Religious fundamentalism was first identified among conservative or evangelical Protestants in the late 19th C and early 20th C as a response to liberal Protestantism specifically, and to modernism more generally, and the threat they posed to what were identified as fundamental Christian beliefs such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the inerrancy (or literal truth) of the Bible. Christian fundamentalism was both a reaction to developments within Christianity itself, and to changes and challenges within emerging modern, western societies with their emphasis on science, technology and progress.

Christian fundamentalism was a loosely organized movement with visible leadership, guiding publications, and leading educational institutions that cut across formal denominational lines. It also seemed to distil an attitude of high-minded religious devotion and fidelity—to its adherents—or of narrow-minded dogmatism—to its opponents. There were political manifestations to early Christian fundamentalism, such as advocacy for Christian teachings and prayer in schools (the Scopes Monkey Trial) and the encouragement of missionary conversion activity linked to imperial and colonial movements outside of Europe and North America.

Today, fundamentalism has a wider, more diffuse meaning. It seems to be applied to adherents of any religion that share one or more of the following characteristics:
1) Emphasis on selected, fundamental core religious beliefs;
2) Reaction against fellow religious adherents who are deemed liberal or too compromising;
3) Leaders, writings, and institutions that define and guide can be identified;
4) Revolt against the problems or excesses of modern society or social progress;
5) An attitude of high religious devotion and lack of tolerance for those who do not share this devotion;
6) A political program of reform to bring society more generally into conformity with core religious beliefs; and
7) Willingness to adopt violent means to achieve political ends.

The last two on this list are certainly the most debateable as there are examples of religious fundamentalism that neither have a political program nor would contemplate the use of violence under any circumstances. It also could be argued that any or all of these characteristics could be applied to factions in all major religions, and to some secularists and rationalists. Further, fundamentalists are not necessarily luddite or traditionalists, but may use modern means of communications and technology against what are seen as threats within the religion or society.

Fundamentalist religion also needs to be understood within broader categories of identity such as culture, tradition, nationalism or ethnicity. What some fundamentalists would see as pure articulation and adherence to religious teachings, others may interpret as cultural manifestations merely justified by religion.

A nuanced understanding of religion, including religious fundamentalism, may be crucial in understanding violent conflicts and building peace where religion is a factor in starting or sustaining a conflict.  But religion and fundamentalism are rarely the sole factors in a violent conflict and therefore great care needs to be given to understanding its relative role in each situation.

The term fundamentalism is inaccurately applied to religions other than Christianity. Muslims continue to resent the term applied to them, however it has become part of the discussion of religions and politics so i am unsure what can be done about it now.
We don’t use it ourselves as we feel it hinders rather than helps.

I think as part of this initiative, we should consider what terms we can use which are less perjorative...a major task! Extremism, use of religion for political purposes?

All religions have political manifestations either through the individual or collective practice of its adherents, or through specific political programs. There are local, national and international religious organizations directing their singular, ecumenical (multi-denominational), or multi-faith efforts towards building peace and resolving conflicts. Other religious organizations do not. Some may advocate for the use of violence in defense of adherents, or, indeed, of regional or national interests in the face of injustice or threats.

One key issue is the relationship between a state and a religion, which comes in many forms. Canada’s head of state, the Queen, is also the head of the Church of England. Canada currently is at war to defend the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The official state Church of Norway is the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and its clergy are effectively civil servants. There is a long list of politically engaged religious movements that are directly linked to the state, as well as all manner of minority and non-state-related religions. As the Director of an organization that is legally a part of the Canadian Council of Churches, and that is charged with working with public policy issues related to peacebuilding and disarmament, I am part of a religious movement for peace and work with many other such organizations, as well as non-religious organizations.

What is important when considering violent conflict is not that the religions are politically engaged, but what is it that these religions or religious movements say and do with respect to politics and more importantly about advancing or countering violent conflict.

Protracted violent conflicts may, or may not, feed or drive fundamentalist religious movements. Specific analysis needs to be done in each situation. Where religious fundamentalism is a factor in a violent conflict it needs to be addressed to the degree that it is relevant. Clearly visible violent threats may push religious adherents towards a simplified or more fundamentalist position, but such threats may also induce them to abandon old practices, including religious practices.

