This is the Go-To text on Fundamentalism in religions. Very insightful, very well written, very understandable. Characteristic performance by a good author.

First and foremost, in `The Battle for God', Karen Armstrong demonstrates her knowledge of religious history by chronicling the manner in which religious adherents of the three monotheisms have struggled to preserve their faith against growing challenges presented to them since the Enlightenment. In doing so, she offers an explanation on how the modern Fundamentalist movement has come into existence, and why at the turn of the 21st Century it poses such a severe threat to the values of modern culture. Considering the abysmal knowledge possessed by most Westerners regarding religious Fundamentalism, `The Battle for God' should make a significant contribution in dispelling this blindness.

However, while Miss. Armstrong's grasp of history is praiseworthy, I find it difficult to compliment her approach to sociology and religious essence. Her primary assertion is that militant literalism is a new phenomenon, fabricated as a reaction against the growth of secularism; a bold theory that lacks any substantial evidence. Miss. Armstrong's usage of the term `Fundamentalism' is also too liberal for comfort, strengthening the impression that much of her evaluations on the beliefs of religious adherents through history are coloured by her own `progressive religious' persuasions, and an attempt to historically justify such beliefs.

Pretty good in the first half, since it gives a lot of information about premodern religions (and also, of course, because I'm not knowledgeable enough to spot whatever factual errors there are). She doesn't tie it all together in one neat theoretical pile; but her discussion is interesting enough to camouflage that.

Her distinction between mythos (narratives which are of moral value regardless of their factual accuracy) and logos (pure reason) makes sense to me, even though I question her assertion that it made sense to adherents of premodern religion.

In the last half, this book weakens quite a bit: she has a strong bias in favor of moral equivalence that doesn't hold up real well after 9/11. As a result, she gives every benefit of the doubt to Islam, and is less generous to Christianity and Judaism.

For example, in describing Islamic pogroms in the 1920s, she writes: "On August 24, 1929, during a period of great tension between Arabs and Zionists in Palestine, fifty-nine Jewish men, women and children had been massacred in Hebron." The reference to "great tension between Arabs and Zionists" implies moral equivalency- its not just random murder, it was just "tension" manifesting itself. And note that she doesn't say who did the massacring. I wouldn't describe this as conscious bias; to be fair, I don't think Hamas types would use the term "massacre." But nevertheless I get the sense she is trying a little too hard to be fair to the Arabs.

And in describing 1980s Arab terrorism: "Surrounded by 46,000 militant Jewish settlers, the Arabs became frightened and some resorted to violence." Given that there are, oh, two dozen Arab nations surrounding Israel and trying to wipe it out, the notion that the poor terrorists became "frightened" of Israel seems hard to believe.. In addition, her grasp of Judaism (the religion with which I am most familiar) is none too sure.

A couple of factual errors that I noticed:

*"traditional, conservative faith ... took it for granted that reason could not demonstrate the truth of the kind of myths found in the scriptures." In fact, the Kuzari (13th c. or so) purports to demonstrate the proof of the relevation at Sinai, and thus of Judaism. (Just google "kuzari proof" for lots of arguments pro and con).

*"Before a Jew attends a synagogue service, he bathes in the mikveh, a ritual bath." This may occasionally be true of Hasidim; but the notion that this is the norm for even Orthodox Jews is flat out wrong. (I have more or less regularly attended Orthodox congregations for four of the past five years, and have only heard the word "mikveh" in reference to (a) women or (b) purifying cookware and silverware).

A look at the hostile reviews shows some polarization among readers. Liberal Christians and secularists seem to like this book; religious Jews, conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) and even secular hawks tend to dislike it.

A carefully crafted history of fundamentalism from a erudite, deep thinker. Enlightening in view of present global tensions especially.
Norman Gage Western Australia

I found the book somewhat difficult to stick with. It sort of drug on for me.

I love her effort. Armstrong always tries to find the stories behind events, and to stand in the shoes of all participants. Her choice to trace fundamentalism through several centuries and three different religions frames a search for unbiased understanding. She respects people's quest to find the fundamental roots of their religion. But she also shows the real consequences when people have tried to play God over others. She shows how people of all three major "religions of the book" face similar choices among different versions of their faith. Among these choices she urges mercy.

