Theology or scholarly exegesis of religious texts is, to my mind, the attempt to rationalise existential experiences, so that they become explainable. Such explanations build then a philosophical structure, around which adherents construct their lives. This is completely acceptable for private lives. The problems arise, when one ideology becomes the structure around which people from other cultures are also expected to construct their lives, although they have other explanations and other philosophical structures for similar existential experiences.
The tendency of tribal society was to expel those who endangered the tribe; who, by causing a lack of cohesion through the discussion of alternative ideas, questioned the very ground upon which the tribe was built. If small groups lack a common ground, they do not hold together, and are at the mercy of other tribes and dangers in the vicinity. Discipline held small groups together, clear hierarchical structures made them effective against danger in various forms.
In modern society, the kind of danger that tribes had to furnish themselves against is considerably reduced. There is a common law by which all citizens have to conduct themselves, and law-enforcement to protect citizens. The law is also not chiseled into rock, but continually under consideration, to ensure that the constitutional rights and duties of citizens, serving the common good, is upheld.
This is why then, since the tribal customs have to adhere to the law, customs must be purged of all behaviour which endangers the common good and the rights of citizens. This is also extended to the children of those who may reject the underlying ideas of the constitution, and attempt to force archaic customs on their children. As soon as a child (or any other person in need of protection) is endangered, the law in modern society intervenes.
This also means that we need a constant discussion about what is acceptable, which in itself, by those who are critical of the rights of the constitution, is regarded as an unjustifiable intervention. The open discussion about what is acceptable, and what is not, is something that some people want to decide within their own group (tribe), and not have any intervention from society. It is clearly a problem if we consider pedophile behaviour, or “circumcision” of women (female genital mutilation), it becomes difficult to distinguish when we talk about religious circumcision on boys or even “religious education” which contradicts education standards in society.
I don’t see this situation primarily as a religious issue, but as a “tribal” issue. A tribe is any aggregate of people united by ties of descent from a common ancestor, community of customs and traditions, or adherence to the same leaders, amongst other examples. There are enough non-religious people in society, who have developed customs and traditions which considerably contradict the concept of a western democracy. However, religion is also a tribal issue, which has the same problems as non-religious groups have, including manipulation and power struggles.
What is becoming increasingly evident, is that the moral standards of politics has something to do with a so-called “Christian state”, since the state is exempt from exemplary behaviour, Candidates still have to show some moral credentials, but even that is becoming less of an issue. Individuals feel either less and less morally represented by candidates for political office, or they disregard contradictions for the sake of an affinity in single issues. Some reject the political system completely because of the lack of a common moral ground in any party, reflected in the moral state of society as a whole in which everything has its price and is for sale. These people tend to remain on the margin of society and are the prime source of extremist and conspiracy ideas and even terrorism.
This is where theology and other scholarly interpretation of religious texts can be utilised in a way that manipulates a group (tribe) to set them against society. It happens in Christianity as much as it happens in any other religion, except that the resulting behaviour in Christianity to date has generally been less explosive than in other religions. This is probably because reactive religions tend less towards an unresisting devotion and see themselves endangered in a minority situation, which causes more desperate behaviour. But it is also an issue that the NT touches when mentioning the Zealots and the Sicarii. It is an alternative religious behaviour, which the authors of the Bible are aware of and which shouldn’t be forgotten, considering the existence of “the Ku-Klux-Klan”, “The Army of God”, “Eastern Lightening”, “LRA” and “The Phineas Priesthood” etc. in modern times.
This also shows how extremist islamist groups are no exception to religious behaviour, but examples of an extremist form, just like other religions have. Curiously, you get the feeling that, whether Christian extremists or Islamic extremists, they are fighting all against a common enemy, except they hate each other.
The question is, what is there to be done? Is there an intelligent, enlightened way to deal with the extremists in our midst, or are we left to use extremist measures to combat them? Could a blanket of Care-Packages have had more effect of Afghans or Iraqis that the blanket bombing that occurred? It may be too late to change things past, but I feel we have to find an approach for the future.