Religious Extremism Leading to Terrorism The connection between religious extremism and terrorism seem identical. Religious extremists are willing to kill others because they actually believe they are embracing theologies that sanction violence in the service of God. They view their victims as enemies of God, showing no sympathy taking life. Moreover, they readily sacrifice their own lives because they expect to be rewarded in the afterlife [Religious Extremism econ.ucsd.edu/~elib/rex.pdf]. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Islamic fundamentalism had become the subject of scrutiny, controversy and debate. Islamists are perceived as a threat to world security, protagonists in a new holy war. Many experts and analysts refer to the rise of Islamist terrorism as a new phenomenon, more deadly and obtuse than the more traditional terrorism associated with separatist and nationalist movements. Religious writings are subject to wildly different interpretation and can be used to justify opposing viewpoints. Often, man’s interpretations of these teachings are twisted and distorted to emphasize to their followers what they stand to gain rather than what they can give or share with others. The issue seems fundamentalists, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim; share a common fault that emphasizes personal gain above the welfare of others, and a belief that somehow this inherent selfishness and self-interest will ultimately be rewarded. The irony is that religion taken to extremes is more likely to cause a violent conflict than a solution. More predictable is the fact that people exploit other people to advance selfish interests under the guise of religion [Religious Extremism www.globalfocus.org/GF-religion.htm]. Twenty years ago people thought that Islamic extremism meant the Shiites in Iran. Now society find that the extremists in Afghanistan are Sunni. The country is ruled by the Taliban, a name that means “seminary students.” But zealous seminarians are not limited to the Islamic world. Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Talmudic student, Yigal Amir; and this event, rather than halting extremist talk, has stimulated further labeling of any politician who speaks of “land for peace” as the equivalent of Yassir Arafat or Adolf Hitler. In the struggle for independence of India from Britain, the Congress Party insisted upon religious and ethnic inclusiveness. Today, however, the ruling BJP represents a kind of Hindu particularism that goes against all that the Congress Party stood for, and is constantly trying to appease its allies farther to the right. Their policies in turn inflame passions in Muslim Pakistan. Looking closer to home, Christian conservatives in the U.S. objected last year to federal hate crimes legislation as a restriction on their rights of free speech against gays and lesbians and abortionists. More recently they have been upheld in federal court, on free speech grounds, for calling physicians who provide abortions murderers, posting their names on their web site, and checking off the names of those already killed. Whatever their rights of free speech, they exhibit all the marks of extremists [Religious Extremism www.witherspoonsociety.org/religious]. A considerable portion of the American population eighteen percent believes President Obama is a Muslim, according to a poll by the Pew Center. The religion of a President; whether he is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim should not matter to Americans. The First Amendment makes that clear enough. But the separation of Church and State has eroded so much in recent years that you simply can’t escape a dose of religion in daily politics. All of this argues more than ever for a strong commitment to a secularism in the nation’s politics. A state can take several approaches in trying to manage the role of religion in society. They can try to annihilate religion as the communists attempted between 1917 to 1989. They can decree that only one religion will be accepted as theocrats try to do. They can give preferential treatment to some religions at the expense of others, as happens in the United Kingdom and apparently, given the delusion over Obamas beliefs, also happens in the United States. Another approach would be for the state to favor religion- all of them on an equal basis- and discriminate against unbelievers. Finally, the state can promote true religious neutrality [Religious Extremism www.politicalbookworm-defeatingreligiousextremism.com]. In a religious neutral state it doesn’t matter whether the president is a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim, because he and his constituents consider religion to be a private affair. In such an environment, the president will not even say what his religion is; he would also not say what religion he doesn’t follow. In a state tormented by religious divisions, religious neutrality seems the sole solution to prevent a tearing apart society. It should not be considered shameful to call yourself a secularist. Rather is should be a badge of honor. If President Obama truly wanted to defend religious freedom, he should avoid saying “I am a Christian” or “I am not a Muslim.” Rather, he should simply offer, “I subscribe to the principles of secularism.” Religious neutrality in religiously pluralist societies like France and the United Kingdom- and the United States- is the path to tolerance. The only question is: When will the American president and the American people acknowledge this? [Religious Extremism Defeating religious extremism.voices.washingtonpost.com] Here are a few warning signs that you or someone known is a religious fanatic or associated with an extremist group: 1. A person that misinterprets a book of faith in order to cause hatred and ignorance towards homosexuals, lesbians, people of color, women, abortionists, and anyone else that is different. God may well indeed disapprove and condemn the idea of killing a fetus, but that is a far cry from committing murder and terrorism in the Name of God. 2. A person that denies all logic, science, and common sense in order to find comfort in faith. 3. A person that believes the event to hurt and kill is okay, as long as the situation is performed in the name of faith. 4. A person that comes up with ignorant responses to disprove scientific facts. 