The Battle For God

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding work on fundamentalism
Review: Karen Armstrong has written a well researched book dealing with the travesty and mean-spiritedness of fundamentalism in its extreme forms--both ancient and modern.. Ultimately, as Armstrong so eloquently points out, the real litmus test of any religion's legitimacy is the level of compassion it delivers in THIS life, not the unverifiable and empty claims that present it as the "one true faith"--whatever faith that may be. Recent events should warn us of the dangers of extremists who, in their provincial minds, are convinced that their's is the only way, and Armstrong's work is doubly prescient in regard to that problem in this day and age..

Rating:
Summary: Lack of adequate references and a slanted prespective
Review: Ruth Armstrong's entry regarding the Babi Religion and the Baha'i Faith is grossly inaccurate. In one passage she claims that the Bab stated in the Bayan that there is no life after death. Yet, she never provides a direct quote from the Bayan nor does she reference it. In the Bayan it is clearly stated that the soul ascends to the spiritual realm after death. She only provides one or two references about the Babi Religion and the Baha'i Faith and from that she derives profound conclusions. Speculation is not scholarly and it should never be presented as the truth. I strongly recommend that Karen Armstrong investigate this topic more thoroughly. She just hasn't done her homework and that is irresponsible.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, timely analysis of religious extremism
Review: Karen Armstrong has written a timely, intelligent, and highly pursuasive analysis of fundamentalism in the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Armstrong argues that while religious fundamentalism reaches back to an idealized past, it is very much a product of the modern world. Religious fundamentalism is both an attempt to update religious practices to suit the requirments of modern civilization and an attempt to preserve the "fundamentals" of religion that appear to be threatened with extinction.

Jewish fundamentalim, according to Armstrong developed in response to continuous persecution and exile beginning with the Christian conquest and consolidation of the Iberian Peninsula. Christian fundamentalim took hold on the American frontier in response to oppressive taxation and other issues that settlers experienced from the privileged classes in the coastal cities whose ideas were more in tune with the Enlightenment. Islamic fundamentalism sprang up in response to the many complicated results of European colonialism in the Moslem world.

One of the most important ideas in this book is the concept that modernization is not all things to all people. Modernization is a process that took approximately three hundred years to complete in Western Europe and the United States with many beneficial results. But to the people of Egypt and other parts of the Middle East, modernization came as an invasive process that was exploitive and cynical to the point where they felt alienated in their own communities. To priviledged citizens of the developed world today, religious fundamentalists seem absurd in their rejection of material wealth and technological inovation, when in fact they have rarely enjoyed those things to begin with. While in the Middle East and other developing regions, modernization has uprooted people and thrust both a new infrastructure and set of concepts upon them, it has rarely accorded them the material benefits enjoyed by the West.

Armstrong raises the equally compelling concept that the progressive tenets of modernization are as absurd to religious fundamentalists as their beliefs are to rational secularists. Where rational secularists look toward a future of continuous improvement, religious fundamentalists look to an idealized past in which their beliefs were practiced appropriately.

This book and others like it are indispensible to our understanding of the conflicts facing civiliaztion today. Armstrong's central thesis, that religious fundamentalism thrives in response to the violent and exploitive results of modernization, does more to expain domestic and foreign terrorist attacks than simply labeling their perpetraitors as "evil", "jealous", or "crazy".

Rating:
Summary: To advance your understanding
Review: This analysis of fundamentalist movements in Christianity, Judaism and Islam is unfortunately very timely. Armstrong has written many works on the monotheistic religions, and is particularly knowledgable about and sympathetic to Islam--sometimes to a fault. Her analysis is quite convincing---her basic premise is that fundamentalism is a response within a religion to an internal threat from others who seek to liberalize and modernize it. Certainly we have seen that one of (the) major issues (of terrorists) is that the US has corrupted the Saudi rulers and caused them and others to stray from pure Islam. Armstrong discusses Egypt, and posits that fundamentalist movements there arose after botched attempts by Egypt's government to modernize without addressing the real needs of the people. In the U.S., she sees the rise of the religious right as a response to the liberalization of our predominantly Christian society in the 60's. Her description of the religious right is quite devastating, in contrast to her rather sympathetic treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood, and was one area where I found her bias particularly evident. Armstrong would certainly agree that there is no justification for the destruction the Muslim terrorists, as well as other religious extremists, have visited on the world.Works like this are helpful in understanding that there are underlying causes for these events that will not be solved by a war on terrorism.

