Religion Watch Archives

Monitoring Trends in Religion - From February 1990 to January 2016

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Archives
    • By Issue
    • By Article
    • By PDF (2008-14)
    • By PDF (1985-97)
    • All Articles
  • Sections
    • Current Research
    • Findings & Footnotes
    • On/File
  • Google Search
You are here: Home / Archive / Terrorism and the millennium — what’s the connection?

Terrorism and the millennium — what’s the connection?

September 1, 1998 by Richard Cimino

Print-friendly

The recent linking of the terrorist bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa with radical Islamic groups has reignited fears about the growth of religious terrorism.

In the past several years, specialists have noted that there is a significant change in the nature and purposes of terrorism. The Economist magazine (Aug. 15) notes that the older terrorism had an explicit agenda, such as the overthrow of a colonial power, and was often sponsored by radical governments or parties. The new terrorists, by contrast, “have no realistic program for taking power themselves.” Even if the recent Islamic terrorists allegedly involved in the bombings, such as Osama Bin Ladin, had some connections to foreign governments, the ties are  often murky and hard to pin down.

The Economist article cites terrorism expert Bruce Hoffmann as saying that the hallmarks of the “new terror” include “amorphous religious and millennarian aims” and “vehemently anti-government forms of populism, reflecting far-fetched conspiracy notions.”  But to what degree these millennial stirrings are tied to violence and terrorism is far from clear. While many new religious movements that become involved in violent actions have millennial theologies, not all of these end-times theologies lead to violence, writes Catherine Wessinger in a forthcoming book she has edited, Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases (Syracuse University Press, 1999).

She and other contributors to the volume note that most millennial groups await divine intervention and are peaceful. There are important distinctions to keep in mind even among those groups associated with violence. What she calls “assaulted millennial groups,” such as the Branch Davidians or the Mormons in the past, would not have committed violence if they were not first assaulted or attacked.

“Fragile millennial groups,” may initiate violence to preserve their ultimate concerns. Yet a whole complex of causes can stimulate and intensify such violent tendencies, such as opposition by the wider society and weaknesses internal to the group. Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate, and the Solar Temple are cited as such examples.

Then there are “revolutionary millennial groups,” with theologies or ideologies that sanction violence to build a new order. The neo-Nazis, some far-right Identity Christians and radical militia members are in this camp. Because these movements are not culturally dominant they may resort to acts of terrorism instead of full-scale warfare or revolution.

Wessinger adds that the  three categories are not exclusive and a group can shift from one mindset to another or combine these different characteristics.

Print-friendly

Filed Under: Archive

Also in this issue

  • Findings & Footnotes: September 1998
  • Marianism driving wedge among charismatics in Europe
  • Current Research: September 1998
  • Messianic Judaism building separate identity, losing young?
  • Mormon fundamentalists come under scrutiny
  • Women eucharists more widespread and public
  • New fall titles suggest many fads have faded
  • Gen X religion — ‘postmodern’ and market-friendly
  • Y2K fervor finds home among evangelicals

Search the Site

Download the first issue of RELIGION WATCH (1980)

Download the first issue of RELIGION WATCH (1980)

Click on the image for downloading

© 2016-2023 Richard Cimino / Religioscope
·News Pro Theme · Genesis Framework by StudioPress · WordPress