"Religious Extremism"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do phrases like "religious extremist" and "religious moderate" suggest that religion is inherently bad?

I see plenty of religious people using these phrases, and I've always found it strange:

- the "extremists" are the ones that do hateful things, engage in violence in the name of their religion, restrict freedoms, etc... all negative things. Being extremely religious is seen as bad.

- the "moderates" are the ones who reject violence, support freedom, build communities with people outside their religion, etc... all positive things. Being moderately religious is seen as good.

So isn't this built on the idea that religion is negative, and the less we have, the better?

Those of you who see your religion as positive: do you use the phrase "religious extremism" to describe negative elements of your religion/denomination/etc.? If so, why?

 

[lovemuffin]

I would view the polarity between "moderation" and "extremism" in terms of the politics of authoritarianism (or some such) as being a different question then the one about depth of commitment to a particular path, or the intensity of "religiosity", so to speak. At least insofar as being religious entails more than a moral viewpoint and a politics about how that moral viewpoint should be (or should not be) enforced.

So I am politically and culturally very liberal, or moderate, or however you want to put it, but in another way I am "extremely religious", if the phrase simply means that religiosity is profoundly important to my life and worldview. I would consider being "extreme" in the sense of being authoritarian, or of being violent, to be a bad thing. Insofar as that it is an element of religion, then I think religion is a negative influence. Although I also think that tendency is not limited to "religion", per se. In any case, thinking that violence and authoritarian politics are negative, and recognizing that they can find sanction in religion, is not quite the same as thinking that religion is entirely negative.

 

[Revoltingest]

All depends upon the flavor of extremism & moderation.
Amish folk are extreme, but pose no threat....except when their peksy kids are in rumspringa.
Many of the politicians who send us into deadly & useless foreign wars are religious moderates.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All depends upon the flavor of extremism & moderation.
Amish folk are extreme, but pose no threat....except when their peksy kids are in rumspringa.

Somehow, I don't think that this is usually what people are going for when they say things like "the problem isn't religion; it's religious extremism."

... or maybe it is. I have concerns about the Amish religion and some of its practices. IMO, it can be oppressive for some.

 

[Revoltingest]

Somehow, I don't think that this is usually what people are going for when they say things like "the problem isn't religion; it's religious extremism."

Some extremism is a problem.
Some is not.

... or maybe it is. I have concerns about the Amish religion and some of its practices. IMO, it can be oppressive for some.

It is oppressive by my standards, but they're allowed to leave.
Rumspringa is even their systematic approach to letting kids try the outside world.

 

[Laika]

Phrases such as "extremism" are intended to attack the legitimacy of the methods employed by people without ever actually looking at the legitimacy of the greivances or motivations behind them. The concept of "extremism" is used primarily to demonise individuals based on the methods they use to achieve their ends particuarly when it employs violence. There is an implicit authoritarianism in the way the concept is used in the mass media in that only the state can legitimately use violence, and hence any violence used against the state is not legitimate. Violence is ussually the threshold for determining whether someone is an extremist or not, but it can be used more generally to refer to political or religious positions that are not mainstream, or the powers that be do not wish to be considered mainstream. Many historical figures that brought about transformative change were considered extremists in there time, but from the position of looking back into the past we can see that they were utlmiately valid in promoting change. time gives space to reach a consensus to heal the wounds and differences which made such change necessary.

Overall, it is simply easier to portray an enemy as wanting to bring about destruction without considering rational or ideological motivations behind it, so it often goes to the extent of showing them to be inherently evil, without moral conscience or somehow pathologically disturbed. To give credence that violence against the status quo can be rationally motivated necessarily implies that "extremists" can be negioated with, may have legitimate demands or greivances and worse, that we are on the "wrong side". In the Media battle to sell the War on Terrorism to the general public, the media is obligated to attack "extremists" without ever giving serious consideration as to why such violence is employed and how it is justified. So I would say that actually, the use of phrases such as extremism protect religion from serious examination by portraying such actions as being undertaken by a small sociopathic minority, thereby exonerates the 'religious moderates' and larger religious traditions.