Obviously, protracted conflicts feed fundamentalism. Till the “West” addresses its role in advancing its own agenda, in the neo imperialistic manner, we will continue to have peoples angry, disillusioned and cynical.
The huge attraction for Muslims is that they are told Islam will address their worldly and spiritual needs better than any form of government or models from the West.

The politically engaged religious movements include the “pious women” movement in Egypt and other places such as Pakistan; the Muslim Brotherhood in different countries.
The “freedom” movements in a number of countries have overlays of religion and ethnicity.

The international community should base its response to violent conflicts arising from religion in international law and norms respecting the human rights--including religious rights--of individuals and communities, including linguistic and ethnic minorities. Even where there is a predominant religion or a state recognized religion the human rights of adherents of other religions must be respected, including freedom from state interference in religious teaching and practice in as far as they do not contravene the rights of others. Fair and recognized adjudicating institutions, legal or customary, should be available to mediate the inevitable conflicts. Conflicts arising from religion are not the problem; violence is the problem needing to be addressed, whether it has roots in religion or elsewhere.

Secular states, or those states with a state religion or majority religion, should respond to “non-pluralistic” or violence-advocating religions within their borders or within other states’ borders first on the basis of law. Religions can hold and express views that are not in keeping with pluralism or tolerance if they do not resort to violence or excessive coercion in pressing these views on others. Religions also have the right to seek converts and propagate their views; again, with the proscription against violence or excessive coercion. Where there are violations of the law in the name or religion the lawbreakers should be addressed through fair and legitimate judicial processes, with care being given not to unfairly stigmatize any particular religion in the process.

Depends on who is part of the international community. If you mean the political community, then the example of countries in Afghanistan and Iraq shows how we should not intervene. Examples of thoughtful interventions could be in the Israel/Palestine conflict or with Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The “international community” should respond to non pluralistic expressions, how about the U.S instead of turning a blind eye to the actions of Saudi Arabia do something with their friend and ally?

I think we must not fall into the trap of either/or such as secular versus religious. There are no countries which don’t have blurred lines between the two. There are other paradigms such as principles of human rights.

The ways of responding must ensure that we as a nation are not hypocritical, not seem to be setting the standard, that the discussion is respectful and a two way communication.
Work with the people of the country, engage them, see how they want to respond and how funds can be tied to certain provisos.
For example, women’ groups in Egypt, Afghanistan or Malaysia would be pleased to work with western donors about what they see as their needs.

1. Understand the basic facts: Religions have the observable and knowable manifestations of all human institutions. Take the time to understand the religion’s basic practices and institutional expressions.
2. Respect: Even if state officials are non-religious or secular, they should respect the role of religion in other people’s lives
3. Promote Intra-faith and Inter-faith Dialogue: Where religion is a factor in a violent conflict there may be opportunities to support dialogue within the religion between moderate and extreme factions. Where the conflict is between religions create opportunities for dialogue with willing and appropriate leadership from both sides.
4. Distinguish Relevant Factors: Religion may be only one factor in complex identities and multiple causes of conflict.
5. Recognize the Threats from Modernization: Respect the fact that traditional religious societies may see modernization as a threat, even if you do not agree.
6. Acknowledge and Address Legitimate Grievances: Where regional neighbours or international community members are the source of grievance, these grievances must be addressed to promote peace.

a.What is the best way for a state to engage with another state in which religious identity or affiliation is being politicized / polarized as part of a conflict?   What approaches might the first state use to try to prevent the continued polarization / politicization of religious identity?  

See the appeal to international law and norms in answer to #3 above. Further, there are few religions that are a majority in one state that aren’t a minority elsewhere. An appeal can be made to respecting religious rights in all states as a means of promoting peaceful resolution of conflicts.

b.What is the best way for a state to engage with transnational actors or organizations that politicize / polarize religious identities, and contribute to conflict?

