Rating: 
Summary: I call them zealots
Review: Understanding the differences of any religious fundamentalist is enlightening provided they do not attempt to thrust thier indivdual views upon others. I believe in the total separation of church and state. Unfortunately most religions don't, which is why we have our current terrorist problems. Do not fear. The new religion of technology and democracy, coupled with free enterprise will be the true savior of the world. Read "Transfer: the end of the beginning," for an enlightened view of the next decade. It will be frightening to some, while at the same time a great relief and convenience to all law abiding civilized people of the world. Read Armstrong, then read Furland.
Rating:
Summary: Easy to misunderstand this book
Review: I wasn't going to review this book until I read the opening series of reviews by offended "believers" who pan a book they do not understand with ad hominem arguments and by crediting the author with absurdly distorted "liberal" (as in Clinton-esque liberal, even though Armstrong is British) notions. "The Battle for God" is a study of fundamentalism in 3 major world religions, as it developed over centuries. One of the author's theories is that "fundamentalism" is a reaction to changes in the world which seem to threaten old belief systems with annihilation -- scientific & technological progress, secularization of political life, capitalism, among many others. It's interesting that "fundamentalists," whatever they call themselves, take offense at this loose categorization, and then proceed to rail against the very ideologies Armstrong touched upon in her definition. Then again, Armstrong contends that fundamentalism is half-baked and dangerous theology, misreading the traditional basis it presumes to be reclaiming, while departing from the basic tenets of humility, humanity and compassion that all 3 religions were founded upon. The "believers" only add support to her claim by responding with obtuse, illiterate and/or ad hominem attacks on the author. The modernity of Fundamentalism emerges as a paradox which confuses both fundamentalists and "liberals" alike. It's an impressive insight Armstrong provides when she demonstrates how, for example, discomfort with the theories & discoveries of science leads to the adoption of pseudo-scientific procedures for a new discipline, "creation science." Who needs faith when you have a science to prove your beliefs are correct? I found the book informative and theoretically persuasive, and it's timely reading for people like myself who wonder about the mindset of Arab terrorists. Certainly it would be foolish to accept this book as the "gospel truth" without doing further research to corroborate Armstrong's findings; one imagines that she would be the first to agree.
Rating: 
Summary: An atheist perspective of religion
Review: Religion has more often than not been taken for personal vengeance in human history, although evaluating religion in the same light is an error in itself. This book is another attempt at presenting the atheist's view (who, by surprise, had been a nun in her past life) mingled with a dismal portrayal of history of humanity.
Rating:
Summary: Roots of Fundamentalism
Review: Before the enlightenment, people were as much or more concerned with the "why" of history than the "what". Stories about ancestors were rich in moral and emotional content, even when the factual basis of those stories was sketchy, embellished or even manufactured. Even as recently as the middle of the last century when I was growing up, no one really looked too closely at George Washington's adventure with the cherry tree or Abe Lincoln's study habits. These stories were neither intended nor understood as history. These stories were from the world of mythos. In the modern, scientific era, a different way of looking at the world, logos, has taken hold of our consciousness. Where mythos helps us to find meaning and connectedness, the modern world promotes logos as a tool for description and manipulation of the universe. As science and modernism crowds out religion and myth, many people feel cut off and alienated from their societies. When we lose the explanatory power of mythos, we lose touch with meaning and direction. For all its ability to tell us how, science is absolutely at a loss when we ask why. One type of response to the loss of mythical understanding of the world goes under the name fundamentalism. In The Battle for God, historian Karen Armstrong traces the development of fundamentalism as a response to modernism and logos in the three Abrahamic religions. Surprisingly, and contrary to the way that many people would characterize it, Armstrong sees fundamentalism as an essentially modern, logos-based movement in reaction to the emphasis on secular orientation that accompanies modernism. Essentially it is an attempt to use modernist methods to recapture the comfort and meaning that people found in their historical and religious mythos before the modern era. Armstrong is at her best when she describes with great empathy the roots and branches of the various forms Islamic fundamentalism that have emerged in the twentieth century. Anyone whose view of the Ayatollah Khomeini has been shaped exclusively by CNN and U.S. State Department press releases will be surprised at the sympathetic picture that emerges from Armstrong's treatment of the Islamic revolution in Iran. If it does nothing else, this book can teach us to be wary of demonizing opponents. Armstrong is less good when she describes the evolution of Jewish and Protestant fundamentalism in the twentieth century. The difference, in my opinion, is that the empathy that she so readily finds for Islamic movements is frequently missing when she writes about Jewish and Christian fundamentalists. Her clear distaste for most of the leading personalities associated with these traditions is quite apparent. Overall The Battle for God provides a significant insight into the disorientation caused by exclusion of mythos from the modern world, and how fundamentalism and religious activism are not throwbacks to a pre-modern sensibility, but a completely modern response to that disorientation.
