Religion is a huge part of a person’s life. We see people who plan their lives based on their religions. We follow specific rituals and traditions because it has been passed on from generation to generation, just because these have been part of our religion. Almost everyone has his own religion. They have their own gods who they worship and adore. But what is Religion really? Well, it is a belief that a person follows. It is based on faith that there is one higher being who know everything. He’s the one who plans out every event that shall occur and he is the only one who knows your fate. For Christians, this is God. For Buddhists, this is Buddha. They are several religions around the world but what’s common is that we all believe that there is one higher being who oversees us.
These religions have their own guidelines. For Christians, they have the 10 commandments and for other religions, of course they have their own set of rules to follow. These rules are not the same per religion which means that a Christian or a Catholic has a different set of rules to follow as compared to a Muslim or a Buddhist. This difference is precisely what the problem is when it comes to politics. Just imagine, one country such as the Unites States (U.S) that has so many people in it and a mixture of religious beliefs in it. How could one president or a ruler guide the whole country?
An example given by Mandaville (2009) is the Islamic States and Movements. He said that the most important Muslim power in the early modern period was the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were the first Muslims who had interaction with the European powers. The Pan-Islamists followed the Ottomans and argues that Muslims should promote political unity so they would not face the imperial bondage experienced by the Ottomans. A political ideology called Islamism was formed back during the postcolonial period. The supporters of this ideology- the Islamists- found a way to be modern without going Western (Mandaville, 2009). In 1928, Hassan al-Banna created the Muslim Brotherhood to ensure a continued role for religion in society. A popular group today known as the Al-Qaeda was established in Afghanistan by Arab-Afghan soldiers right after the Soviet Union withdrew their troops after an unsuccessful occupation effort. The group wanted to shift away from the worldview of previous radical Islamists. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda decided to focus on attacking what they understood to be the source of global imperialism or the U.S. This can be very much related with the September 11 attack.
We understand from the example given above that it is challenging to rule a place where there are several religions. Especially the U.S since various religious beliefs exists there. The real question is whether religion and politics mix? Can they be separated?
Politics is having social relationships with those in authority. In other words, it is when different people make decisions considering every factor. It is often associated with the government but it also exists everywhere, like within families, friends and corporations and firms. Mixing politics and religion is complicated not to mention unavoidable because of several factors. Secularism led to the idea of mixing both which is believed to be problematic and potentially dangerous (Mandaville, 2009). Secularism is basically the separation of institutions such as the church and the state. In fact, this is the best example of religion vs politics. Secularism has two main developments: The Enlightenment and the birth of modern political sovereignty. The former states that people now shift away from religious beliefs to provide rational explanations. For them, things may now be explained by social science or any rational definition. The latter states the same thing- that societies have undergone modernization and has now shifted away from fully depending on religion. A wider issue was raised by several scholars. According to them, culture must also be considered because culture is a huge part of one’s personality and individuality. For them, it is one’s identity formation and making (Mandaville, 2009).
Religion affects politics for several reasons. As mentioned, religion entails beliefs, different gods and goddesses, various traditions and lifestyles. Politics is being rational, ruling and how to handle situations with others. In this case, religion is emotional since associated with it are values, morals and the core beliefs of a person. In making a decision for instance, a single individual would put his thoughts and emotions first. He will only consider what he thinks is best based on his religion. Now, when he does this, do you think everyone else around him will agree with him? I think not. For other religions, other values exist and here arises conflict and misunderstandings. See, decisions are relative and in every situation, solutions are not the same for everyone. We go back to my first topic- How do we begin to think about the world?
An example is when the leader of a country is Catholic, all his decisions are now Catholic decisions and will be questioned by other people. Citizens of that country will clash and will lead to wars. I also take into account that culture is a vital factor. Religion and culture goes hand in hand because religion pertains to ones belief, culture pertains to his surroundings and traditions. These two makes a man’s identity and cannot be extracted from him in decision making. Thus, I don’t think that religion and politics can be separated because although we try to draw a line between the two, religion will always affect politics.
