I find myself struggling with the idea that apocalyptic thinkers are able to abandon their fears and sense of responsibility because their time construct, according to The Fundamentalist Mindset, has been dissolved by the notion of the end of days (30). While I understand why this seems to make sense, it’s difficult to believe that this shifted perspective of time manages to remove a sense of accountability to a degree that justifies or even motivates publically or individually harmful actions.
The reading mentions that these apocalyptic believers have “no fear of future consequences (except from a judging deity)…”(30). This particular passage calls attention to why the general theory seems to be flawed. The “exception” to this seemingly boundless loss of fear is the wrath and judgment of God- a pretty significant force to be reckoned with. True believers trust completely in God’s plan for them, so why, then wouldn’t the wrath and judgment of their one true object of faith be enough to dissuade them from acting recklessly against others? Perhaps one answer to this is the simplification process that people tend to go through to reconcile the complexities and incongruities of their beliefs. The dualism that is created in most simplification processes may allow these radical believers to truly believe that they are on one side (the good side) of a battle against good and evil. If these apocalyptic believers hold this dualistic simplicity as their main tool of rationalization, then I suppose acts of violence for their cause might make more sense.
I wonder if my personal system of beliefs is inhibiting me from thinking about this like a true apocalyptic fundamentalist. From the outside, though, it seems like it doesn’t really make sense to say that people are able to abandon their responsibilities because they know they’re on the right side of the fight. How could they know that? I guess I’m getting into territory that presents very subjective argument and probably doesn’t have a clear answer, but I don’t think conviction of belief is a strong enough justification for the rationality of group suicide or violence against opposing groups in the name of religion.
The process of rationalizing at all, though, can’t be pinned entirely on the believer or “follower” of any particular religious sect. I would agree with the essay that people who fall into acting violently or radically are those people who entered into the religious group responsible for the violence at a particularly vulnerable time in their lives. If an especially radical leader happened to use his or her “spin” on apocalyptic teaching to rationalize the need for radical acts, then a person who was molded by the religious group becomes a pawn in advancing the goals of a leader, often, I would argue, without fully realizing what they are helping to advance.
The presence of the very human desire to feel accepted is really important to consider when thinking about why religious groups act violently against other groups of people, individuals, or even themselves. If especially vulnerable individuals get the sense that committing “x” act of radicalism will aid in making them part of something larger (no longer isolated), it makes sense why they might go along with what, to outsiders seems like a crazy idea.
It’s just too easy, though, to say that a shifted notion of time as a whole is enough to move people to act violently. It’s too easy, in fact, to say that any one factor that the essay or I talk about is sufficient explanation for why religious groups or individuals act radically; many factors are at work simultaneously. I would argue that it usually begins with an individual hoping to advance his or her radical perspective and teachings about religion and the apocalypse. This leader targets needy and easily molded individuals to create an easily manipulated group that (influenced by convincing propaganda, lectures/sermons, literature, and the support of the group) can be led to commit drastic acts of violence, which they would likely easily justify in their own minds as an admirable display of the strength and limitlessness of their faith; but individuals in these groups seem to fail to question-faith in what?
Hi Whitney,
You’ve indeed gotten to the heart of the issue in regard to how complicated it is for someone outside of this belief system to fully understand how it works from the inside. I don’t see Strozier and Boyd simplifying the issue quite as much as you do insofar as they raise other factors (and point to other analysts on this topic) that intersect with the issue of a shift in time perspective, but you do raise a key cautionary point about how difficult it is to explain what they call the “fundamentalist mindset.” One of the issues we should discuss further is precisely how the analyst who is not a believer can hope to understand a way of thinking that is so different from his or her own. Further, if one is analyzing a belief that is considered to be harmful, what obligations and stance follow?
Hi Professor Quinby,
Thanks so much for your feedback!
Perhaps my post made my own stance unclear-I did write this in a rather frustrated state of mind. I didn’t intend to suggest that Strozier and Boyd were presenting a simplistic means of understanding the fundamentalist mindset, but rather I was suggesting that radical fundamentalists use/fall back on a simplified version of Strozier and Boyd’s model of thought, or models like this one, to justify their actions. My focus was drawn to the one exception to the “rule” that was presented because I have been thinking a lot about how these strong and sometimes violent groups are able to rationalize acting in a way that appears to go against their own doctrine of beliefs.
I’ll have to think more about the question you have posed. I think this will be really interesting to talk about in class. I’m interested to hear more opinions/perspectives about the issue. It is really challenging to analyze stuff like this without allowing my own criticisms of these systems of beliefs to influence the way I’m thinking!