Rating:
Summary: Condescending Misinformation from the Outside Looking In
Review: For Armstrong, religion is a Band-Aid to be kept private until we need it. This fits our secular culture. When else, but after the WTC bombing would Newsweek have titled an issue God Bless America? The ACLU would have been all over them previously.

To the unenlightened and intolerant, Armstrong seems to have nailed down a cohesive, extensively-researched analysis of fundamentalism. Sadly, she wove a web of deceit and in the process gravely insulted those who are true to the fundamentals of their faith.
The Battle for God is condescending; Armstrong is barely able to mask her contempt for fundamentalists, particularly Christians. She repeatedly refers to fundamentalists' lack of logic---fear and emotionalism being the basis for their existence. She claims to once have been a Christian fundamentalist of a sort, a nun. This gives the false impression she is someone who has seen the issues from both sides. Nothing could be more deceptive. She would have us believe it is impossible to be both logical and deeply religious. She falsely asserts fear is at the root of fundamentalist uprising; more typically, the seedbed of so-called militant fundamentalism is concern regarding secular cultural breakdown. Newsweek ran an article after 9/11 offering a Muslim take on the Islamic mindset. The conclusion was America claims to be a Christian nation but is in fact a nation of hypocrites. More filth spews from our airwaves than any nation on earth. This Islamic gentleman finished up claiming, "I could respect the U.S. far more if they would either quit claiming to be Christian or begin acting like it."
His view of the bombings? America needed cleansing, a wake-up call. Think what you will of this, but he was most certainly not afraid his religion was in danger.
Judeo-Christian-Muslim fundamentalists are typically interested in the fundamentals of their faith out of honest devotion to God, not fear of loss. To imply they are a knee-jerk reaction to fear and despair is condescending at best, dishonest at worst. Armstrong is smart enough to know better, so one can only conclude this is a woman on a mission, a change agent for liberal, athiestic modernism and pluralistic one-world religion.
Hers is more likely the kneejerk reaction to her cloaked exit from the convent and abandonment of her vow to God.
Armstrong knows a great deal of historical fact, but she doesn't understand fundamentalism and is unable to generate a cohesive, honest appraisal. She builds a premise on a false construct, fills the text with fascinating anecdotal data, then skews and manipulates that data to support her pre-conceived conclusion.

Rating:
Summary: Cleverly Disguised Attempt to Discredit Religion
Review: Armstrong is thorough, calculating, and persuasive. She refuses to see the forest for the trees and hopes we won't, too.
In her own words, Armstrong is a "freelance monotheist... When I immerse myself in the sacred texts, WHATEVER THEY HAPPEN TO BE, I live in moments of awe..." (emphasis mine)
This is a woman in search of the warm and fuzzy, who openly claims to support religious pluralism (basically "anything goes"). She wants us to believe it's sensible to pick and choose what we like from each of the world's religions and then create a "godhead" (goddess?) of our own making to worship. This is really so ridiculous it almost isn't worth our time to debate; we are encouraged to worship something we have the power to create... No sensible person should fall prey to such idiocy.
Armstrong fails to see the absence of logic in embracing all religions. For the purpose of illustration, let's take just one, Christianity, as an example. When you get right to the heart of it, Christianity is NOT compatible with religious pluralism. Jesus Christ said HE is the ONLY way to heaven, that NO man comes to the Father but by Him. That doesn't leave wiggle room for other religions.
Armstrong's mistake is similar to that made by Muslims, who claim Jesus was a great prophet. No great prophet would have claimed to BE God. Either Jesus is God and is worthy of our worship, or He isn't and isn't worth another moment's consideration for having made such an outrageous claim. Logically then, whether He is or isn't God, He cannot be a prophet; the one fail-safe Biblical test of a prophet was 100% accuracy.
Christianity and all other religions are mutually exclusive; it's just that simple. And now here's the fine point:
Armstrong would have us believe exclusivity is equal to intolerance---which is not a logical deduction at all.
The NBA is an exclusive group of talented ballplayers; they are not, however, intolerant of non-ballplayers. Armstrong's lack of clear logic is glaring.
She claims Fundamentalists (those who take religion at face value and don't alter it to suit secularist fear of rejection) are, by definition, dangerous. Certainly, we're all well-acquainted with the subversive activities of militant Mennonites... And of course we all know the Salvation Army really uses those pots of donations to beat plowshares into swords...
Jesus preached peace and love. That some of His followers do not adhere to His Word does nothing to alter His message for mankind. He was led like a lamb to slaughter, without guile; Christians are commanded to do likewise when confronted. He associated with the vilest of sinners and scorned the snobbery of wealth and pride. He doesn't just tolerate mankind, He loves us. He gave His life for us. These are not the actions of a dangerous subversive.
Armstrong likewise mistakes Jewish militancy for aggression; nothing could be further from the truth---Jews have, quite simply, been in a life or death defensive posture throughout most of their cultural existence. That they had to resort to militancy to survive is a far cry from her claims that their orthodox are militant aggressors.
Muslims are another story; Islam is extremely dangerous. It may be fashionable and PC to say otherwise in the name of toleration, but we ignore their militancy at our peril.
Christians or Jews didn't plow innocents into the WTC, Pentagon, and rural PA; Muslims did.
This is not the work of an extremist fringe group either; this is orthodox Islam. Their Scripture commands they (via holy jihad) convert, subjugate, or kill ALL non-Muslims. With their increasing wealth and international presence, if this doesn't make your skin crawl, nothing else will. There will be no peaceful co-existance with Islam. No other religion exhibits their degree of intoleration. Consider that in Judeo-Christian America, Muslims freely worship. Yet Christians and Jews may not do the same in ANY fundamentalist Muslim nation.

