There are quite a lot of dimensions to this discussion.

1. The religious framework of fundamentalism in general, versus the "non-believers" framework.
2. The political nature of Christian fundamentalism, and Islamic fundamentalism.
3. The causes of the rise of these fundamentalisms.

1. One of the things that always gets lost in the "framing" of the discussion between fundamentalism, and liberalism, is that it is quite possible to be very religous, and also liberal.

Though people forget, there are a multitude of religious frameworks available. There is Catholicism, Christianity from Baptist to Protestan to Unitarian Universalim,, to an embracing of Buddhism, to Sufism (Madonna)to the people in the New Age religions that "mix and match", so to speak.

So the media "reduction" of religious phenomena and experience, is not only false, but actually buys in to the dismissal of religious life. In the current media circle, you are either a nonbeliever or a "crazy" and "hypocritical" fundamentalist.

And I, personally, am in no way represented by the above dichotomy.
A little biography, that will give an example.
For myself, I grew up a mix of "poor Texas white trash" economically, but raised by a mother who could be "hippie geek New Ager".

My first religious experience was every Thursday night going to a "channeler" , channeling some entity - egyptian? sumerian? whatever...), and then spending some time at the Unitarian churches in Houston and surrounding areas.

We stopped going, after a couple of years.

However, I have (and had) a very large religious instinct. At thirteen, I felt this urge strongly, and started "checking out" all the "normal" denominational churches. Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian, I probably checked out 7 or 8 Texas churches, including a Pentacoastal.

Unfortunately, the pastors I spoke to, usually couldn't handle my pointed questions - which usually revolved around meaning of life, meaning of suffering, etc, and I found such hypocrisy in these churches (form over substance) that I gave up.

For a few years, I became an atheist, hung out, went to high school, read a lot of existentialism, became a gun enthusiast - Texas youth stuff combined with some intellectual interests.

But that doesn't work for someone with the spiritual instinct that I have - not long term. And, eventually, I started reading a lot of the eastern mystical traditions stuff, and also the western (Christian) contemplative mystical literature.

The main takeway from quality contemplative practices, is that they FOCUS on the practice, rather than the belief. The faith is still there, in that "divine experiences" will happen, but it isn't blind belief, it isn't blind faith.

It's the same faith that says if I "practice" with lifting weights, over time I'll get stronger, and gain muscle mass.

And this is what happens.

With quiet contemplative practice, I "get to" a deep, quiet and profound peaceful awareness, that is "beyond the chattering mind".

With emotional and devotional practices of the heart, experiences of a loving God, of a deeply beneficient loving force, arise.

That's the case. I've experienced the above, as have many, many people I know. And doing the above satisfies my deep religious urge.

Now, this isn't the place to get into the discussion of "does God exist", because that is an ontological discussion, where you have to agree on the terms.

But "God experiences' absolutely exist, and are "repeatable", and can arise in the normal waking life, after sufficient "practice". That isn't deniable. And the felt experience of a loving divine presence, or the arising of a deep calm abiding, are absolutely the most meaningful experiences available to the human person.

I fully agree with the Christian criticism here, that the media is fundamentally irreligious, fundamentally discounts religion. I'm very comfortable talking to any person about God, faith, etc. (As long as you don't go far into specific doctrines of do's and dont's, you are ok...). And the media, and the various elites, treat God and the Divine as a joke. Which is sad for me at least.

So who represents me, in the media discussion about religion?

I'll continue to the other 2 points in another post.

Interesting point you make which I have been thinking about for a while: many "religious" people base their beliefs on repeatable experience, while many leftist secularists (Communists, progressive internationalists, etc.) base their beliefs on hope which is usually DISCONFIRMED by experience - the only "repeatable" thing being failure, which is usually explained away by saying it "wasn't done right."

So which group is "faith based"??

2. The political nature of both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism. In a way, this answers my earlier question about why the media doesn't pay attention to other forms of religious practice. Because both christina and islamic fundamentalism are, by their very philosophy, engaged in a quest for power. Power to set the rules of the game. Power to set the rules for society. And THIS is one of the reasons why these movements interests the media, and not others, because the media lives off it's reflection of power.

3. I can't speak so much about the causes of the rise of fundamentalism. Going AGAINST the media framework, I would say that religious hunger will always arise - having a relationship with the divine, in whatever form, is a fundamental aspect of being human. Having an irreligious way of living, simply will not satisfy people. It wouldn't me. So religion in this sense won't, and shouldn't go away.

For this particular FORM of religious revival, ie fundamentalism, however, I believe that to a degree it is a reaction to modernity - and a MODERN reaction to modernity. There's a book on this, that goes into the fact that the current fundamentalists movement are actually modern reactions to a modern world. I wish I could remember the name.

Life goes fast. We who can work with databases, the web, etc, can manage it. But the loss of control, the loss of the sense of stability, and a feeling of helplessness, that for many people the only way to make the worrld makes sense, is to respond with a fundamentalist doctrine.