Source:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
What if we don’t think in human terms?
The environment has been a huge part of a man’s life. Leave a man in a forest and eventually, he will have everything he will need after a few days. What does this tell us? Well, this means that nature and the environment is God’s gift. It is something “natural” and cannot be created by man. The air, the sun, the whole world cannot be created by humans. Nature is something enjoyed- the sceneries, sunset, sunrise, the cold air. People from the urban community take their vacations in these resorts and places. They want to relax after a long hard day filled with pollution and stinky smells because nature is fresh and beautiful. But when I think of it, it is also the people who are responsible for destroying nature. The pollution, oils spills, chemical contaminations, etc come from the population’s actions. Why is this?
People are too preoccupied with their everyday lives that they tend to forget where everything started. Long ago, when there were fewer people, fewer businesses and fewer learning, life was simple. People appreciated nature because they weren’t too busy doing their jobs. Little did they know that these small instances that nature is harmed are now turning into something huge that affects the whole world. Climate change is a main problem nowadays and this is because people introduced carbon dioxide emissions that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. By burning coal to produce electricity, driving a car, etc, people unintentionally alter the elements of the atmosphere (Dalby, 2009).
Change in the atmosphere started during the Industrial revolution where machines were used and engines were put in motion. The substitution of fossil fuels changed the British structure and led to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. During the Industrial revolution, capitalism also emerged and carbon dioxide emission was caused by capitalism. That time, petroleum was refined, gasses were used for heating and eventually, was used for engines of cars. Carbon fuels did not just come from cars. Power generating stations using coal, electricity used for computers, typewriters, etc were also responsible. Everyday life items such as plastic and petroleum contribute to carbon emission as well (Dalby, 2009). These things lead to climate change, which lead to global warming. More and more carbon dioxide are released to the air and plants and oceans can’t absorb this. Why is this a problem? Because climate change leads to typhoons, disasters, droughts and hardship for those planting crops. It increases the severity of storms and if people don’t start acting, mankind will suffer.
What I think is the issue here is how we combat carboniferous capitalism. I honestly think there won’t be any solution to this because people have factories, own engines and machines that are vital in earning money in order to survive. Long ago, life was simple, but now things are very much more complicated. There’s what we call the urban and the rural area. Modern living, machines, factories and the more advanced standard of living belongs to the urban area and the rural areas are usually what we call the provinces where life are less advanced. Their means of transportation there are cows and pigs. Now, those who live in the urban area are responsible for carbon dioxide emissions because of their way of living. These factories they work at, the cars they use, the burning of coal- everything gives out a small percentage of the total excess carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. However, these people do not feel the disadvantage of their actions because those who live in the rural area are the ones that get affected. Their crops fail to grow, the typhoons and droughts affect their houses and income generating businesses. The oceans and seas raise the water level and floods rural areas but those people who don’t experience it remain indifferent of the issue. This dramatic shift of climate change may not be as dangerous as it seems now but in the near future, it will be and by then, we won’t be able to stop it. The lesson actually made me remember the movies the day after tomorrow and 2012. When that day comes, we can do nothing but regret.
I think that we should do something now before it’s too late like recycling, using other resources to limit the carbon dioxide being released in the atmosphere. If possible, we can carpool daily to lessen the use of cars. It doesn’t have to be one sudden huge act (because that’s impossible) but merely, small actions that when accumulated could make a significant effect. The effect won’t be felt of course, it would probably take a year or more, but it’s better to make it a habit to be aware of this issue so in the end, there are no regrets.