Armstrong failed to reach logical conclusions when she lumped together Islam with Judeo-Christianity. Her lack of insight (or rather her intentional misrepresentation of the situation) is apparent right from the introduction, where she claims the Arab-Israeli conflict had SECULAR beginnings. Sorry, Karen; wrong again. It goes back a lot further than the 1940's. Anyone who was a nun should know better; this is a dead giveaway that she's intentionally trying to delude through misinformation. Hers is apparently the philosophy of "say it enough and eventually everyone will believe it's true". Here's a hint at the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Karen: Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael.

What we have here is a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit the world's three major religions by an angry, feminist, ex-nun. Orthodox religion didn't suit her worldview, so she chucked it, embracing instead bits and pieces of anything that made her feel "transcendent". She makes a cogent argument for peace while naive readers ignore the old adage: the pen is mightier than the sword. Armstrong and her one-world pluralists would have us so disgusted with religion that we reject them all as an out-dated package deal. Read this propaganda only so you can understand the willfully ignorant mindset of athiestic liberals who would manipulate the facile into believing it's possible to embrace all religions in the name of toleration. It sounds so pretty. Satan is a master of deception and the father of lies.

Rating:
Summary: Deep, Sweeping, Timely Look at Religious Fundamentalism
Review: Karen Armstrong covers a lot of ground--from 1492 to 1999--as she examines religious fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Her book is deep in research, sweeping in vision and timely in exploring the roots, development and emergence of the threatening, militant movements in each of these religions that haunt today's headlines. While in nowise justifying the violent acts of these groups, Armstrong's analysis does provide a sympathetic perspective of forces in society that have stimulated the growth of religious fundamentalism. Armstrong's premise is that religious fundamentalism has developed in response to secular forces in modern society that leave members of these groups feeling embattled and in a struggle for survival. While providing greater understanding of this subject, Armstrong's analysis is weak in solutions. But, increased understanding is a good start; and this is an important book...particularly as society puzzles about the motivations of groups who would perpetrate acts such as those of September 11.

Rating:
Summary: SB 1 or God a serious compliment to this.
Review: Karen has in fact done what most of us question, but she has not come any closer to the mystery of God than any other. The book is very well understood and easy reading, but does not take us any further than any of us have already gone. I highly recomend reading Karl Mark Maddox SB 1 or God

Rating:
Summary: Explains why religion still plays a big part in politics now
Review: In light of what has happened to this world since Sept 11 and my desire to understand more about religious fundamentalism, I picked up this book. For an antheist like me, it's eye-opening. It provided a very clear and objective perspective on the historical events and implications of the development of the 3 great monotheistic religions of the world on how extreme fundamentalists with a political propaganda came into existence today. To some religious folks this may not be new. But I would recommend this book if you start wondering how religion can still play such a big part in politics in today's technology driven, materialistic world.

