In the Oxford dictionary, fundamentalism is ‘strict maintenance of the doctrines of any religion, according to a strict, literal interpretation of scripture.’ That’s neither good nor bad: it depends on the doctrines.For the speaker on the radio,’fundamentalist’ meant ‘religiously devout and therefore a possible terrorist’.I mention this debate not because I have any reason to believe that any of the Catholic nuns who educated me in the 1950s and 60s were terrorists, but because one of our topics this evening is fundamentalism, and I want to underline the point that it is a word that means different things to different people. That is exactly the sort of mind-set, the speaker argued, which motivates religiously-minded suicide bombers.
A god who, if they follow their vocation obediently will reward them with eternal bliss, but who, if they don’t, may send them to hell. They live in like-minded communities, and spend many hours in rituals of religious devotion, serving a god who, they believe, has a special mission for them – their vocation. That was the view of one of the speakers.īut somebody else thought nuns should be regarded as prime suspects, because what could be more fundamentalist than a nun? Nuns believe so strongly in the truth of their religion that they dedicate their whole lives to it. Nuns can be safely waved through after only the most cursory of searches. Nuns are mild, gentle people who wouldn’t say boo to a goose, let alone blow up a plane. Some people (it was argued) are obviously not terrorists: newborn babies for example. thoroughly searched before being allowed on the plane? Or should resources be concentrated on people who ‘look like terrorists’? Should all passengers be treated equally – i.e. I was listening to a radio debate about airport security. A CONVENT SCHOOLING – SCHOOL DAYS, ADULT WAYSĪ talk given as part of a seminar on Oppression, Repression and Resistance – Renouncing the Fundamentalist Yoke
0 kommentar(er)
