In the last paragraph on page 44, Ernst seems to present two extremes… either a religious Muslim or Christian accepts the legitimacy of beliefs contrary to his or her own, or he or she is one of the “diehard fanatics” intent on “suppressing or eliminating everyone who holds a different view.”
In your opinion, is the author correct in assuming that the “postmodern approach” is the only other option to fanaticism and bigotry? Is it inherently intolerant for a Muslim, Christian, or other religious person to assert his or her beliefs and actions are the only correct ones? And is it possible for people of different religions to hold to fundamentalist beliefs and still have a respectful discussion, even with the intent of converting the other?
By
8 thoughts on “Postmodernism and the “Diehard Fanatics””
Abrar
This is probably the hardest question to answer for anyone who feels that they should be closer to their religion. If you follow a specific religion and truly feel that it is the correct way of life (an “absolute truth”), then it would be perfectly logical for that person to tell people from other religions that they are doing the wrong thing and following the wrong guidances. However, it is quite obvious that the same could be done from the perspective of someone else who believes their own religion is an absolute truth. If a Muslim believes that Islam is an absolute truth and is the only way to reach true happiness and salvation in the afterlife, then if this person wants to live his life in the way of God then he/she would try to spread their beliefs so that others can also follow in the same path. In Islam, there are some beliefs that reciting and admitting that “There is no God but Allah” in Arabic right before death will allow one to enter Heaven. However, what happens if someone is born in a place with no Islamic guidance and is never given that suggestion? Are they doomed? In general that question has always been on my mind… if each religion says that only those who believe in that religion will be able to enter Heaven, what about all the people who were never even exposed to that religion? It’s not really their own fault…
Abby in reply to Abrar
That is a really controversial problem within religion, and while I don’t know all perspectives on it, I think different religions tend to have different opinions on this issue. And even then it isn’t so simple, because people within each religion have their own opinions on this. I’m mostly aware of the Christian perspectives, but I have heard some Muslims say that everyone is born a Muslim and that there were thousands of Muslim prophets sent around the world, Muhammad being the last. What this means for people who have never had a chance to learn Islam, I do not know.
Sarah Cehelyk
You’re asking a really tough question, but I also think it’s a really interesting one. Something that I was always taught by my parents was that you can only choose what you want to believe for yourself. That we as individuals don’t have a right to impose our beliefs onto others. I agree with what they taught me, but I also think it gets tricky. When someone cares about something deeply, they want to share that passion with the world. So how do we find the balance between pride for our own beliefs while still being sure to respect beliefs of those who differ entierly?
kennedyhinnant in reply to Sarah Cehelyk
I agree I think it can be hard to hold these fundamentalist beliefs and still have a respectful discussion with other just simply because you believe in the belief so much. These fundamentalist beliefs to a certain degree have passion and emotion attached to it so when someone believes that their beliefs are being disregarded or looked over people get defensive. I feel like in order to have a respectful discussion one has to not be set so firmly in their own beliefs. One has to be willing to look at the other side and to see the other side with value.
Abby in reply to Sarah Cehelyk
From my personal experience, I definitely agree that it is not right to impose religion on another person. But, if a person is willing to discuss religion, then it’s perfectly fine to try and convince he or she. I also appreciate attempts to convince me because that means they care about my future, or at least my opinion.
jpuvogel
In response to the first question, I don’t think Ernst is entirely correct. A gray area may exist in someone who accepts plurality but believes their views are the only correct views, but has no intent on converting others. Or someone who has intent to convert but still accepts the other person’s religion as valid, but believes theirs is simply superior instead of believing it is the only correct one. The possible subtle differences between belief of superiority and the lack of acceptance if plurality open up many difficult questions themselves. The question of intolerance in asserting one’s own beliefs as the only correct ones remains debatable. If one of Ernst’s “diehard fanatics” is speaking to someone and trying to convert them, that person might just dismiss them as a fanatic and pay no more attention. It is possible for two people to have a civil debate or discussion about their different religions just as it is possible for people to respectfully debate politics, even if one has the intent of converting the other, but again the morality of such a conversation is questionable.
Abby in reply to jpuvogel
In my view, the morality of religious conversations has a lot to do with intent. If the intent is just to say, “I am right and everyone else is wrong,” then there will most likely be no respect involved in the discussion. If the intent is to spread what one believes is the truth for the benefit of others, then those involved in the discussion will show respect toward each other rather than arrogance and bigotry.
Most of my friends don’t share my religious beliefs, but we often have spiritual conversations. Because we are friends, respect each other, and have good intent, it doesn’t turn into a nasty debate. And because we agree to talk about these things, we aren’t offended.
sara
I understand why the author uses the postmodern approach as one side and fanaticism as another. For example, the author states that religious pluralism is indeed a fact of life. I agree to that statement because individuals whether religious or not need to realize the importance of recognizing religious shifts. This severely applies to a muslim living in the western world. Every day, muslims face the different American ideologies that muslims can not just ignore. While some muslims do not agree with some ideologies, others do because of the way the western world has influenced their culture. It would not be surprising if a muslim has changed their mindset about a moral from the perspectives of non-muslims and other individuals. It is not acceptable for a religious person, such as a muslim, to assert their beliefs as the “correct ones” because of stating “God says this or that” they must note that society is changing day by day, which influences beliefs. I also find it possible for a religious individual to still hold on to fundamentalist beliefs and still have a respectful discussion, I think it is important for both sides to listen to their perspectives and why they agree to those thoughts.