Reading this in the context of what's happening these days are kind of scary too. It feels like human being are going in circle. Those who were worse off usually would needed more spiritual help in their lives, to explain to themselves the meaning of lives. I personally believe that's how religion all started. People centuries ago were less capable of controlling their environment and guaranteeing their own ways of life. They needed to believe in a superhuman to find the meaning of lives. That also explains why more and more people in the modern civilization are secular in their thinking (myself included), because we all grew up in a capitalistic society where materials and technology were the predominant truth. The book revealed that 'mythos' (mystical religions beliefs) and 'logos' (logical thinking - politics, technology, systems..) were the main driving philosophy behind all the great cultures and we're living in one that's predonminately driven by 'logos'. In history, when people with power (whether they started from religious of political background) started mixing 'mythos' and
'logos', tragedy usually ensued. There were plenty of historical examples in this book. I could think of religious fundamentalists today, or Hilter and Mao just decades ago, when they started applying their ideology, whether it be religious or not, on the practical matters of ruling a country.

We may have forgotten how short the current great boom of American and Western civilization has been - only 50 years or so since the last World War. Technology and standard of living has advanced so quickly that it may be very shocking to many of us, who all grew up in peace time, to find out one day, if the world indeed is going in circle, that human is still human, that power and ideology still drive people to do stupid things that human beings have always done - some of them in the name of religion, some of them in the name of better lives for the rest in the future - by killing one another. To that front, if it's true, that's a sad awakening. I hope I was over pessimistic...

Rating:
Summary: "We can not be religious in the same way as our ancestors."
Review: IÕve always been interested in comparative religion, but in the aftermath of September 11, it has felt urgent to understand what brings people to beliefs that are so obviously grotesque distortions of any religious tradition. I picked up Karen ArmstrongÕs book because after reading several articles about Islamic fundamentalism, it seemed to me she was the only writer I encountered who had a clue what she was talking about. While others spouted platitudes and engaged in useless debates about whether Islam was a religion of peace or war (virtually all religions are a mixture of the two), Armstrong offered clear and fascinating analyses of how Islamic fundamentalism developed and what its relationship was to the politics of the Middle East.

The book, a comparison of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic fundamentalism, has more than lived up to my high expectations. The world isnÕt less dangerous after reading it, but it makes a little more sense, and I feel better equipped to cut through the platitudes and nonsense.

Armstrong argues that in the modern world "we can not be religious in the same way as our ancestors," and yet without any religion at all, life feels as if it has no meaning. And so all of us, whether devout, agnostic, or atheist, search for meaning, for "new ways to be religious." Fundamentalism represents one of those searches, but it is a way that grows out of fear.

One of the things I found most interesting about this book is that Armstrong emphasizes that this "fear" isnÕt simply some bizarre paranoia. ItÕs often quite legitimate. American Protestant fundamentalism grew up among poor, rural, badly educated people who felt that powerful and sophisticated people were laughing at them and their beliefs. And, to be fair, they were right. And so, in a virtual parody of the people who were looking down on them, they began to argue that their beliefs were "modern" Ñ the Bible was historically and scientifically verifiable. Jewish fundamentalism developed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, which left many Jews with valid reasons to fear annihilation and hope that a picayune observance of "GodÕs law" would save them. Islamic fundamentalism developed in societies asked to modernize too quickly and in ways that had horrendous social consequences. Many Islamic fundamentalist movements, ironically, began as positive attempts to provide social services like health care and education that governments were not providing, but political repression radicalized them and made them more aggressive.

All three fundamentalist religions, Armstrong says, have positive aspects. TheyÕve helped people operate in a confusing modern world without losing their sense of the meaning of life. But all three have also shown a dangerous tendency to lose the compassion that is at the core of any authentic religion, and to degenerate into "a theology of rage and hatred."

Armstrong concludes that fundamentalists need to become not less religious, but more so Ñ more faithful to the compassion that is the heart and soul of religious faith. But at the same time, secularists and people with more liberal notions of faith need to recognize the real fears that fundamentalists face, and deal with the problems that spawn those fears. Fundamentalists are not going away. We need to understand them.