What now is its relation with global politics? It is simple- we should be more responsible of our actions because the consequences are now being felt by those around us. Everything in this world is interconnected. This means that for every action there is a reaction and this reaction may harm the society we live in. Hence, it is important to know our own carbon footprint so we can be aware of the degree of influence we are contributing in this phenomenon. Awareness brings knowledge, knowledge raises questions and we now search for answers to these questions. Once we know more, we learn more and we do more to avoid the unavoidable.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
People are too preoccupied with their everyday lives that they tend to forget where everything started. Long ago, when there were fewer people, fewer businesses and fewer learning, life was simple. People appreciated nature because they weren’t too busy doing their jobs. Little did they know that these small instances that nature is harmed are now turning into something huge that affects the whole world. Climate change is a main problem nowadays and this is because people introduced carbon dioxide emissions that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. By burning coal to produce electricity, driving a car, etc, people unintentionally alter the elements of the atmosphere (Dalby, 2009).
Change in the atmosphere started during the Industrial revolution where machines were used and engines were put in motion. The substitution of fossil fuels changed the British structure and led to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. During the Industrial revolution, capitalism also emerged and carbon dioxide emission was caused by capitalism. That time, petroleum was refined, gasses were used for heating and eventually, was used for engines of cars. Carbon fuels did not just come from cars. Power generating stations using coal, electricity used for computers, typewriters, etc were also responsible. Everyday life items such as plastic and petroleum contribute to carbon emission as well (Dalby, 2009). These things lead to climate change, which lead to global warming. More and more carbon dioxide are released to the air and plants and oceans can’t absorb this. Why is this a problem? Because climate change leads to typhoons, disasters, droughts and hardship for those planting crops. It increases the severity of storms and if people don’t start acting, mankind will suffer.
What I think is the issue here is how we combat carboniferous capitalism. I honestly think there won’t be any solution to this because people have factories, own engines and machines that are vital in earning money in order to survive. Long ago, life was simple, but now things are very much more complicated. There’s what we call the urban and the rural area. Modern living, machines, factories and the more advanced standard of living belongs to the urban area and the rural areas are usually what we call the provinces where life are less advanced. Their means of transportation there are cows and pigs. Now, those who live in the urban area are responsible for carbon dioxide emissions because of their way of living. These factories they work at, the cars they use, the burning of coal- everything gives out a small percentage of the total excess carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. However, these people do not feel the disadvantage of their actions because those who live in the rural area are the ones that get affected. Their crops fail to grow, the typhoons and droughts affect their houses and income generating businesses. The oceans and seas raise the water level and floods rural areas but those people who don’t experience it remain indifferent of the issue. This dramatic shift of climate change may not be as dangerous as it seems now but in the near future, it will be and by then, we won’t be able to stop it. The lesson actually made me remember the movies the day after tomorrow and 2012. When that day comes, we can do nothing but regret.
I think that we should do something now before it’s too late like recycling, using other resources to limit the carbon dioxide being released in the atmosphere. If possible, we can carpool daily to lessen the use of cars. It doesn’t have to be one sudden huge act (because that’s impossible) but merely, small actions that when accumulated could make a significant effect. The effect won’t be felt of course, it would probably take a year or more, but it’s better to make it a habit to be aware of this issue so in the end, there are no regrets.
What now is its relation with global politics? It is simple- we should be more responsible of our actions because the consequences are now being felt by those around us. Everything in this world is interconnected. This means that for every action there is a reaction and this reaction may harm the society we live in. Hence, it is important to know our own carbon footprint so we can be aware of the degree of influence we are contributing in this phenomenon. Awareness brings knowledge, knowledge raises questions and we now search for answers to these questions. Once we know more, we learn more and we do more to avoid the unavoidable.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
How do we begin to think about the world?
The question made me realize that I am not fully aware of how the world works. I have never thought of these things in a deep manner. For me, life goes on and thinking about how the world functions will not change how it actually works. When I think about it, does thinking about the world affect my everyday life? Well, I guess not. But it just makes me understand it more in relation to the community and those around me. Here comes ethics and politics. Ethics is how we treat the people around us and Politics is the kind of life we have because of the ways of thinking about who we are. In other words, Politics is somewhat linked with the structure of the country such as the government and laws that govern us.
