Absolute truth, to be found in a literal reading of the Bible, or rendered by a hierarchical leadership whose divine guidance is unquestioned. To say that the Bible means exactly what it says, in plain English, means that one must be in denial of the fact that the Bible was not written in plain English, but in a number of other, ancient languages.

A person living in fear and anger needs a God of fear and anger. Such people are often, or usually called fundamentalists. I would hope that we can only offer them God's love, and not just judgmentalism.

Bruce Chris Sikkema
Minneapolis, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Extraordinary Insights by Halevi (August 29, 2004)
Thank you! Thanks especially for the third speaker, the Jewish journalist [Yossi Klein Halevi], and his extraordinary insights, "Not a need for discourse but for living the other's experience. Spiritual processes differ from political change; the story of a few eccentrics who allow themselves to be entry points." I got to capture those words in that three or four minutes to ponder and re-ponder!

That speaker and you would each, I believe, appreciate the following book. Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity, by Charles Spinoza, Fernando Flores, and Hubert L. Dreyfus. Those authors don't look for divine intervention, but they describe entrepreneurs as holding on to an anomaly. But let them describe the steps. Their entrepreneurs are performing like "entry points." I marvel at their descriptions. I think you and your Jewish speaker will both like these authors' take on the process.

Chris Lowenberg
Lansdale, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Stunning (August 22, 2004)
I am not a fundamentalist, but I was absolutely stunned by the untruthfulness and transparent bigotry reflected in this program. You proceed from the absurd premise, first, that there is some phenomenon labelled "fundamentalism" that somehow magically transcends the tenets of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The whole tenor is that this "fundamentalism" is problematic, wrong, sinister, irrational, violent, to be loathed, shunned, and denounced.

The narrative degenerates from there. You interview three people with axes to grind and no one else. You present no serious discussion whatsoever of Christian fundamentalist beliefs, and indeed assume that fundamental Christianity simply is unworthy of serious consideration. You admit no possibility except that Christian fundamentalists are certainly fools and probably dangerous. I was shocked that this program was presented on public radio as some kind of intelligent discussion. It was not. It was sheer ignorance and undiluted bigotry. Shame on you.

Bern de Galvez
Washington, DC (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Fundamentalism or Faithfulness? (August 27, 2004)
As a Catholic priest I have encountered Protestant fundamentalism fairly often. However, despite my theological differences, and its often blatant anti-Catholicism, it is unfair to compare it to Islamic fundamentalism. You don't have mobs of Baptists or Pentecostals destroy cities or beginning major wars. Violence among them is quite rare. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Christianity and Islam are different religions. Fundamentalism is sometimes used by people who are basically "liberal" and are all to often fundamentalist liberals. It is an easy and cheap label used to dismiss a group of believers. We Catholics have fundamental beliefs that we all share and that are non-negotiable. Hence we are often labeled fundamentalist for simply being faithful. Sometimes Christians are called fundamentalist terrorists for daring to oppose gay marriage or other such issues. I am pleased you want to learn more about religion. NPR is often hostile to faith. But I suggest you examine your biases before you do a program. Thank you.

Fr. Jim Goodwin
Hankinson, ND (KCCD, 90.3 FM)

The Most Dangerous Form (April 22, 2002)
Thanks for a most enlightening program. Most informative and even more encouraging for the sake of understanding. Fundamentalism is the most dangerous form of religiosity. It murders heart, soul, and mind indiscriminately, without respect for any religion, race, or gender. Thanks! And may God be your guide and reward.

Jerome Knies
Olympia Fields, IL

Victims or Survivors (April 16, 2002)
On April 15, I had the good fortune of having my normal after-work routine changed. I listen to NPR in Los Angeles. The program on religious fundamentalism opened a new internal dialogue. To hear the reasons why extremism appeals to so many, then the path out of and away from the dense core reaffirmed my feelings about fundamentalists of all persuasions. The comment which has had me thinking came from Mr. Halevi. It applied to perception and how we all view our role in life. He explained we either think of ourselves as victims or survivors and that makes all the difference. As survivors we can get along. As victims we hate and seek revenge for our plight. Definitely strong advice for the negotiators in the Mid-East. Thank you for a great show.

Jacqueline Hendricks
Los Angeles, CA

Extraordinary Insights by Halevi (August 29, 2004)
I very much enjoyed this morning's program on fundamentalism and would like to make several observations. First, strict dictionary definitions are sometimes inappropriate for terms that are used to mean something quite specific in our present culture. The term "fundamentalism" is a case in point. While the term does refer to the fundamental principles of religious belief, there is a broad range of opinion regarding just what the "fundamentals" are. Is God justice incarnate, or a God of love? Is Jewish exclusivity or human brotherhood a "fundamental" of Judaism? Is belief in the Devil "fundamental"? Are "fundamental" principles to be found outside of scripture, in St. Augustine, for example? Fundamentalism takes on many different and even opposing guises depending on which "fundamentals" selected. In fact, the "values" attributed to a religion can be quite malleable. Many of the top Nazis felt their program was fundamentally Christian.