--BG, author of "Different Visions of Love" and "The Gardens of Their Dreams"

Madam Armstrong makes an assertion that is exactly opposite of the truth. She claims that the bible was originally written as allegoric and that literal readings are a recent invention. The truth is the opposite: People have been reading the bible literally for centuries. Allegoric interpretations are the recent invention. (I write as a non-believer.)

With so much misinformation and ignorance in print and media, it is refreshing to see a well-researched and objective account of this important topic.

An inspired review of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - and their histories, especially regarding fundamentalism. Karen Armstrong has committed so much labor to this detailed, intense research. Very impressive and worth reading over and over.

Armstrong's insights in this book offer us so many glimpses into the motivations behind our modern actions. Another truly magnificent book in Armstrong's truly magnificent oeuvre. She treats the fundamentalists with a wonderful mixture of respect, sympathy and criticism. In all, a great read, highly recommended.

I recommend this book. I recommend it equally whether you're a bible-thumping psycho-christian, an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber, an ultra-cynical atheist or a Mossad agent. It has important insights for all.

Like other Armstrong books, this is part history and part psychology. And by psychology, I mean that she's often trying to "get inside the minds" of her subjects. And when it comes to fundamentalists, we're talking about some seriously disturbed minds. By and large, though, she discusses this topic with detachment and respect; she rarely indulges in criticism.

She offers some striking insights about the genesis of fundamentalist movements and the essential ingredients which keep these movements alive. She also comments on the characteristics of fundamentalism, its essentially modern nature and its inherent contradictions. I didn't have to read long before I began to really appreciate many of her recurring themes. Her ideas appear plausible and reasonable even to an agnostic such as myself; and where before I had nothing but absolute disdain for these people, I now appreciate their perspective a little better.

For me, the history is the really fun part. As a US citizen, I was especially interested in her analysis of the rise of fundamentalism in the US, surely one of the most bizarre phenomena in the world today, considering America's otherwise modern and secular standing. It's an extremely interesting story, and her narrative makes it seem a bit less bizarre. On the other hand, the history behind Jewish fundamentalism, the oppression and violence which spurred it, is old news to most; but the various flavors of Jewish fundamentalism are some of the most bizarre out there, especially with regard to their total detachment from reality. Finally, and of greatest interest to most, will be the topic of Islamic fundamentalism because these are the guys flying airlines into buildings and blowing up their own mosques. Here again, the idea that much of the modern Islamic fundamentalist tradition has its roots in 19th century secularist movements in Egypt and Iran (yes, Iran) is truly amazing. In short, the history in Armstrong's book is nothing short of eye-opening - even at its worst it holds your attention like any good narrative; at its best, it's downright spell-binding.

All in all, the book was a great pleasure to read. The ideas she presents are well supported by historical fact and eloquently expressed; even the most abstract concepts seem tangible. The history itself reads like a great story. With fundamentalism taking center stage in so many debates and conflicts today (Iraq, Israel, Danish cartoons, creationism, stem-cell research, etc) this is an important and timely book on an important, disturbing and (to many, such as myself) baffling phenomenon.

I recommend this book. I recommend it equally whether you're a bible-thumping psycho-christian, an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber, an ultra-cynical atheist or a Mossad agent. It has important insights for all.

Like other Armstrong books, this is part history and part psychology. And by psychology, I mean that she's often trying to "get inside the minds" of her subjects. And when it comes to fundamentalists, we're talking about some seriously disturbed minds. By and large, though, she discusses this topic with detachment and respect; she rarely indulges in criticism.

She offers some striking insights about the genesis of fundamentalist movements and the essential ingredients which keep these movements alive. She also comments on the characteristics of fundamentalism, its essentially modern nature and its inherent contradictions. I didn't have to read long before I began to really appreciate many of her recurring themes. Her ideas appear plausible and reasonable even to an agnostic such as myself; and where before I had nothing but absolute disdain for these people, I now appreciate their perspective a little better.