Living a just life and treating others with respect may most of the time contradict each other. An example is the ticking bomb scenario where there is one person who planted a bomb in a place. Once the bomb explodes, several thousands of people will die and will end up killing many innocent people. Thinking of it as an abstraction, it is easy to give a solution to this problem. The man shall be tortured until he spills out where the bomb is. Thinking of it in a practical way ain’t as easy. In real life, things may and will go wrong. Without a doubt, things don’t turn out the way it normally does. When we think of these situations in our heads, it is almost perfect in such as way that there are no complications. In reality and practice, other factors influence our decision making. In the case of the ticking bomb scenario, we now capture a group of people because it’s possible that these people know where the bomb is located. The Convention Against Torture believes that torture must not be done unless circumstances allow torture to take place because it is just, like the ticking bomb scenario (Pin-fat, 2009).
Two responses were formulated and analyzed by Charles Beitz and Michael Walzer. Beitz believed in a cosmopolitan way of answers, stating that individuals are rational, free and equal to be the moral subject of global politics. According to him, principles of justice must be chosen to create an ideal world. This means that biases must be put aside- a picture of reason. He also offered a picture of ethico-political space, comparing both domestic and international politics. Aside from this, he emphasizes that it is a person’s responsibility to be ethical when it comes to the people around them. He said that the picture of subject is the individual, not the state. Walzer on the other hand, believed in a communitarian set of answers. Here, the state is the center or the moral subject in global politics. The ethico-political space lies in the community. According to Walzer, being human means creating meaning, purpose and cultures and that reason is linked with social, historical and cultural aspects. As opposed to Beitz, he thinks that reason can never eliminate bias and that treating others with utmost respect is only extended to those within states (Pin-fat, 2009). As for what I think, I agree with both of them. Reason does in fact rise above biases but not all the time. For others, there are times that emotions surpass rationality. So you see, it depends on several circumstances. It varies per individual, per situation and for every factor. I think that the subject is the individuals that when gathered, consist of the state and that ethico-political space must be absolute. Meaning, to everyone.
How we think about the world is subjective. We shall always consider those around us and our ethico-political relations with others, which is exactly why thinking about the world lies on the different circumstances that may occur. Just like the ticking bomb scenario, every action must be thought of, in relation to those that are affected. What I mean is one factor may change our decision because of our morals, ethics and behavior towards the society. It is impossible to be able to decide a situation at the moment because when that event occurs, it is different. In other words, what we think is abstract but what actually happens is not. Hence, how we think about the world is guided by our morals but also depends on the situation itself. Values such as justice, prejudice, care, etc will be challenged and it will all be different per individual. What I’m trying to say is each person has a different perceptive of the world and this is based on their inner values.
In many ways, the history of the world is different from the history of globalization but the process is the same. The history of the world is simply how the world evolved, how it became what it is right now. Similarly, globalization is obtained because of the several events like capitalism, the industrial revolution. All these main events led to globalization today. Poor countries before have transformed into rich countries now due to hard work, innovation and globalization. It is possible for us to think that globalization is the new word for innovation, modernization or capitalism, except globalization is the bigger word. This means that globalization covers the whole globe, the whole world while the other words may just refer to a country or an era.
I think that globalization is good but it can be bad if too much innovation tale place. It may be dangerous if the world is too advanced because people tend to depend on machines to make life easier. Well, that is good but for me, when things reach that level of convenience, people lose their values and the things that matter. Like for instance, long ago, our parents lived a hard life and they grew up because they worked hard to live. They use their resources to life themselves from a not so good standard of living. But globalization can let us forget that there are things in life that must be worked hard for and I believe that sometimes, people just have to experience life in a hard way for them to be better persons in the future. However, I still think that globalization in a broad sense is good because it lifts up the standard of living of people and countries progress and develop due to this. The opening of trade and more international investments improve countries and once each country in the world reach a high level of standard of living, then the world would be a better place. Education, connections, innovation and developments- all these things are capable of making the world a bigger and better place.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Living a just life and treating others with respect may most of the time contradict each other. An example is the ticking bomb scenario where there is one person who planted a bomb in a place. Once the bomb explodes, several thousands of people will die and will end up killing many innocent people. Thinking of it as an abstraction, it is easy to give a solution to this problem. The man shall be tortured until he spills out where the bomb is. Thinking of it in a practical way ain’t as easy. In real life, things may and will go wrong. Without a doubt, things don’t turn out the way it normally does. When we think of these situations in our heads, it is almost perfect in such as way that there are no complications. In reality and practice, other factors influence our decision making. In the case of the ticking bomb scenario, we now capture a group of people because it’s possible that these people know where the bomb is located. The Convention Against Torture believes that torture must not be done unless circumstances allow torture to take place because it is just, like the ticking bomb scenario (Pin-fat, 2009).