Fundamentalism, then, is not the same thing as being "deeply religious" and adhering to the "fundamentals" of one's religion. In general, I believe that fundamentalism as the term is used currently in the U.S. involves two features: firstly, the primacy of scripture as the source of truth and, secondly, and more importantly, the literal interpretation of scripture. This is why fundamentalists have such a problem with Darwin (and early Protestants had similar problems with Copernicus and Galileo). In fact the entire so-called "conflict between science and religion" results entirely from this literalist stance towards scripture, which is probably traceable only to the time of John Wycliffe. To put this in perspective, among other world religions, only certain Islamic schools have ever made this peculiar and stringent demand upon their followers.

In answer to Dr. Richard Mouw's remark that fundamentalists are not necessarily literalists since they do not interpret the Book of Revelations literally, it should be pointed out that there are places in the Bible (such as dreams and revelations) which are treated as allegories within the text. It is, of course, proper for literalists to regard those instances as allegories, since the Scripture itself regards them as such.

Secondly, I would like to point out that there is no essential connection between militancy and fundamentalism. Fundamentalism, more often than not, is a privately held belief. Militant groups, on the other hand, aggressively seek social or political change. The vast majority of them have nothing to do with religion. I am thinking of anarchists, communist cells, various independence movements including the Basque separatists and the IRA, the Rainforest Action League, etc. In other words militancy is something which can occur within a religious setting, but really has nothing to do with religion per se. It is especially important not to confuse it with religious extremism, which is more apt to take the form of saintliness and self-mortification.

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl nicely pointed out the intense camaraderie and reciprocal self-image-boosting that takes place within these militant in-groups, religious or otherwise, and which may constitute their real raison d'etre. Terrorism is simply a variety of violent militancy in which an individual or organization seeks to promote political or social change by spreading fear within a civilian population. The Klu Klux Klan is probably the most important American terrorist organization. There is nothing inherent in any particular religion that would make a militant group turn in the direction of terrorism.

In summary, I feel that all so-called "religious terrorism" or "fundamentalist terrorism" should be properly identified as political terrorism. We should recognize when a religion becomes politicized, and not blame the religion for that phenomenon. Christianity has a very long history of demonizing Islam, so this is nothing new. As Mr. Yossi Klein Halevi eloquently pointed out, religions have better things to offer; fundamentally and unpoliticized they all stress universal humility, respect, and kindness. Religion has been called the "cause" of the Palestinian conflict, but it can just as well provide the cure.

Stephen Silver
Waterford, CT (WEDW 88.5 FM)

Where Are the Moderates? (April 9, 2002)
A very interesting program that I'll study further through the writings of your guests. Until this time, Karen Armstrong seemed to be the only person that connected the religious "rational" with the "spiritual"—rather than one or the other.

Both I and my wife came from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds—I from something close to Mennonite and she from Southern Baptist. Both are from white, middle class, and Midwestern backgrounds. We have been touched by these faiths of our childhood for the joy and community we experienced and the good and honorable lives we have seen lived. Yet we have been put off by a selected and conscious ignorance and a provincialism that seemed more suited to people living in a valley hundreds of years ago, oblivious of what any other community thinks or experiences—whether in the next valley or across an ocean. Things change.

John Shelby Spong speaks courageously about Christianity and its future. In the '90s, Robert Funk (Five Gospels; Honest to Jesus) and a collection of brave scholars opened the windows on Christianity and its roots, the historical person Jesus, and the legacy that developed after him. Now we are confronted by Islam and the specter of someone laying down his AK-47 for prayers on his little mat—having his moment with "God," then getting up with the intention to kill. My question: Who the heck is he talking to—or perhaps better, who is he listening to?

Where are the religious moderates within Islam who speak up against suicide murderers—whatever their perceived grievance? Where are those who would advocate religious tolerance that is something other than a "tactic" until the goal of eliminating secular government and creating an Islamic world state? Do they fear a fatwa if they speak out too clearly?

It seems that the common thread of fundamentalism is that each feels that he has the right answer and has no interest whatsoever in understanding what the other believes—unless it is to do a sell-job on the other. The result of this closed-mindedness can range from benign neglect to suspicion or general prejudice, to more aggressive and negative forms that fill our newspapers and history books.

I will be interested in learning more about what your guests have to say—via whatever may exist in their writings. Thank you for bringing this group together. Keep up the good work. I look forward to hearing more on topics like "The Power of Fundamentalism."

Bob Cargill
Eden Prairie, MN