Rating: 
Summary: Readable and informative
Review: The title itself suggests the tension inherent in two polarities that permeate our lives as human beings: that between the logos and the mythos and the polarity between authentic religious experience as opposed to religious activity in the context of social and political life. The logos cannot address questions of ultimate meaning often leaving the mythos at the mercy of aggression and fear fueled by politics disguised as religion. Armstrong shows how the fundamentalists have managed to turn the mythos of their religion into logos by insisting their dogmas are scientifically true or by transforming a complex mythology into a simplified, consumer-ready ideology. The notion that "my God is different from yours" which is seen as patently false and absurd by the mystic is nurtured by the fundamentalist in order to justify the defense of their community against real or perceived threats. Armstrong shows us how the fundamentalist mindset found in all 3 major monotheistic religions has developed through time. She discusses the sunni and shiite Moslems facing pressure by the colonial and ideological pressures from the British, Russians and (later) Americans and the Gush Emunim settlers trying to secure the land for settlements by importing hundreds of thousands of Jews into the West Bank with the aim to colonize all the strategic mountaintops. For them, a settlement was rationalized as "tikkun", an act of restoration that would one day transform the world and thus "God's command to conquer the land was more important than the human and moral considerations of the national rights of the gentiles to our land"; this in turn fueled a major radicalization of the Arab population. This also includes Protestants seeking to "compel other men to walk in the right way" (what kind of society did the Puritans try to establish in New England? A democracy? Not on your life!) not to mention the Catholics who have used religion for centuries as an excuse to establish empires and suppress internal political dissensions and whose actions were going against explicit teachings laid out in the gospels. This book will be invaluable to anyone looking for an unbiased sourcebook on development of fundamentalism. In addition, it provides a lot of food for thought for anyone uncomfortable with societal pressures to conform one's inner life to an established "creed" , i.e., to subjugate one's logos to the communal mythos ... .
Rating: 
Summary: Up to the Author's usual high standard
Review: The book looks at the growth of fundamentalism in three religions. It examines the experience of Judaism in Israel, Christianity in the United States and Islam in Egypt and Iran. The reasons for the growth of fundamentalism seem to be different in each case. In Iran the regime set up by the Shah removed rights limited the rewards of economic development to the few and was based on a ferocious terror apparatus. Western values to the bulk of people in Iran seemed to be identified with corruption emptiness and an oppressive regime. The main opposition to this was not a secular movement but a number of religious leaders who advocated an idea of returning to a state system based on fairness and justice. This justice was to be guaranteed by having a state based on religious principles. (...) Armstrong's book is readable and explains in detail how religious fundamentalism has developed and ties it in to the history of each region in which the religion is placed. She has written a number of books on religious subjects and the depth of her knowledge is impressive. The only weak point in her argument is a suggestion that there is a generalised cause or similarity between the various fundamentalism's that have grown up. She suggests that there is a common pattern of retreating into a simple ideological system which is filled with hate and it then reacts against modern secular western ideals. This idea does not seen entirely born out by the fact that she puts forward and the difference in the cause and nature of fundamentalism seems more apparent than the similarities. Never the less a readable challenging and interesting book.
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
|