Where transnational religious actors contribute to violent conflicts they should be dealt with on the basis of law enforcement. Where violent factions or individuals in religious communities must be apprehended, the strategy and tactics to accomplish this must be in line with legitimate policing actions, with respect for the rights of the individuals and due process such as fair trials. The modus operandi of some states in the so-called war on terror has been to suspend the rule of law, even to the point of suspending international laws of war such as the Geneva Conventions. This confusion of unlawful means and expected just ends is a recipe for breeding contempt for the rule of law, and potentially increasing the adherents to violent factions, religious or otherwise.

c.What is the best way for a state to engage with another state in which religious identity or affiliation is being politicized / polarized as part of a conflict?   What approaches might the first state use to try to prevent the continued polarization / politicization of religious identity?  
d.What is the best way for a state to engage with transnational actors or organizations that politicize / polarize religious identities, and contribute to conflict?

Sadly, the language uses by governments do not promote active hearing or listening.
For example, the constant refrain that Canada’s security is threatened and that is why we have to fight in Afghanistan only leads to cynicism. The reporting of the number of tragic deaths of our soldiers but without any acknowledgement of the loss of Afghan lives shows our lack of fairness.

I think we have to recognize that religion is a potent force in many countries and what we need to clarify is not religion per se but the use of it being politicized.

Follow the basis rules indicated in answer to #4 above.

Yes.

Start with the recognition that religion can play a positive role in resolving conflicts because of its credibility as a trusted institution, its respected set of values or principles, its moral warrants for opposing injustice on the part of governments, its unique leverage for promoting reconciliation among conflicting parties, the ability to re-humanize enemies that have been dehumanized, an ability to mobilize community, national, and international support for peace, an ability to follow through locally on commitments, and a sense of calling that inspires perseverance in the face of obstacles.

Promote interfaith discussion that is first and foremost a conversation, not a debate, for the purpose of understanding, not conversion, between representatives of the faith groups. Public officials and outside civil society practitioners can facilitate but should be respectfully distanced from the religious content except where religious is being used to justify or encourage violence. When religion plays a role in violent conflict, interfaith dialogue will be most beneficial when it adopts an attitude of mutual problem-solving before any programs or concrete steps are developed. It is important to identify the appropriate leadership, formal and informal, of the relevant religious groups and to properly structure interfaith encounters. It also is important to distinguish the relative roles that religious actors at different levels can play, whether elites, mid-level or local.

Where possible, mainstream or moderate religious leadership should be assisted in advancing discussion without compromising their integrity among their own faithful. One attraction of violent religious factions is that they offer solutions to keenly felt problems. It is more likely that people will forgo this attraction to violent alternatives if their grievances are being addressed with the effective leadership of their mainstream or moderate leadership.

Let’s not combine “secular” with “civil society” and separate “religious communities”
These are not necessarily clearly demarcated arenas.

This will be determined by the context in which the violent conflict takes place. There are many examples where international religious organizations have played a key role mediating and resolving conflicts where religion was a contributing factor, and where it was not. Governments should recognize and support these efforts, again without compromising the CSOs’ independence or integrity. Secular CSOs may prove more appropriate as mediators in some conflicts (given that they follow the rules listed in #5 above), particularly if religious CSOs are considered partisan or compromised.

This is the crux of the issue. I cannot respond to this simply, and it is one which requires collective actions.

Governments must be continually reminded to respect the independence and integrity of religions and religious bodies in violent conflicts. There are many examples of states using religion or religious bodies to advance purely national interests rather than for the express purpose of resolving violent conflicts.

One of the most difficult issues in  this discussion is the recognition that religion is playing a greater role because many peoples are seeing religion as their hope for improvement. It is comforting, provides values, it is against the hypocrisy of the west, it is an antidote to their own corrupt governments and it responds to their spiritual, and emotional needs.

As we are an organization of believing Muslim women, with values of equality and empowerment of women, and following the Islamic teaching of the “balanced” way, we too have difficulties with those of our co religionists whose interpretations of the same religion are extreme, traditional, political, rigid and monolithic in their understanding.

An uphill struggle!