Rating: 
Summary: Must Reading
Review: In this book, Karen Armstrong presents a brief history of fundamentalist movements in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. While each movement has its distinctive characteristics, Armstrong presents a common thread among the three: a reaction against the assault of modernity, which each community interprets as a threat to the survival of their faith. Her approach is scholarly, yet attempts to be deeply sympathetic of each movement. This is not to say that she agrees with the fundamentalists, but that she shows a sincere effort to understand why they approach their faith the way they do. Armstrong's language and theological approach could come strait from a mainstream (liberal) theological seminary. She describes fundamentalist thought using modernist, liberal analysis. I would not expect a fundamentalist to be satisfied with this approach, but that is not her intended audience.One of the themes in the book is the contrast between mythos (myth) and logos (rationality). Myth is a concept which is central to each of these religions, but which has become foreign to the modern mind. Armstrong defines mythos as that aspect of religions faith which gives meaning and significance to life, something which science and rationality (logos) cannot provide. It is also a way of looking at the foundational stories and texts of a religious faith. Armstrong insists that mythos and logos are equally necessary. One of the problems with fundamentalist thought is the confusion of the two. The use of the word "myth" by itself creates problems for fundamentalists. We are accustomed to thinking of myths as things which are not true, such as the stories of the Greek and Roman gods. To the liberal theological community, of which Armstrong is a part, the word has a much deeper meaning. The point of a myth is not whether it is "true" in the sense of a verifiable historical event. The point of a myth is found in the Truth to which the myth is witness. That Truth is much larger and more important than a mere historical event; it gives meaning to the life of the religious community and defines who they are and how they relate to the divine. For example, to get tied up in debates about creationism vs evolution is to miss the point of the Genesis myth. Understanding that story as mythos allows us to understand it as a story about God's relationship to his people, as the ultimate expression of mature monotheism. Another major theme, only alluded to at the very beginning, is that of the conservative ethos. This is the attitude which dominated most religious thought until very recently. For much of history, civilization has been a tenuous achievement, subject to destruction at any time. With this in mind, most societies have concentrated their efforts not in a modernistic effort at progress, but in a conservative effort to preserve the achievements of the past. In a religious context, this means preserving a revelation or sacred text, which appeared at some time in antiquity. To the true fundamentalist, there is no such thing as progress in the religious understanding ; one can do no better than to preserve the original understanding of the founders. Armstrong has undertaken a task of gargantuan proportions. In roughly 400 pages, she attempts not only to summarize 500 years of history for three complex religious faiths, but to defend a theory to make sense of all of this. This book could easily have been three times as long, and perhaps would have been better for it. If her theory is less than completely convincing, she can be forgiven for failing at an impossible task. She has still taken us on a journey of discovery, which will leave the reader wiser and eager for more. She has chosen a subject large enough that it can never be adequately summarized by any one viewpoint. I give her tremendous credit for her commitment to understanding those with whom she disagrees, whether or not she is completely successful in the attempt.
Rating:
Summary: a good, objective read
Review: I've been impressed with Karen Armstrong's work since I read "A History of God." "The Battle for God" and "A History of God" both provided well written, objective insight into the foundations of the three major monotheistic groups and the influence they have had on the modern world. I particularly liked reading "The Battle for God" since the attacks on September 11th. I think this is an important learning tool for both theists and non-theists in understanding the history and motives of fundamentalist groups. Karen Armstrong's writing style is fluid and robust, as well as easy and enjoyable to read.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent overview of fundamentalist thought
Review: Fundamentalism of the Christian and Islamic varieties are the great curse of our time. Christian fundamentalism in America subverts democracy, science and distorts rational thinking. Islamic fundamentalism is to be sure an even more radical and dangerous idea. Anderson, while concluding that fundamentalism is based upon fear and irrationality, nonetheless approaches the history of these movements in a balanced and well thought out manner. Ms Anderson does a stellar job of getting at the historical basis for fundamentalism, explaining the theological arguments and putting them within the historical context of their time. This can be read solely as a history rather than as a religion/theological tract. I can highly recommend this work by Karen Anderson, the first I've ever read by her.
Rating:
Summary: Explains fundementalism in the three major religions!
Review: Arguing that fundamentalism is complex and innovative, and yet a failure in religious terms, Armstrong, a commentator and author on religious affairs, examines fundamentalism among American Protestants, Israeli Jews, and Iranian and Egyptian Muslims. She explains how these movements have sprung up in a response to modernism (beginning as early as the 16th century), and suggests that compassion and understanding may help diffuse the conflicts that rage between fundamentalists and the modernity that surrounds them.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Because of What She Says... And Leaves Out.
