I have seen many blogs and few local news papers, getting the definitions and contextual implications of some of the vocabulary associated with religion and terrorism wrong (something, is definetly fucked up! when you talk about religion and terrorism in the same sentence). So, let's get somethings right shall we? Let us not add more fuel to the already buring pyre of Indian diversity and religious tolerence.
Encarta Dictionary defines, fundamentalism as “the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted.” Now the question arises, who, or what, is a fundamentalist? This often abused/overused word sounds like an insult more often than not but, how can a believer be true to his faith if he does not believe in its fundamentals? You cannot be very faithful, can you, if you believe only in supplementaries?
So, were does the slide begin? When does, following scriptures to the dot begin to border on madness? The slide begins; when one faith begins to encroach upon a separate conviction. The first symptom of such overzealous fundamentalism is aggression. When this aggression is channeled through an organized section of a community, it becomes communalism. When a state codifies such aggression through statute, or executive authority, it becomes a fundamentalist state. When a person, uses religion and appeals to the emotions of people; thereby gaining political mileage its called demagoguery.
"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself"! ~George Carlin