Rating: 
Summary: Not for a casual reader
Review: No doubt about the research and effot put in this book. It has a lot of information about the fundamentalism in world's three prominent religions and a lot of hard facts on them. But definitely this book is not suited for a casual reader like me as the amount of data presented completely fails to keep the interest of a casual reader. I would recommend this book only to a serious reader interested in data rather than their treatment or analysis.
Rating: 
Summary: A wonderfully intelligent discussion of fundamentalism
Review: I've been a fan of Karen Armstrong since I read "A History of God" last year, so I was really looking forward to reading "The Battle for God". It didn't disappoint. I couldn't put it down, which is an unusual quality in a religious tome. Ms. Armstrong nicely traces the history of the three monotheistic religions from the Middle Ages, and does a wonderful job of showing (without any judgement) just what drives some of us to fundamentalism. Reading this book certainly helped me be more understanding about where fundamentalists are coming from and what's driving them. Whatever side of the fundamentalist fence you're on, I highly recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Well Researched, Well Written Look at Fundamentalis
Review: Karen Armstrong has contributed another fine volume to the understanding of the Western religions, specifically, in this case, on the growth of fundamentalism. She focuses on Jewisth fundamentalism in Israel, Muslim fundamentalism in Egypt and Iran and Christian fundamentalism in America. This volume bears all the hallmarks familiar to readers of Ms. Armstrong, such as thorough, broad-ranging reasearch, a passion for different forms of spirituality and a plea for understanding. She presents a balanced account of this growth, beginning with a long look at the impact of modernity in the West (starting in the pivotal year 1492) before tackling this complex century. The reader is, thus, able to understand the why and how of the upsurge of fundamentalism at its origins until it has represented itself in recent times as a religion of such fear, anger and hate. It is a fascinating topic that is handled beautifully and fairly. An interesting and important read.
Rating:
Summary: A Useful Analysis and History of Fundamentalism
Review: You don't have to be religious to respect her analysis and covering of the history of fundamentalism movements in three major monotheistic religions. Detailed in history and parallel analysis, give you a good sense of the common elements of fundamentalism in its causes, cures, and ills.
Rating:
Summary: Great History, Great Review of Three Religions, Great Analys
Review: I read this book because I wanted to know more about Christian fundamentalism and Islam in general, and I knew Karen Armstrong would give an unbiased view. That proves already that I agree with most of what she says, and disagree with the fundamentalist reviewers who think her work is dangerous. To me, that simply goes to prove her assertion that the fundamentalist worldview is incapable of understanding the "secular" worldview--and the other way around. The example that most fascinated me was Jimmy Carter's visit to the Shah on the Muslim day of mourning (40 days after death) for Khomeini's son, murdered by the Shah's SAVAK. I am sure Carter had no idea of the taboos he was violating, and being a sensitive man who has since shown his ability to understand other points of view, if he had known, he would have picked another day. But that visit was just one more step in the US's appearing to fundamentalist Iranians as the Great Satan. It doesn't make sense to me that some readers ignored the passages on the other monotheistic religions. That, again, shows that my worldview is liberal, not fundamentalist. If you want to understand a book and the intent of the author, you read all of it. I agree with other reviewers who say Armstrong's definitions of fundamentalism, modernism, and evangelicalism are not always clear. Her glossary was very helpful for Jewish and Muslim terms but would have been improved with the addition of Christian terms. Another criticism is that her comparisons in the last chapter are between fundamentalist forms of religion and secularism. What happened to moderate/liberal forms of religion? It seems to me we cannot solve the problems of lack of understanding unless we include all sides--and there are more than two. Her view that fundamentalism is essentially modern seems sound to me, though I had always thought of it as conservative or pre-modern. The fact that I learned something really new to me is why, in spite of some criticisms, I have been enthusiastically recommending this book to all my literate friends, and gave it a 5-star.
Rating:
Summary: A poor synthesis
Review: Armstrong has made a possibly admirable attempt at tying together the three monotheistic world religions into a single, intertwined history. The trouble is, the pieces don't quite fit in some places, and Armstrong seems either not to notice or not to care. On multiple occasions, I found blatant contradictions in Armstrong's analysis just a few pages apart, with no indication that she was even aware of them. For instance, she simultaneously claims that the philosophy of "trusting one's senses" (rather than an external authority) was invented by the sceintific rationalists of the Renaissance AND by the Protestant fundamentalists, because they were reacting against the rationalists. Obviously, it either has to be one or the other, OR it might be that they *both* espoused this view, and thus the idea was not a sore point between them after all. Armstrong does not make this clear, which leads me to doubt the soundness of some of her other, equally confusing points. I was constantly frustrated reading this book because so many holes were left, so many threads didn't tie together, and so many connections seemed too forced. Overall, there are a few interesting things to learn from this book-- Armstrong clearly has knowledge of quite a lot of religious history-- but I doubt the author's ability to synthesize it all in a coherent way. I don't think the book was worth printing on the fancy parchment-style paper. Wait for the paperback, or skip it all together.
| 