5. Anyone who is overly argumentative about what the Bible says. Most religious extremists have a very poor grasp of what the Scriptures actually say [Religious Extremism unclutteryourmindreligiousextremism.wordpress.com]. The people who attacked us, not the whole Islamic population faced with Islamic opposition, this war is far from over and will become much bloodier. The situation that is the simplest and most dangerous solution is informed decisions based on the understanding of totalism in the present, and in the past. Given our current level of anger, it is easy to say kill them all venting our wrath and consider that the end of it. That itself is totalistic thinking. Spanish existentialist philosopher, wrote, “be careful in the pursuit of monsters that you yourself do not become a monster [Religious Extremism www.amindfulapproach.com/terrorism]. Religious extremism is a state of mind which provides the followers with enough energy for doing the brutal acts of mass slaughter in the name of God. The particular state of mind can be reviewed under the topic, ‘collective unconscious’ in psychology, firstly described by Derkheim in his book “Mass Psychology of Fascism”. Jung is considered to be the founder of the term who had initial work on the subject. He explained the concept of Shadow, the part of our inner psyche which we suppress and try to isolate. Deeply studying the phenomenon one comes to know that religious extremism is a state of mind which has nothing to do with illiteracy, backwardness, awareness, education, civilization, a particular faith, politics and modernization. As a state of mind it can be found anywhere or everywhere provided a background environment, an alluring extremist ideology and the capacity to reach to the deeper spheres of human psyche. It’s like an endemic the pathogen of which can infect any mind provided favorable environment. The archetype ‘Gods Warrior’ really expresses the extremist psyche in active form. The persecution of Galileo, Stalin’s Gulag, the burning of the “witches” of Salem, and the Oklahoma bombing all different examples of ‘Gods Warrior’ in its activation form. However, the crusades of the medieval times, the rise of the contemporary Islamic extremism and the war of Hitler and Stalin, which is held responsible of killing around fifty million people based on religious extremism, are the typical examples of ‘Gods Warrior’ in its multiplication form [Religious Extremism www.countercurrents.org/saba120510.htm]. The economic theory of religious extremism is just one piece in a much larger theory of supernaturalism that explains the persistence of belief in the supernatural and the inevitable spread of religious groups along a denominational continuum from lenient “churches” to extreme “sects”. Extremist sectarian groups are high-powered religions rooted in separation from and tension with the broader society. Their heavy demands make it impossible to offer unusually great benefits to potential members, particularly those at the margins of society. An economic perspective thus explains how extremist groups can persist and prosper in thoroughly modern societies peopled by perfectly rational citizens [Religious Extremism www.causesofterrorism.net/]. To equate religious extremism with religious militancy is a serious error and in many instances, a political plot. The ideological and social barriers that separate sect members with other religious groups from secular society rarely lead to violent conflict. In fact, minority status usually guarantees that sect members lose out in any confrontation with larger powers. Conflict and militancy becomes common; however, where the state favors one religious group over another or there is an expectation that the state will do so after being established; thereby raising stakes for all sides. People will take great risks to defend or enlarge their political power, and sectarian groups are well positioned to marshal their resources and members in opposition to their religious-political competitors. Since organized violence is an extreme form of cooperative production, sectarian groups can be singularly effective terrorists should they choose that path to political power [Religious Extremism www.outsidethebeltway.com/religious]. The economic perspective strikes a somewhat sanguine note, suggesting that religious freedom offers the best insurance against religious fanaticism. Whereas government regulation and state-sponsored religion encourage sects to fight both church and state, a truly competitive religious market encourages religious tolerance and mutual respect if only as a matter of necessity. U.S history seems to bear out the wisdom of this policy. U.S churches never fought over control of the state, apparently church-state separation precluded any possible victory. In the Middle East, the extreme militancy of Islamic groups engaged in struggles over political objectives and political power underscore the peril of the alternative approach. The well-organized terrorism of Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and other Muslim extremists are a threat of global proportions. Violent conflicts between India’s Sikhs, Moslems, and Hindus have threatened the political and social stability of the of the world’s largest democracy. The bombings and murders attributable to Ulster Protestants and IRA Catholics made a war zone of regions that should, by all rights, be places of peace and prosperity. Taking a cue from Adam Smith, scholars should examine these true instances of religious militancy and ask how much violence should be attributed to the religious-political environment rather than religion itself. Genuinely violent sects tend to arise in countries where the civil government has suppressed religious freedom, favoring one form of religious expression over all others. Within these environments, a disfavored sect is strongly motivated to oppose the government, despise the established religion, and covet the privileges that come with state support. Those principles can usefully inform the policies of many countries, most especially those in the Middle East [Religious Extremism www.econ.ucsd.edu/~elib/rex.pdf].

References 1. TheFundamentalsofreligiousextremism.www.countercurrents.org/ 2. PoliticalBookworm-defeatingreligiousextremism.voices.washingtonpost.com/ 3. Religiousextremism,fearandterrorism.www.globalfocus.org/GF-religion.htm/ 4. Religious-extremism: the good, the bad, and the deadly.econ.ucsd.edu/~elib/rex.pdf 5. ReligiousextremisminAmerica.www.outsidethebeltway.com/religious 6. Religiousectremeism.www.witherspoonsociety.org/religious 7. Terrorism and Religious Extremism:Amindfulapproach.www.causesofterrorism.net/ 8. Whatisreligiousextremism?unclutteryourmind.religiousextremism.wordpress.com/