levite

Well, again, without wishing to get bogged down in the details of the local conflict.... Yes, I would certainly agree that much of the terrorist threat that Jews in Israel face comes from what is currently being referred to as "radical Islamism." And although I freely admit, I have only a beginner's knowledge of Islam (read the Quran, some of the haditha, talked to some imams), it seems to me that there are many possibilities in Islam. It would never occur to me to blame all Islam for terrorism, although, to be frank, it does seem like quite a number of Islamic authorities are currently exploring what I would call very counterproductive theological notions. The things that have gone into making terrorism an option which some Palestinians appear to regard as viable are many, and I don't necessarily think it will be useful to get into discussing them here. But I will speculate that it seems to me that had there been, some time ago, a combination of more progressive Islamic theology being disseminated amongst Palestinian Arabs, along with more sustained efforts by numerous parties to relieve local social ills, and the emergence of a leadership with a more diplomatically-oriented nationalist agenda, terrorism would most likely not have seemed such an attractive option.

Well, lack of education leads to secularism amongst Jews. That much I believe. Whether the same holds true in other religious communities I cannot vouch for. And while I don't believe I really have an Answer for what causes fundamentalism, here is my personal speculation. I believe that most (but not all) fundamentalists are troubled by the idea of God, Life, and Death continuing to be, in some ways, gray areas. In its purest form, the purpose of halakhah (Jewish Law) is to retain the principles of Torah in an adaptive form, so that by evolving along with the societies in which Jews live, Torah never ceases to become practically relevant to Jews. But I think some people are uncomfortable with the responsibility of constant reinterpretation, because others are sure to disagree with them, and they themselves feel unsure of themselves, psychologically. I think certain personality types crave surety: they like black and white, which is simple, and one always knows where one stands. To live in a spectrum which includes shades of gray, or even colors, is frightening to such people, because they never feel confident that they are behaving acceptably, or living up to the expectations they perceive are placed upon them by others. Although I tend to shy away from diagnostic imagery, I might almost classify the fundamentalist mindset as having characteristics of lack of self-worth and self-esteem, insecurity, and perhaps a very, very mild tendency to obsessive-compulsiveness.

I think, especially in American Christianity, all of these problems are greatly reinforced by the social pressures associated with a Christian atmosphere in which, I am told, it is seen as undesirable to question, and bad behavior to take issue with the teachings of the pastor or priest. These things create a great pressure to conform, or at least keep very quiet about one's questions, doubts, and innovations. Thus, I think many fundamentalists remain fundamentalist at least in part out of fear of rejection or stigmatization by their communities.

Again, I don't believe this to be true of all fundamentalists, but I think it may be true for many.

Sometimes I think ignorance breeds fundamentalism. This, in my personal opinion, seems to be often true for Christians in America. I have met an astonishing plethora of Christians in America who are shockingly ignorant about their own religion (if I, a Jew, can tell, it must be a shocking lack of education), and comparatively poorly educated in general. In such cases, I think the lack of self-worth and insecurity components are greatly magnified. Tolerance and flexibility are the hallmarks of pluralism. But it can be very difficult to embrace pluralism if one feels oppressed, and thus wishes to maximize one's embrace of the doctrine of exclusivity in order to feel less so.

I have noted also that a number of the fundamentalist Christians I have met come from either the impoverished or the wealthy. I have certainly met middle-class fundamentalists, but I note that in my personal experience, they seem to be in the minority. To me this seems to indicate that the poor grasp onto fundamentalism in the hope that excessive righteousness will alleviate their suffering. The wealthy, to the contrary, seem to embrace a quasi-Calvinistic outlook, in which they embrace fundamentalism in what they perceive as acknowledgement or gratefulness for the divine Grace which they believe their financial and social success to represent. But in either case, what leaps out at me is that it is the very poor whose religious and secular education is often impeded by their circumstances; while the wealthy are often preoccupied with enjoying the fruits of their material success, and since they seem to take that wealth as a sign of grace anyhow, they are unmotivated to further their religious education.

I have no proof for any of this. It is just my speculation: it seems likely to me, but I make no claims to its actual accuracy. And I am fully aware that there are some fundamentalists whose motivations are entirely different, and who are explained by none of the hypotheses I have offered.

Well, not so much with the flood story. Some of the other incidents of people dying, yes. But also, keep in mind that in Jewish commentary and exegesis, there is nothing wrong with saying "this verse is troublesome, and it bothers me, and I am not able to adequately explain it yet." Many commentators say such things at various times, and there is no perception that this is unusual or improper. Text, in Jewish tradition, is there to be wrestled with. That is why, we say, our name is Yisra'el (Israel), which literally means, "He Who struggles with God." But one of the things that many commentators point out about the Flood story, for example, is that God immediately promises never to do such a thing again, and realizes it was really a bad idea. It can be hard to reconcile with a doctrine of divine omniscience, but there is an implication in Biblical theology, as we understand it, that relating to human beings is as much a learning experience for God as relating to God is a learning experience for humans. It actually ends up being kind of complicated, but to keep it short, there is at least an awareness of the issue in Jewish theology and exegetical commentary. The way it is dealt with so far has not primarily been to interpret the stories as parables or myths, although some have done so; it is to look for deeper interpretations, and this is often successful to one degree or another.

But I do absolutely understand that, if one were to read the Written Torah in isolation, it would doubtless be quite disconcerting in places, and tremendously obscure in others.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)