 

[columbus]

I would view the polarity between "moderation" and "extremism" in terms of the politics of authoritarianism (or some such) as being a different question then the one about depth of commitment to a particular path

This is the point.
Religion is a subset of ideology, and that is the real problem. When someone's beliefs or world view become more important to them than the welfare of their fellow humans there's trouble.

It doesn't really matter if you are being attacked by a Communist, a Black Nationalist, a Feminist, a Christian or whomever. The problem is the attack.
Some ideologies are more prone to inspiring this behavior than others. And the same ideology might inspire more at some times or under some circumstances than at others.
To blame religious extremists entirely on religion is to miss what really causes the problems.
Tom

 

[arthra]

In my view "religion" can be exploited... In many parts of the world it is a powerful force that holds societies together.. and gives meaning to life...and death. So it is no wonder some elements will attempt to harness religion for their own ends. It is essential that the believers in religion learn more about it and become more deepened and spiritual and not allow some element to exploit them and their religion.

 

[Quintessence]

I get the sense there's a false equivalency being made here between the phrase "religious extremist" and "extremely religious." They do not mean the same thing at all. One can easily be extremely religious without being a religious extremist, and vice versa. As @Red Economist suggested, calling something "extremist" is an all-purpose snarl word aimed at demonizing a practice someone disagrees with. The use of the term isn't at all built on the idea of religions being bad, except, perhaps, in the minds of the anti-religious crowd.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I get the sense there's a false equivalency being made here between the phrase "religious extremist" and "extremely religious." They do not mean the same thing at all. One can easily be extremely religious without being a religious extremist, and vice versa.

Not at all? I can't see any reasonable interpretation where "extreme" doesn't imply more of a thing and "moderate" doesn't imply less of a thing.

... though maybe "religious to the extreme" captures what I was going for more than "extremely religious".

I don't think that "extremist" necessarily implies a greater degree of belief, but I do think it implies that they engage in the religion "more" in some way. For instance, maybe a moderate would be against divorce for members of his church while the extremist wants to make divorce illegal for everyone.

My point is that the label "religious extremism", when applied to the negative behaviours in a faith community, implies that the religion is negative when applied to the utmost. This suggests the question of whether it's better not to apply it at all, which is why I find it strange when religious people use the term.

 

[lovemuffin]

I don't think that "extremist" necessarily implies a greater degree of belief, but I do think it implies that they engage in the religion "more" in some way.

While it's a reasonable extrapolation from the primary definition of "extreme", I've never really heard the phrase "religious extremist" to be intending to imply that the extremists are generally more religious, just more "religious" in a particularly way, i.e the one that's associated with violence, fundamentalism, theocratic politics, or what have you. I've also heard the term to imply something like the "extremums" of a statistical distribution, i.e "extremists" are people whose views and actions are outliers compared to the statistical norms.

I think it's a bit of over-extrapolation to infer from the term that there is a general understanding that religion is a negative, at least when religious people also use the phrase.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I've also heard the term to imply something like the "extremums" of a statistical distribution, i.e "extremists" are people whose views and actions are outliers compared to the statistical norms.

This exactly.

Extremist is meant to suggest that the religious views and actions are not commonly held by that faith, not that they are more or less religious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While it's a reasonable extrapolation from the primary definition of "extreme", I've never really heard the phrase "religious extremist" to be intending to imply that the extremists are generally more religious, just more "religious" in a particularly way, i.e the one that's associated with violence, fundamentalism, theocratic politics, or what have you.

How about "zealot" (i.e. one with zeal for their religion)? It implies basically the same thing: more religion - or more enthusiasm for their religion - is a bad thing. Same for "fanatic".

I've also heard the term to imply something like the "extremums" of a statistical distribution, i.e "extremists" are people whose views and actions are outliers compared to the statistical norms.

That still doesn't address "moderate". "Moderate" still means "less".

