Which do you believe is politically more significant: terrorism or fundamentalism?
- Terrorism.
- Fundamentalism.
- The question is poorly put.
0 voters
I don’t want to prejudice the responses, so that’s the question; straight up.
I voted fundamentalism, although I was tempted to choose the poorly put option.
Fundamentalism is more of an ideal or a series of beliefs, while terrorism is simply a tool or a weapon.
Fundamentalism leads to terrorism.
I don’t think we all even agree as to what the definitions of “terrorism” and “fundamentalism” are.
To me, terrorism is the use of violence against unarmed, defenseless individuals in order to pressure some powerful group or organization into submission.
The best definition of fundamentalism I’m aware of is: “embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis.”
– Karen Armstrong
I doubt that everyone here would agree with the above definition of terrorism though because it would hit too close to home.
Another problem is that terrorism and fundamentalism are so intertwined. Can you even be a terrorist unless you believe you’re just an innocent cog in some fundamental struggle between good and evil?
Yes, that’s why I voted for fundamentalism. It’s the more fundamental problem, IMO, even though there are other causes for terrorism too.
I voted option #3.
Here is why -
Terrorism can have its roots in many seperate issues - poverty, ignorance(lack of education), extremeist religious zealousness, political partisanship, plain old criminality, lack of political expression/representation, “politically created” nation-state boundaries, charismatic leaders, and a myriad of other reasons.
Fundamentalism - when used in this context is not clearly defined. Political fundamentalism? Religious fundamentalism? Fundamental(Basic?) recognition of a right to exist and expression?
As shown, IMO, these 2 fields may be too over-lapping to qualify as seperate items in this context. Each of these are/may well be significant reasons for other nation states to be concerned about instability of the involved actors.
Just my opinion.
My assumption was that “religious” fundamentalism was intended.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]I voted option #3.
Here is why -
Terrorism can have its roots in many separate issues - poverty, ignorance(lack of education), extremeist religious zealousness, political partisanship, plain old criminality, lack of political expression/representation, “politically created” nation-state boundaries, charismatic leaders, and a myriad of other reasons.
Fundamentalism - when used in this context is not clearly defined. Political fundamentalism? Religious fundamentalism? Fundamental(Basic?) recognition of a right to exist and expression?
As shown, IMO, these 2 fields may be too over-lapping to qualify as separate items in this context. Each of these are/may well be significant reasons for other nation states to be concerned about instability of the involved actors.
Just my opinion.[/quote]
While I agree with the thrust of your argument, I’d have to say that all those other causes of terrorsism can be cured, or at least negotiated on a rational basis. Unfortunately, the unshakeable belief in a higher power and considering yourself a medium to act out the supposed wishes of that higher power is a much more frightneing and harder delusion to deal with. With logic and rational thought nowhere near the root of the cause, how do you negotiate?
HG
Nah, I deliberately did not qualify it.
Jaboney -
Thats what I thought. I think its a good subject with a lot of variables in the discussion.
Another - How the personalities of the ‘leaders’ that bubble to the surface of the various groups influence the actions of the group and the paths they follow.
Good subject for a thread J.
Most of the worst excesses of religious fundamentalism are mimicked by so-called Liberals and the Left.
Saint Che?
Those eyes follow me when I walk across the room…madre’ dios!
Ok… if nobody’s going to vote “Terrorism”, anyone care to share their ideas on the origins [edit: or essence] of fundamentalism?
(Fundamentalism generally, not just religious, political, whatever…)
Somewhat interesting article: I posted this article on one reporters experiences with fundamentalists in the always crashing Israel-Lebanon thread.
I voted option 3, as in a poorly put question.
Which is a pretty lazy answer likewise!
Some definitions as I see them:
Politics: the classical definition of who gets what, where, when, & why?
Terrorism: the application of violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government, or a community.
Fundamentalism: a strict atavistic maintenance of a rigid belief system that attempts to adhere to ancient or fso called fundamental doctrines of any religion (that includes Marxism).
From this, I would argue that political violence is more significant than political dogmaticism. In the short term immediate political consciousness, a short, sharp violent event will have more impact than monotonous adherence to dogma. That said, the violent application of dogma can be quite terroristic, and can have far-flung implications over time.
I think a few people here might have suffered some sort of childhood trauma in Sunday School.