Review: Karen Armstrong has written a very balanced book. Her sustained history of Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic fundementalism(s) will deeply satisfy readers who maintain both a healthy respect for religious tradition and a realistic acceptance of the modern state and the empirical truths of science. As a practicing Catholic, however, I felt Armstrong had (intentionally, perhaps?) left out a major part of the up-bringing that clearly informs her analyses. Armstrong was raised as a British Roman Catholic, and actually lived as a nun for some time before finally renouncing her vows. British Catholics have considerable insight in to the volatile and dangerous powers of the modern state. After all, they suffered humiliating losses from the time of Elizabeth onwards... including the tortuous public butchering of priests and nuns, the outright criminalization of their practices until the late 19th century, and the theft by the State (and its petty nobles) of the greater part of their property. The Catholic fundementalist reaction was, more or less, crushed at the time of Cromwell. But they have been nursing their wounds for the past several hundred years -- long enough to slowly and sensibly reject most of the usual fundementalist mistakes. For example, even the most fervent Catholics do not reject Darwinian evolution nor do they promote literal readings of scripture. Among Armstrong's most important points is that the modern state is much more invasive and authoritarian than traditional religious institutions. It is especially satisfying to read an argument intended to drive this point home to liberal and humane readers... who rarely take the time to consider their own biases towards modernity. On the other hand, those who criticize Armstrong for being too liberal should consider the fact that she speaks from a tradition with a much longer experience with modernity (Britain, after all, well nigh invented the modern, invasive imperial state, and at once used its powers to crush the Catholic remant.) Liberals should take seriously her gentle chidings to realize historical events about which they are too often inadequately informed. Take the Spanish Inquisition -- for secular westerners the sine que non of religious intolerance. This tragic affair was indeed promoted by the Catholic hierarchy... but its origins lie with the secular Spanish state (a point Armstrong nicely clarifies). Also, those affected by it were a mere fraction of the numbers killed in this century under Stalin and Hitler and Mao, not to mention those killed under Cromwell, Napolean, and even Abraham Lincoln. Especially during its formative phases, the Hobbesian state is incredibly more ruthless than religious institutions of the medieval kind. Fundementalism, then, is both a reaction and adaptation to modern conditions of power. From the perspective of the state, religion is quite often an obstacle to its consolidation of authority. Yet, the possibility of utilizing the passion and energy religions inflame also presents a strong temptation. This is, for example, the constant dilemna of secular leaders within Islamic countries. Armstrong's distinction between logos and mythos is also informed by her Catholic up-bringing (as well as with a familiarity with Carl Jung who coined not the words per se, but the context in which Armstrong uses them). Because they put their emphasis on the sacramental qualities of the Eucharist and Confession rather than on the textual "truths" of Biblical scripture, Roman Catholics (and 'high-church' Protestants) do not easily fall prey to the usual fundementalist confusion between mystical wisdom (mythos) and statements of fact (logos). Armstrong repeatedly points out that where ryhtmic patterns of ritual practice are dismantled, a vacuum emerges that is itself too often filled with a scriptural literalism informed by millenial fantasies. This is a great book with something to teach everybody. Liberals and neo-conservatives who wish to force Islamic countries to behave as Western democracies should definately read this book so that they are prepared for the backlash their naive idealism will inevitably produce. I only wish Armstrong had spent more time on the history of Catholicism in Protestant northern Europe... since this is the perspective that clearly informs a lot of her thoughts on Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: Great reading with some small caveats
Review: Having read Karen Armstrong's book "History of God" and finding it an excellent book, I bought this one immediately upon seeing it on the shelves. Though I do not believe "Battle for God" is as excellent as her "History of God", it is an very good history of 'fundamentalism' in the three main 'monotheistic' faiths. Ms. Armstrong does an excellent job of defining a very hard to define "fundamentalism" and being able to find the similarities of the fundamentalist strains of three very different religious perspectives (and their differences). One of her main theses (as I see it) that fundmentalism in all three religions attempts to maintain the 'mythos' (mystical, religious, non-rational 'truth') of the faith through the means of "logos" (rational 'truth') is very insightful and interesting. Of course, I also believe that the thesis she derives from this, that fundamentalism by using 'logo's not only does _not_ return to some earlier truth but creates something very new and not true to the spirit of the religion they are trying to return to, is very true for all three strains of fundamentalism. That thesis though is, I believe, much more open to criticism, especially from Christians, Jews and Muslims of a fundamentalist bent. Still, the book is excellently written, thoroughly researched and pleasant to read. I do have two caveats. First, I find the book's premise that 'logos' and 'mythos' were well established and each had its sphere of use and truth in the ancient or pre-modern world somewhat of an unfortunately naive dichotomy. From my reading of religions and history, I do not think the pre-modern world saw these as two distinct ways of truth, rather they were very intertwined. I don't think this weakens her main thesis though. Secondly, the use of specific dates to delineate periods as she does for her chapters is always problematic (when did the "renaissance" actually begin?), but even more so for this study of three different faiths on three different historical trajectories. The author admits this and states it very clearly, I only wish she hadn't used dates as chapter headings, they are a bit misleading. Still, it is a small quarrel :). And as an aside in response to some reviews: I do not find Karen Armstrong any more sympathetic to Islam than she is to Christianity or Judaism (she is quite sympathetic to all three actually :), nor does the accusation that this is 'new age' tripe hold up at all (it reflects both a very poor understanding of what 'new ageism' actually is and a poor reading of the book). And of course, most who are fundamentalist or have a strong distaste for Islam or Judaism will hate this book.