For me, the history is the really fun part. As a US citizen, I was especially interested in her analysis of the rise of fundamentalism in the US, surely one of the most bizarre phenomena in the world today, considering America's otherwise modern and secular standing. It's an extremely interesting story, and her narrative makes it seem a bit less bizarre. On the other hand, the history behind Jewish fundamentalism, the oppression and violence which spurred it, is old news to most; but the various flavors of Jewish fundamentalism are some of the most bizarre out there, especially with regard to their total detachment from reality. Finally, and of greatest interest to most, will be the topic of Islamic fundamentalism because these are the guys flying airlines into buildings and blowing up their own mosques. Here again, the idea that much of the modern Islamic fundamentalist tradition has its roots in 19th century secularist movements in Egypt and Iran (yes, Iran) is truly amazing. In short, the history in Armstrong's book is nothing short of eye-opening - even at its worst it holds your attention like any good narrative; at its best, it's downright spell-binding.

All in all, the book was a great pleasure to read. The ideas she presents are well supported by historical fact and eloquently expressed; even the most abstract concepts seem tangible. The history itself reads like a great story. With fundamentalism taking center stage in so many debates and conflicts today (Iraq, Israel, Danish cartoons, creationism, stem-cell research, etc) this is an important and timely book on an important, disturbing and (to many, such as myself) baffling phenomenon.

Karen Armstrong really tells you things you should know about the way religion has developed over the millenia. From my viewpoint, this is the most informative she has written yet.

Karen Armstrong really tells you things you should know about the way religion has developed over the millenia. From my viewpoint, this is the most informative she has written yet.

Today the modern world is reeling from escalating violence done in the name of religion. From suicide bombings to massacres to the destruction of Mosques, churches, temples and synagogues by fanatics to the beheading and rape of hostages and innocents, often done in the name of religion, one wonders why at this point in time so many people seem to be motivated above all not by greed, fear, hate, or desire for glory and power, but by hatred against so called enemies of faith or God.

Armstrong offers a deeply insightful analysis as to why fanatical and violent forms of religion have suddenly appeared in the past few decades, especially in the world's monotheistic religions. While unfortunately this work was written before the explosion of Islamic radicalism and jihadi terrorism in this decade, it still offers the reader the historical roots of religious fundamentalism, intolerance and violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Armstrong's thesis is that the rise of modern capitalism and the scientific and industrial revolutions had a key role in undermining the traditional role of religion in society as a vehicle of sacredness, transcendance, meaning, social order and stability, and public and private morality. Before the 17th century, most of the world's civilisations relied on agriculture, land and labour for their wealth and growth and existence and this required a fairly static social order which emphasized tradition and continuity rather than innovation and change. Such a social order also emphasized community and social obligation about individual rights and emancipation, since otherwise society would collapse if everyone pursued their own interests. Religion was essential as a vehicle of ensuring social order and stability by emphasizing continuity with traditions from the past, especially going back to primeval history. Religion also provided a comprehensive map of the universe in the sense people knew where they came from, why they are here now, and where they are going, and life in this world is essentially a re-enactment of what happens in the divine. This gave people the resources mentally to cope with the tragedy, suffering and brevity of life and fulfil their social obligations in life without rebelling against the order of society.

However, this social structure was comprehensively dismantled with the rise of modern civilisation, which was based strongly on continued accumulation and growth of wealth, scientific and technological change and innovation, and mass production of services and goods to markets. The new culture focused not on stability and tradition but on change, innovation and enterprise, and valued the rights and aspirations of the individual over that of social need for stability and rule. This can be seen in things such as the Protestant ethic, the collapse of feudal serfdom, and the revolutions against absolute monarchs in Europe, and the rise of the middle class.

The role of religion as both a vehicle of social order and stability and also as a vehicle for meaning was also gravely undermined. The new society valued change, and many religious practices were seen as superstitious garbage from a more primitive and barbaric past which needed to be eliminated or reformed to bring it 'up to date.' People also emphasized more on self-effort and individual conciousness in the spiritual quest rather than on the action of God and communal expressions of faith. Also the domain of the sacred was split off from politics, economics, law, science, and philosophy, banishing it further and further from the mainstream of society.

The result was twofold; many religious believers attempted to restate their faith in scientific and rational terms. However, many rational forms were ruined by other rational arguments which showed the apparent falsity or irrelevance of such beliefs. The decline of Christianity in Victorian England is a very good example of this. The other was a reactionary response against secularism and modernity by members of all three faiths.

