An Ethical Dilemma: Religious Fundamentalism and Peace Education Juliet Bennett Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney, Australia ABSTRACT. Although a modus operandi throughout history, the passing down of beliefs and values from parent to child is a practice that must now be challenged. Drawing a connection between fundamentalist religious beliefs and inter-gener- ational violence, this paper examines an ethical dilemma that lies at its crux: on the one hand, the peaceful intentions of fundamentalist believers, and on the other a number of violent consequences for individuals, society, and the world. Applying interdisciplinary religious and peace theory scholarship to the case of Christian fundamentalism in Australia, a number of intertwining issues sur- rounding religion and education are explored. Should religion be taught to chil- dren? What is the difference between indoctrination and education? Is some enculturation desirable? Who decides? Do children have a right to choose their own religion? Do parents have a right to teach them theirs? Is indoctrination avoidable? Is neutrality of the teacher attainable? Does a liberal society have a right not to tolerate the intolerant? How might these complex paradoxes be addressed from a philosophical and peace education perspective? KEYWORDS. indoctrination paradox, fundamentalism, religious education, post- modernity, peace education. I. INTRODUCTION lobalisation has placed worldviews en face, forcing religious believers Gto directly confront the beliefs of other civilisations, each of which may claim to the one and only ‘Truth’. While one result of this realisation has been the development of tolerant and pluralistic attitudes toward the views of others, another result has been a rise of radical movements in the world’s major religions: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and even Confucian. As a consequence, rather than moving toward a ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES 18, no. 2(2011): 197-228. © 2011 by Centre for Ethics, K.U.Leuven. All rights reserved. doi: 10.2143/EP.18.2.2116810 994545_Ethical_Persp_2011/2_03.indd4545_Ethical_Persp_2011/2_03.indd 119797 77/06/11/06/11 113:103:10 ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES – JUNE 2011 peaceful unity, global society is undergoing major division and new con- flicts are arising. Fundamentalists claim to revert back to what they inter- pret to be the ‘fundamentals’ of their religion. Fundamentalist religions are exclusivist, that is, they believe their religion “is the only true reli- gion” and that “their religion should be taught as truth” (Robinson 2000).1 As this paper focuses on Christian fundamentalism, for the sake of simplicity I will use the term fundamentalist to refer to all groups that share the ‘fundamental’ Christian beliefs in sola scriptura, that the Bible is the inerrant and authoritative ‘Word of God’; and sola fide, that salvation by ‘faith in Jesus’ alone is the path to heaven (Mackay 2005, 73).2 This includes many Christians of the Fundamentalist, Evangelical and Pente- costal movements, as well as a number of conservative strands of other Christian denominations.3 This paper focuses on two distinct but inseparable phenomena: the rise of religious fundamentalism, and the accepted practice of parents passing their beliefs onto their children. Utilizing the example of the fundamentalist strand of Christianity, I argue that together these two phe- nomena create and perpetuate a number of forms of violence across generations. Attempting to analyse the phenomenon in the least obtrusive way, I approach the topic as an ethical dilemma, beginning with a survey of the violent consequences of fundamentalist religions and followed by an exploration of the seemingly loving intentions that cause them. Fun- damentalist parents and leaders desire that their children are brought up in the Christian faith, and that they remain in it for the rest of their lives. This is not seen as unethical or immoral: from a parent’s perspective they are bringing their child up in ‘Truth’, ‘guiding’ the child down the ‘right’ path, and ‘saving their eternal soul’. The last part of this paper looks toward solutions, exploring how indoctrination may be avoided with a shift from education into religion to education about religion. While acknowledging the difficulties surrounding this shift, a philosophy of peace education is proposed as a transformative solution that challenges the underpinning structures of present-day education systems. Growing from — 198 — Ethical Perspectives 18 (2011) 2 994545_Ethical_Persp_2011/2_03.indd4545_Ethical_Persp_2011/2_03.indd 119898 77/06/11/06/11 113:103:10 BENNET – AN ETHICAL DILEMMA the works of Dewey, Galtung, Lederach, Montessori, and many others, peace education grounds