Rating:
Summary: Good book, vast scholarship,
Review: Karen Armstrong sets for herself an amitious goal in this book, in which she tries to demonstrate that fundamentalism within Judaism, Christianity and Islam spring from the same historical forces as a reaction to dehumanizing, demystifying modern developments. In my view, she partly succeeds in supporting this hypothesis, and partly fails. It's certainly true and not surprising that these three closely intertwined religions share a great deal, even in their assertions of their own identity, but Armstrong fails to account for the differences, usually by just glossing over them. Even so, Armstrong motivates many of the movements that have confused me for so long and effortlessly connected me to scholarship from many centuries and from all over the world. I think the book was best when it discussed the Shiites in Iran, from their tragic and world weary beginnings to the spiritual realism of Khomeini. I can recommend this book to anyone who wants to try to understand a little bit about the roots of Islamic fundamentalism from what is essentially a modern Christian perspective.
Rating:
Summary: Threatened Believers
Review: Most Americans are proud of the cultural, economic, technological and political progress that has taken place in the US in the last two hundred years. But to many of the world's citizens modernization has been extremely painful. The changing of society has also led to religious and political changes that have threatened many devoted religious believers. Karen Armstrong discusses modernization and its effects on three religious faiths: Islam, Protestantism, and Judaism. Secular governments have replaced theocracies; religious reforms have alienated believers; and modernization has caused abrupt cultural changes. Fundamentalism in America developed early in the 20th century when 'higher criticism' scholars began taking a more liberal view of the bible. Jews began making religious changes in order to facilitate assimilation into the general society. Islam was threatened by modernization attempts made during the 1800s to the present. Britain and France interfered in Egypt while Britain and Russia made their presence known in Iran. Their involvement was near ruinous. Brutal secular governments in Turkey and Egypt threatened the Muslim world. Finally the United States 'which was viewed as a benevolent country because of its non-involvement in the Middle East ' became a negative force when it was involved in the overthrow of Prime Minister Musaddiq in Iran in 1953. The US's support of the Shah even when the mass of Iranian society was protesting his regime, -a regime that had no respect for religion or culture - was a further blight on our diplomacy. These three religious societies feel threatened by the world, and this has resulted in the growth of more extreme fundamentalist views. It's them vs. a corrupt world (the United States is not free from this phenomenon. Not only are fundamentalists trying to inject more religion into government, but also the Christian Reconstructionists have the avowed goal of making the US a theocracy). This should be a must read book for everyone, and especially those who feel that Western society, including the United States, has had nothing to do with the growth of extreme fundamentalism and its resulting fear of the West
Rating:
Summary: The Battle for God
Review: A focused look at the evolution of fundementalism in the three religions established by the Children of Abraham. Ms. Armstrong surely knows her stuff, and the reasearch that obviously went into this book supports the information that's offered in an easily understandable manner.
As a crimnal justice trainer on volatile groups and terorism, I suggest this book as a foundaton for anyone trying to understand the attitudes and beliefs of radical and or militant sects within those religious groups.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-written overview of the forces driving modern religious
Review: Armstrong does a wonderful job of selecting material for creating a program to understand the forces fueling some of the less favorable aspects of religion today. She assumes that her readers may or may not know a good deal about the subject, which makes her writings both engaging and appealing to general audiences. My main objections to her work arise in two categories. One, there is a general failure to recognize the multiplicit dimension of these movements. They are neither totally united nor of totally similar dispositions. While skillfully showing the unique and similar nature of revivalism in the three monotheistic religions, her folly is found in over generalizing the other faiths. This is especially true of Christianity-the religion who she treats with the most harshness. Two, she attempts to polarize modern religion between two camps of backward, militantly insane revivalists one hand and on the other the progressive liberals who are the bastions of human decency. This is a distortion and a great weakness of her book, truly bringing to service her agenda. Nice read though, but it should encourage further reading if prior reading has not been done upon the subject before reading this work.
| 