The reaction grew in strength at first in the 20th century in the U.S., and then in Islam and Judaism in the post WWII period. Increasingly 'fundamentalist' versions of these faiths grew more intolerant and more prone to sectarian hatred, which often exploded into violence. An focus on 'purity' led to fundamentalists expelling any compromise and also led them to adopt a very literalistic and absolutist view of sacred texts, ironically often with a mindset of pragmatic theories of truth. Most disturbingly, in the Middle East fundamentalist religion led to horrible implementations of beliefs which had previously been mythical in content in the political sphere, which led to great suffering and pain for many people (i.e. the messianic restoration of the state of Israel in Palestine, which led to the expulsion of some 800,000 Palestinians). Now most darkly, there were those who connected violence to being essential to purify the faith of evils and impurities, which resulted in terrible acts of violence with no regard for the innocent.

Armstrong rightly argues that fundamentalism is a deep perversion of the basic spirit of religion, which is to sacralise reality and human life by protecting them from pain, injustice and evil through the practice of practical compassion, both at the individual and social level. Its message of intolerance and hate is especially concerning, particularly in the radical forms of Islamism which believe suicide bombers and even the use of WMD against innocent civilians is a justifiable way to defend and promote Islam. We certainly need to fight fundamentalism but at the same time understand why fundamentalists believe what they do, which is essentialy to try and ensure that their religion is not destroyed and removed from life by forces who wish to destroy or downplay the role of faith in society and the world. If we want to exchange swords for ploughshares in Armstrong's view, fundamentalism cannot in the end be countered by violence, but only by understanding what drives fundamentalism and addressing the roots of injustice and evil in society and the world.

I found this to be a facinating history on the development of Western Civilization's concept of God. Starting with the ancient Hebrews, whom Ms Armstrong indicates were originally polytheistic, she traces the development of monotheism and the way in which the concept of God changed over time. I would have given this book 5 stars, but unless you are into the history of religion, you may lose some interest in later parts of the book as it gets into more scholarly detail.

Many new words, few remembered.

The basis of the book is how fundamentalism has been a scourge throughout time, and the complementary exercise of the Logos (truth or fact) with the Mythos (myth or stories).

The first half is a history lesson (excellent) on the three major religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and to some extent into the second half, which covers modern times. Better sources are out there to fill in the gaps she has left out. Although I am not totally convinced that Christianity is a religion.

The second half contains her philosophy of fundamentalism. I am unsure where the author stands in whole, but her opinions do come out in single sentences periodically allowing for some questionable interpretation. If I understand her correctly, I will have to disagree with her.

Karen Armstrong's "Battle For God" has prominent omissions and lacks credibiltiy as a history. Here's a list of historical omissions which indicate the lack of historical credibility: ,
Author Karen Armstrong omits:

(1) the Abolitionist movement, which was in fact, a FUNDAMENTALIST movement

(2) the American Civil War (which ought to have been covered in Chapter Three)

(3) Omits the U. S. Constitution inclusive of the Bill of Rights

(4) The family (especially the children) of Lyman Beecher of Connecticut and especially Harriet Ward Beecher who authored "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and who were in every sense, FUNDAMENTALIST.

(5) The English Civil War in which Oliver Cromwell's Puritans (a fundamentalist sect) played a prominent role.

(6) A clear and coherent DEFINITION of Fundamentalism. The only definition provided in Armstrong's book is in the Introduction, and upon careful reading, this DEFINITION reduces to identifying Fundamentalists as people who are "frightened". Such a definition is devoid of all practical meaning and is demonstrative of a total absence of that which we refer to as SCHOLARSHIP in an author.

(7) Armstrong is entirely confused concerning the philosophical boundaries of the concepts of LOGOS & MYTHOS, inferring that Science is inclusive of MYTHOS via the field of Psychiatry. This is an ideological blunder of monumental proportions.

(8) Scientific Rationalism, which Armstrong infers to be a fount and pillar of moral and ethical principles, in fact, espouses neither morality nor ethics whatsoever. Scientific Rationalism is a materialistic philosophy. Only from religion (*MYTHOS) does man derive morality and ethics.

More significantly, Armstrong uses an incredible tactic of misdirection, pointing our attention towards "fundamentalism" and turning a blind eye to the implications of Scientific Rationalism. Thus, no attention is given to the simple fact that Scientific Rationalism is the philosophical foundation of (1) the Nazi Holocaust, and (2) the holocaust of abortion which is still runs rampant.

