Fundamentalism vs Information

[Guest guest]

Friends,

 

On another list a member posted a simple definition of fundamentalism, which

was:

>Primary among the inherited characteristics,

> is the drive to homogenize the 'tribe'. This seems

> to be the root of 'fundamentalism'. To cause the

> total populace to live in fear of harsh discipline

> or death, for the sake of regimented sameness,

> is unfortunately, still seen as a worthy goal.

 

later in his piece he proposed:

>This is not rocket science. Can we drop bombs of open

> mindedness on the world? The other sort of bombs don't

> work. This would be a serious work but with humour as our

> guide less we fall foul of our own zealousness.

 

And again:

> Rather than go on, I would welcome any feedback over the

> next few days as to what anyone else thinks? whether

> anyone else would like to help with this task?, how it

> could move forward? whether anyone thinks this is stupid

> and can't be done? If we can do it together perhaps we can

> have a world voice for inner freedom.

 

My response to Gary, whose original piece it was, follows.

 

"Gary, I think that you are carving out too large a zone of interest. After

reading so many of the impractical but "spiritual" suggestions offered up on

this and other lists in the direct aftermath of the WTC tragedy, I uncovered

a petition to the president(USA) that urged him to show restraint and

discrimination in any response to the attack against America. I signed it and

reprinted it here, and elsewhere that I post. It might surprise some of us to

notice(it surprised me) that the response was almost nill, despite the fact

that a US military response was surely going to occur and that steering that

response, even if infinitismally, was the best thing that spiritual and

morally idealistic people could do."

 

"Preaching to the choir is the rule on most of these lists, and I doubt that

it is going to change substantially. If we want to fight fundamentalism (and

I do), the best idea that has occured to me in these last 2 weeks, is that

the US,and/or, a private group, should sponsor a TV/radio/internet presence

that will have as it's mandate the clear representation of 1/ objective

unslanted news (unique in the middle east except for Al Jazeera out of

Qatar)and 2/ Islamic religious programming with an emphasis on maintaining

an editorial platform for all moderate, progressive Islamic speakers and

theorists to popularize the vast non violent, non terrorist peaceful

objectives that so many in Islam profess, but cannot adequately publish and

promote. This would be an extraorcinary step forward in the Middle East and

would, in my opinion, have as beneficial a result as any equivalent

investment could."

 

 

 

What do the rest of you think? I experience us as groups that are not

particularly pragmatic, but in this case, I think all of us would agree that

the particular subject matter suggests that we have a special "inside"

interest, and in some cases, experience.

 

what do you think? Is the promotion of "truth" our best weapon against

fundamentalism? Is fundamentalism the real enemy? Does all religious

fundamentalism carry the same threat as Islamic fundamentalism, as I suspect,

or is there a better way of looking at it?

 

yours in the bonds,

eric

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric,

 

The religion to birth all kinds of violence,

of which fundamentalism is but 1 aspect, is called

ego - ism. Addressing that properly is the only cure

and it starts with caring for those poor and oppressed

who don't have the opportunity to change their fate.

Everything else is treating symptoms - the analogy

of allopathic vs holistic treatment.

 

In the PRC, there is an entire generation, classified

as "spoiled brats" with the only concern "i want it

my way" at any cost... The terrorists, European countries

had to deal with, mostly came from the "better" part

of society, and had everything they wanted materially...

Spoiled brats? You bet...

 

Peace,

Jan