students in an ability to think critically, engage with (and if necessary, challenge) dominant value systems, and transform conflict through non-violent means. This study inevitably has its roots in my cultural and social location as a former Christian in an ongoing relationship with a Christian funda- mentalist community. While this allowed access to valuable information and perspectives, I recognise these benefits come at a risk of personal bias. Striving toward the most objective perspective possible, I have attempted to explicate my influences throughout the discourse. In brief, I hold the ‘Truth’ as an unattainable but worthwhile objective. At the time of writing this paper I interpret ‘God’ as a panentheistic personification of the creative energy behind the expansion and complexity of our uni- verse. My vision looks beyond ‘the absence of war’ (negative peace) toward positive peace, which includes respect for human rights and social justice (Galtung 1990). Due to the scope of this topic, the paper does not attempt to be exhaustive but explorative, concentrating on what I per- ceive to be the most essential concepts and key issues. It combines exten- sive scholarly research with a review of government and NGO initiatives, Australian case studies, and hermeneutics in hope of presenting a per- spective that may initiate further discussion. II. THE VIOLENCE Fundamentalists have gunned down worshippers in a mosque, have killed doctors and nurses who work in abortion clinics, have shot their presidents, and have even toppled a powerful government (Armstrong 2000, ix). In the current state of world affairs it is easy to observe a number of direct and indirect forms of violence that result from fundamentalist — 199 — Ethical Perspectives 18 (2011) 2 994545_Ethical_Persp_2011/2_03.indd4545_Ethical_Persp_2011/2_03.indd 119999 77/06/11/06/11 113:103:10 ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES – JUNE 2011 religion. By observing several forms of this violence, at global, societal and individual levels, the first part of this paper denotes the need for religious fundamentalist beliefs and their pedagogical practices to be examined through a more critical interdisciplinary lens. Violent Consequences on Global Relations Worldview conflicts are the result of conflicts between perceptions of how the world, locally or globally, should be defined or should function. When worldview conflicts are passed on between generations, they can become symbiotic, habituated into self-perpetuating conflictual interac- tions between participants (Tillett and French 2006, 11-13). In his widely cited work, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington (1996) posits that future world conflict will not be ideological or economic but will be cultural – a clash between ‘civilisations’ with radically different worldviews, and where allegiance to religious identity takes precedence over allegiance to nation-state. In The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, Philip Jenkins also anticipates a clash of cultures. Jenkins envisions a worldview conflict in the form of a “new age of Christian crusades and Muslim jihads”, “international religious-oriented alliances” (Jenkins 2007, 13), connected to the rapidly rising numbers in Africa, Asia and Latin America that have an “even more fundamentalist, evangelical, apocalyptic and charismatic nature than Christianity in the West” (2007, 137). Recent acts of violence, from the 9/11 attacks to suicide bombers, to the actions of extremist groups such as the Army of God and Christian Identity, and the collective impact of voting Christians supporting the New Christian Right and the war in the Middle East, might be interpreted as the beginnings of this clash (Blaker 2003b, 10-11). It is important to clarify the distinction between a religious identity and the religion itself. It is only the collective identity of a religion’s adherents that reifies the religion and allows it to be ‘used’ or ‘abused’ — 200 — Ethical Perspectives 18 (2011) 2 994545_Ethical_Persp_2011/2_03.indd4545_Ethical_Persp_2011/2_03.indd 220000 77/06/11/06/11 113:103:10 BENNET – AN ETHICAL DILEMMA (Trompf 2007, 179). As Trompf puts it, “do colligations actually ‘do’ anything, and can they indeed be ‘causes’?” (2007, 181). It is only through human agency that crusades, jihads and other forms of violence may occur. When a religious identity is inseparable from a personal one, the interpretation a religious authority preaches is often adopted without question and defended as if it is a part of one’s self. Conflicting ideas can transform into zero-sum games, and depending on the closeness of the idea to mainstream interpretation this may lead to New Religious Move- ments and new denominations, sects and cults. The Jonestown Massacre and Pentecostal