In this regard, it is humorous in some twisted and macabre sense, to read about Armstrong's dire warnings about loss of life in regard to fundamentalism, while Scientific Rationalism justifies loss of life with an unprecedented calculating coldness; but, that's New Age authorship for you. It is neither scholarly, nor for that matter, (and this is the biggest surprise) it is not "rational" in the most simplistic sense. Rather, RATIONALISM is an early casualty in Armstrong's "Battle for God."

***********IN SUMMARY**************

It must be realized that the first major omissions taken together (1) the Abolitionist movement and (2) the American Civil War (the result of the religious Abolitionist movement, demolish all of Karen Armstrong's characterizations of religious FUNDAMENTALISM. Neither the Jewish Fundamentalism nor the Islamic Fundamentalism identified by Armstrong have any significant commonality with American Fundamentalism. Islamic Fundamentalism has never concerned itself with DEMOCRATIC IDEALS. Jewish Fundamentalism has always been concerned with either religious observance or the homeland of ancient Israel. Neither of these are similar at all to the Christian Fundamentalism which drove changes in social attitudes in 1830's America, resulting in our bloody civil war.
In contrast to this simple reality, Armstrong simply by-passes major changes, and looking backward from a REVISIONIST stance, pronounces SCIENTIFIC RATIONALISM the driving force for social change in American life. To pull off this Bait-And-Switch, Armstrong has to delete the (1) the Abolitionist movement and (2) the resultant Civil War from serious consideration in "BATTLE FOR GOD".


******CLARIFICATION FOOTNOTE***************
*MYTHOS needs a general clarification. It is not to be inferred to mean
"myth" or "mythology"; but in a related sense it does infer the field of Things-which-cannot-be-proven. God, for example, cannot be proven empirically. There can be subjective proof however. Religion lies within the context of MYTHOS, the realm of those things which are subjective. There is such a thing as SUBJECTIVE PROOF. The opposite of which is LOGOS, inclusive of those things for which there is OBJECTIVE proof or OBJECTIVE and EMPIRICAL evidence.

Ms. Armstrong's "A History of God" has been immensely helpful to me, and I bought "The Battle for God" with high hopes-which were roundly dashed. The analytic framework for the book is rhetorically appealing but intellectually slight and mistaken. Ms. Armstrong's psychological allegiances are embarrassingly unworthy of credence. While the amount of information she's amassed is impressive, much of its presentation is tedious.

The analytic framework: Much here is new and good-but what's good is not new, and what's new is not good. Ms. Armstrong makes much of a very old notion, the distinction between mythos and logos. What's new is her repeated insistence that mythos structures our inner lives, while logos guides practical action, that mythos is always timeless and tends to be backward-looking while logos is exploratory and time-bound. All of that is not only manifestly false, but self-defeating: a faith that does not structure action, for instance, has never been of any use to anyone. Indeed, the generally-accepted definition of "belief" is "an idea one acts on." An idea one does not act on is simply not part of one's psychic economy. Equally important, explanations of why the major religions have succeeded, while thousands of wannabe religions have died, generally center on the types of actions and practical relationships the major faiths engender.

Ms. Armstrong relies heavily on Jung's psychology of archetypes. But no scientist of any note has found Jung helpful in explaining psychology in quite a long time. He is now just a cult figure, and the cult is neither large nor eminent.

That Western rationalism sits uneasily with faith, that access to "another realm," that of the sacred, requires modes of thought and apprehension not amenable to scientific thought, that most humans find a world bereft of the sacred unlivable, and that fundamentalisms represent extreme forms of such unease-none of these are new ideas. But myths, like poems and paintings, can be true or false, and the truth or falsity does not lie in the solipsistic comfort offered to believers, but in the trenchancy of the myth to limn that which lies beyond us. Ghettoizing myth into our inner lives does nothing to address the very real, practical problems of integrating a life of reason with a life of faith, or living a life suffused with the sacred in the modern (now post-modern) world. Indeed, Ms. Armstrong's easy, clever, unworkable solutions allow us to overlook the real problem: worlds collide, and they do so violently, within, among, and between persons, societies, and cultures.

This book, in essence, is just well-intended "spin"-not analysis.