If the dichotomy is set up as "extremist" vs. "mainstream" (and sometimes it is), then your interpretation works. When it's set up as "extremist" vs. "moderate", I think the only reasonable interpretation is one of "more" vs. "less".

I think it's a bit of over-extrapolation to infer from the term that there is a general understanding that religion is a negative, at least when religious people also use the phrase.

That's the thing: I don't think there's a general understanding that religion is a negative. Most people are religious, and most people see their religions as a positive thing. This is why I find this word choice strange.

 

[lovemuffin]

I feel like the strangeness may more or less be reduced to saying "language is funny". Which, it is.

 

[outhouse]

Do phrases like "religious extremist" and "religious moderate" suggest that religion is inherently bad?

I don't think so.

It just shows the true nature of people. Most are good, and the bad ones who are the minority get noticed.

 

[columbus]

I don't think that "extremist" necessarily implies a greater degree of belief, but I do think it implies that they engage in the religion "more" in some way.

Then the question becomes "which aspects of the religion are you extreme about"?

I used to volunteer at an AIDS hospice. The patients were mostly people with no money, family, or hope. Sleazy **** and drug addicts generally.

One of the best volunteers was a Bible thumping Christian widow, who I am quite sure believed that all those patients were Hell bound sinners. But her religion taught her to visit the sick, etc etc. So she did.
She showed up every Sunday, right after church, with a basket of home baked goodies. She would talk to everyone and care. You could see it in the patients eyes. Guys who hadn't bothered shaving in a week, or even getting out of bed, would suddenly care because She was coming.
She didn't have any particular skills except Mothering. She could do that like nobodies business. And her extreme fundamental Christian beliefs told her to do that, not to judge people. So that's what she did.
Religion is not the problem.

Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then the question becomes "which aspects of the religion are you extreme about"?

I used to volunteer at an AIDS hospice. The patients were mostly people with no money, family, or hope. Sleazy **** and drug addicts generally.

One of the best volunteers was a Bible thumping Christian widow, who I am quite sure believed that all those patients were Hell bound sinners. But her religion taught her to visit the sick, etc etc. So she did.
She showed up every Sunday, right after church, with a basket of home baked goodies. She would talk to everyone and care. You could see it in the patients eyes. Guys who hadn't bothered shaving in a week, or even getting out of bed, would suddenly care because She was coming.
She didn't have any particular skills except Mothering. She could do that like nobodies business. And her extreme fundamental Christian beliefs told her to do that, not to judge people. So that's what she did.
Religion is not the problem.

Tom

... and would you refer to her as an extremist?

 

[outhouse]

Religion is not the problem.

I don't buy that.

They don't get a free ride for their shortcomings either.

Right now its my opinion one religion is giving humanity a black eye with extreme required fanaticism and fundamentalism.

 

[columbus]

... and would you refer to her as an extremist?

Oh yes. There was no other reason for her to be there.
She was a hardcore fundamentalist Christian. Doing what she believed Jesus Christ told her to do.
Why else would she be there?
The world would be better off if there were more such Christians.
The problem I see is that Christianity doesn't teach that very well.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

Do phrases like "religious extremist" and "religious moderate" suggest that religion is inherently bad?

No. But they do hint of at least a perception of awkwardness. They are often motivated by a perception that religion is often abused and rarely taken to task for its mistakes.

I see plenty of religious people using these phrases, and I've always found it strange:

- the "extremists" are the ones that do hateful things, engage in violence in the name of their religion, restrict freedoms, etc... all negative things. Being extremely religious is seen as bad.

- the "moderates" are the ones who reject violence, support freedom, build communities with people outside their religion, etc... all positive things. Being moderately religious is seen as good.

So isn't this built on the idea that religion is negative, and the less we have, the better?

To some degree, it is indeed.

Those of you who see your religion as positive: do you use the phrase "religious extremism" to describe negative elements of your religion/denomination/etc.? If so, why?

No, I do not. I think religion is a worthy concept and deserves to be regenerated from its current, abused meaning.