Two responses were formulated and analyzed by Charles Beitz and Michael Walzer. Beitz believed in a cosmopolitan way of answers, stating that individuals are rational, free and equal to be the moral subject of global politics. According to him, principles of justice must be chosen to create an ideal world. This means that biases must be put aside- a picture of reason. He also offered a picture of ethico-political space, comparing both domestic and international politics. Aside from this, he emphasizes that it is a person’s responsibility to be ethical when it comes to the people around them. He said that the picture of subject is the individual, not the state. Walzer on the other hand, believed in a communitarian set of answers. Here, the state is the center or the moral subject in global politics. The ethico-political space lies in the community. According to Walzer, being human means creating meaning, purpose and cultures and that reason is linked with social, historical and cultural aspects. As opposed to Beitz, he thinks that reason can never eliminate bias and that treating others with utmost respect is only extended to those within states (Pin-fat, 2009). As for what I think, I agree with both of them. Reason does in fact rise above biases but not all the time. For others, there are times that emotions surpass rationality. So you see, it depends on several circumstances. It varies per individual, per situation and for every factor. I think that the subject is the individuals that when gathered, consist of the state and that ethico-political space must be absolute. Meaning, to everyone.
How we think about the world is subjective. We shall always consider those around us and our ethico-political relations with others, which is exactly why thinking about the world lies on the different circumstances that may occur. Just like the ticking bomb scenario, every action must be thought of, in relation to those that are affected. What I mean is one factor may change our decision because of our morals, ethics and behavior towards the society. It is impossible to be able to decide a situation at the moment because when that event occurs, it is different. In other words, what we think is abstract but what actually happens is not. Hence, how we think about the world is guided by our morals but also depends on the situation itself. Values such as justice, prejudice, care, etc will be challenged and it will all be different per individual. What I’m trying to say is each person has a different perceptive of the world and this is based on their inner values.
In many ways, the history of the world is different from the history of globalization but the process is the same. The history of the world is simply how the world evolved, how it became what it is right now. Similarly, globalization is obtained because of the several events like capitalism, the industrial revolution. All these main events led to globalization today. Poor countries before have transformed into rich countries now due to hard work, innovation and globalization. It is possible for us to think that globalization is the new word for innovation, modernization or capitalism, except globalization is the bigger word. This means that globalization covers the whole globe, the whole world while the other words may just refer to a country or an era.
I think that globalization is good but it can be bad if too much innovation tale place. It may be dangerous if the world is too advanced because people tend to depend on machines to make life easier. Well, that is good but for me, when things reach that level of convenience, people lose their values and the things that matter. Like for instance, long ago, our parents lived a hard life and they grew up because they worked hard to live. They use their resources to life themselves from a not so good standard of living. But globalization can let us forget that there are things in life that must be worked hard for and I believe that sometimes, people just have to experience life in a hard way for them to be better persons in the future. However, I still think that globalization in a broad sense is good because it lifts up the standard of living of people and countries progress and develop due to this. The opening of trade and more international investments improve countries and once each country in the world reach a high level of standard of living, then the world would be a better place. Education, connections, innovation and developments- all these things are capable of making the world a bigger and better place.
Sources:
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (eds.). (2009). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)