Karen Armstrong is only one writer with her own perspective (my book comes with a little interview with her), and she has a little bit of a non-denominational monotheistic slant. However, she does a wonderful job of keeping her slant off the pages, the most you possibly can do with this politicized topic.
It is a nice comparison to put three main monotheistic religions and their fundamentalist branches side by side, even if they developed independently of each other.

My main complaint is Part One - It feels less like a good history and more like a list of people, places and dates. You can pretty much skip Part One and get the important ideas that are being conveyed.

This book examines the growth of fundamentalism in the three major western religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Specifically, Ms. Armstrong focuses on Ultra orthodox Judaism in Israel, Christian fundamentalism in the United States and Moslem fundamentalism in both Egypt and Iran. The common theme is that fundamentalism in all three religions is a reaction to threats from the modern world. For example, Israel, although a Jewish State, is primarily secular and is not governed by religious law. The ultraorthodox movements, in Israel, become hardened when they see the majority of Jews living a secular lifestyle. They envision that the Messiah will come when all Jews are returned to Israel, following the commandments. They see the lifestyle in modern Israel as a threat to this vision.

Some Christians in the United States have felt threatened by Darwinism, modern science and certain church/state issues. They see these church/state issues resolved in a manner in which God is being banished from society. Personally, I believe that there are many battles in this country that need not have been fought and, therefore, only served to harden both the secularist and fundamentalist positions. An example is the public display of the Ten Commandments. For those defending separation of Church and state, this really isn't a crucial issue but, by making an issue of it, it causes a shift towards fundamentalism as religious people feel threatened. Certainly, banning a sectarian prayer from public schools fosters our ideals expressed in the First Amendment. But, really! Does fighting a battle to eliminate "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience do anythging other than polarize both sides in the argument?

In both Egypt and Iran, western influences were seen as a threat. The Shah, often by despotic means, was both secularizing and westernizing Iran. Over the years, starting from a time long before the Shah, there were western influences in Iran. Although some of these influences may have increased the standard of living (but not for everyone since material gains did not reach everyone), these influences were seen by many as an attack on the Islamic way of life. The same was true in Egypt. Nasser was secular and he aligned himeself with the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, his successor, Anwar Sadat was also secular and, on top of everything else, he made peace with Israel.

Ms. Armstrong states that at one time, religion was not taken as literally as modern fundamemtalists take it. There was an appreciation of the fact that certain religious traditions and writings contain an element of myth that is not meant to be taken literally. However, fundamentalists believe that everything in the Bible or Koran is literally true, both historically and scientifically. This is a reaction to secularist attempts to define the world solely through reason, science and history with a loss of the wonderment that myth provides. Armstrong refers to science and reason as logos and to myth as mythos. In short, fundamentalism may be a reaction to the loss of mythos in the modern world. Ms. Armstrong has recently written a book entled "A Short History of Myth." Her discussion of mythos and logos in that book help illustrate her points in this book. I heartily recommend both.

This is a well written and provocative book that is miscast as a kind of historical analysis when it is closer to a literary criticism. Ms. Armstrong is an incompetent reader of history and historians. She makes astounding claims of historical fact and interpretation that would fail in an undergraduate term paper. If you scan the negative reviews of this book, you will see many items detailed. Just read the introduction and her description of the Axial Age from 700-200 BC or her firm ignorance of social changes in the American South.

The book is a kind of literary criticism that reads many texts, then provides a critical viewpoint on those texts. On that basis, this book is interesting to read, the same way it is interesting to read Harold Bloom's interpretations of Shakespeare or Dickens. If the topic of Ms. Armstrong's book was creative fiction, then her approach would be agreeable. That we are dealing with history, however, makes her approach foolish.

It does not really matter whether Ms. Armstrong has a positive or a negative view of religious fundamentalism. Given her approach (literary criticism) either attitude could be taken. If you consider yourself a secular humanist or a liberal believer, you will probably find this book interesting. If you consider yourself a believer, you will probably find this book boorish and offensive. (Given Ms. Armstrong's approach if she chose to she could easily write a new edition that would reverse my recommendation.) If you seek a rational and empirical analysis of religious fundamentalism that investigates similarities and differences in concepts, you will probably find this book absurd.

I wish I could offer alternative titles on religious fundamentalism instead of this book, but I have not found books that seem to be able to take faith at face value and also think rationally about it. You are probably better served reading original religious sources, then thinking for yourself.

Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God" is not for lightweights who settle for easy answers about the role of religion in society. She packs so much material in every chapter that it's hard to read this book without paying very close attention to her narrative: History. Theology. Philosophy. Modern Politics. Murder and intolerance. Sectarian wars. It's all there. This is a great college-level read, as long as you're willing to put in the effort.

When I first picked up this book, I thought it would be about the "battle for God" between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Not so. It's really about the battle between traditional faith and fundamentalism within each of those three world religions. Don't look for a deep discussion of Al Qaeda in this book. That's not the purpose here.

Armstrong's basic argument is this: The rise of modernity and scientific thinking over the last 500 years has posed a profound challenge to religion itself that cannot be ignored. Threatened by the collapse of scripture-based "certainty," fundamentalist movements within each religion have arisen to counteract what they believe is a sell-out of the core principles of their faith. In many cases, they have gone on to pervert their faith to make it "fit" the new requirements of our modern world (e.g., abandoning the social justice commitment within Christianity). Fundamentalism, she writes, is not a return to the past, but rather a NEW response to the PRESENT that has powerful and lasting consequences for our world.

No, Armstrong is not trying to insult or disprove or tear apart the fundamentalist worldview. Rather, she's trying to explain why it arose and how it has developed over time in places like Israel, the United States, Egypt and Iran. It's a fascinating story that deserves a widespread readership among thoughtful people. I'd love to have the chance to discuss this book with Armstrong in person someday. Very thoughtful. Very powerful.

Armstrong puts familiar if difficult materials together in a rather new way to assess the growth of fundamentalism. What is clear is that in the Battle for God the real loser will be Man. Here we have all the evidence needed to understand how psychologically deranged the religious mind really is.

I have always enjoyed Karen Armstrong's work, and I think she is as good a popular religious scholar as one is likely to find. One of the things which I most admire about her is her empathy with people of faith - perhaps a holdover from her own intense religious training as a nun, but a necessary ingredient for dialogue if secularists and people of faith are ever going to communicate with each other.

In the process of detailing the development of fundamentalist movements in Christianity (American), Judaism and Islam, Ms. Armstrong clearly displays her own opinion - that modern fundamentalism is primarily driven by fear of the modern world. She does not, however, like some other authors (Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" springs to mind) arrogantly sneer at the people about whose faith she is writing. I think this is admirable, and this work is an excellent start for anyone who is looking to gain insight into the workings of fundamentalism. A strong five stars.

I finished this book about a week before 9/11. My previous dispassion for the continued separation for church and state turned into enflamed passion to maintain that separation based on events during the 9/11 attack and our eventual response.

Armstrong's book is prophetic in describing 9/11 prior to 9/11. For the terrorists, lack of political power combined with fundamentalist beliefs cause them to justify radical measures against humanity. American Christian fundamenalists, who enjoy political power, will also justify tearing the country apart, only in a non-violent manner from within on behalf of their religious beliefs since those beliefs are more important to them than our secular Constitution and form of government (though they propagandize that they are on the side of the Constitution and our framers). Armstrong makes strong arguments on the consistencies of all fundamentalist responses to modern, secular, free countries, with the actions taken predicated by the degree of political power possessed, not differences in ideology.

Armstrong predicts actions like 9/11 and the rise of the radical Christian right so accurately because her insightful analysis of fundamentalism in general shows that fundamentalists have no choice but radical actions if they are to remain faithful to their ancient dogma which has little value for human rights, liberty, and tolerance for people on matters of faith.

This book is well-written, well organized, and helpful in understanding how different fundamentalists have a common sensibility that essentially forces them into radical actions, counter to notions of grace also inherent in each major religion, because fundamentalists by definition base actions on a literal reading of ancient rule-based dogma where "we are right", "God is on our side", "those that oppose us are going to Hell" and "Evil is the motivator of those that oppose us". Armstrong reports what these intolerant dogmas are in each of the major religions and how they cause a common objective by fundamentalists of all three major faiths; and the rationale for why the responses differ.

I knocked the book down a star because of its length. I think it would have packed a bigger punch and received more sales if it was a shorter thesis. The points are all valid, but an editor willing to knock a few examples out of each chapter would have made for an easier read without risk of her readers missing the point.