Religious Fundamentalism and Violence

Kirk Straughen

(Investigator #229,  2026 July)

Hatred and violence can be inspired by certain kinds of religious beliefs. No doubt, there are many other factors involved that can lead believers to want to harm others who do not share their ideology. However, one common mindset seems to be a factor in religiously motivated violence, regardless of the creed involved, and that mindset is fundamentalism, which can be defined as:

… a rigid kind of certainty in the possession of the "one truth" and the "one way" to live. It typically relies on a literal interpretation of a sacred text and an absolute reliance on that text. Other sources of knowing what’s true or other ways of determining what’s valuable are rejected — such as when science or a different group offers an alternative perspective — in favor of what's unquestioningly accepted within the group. (1)

Not every fundamentalist will engage in acts of violence. Most do not. However, this mindset can push its adherents in this direction due to the following inherent aspects:

The idea that one group and one group only has a monopoly on divine truth causes its adherents to divide the world into believers and unbelievers. Regrettably, this attitude can lead the believer to develop a sense of superiority (only they possess the truth) and regard those with different views as inferior due to their assumed ignorance. Believing that only they possess the truth, fundamentalists can engage in zealous proselytization. However, when individuals deny their claims to truth and decline to be converted, this can lead to fundamentalists developing aggressive attitudes toward them.

This aggression is probably a defensive reaction.  Rejection of the fundamentalist’s beliefs cannot be considered by the fundamentalist as an indication that they might be mistaken. For the fundamentalist, certainty is everything. Doubt cannot be tolerated, as it threatens their ideology, which often forms an integral part of their sense of identity. Therefore, the person rejecting the belief is often seen as either evil, sinful, or rebellious, or as all of these things. This rationalization of the rejection can lead fundamentalists to see those who disagree with them as less than their equals, to the point of dehumanizing them, which increases the likelihood of prejudice and violence directed toward the unbeliever. In addition to this, there is also the problem of paranoia:

The fundamentalist mind operates from a perpetual state of siege. Convinced that their truth is under constant attack, fundamentalists develop what can be described as a “fortress mentality” – a paranoid outlook where enemies are perceived everywhere, and every disagreement is interpreted as a coordinated assault on their beliefs.
This paranoia is often self-reinforcing. When fundamentalists encounter criticism or opposition, they don’t see it as legitimate dissent but as confirmation of the conspiracy against them. This creates a vicious cycle where increased paranoia leads to more aggressive defensive behavior, which in turn generates more opposition, further validating their paranoid worldview. (2)

As a result of this paranoia, fundamentalist groups are often insular. Consequently, members of these groups can become trapped in an echo chamber, losing contact with the wider community and a more balanced perspective. No divergent views exist within the group to challenge the orthodox position. As a result, conditions arise conducive to the development of stronger stereotypes and prejudices, which in turn increase the risk of extremism and violence.

In addition, the group's teachings can also be conducive to hatred and violence. For example, if a passage in a sacred text is interpreted as condoning violence, and this violence is sanctioned by God, the highest moral authority, then the likelihood of violence being perpetrated increases, as demonstrated by psychological experiments:

To the extent that religious extremists engage in prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on violent  retribution toward unbelievers instead of  instead of the overall message of acceptance and understanding, one might expect to see increased brutality. Such  an  outcome  is  certainly consistent  with our results:  People who believe that God sanctions violence are more likely than others to behave aggressively themselves. (3)

The idea of divine retribution is part of fundamentalist ideology. Violence is particularly likely if the unbeliever is portrayed as an enemy of God, and the true believer is convinced that they have a moral duty to punish the godless or whatever other term is assigned to those with different worldviews.

The shooting deaths of six people, including two Queensland police officers, at a rural property two months ago was Australia's first domestic terror attack inspired by "Christian extremist ideology," police said.

Constables Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow were shot dead by Nathaniel, Gareth and Stacey Train after the officers arrived at their Wieambilla property, more than 300km west of Brisbane, on December 12.

Alan Dare was also fatally shot after going to check on the commotion, with the Trains killed in a gunfight with specialist police later that night.

Deputy Police Commissioner Tracy Linford said police don't believe the shootings were random or spontaneous but rather a deliberate and premeditated act of terror inspired by extremist Christian beliefs.

"Nathaniel Gareth and Stacey Train acted as an autonomous cell and executed a religiously motivated terrorist attack," she told reporters on Thursday.

"What we've been able to glean from that information is that the Train family members subscribe to what we'll call a broad Christian fundamentalist belief system known as premillennialism."

Premillennialists hold an apocalyptic belief that the world will go through a period of calamities before the second coming of Jesus Christ. (4)

Fundamentalist beliefs often arise within the context of faith communities. Therefore, it is important for the leaders of these communities  to also play a role in countering extremist narratives through the following initiatives:

 1. Promoting Tolerance:  Religi-ous leaders can teach their followers about the importance of tolerance and understanding toward different beliefs and cultures. By promoting dialogue and  respect  between  different
groups, they can counter the divisive nature of fundamentalist ideologies.

2. Encouraging Critical Thinking: Religious institutions can emphasize critical thinking and interpretation of religious texts. By encouraging followers to think for themselves and question rigid interpretations, they can help prevent the spread of fundamentalist ideologies that often rely on literal readings of texts.

3. Fostering Peacebuilding: Religious leaders can actively engage in peacebuilding efforts by promoting reconciliation and conflict resolution. By advocating for peaceful solutions to disputes and promoting dialogue between conflicting groups, they can counter the divisive and confrontational nature of fundamentalist ideologies.

4. Providing Support and Guidance: Religious institutions can offer support and guidance to individuals who may be vulnerable to extremist ideologies. By providing a sense of community and belonging, they can offer an alternative to the isolation and radicalization often associated with fundamentalist groups.

5. Advocating for Social Justice: Religious leaders can advocate for social justice issues and address the root causes of extremism, such as inequality and discrimination. By addressing these underlying issues, they can help prevent the spread of fundamentalist ideologies that often thrive on feelings of marginalization and injustice. (5)

If the aforementioned steps are taken, then there is at least the possibility of reducing the danger that this ideology poses.

References

Investigator Magazine