Blog Discussion Group Two
Blog post due at 11:55pm on Sep. 12 and comment due at 11:55pm on Sep. 15.
1. In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
4. How were Marx’s ideas developed by succeeding generations?
5. What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeletePeople will have many different views about this question. And with me being a christian I will have a different view than someone that isn't a christian. My parents preached me growing up that that I needed to live by the bible. And in my eyes what is done in the bible is the way I should live my life and if I do that then I would be doing my best for my self and the others around me. In chapter three of "ESSENTIALS OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS" (Patrick H. O'neil) pg. 85 "In only one country (Morocco) is there majority support for religious leaders influencing the public vote." This goes to show me that most of the world doesn't want religion to intertwine with politics. In my view I see that if the world would revolve around politics we would be in a much better place. The thing is ever if we did have more religion in our politics people aren't perfect and we sin everyday of our lives. There would still be problems and nothing would be perfect, but I think it would be a lot better of a place and the world would be better off. So no I don't think that religion and politics should be kept separate. Hope you enjoy my post.
-Carson Long
I think that your point about religion keeping people moral and just is an important point to make. Religion should be a universal way to allow people to stay just and do what is right for God, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. While I understand that might be your connection and connotation with religion, others may view it in a different way. For example, some might think it is moral to, in a Machiavellian way, do a bunch of harm to others all at once and then on Sunday, confess your sins and everything is fine. Although that is how some people live their lives, and that is the relationship some people have with God, I don't really think this is the best way to rule politically. When it comes down to it, its really about the complexities that O'neill and other authors bring up, which allows us to analyze each scenario differently. Nice thoughts!
DeleteWhile I agree that many Christian people believe firmly that their religion is very moral and should be allowed to provide a moral structure, there are too many different views of Christianity itself (Westboro Baptist Church?), among many other religions.
DeleteNot all Christian people are moral. It wouldn't exactly be fair to say that any one religion is necessarily completely "right" or and expect everyone else to abide by that for the sake of morality. In the end it only represents one group of people among many. Morals very much can and should exist outside of religion.
I was also raised in a Christian family and we went to church every Sunday and were very involved. I even went to a private Christian school most of my childhood-- maybe it is because of this that I've seen the passion and extreme things people do in the name of their religion. I don't think that ANY religion should play an active role in government or legislature, but politics is a game and I don't believe it's possible not to involve them to some degree.
On top of the fact that I think that most Christians are complete hypocrites, I think that Politics and Religion should be kept separately. For someone to assume that their religious morals would be a good fit for a countries political system, they would be assuming that they think their morals are better than others that do not believe in their views, this would cause more problems then solutions. Think about how many countries have more than one religion, there are plenty, I would say all of them. My point is that when our forefathers made our living constitution, there is a reason why we have separation of church and state, why we have the ability to believe in any god we want, and reasons why we can practice free thought. I believe the reasons for these amendments are the plenty of failed attempts of Religious Monarchy's and Religious conflicts of the past. Throughout history we have learned alot, why complicate something that's already complicated??
DeleteI think you are 100 percent right when you stated that politics and religion are not merged well. I to was raised a Christian and I believe that in today's society everyone is so worried about offending another's religion that we forget we have freedom of speech religion etc. I feel like if we pit religion back in our society and politics that we may all agree on more verses worried that we will offend one another. We all have the right to believe what we would like to and if we put religion and morals back there would be a better unity of one nation under God for politics.
Delete
ReplyDelete2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
This question is complicated for not only its controversy in the political climate today, but also because of the fact that there are so many religions and political structures in place it is hard to come up with a concrete answer. In chapter 3 of “The Essentials of Comparative Politics,” by Patrick H. O’neill, he speaks of ethnic identity and the complexities of ethnicities within states. He then speaks of nationalism and the different factors of how people identify within nations. O’neill brings up America when explaining nationalism by saying, “the United States is indeed a nation, whole people are bound together by, among other things, a sense of pride in certain democratic ideals” (62). This allowed me to think about the different contexts that this question could be thought about depending on which country you are taking about. In the case of the United States, I agree with O’neill in that there is not one ethnic group that controls America and if our country is the liberal democracy that we claim it to be, then everyone who is American should be allowed and willing to participate in that. Acknowledging this, I have come to the conclusion that in America, it wouldn’t make sense to bring religion into something like politics which should apply to the masses. Now, the conclusion I have made really is only opposing active governmental regulations on religion. In terms of strictly separate as the question asks, I’m not quite sure that is possible since a large part of being political is collaborating and negotiating with people of different faiths and backgrounds, so I don’t really think it’s possible to not see the intersection of the two. Along with that, although America preaches separation of the church and the state, we have not had a non-Christian president and the inauguration is done with your hand on the Bible, so is it completely separate? Thoughts?
Marxist theory is called Utopia because while objectively comparing and contrasting ideology and Utopia, Marx's fans and followers subjectively assumed that the Utopian angle was his personal position. The word Utopia is "a term that derived from Sir Thomas Moore's design for an ideal society in his book, Utopia, published in 1516."(Sodaro, 292) From that and the influence of Marx's symbolic interpretation, Utopias have commonly come to be known as "idealized representations of the future that imply the need for radical social change, invariably serving the interests of oppressed and subordinate groups."(Heywood, 8) But whether the ideal was practical/possible or not was never Marx's intention. Marx never explained how a Utopian society was to be built. He just "blithely assumed that , without any class conflicts to divide them, the people themselves would find ways to manage their common affairs harmoniously."(Sodaro, 297) In his writings, Marx was trying to be as scientifically objective as possible to explain society's inter-class dynamics. Objectively, because he though ideology was the enemy of truth. His adherent readers took his meanings "subjectively" because they were currently living through the "context" of class struggles that he was expounding upon. The irony is that Marx's followers turned his writings on the perils of ideology into an ideology as a blueprint on how to build Utopia.
ReplyDeleteMarx makes a big deal about the “bourgeoi” state, where entrepreneurs profited from the free enterprise economy and, “proleteariat”, the working class who consisted of people who didn’t own any property. He believed that these two classes were destined to clash and the rich would get richer and poor would get poorer. With competition, the number of entrepreneurs would shrink, causing those who are left to become very powerful. Marx believed that those who owned property and had wealth were in control of politics. Therefore, if they rid private property, then they prevent the wealthy from controlling government and. Ultimately, getting rid of the “bourgeois” state. I agree that Marx does go into great detail about getting rid of private property, but in doing that, a utopia is created because then there is no conflict between classes. “Class consciousness” will grow and the working class will take issues into their own hands.
DeleteI feel that Marx lost his objectivity when he concludes that the elimination of capitalism would lead to "no more need for laws or police because all people would share equally in the fruits of labor." (O'neil pg.262) Although i do not carry much fondness for capitalism i understand it is a bit convenient to oversimplify the issues of politics and state. Taking into context that his belief in a vastly improved future with his lack of explanation of what would drive the nation to correct itself in the absence of authority, I can fully understand why critics have labeled his ideology as Utopian. to see his views as scientific or objective he would have needed to support his theory with some form of empirical data or case studies to substantiate his argument as more than bias against middle to upper class citizens with influence over political agendas.
Delete3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeletePeople tends to live with a dream and a goal for the future, and get a plan for the further development. However, people want to set a goal that will be accomplished someday, in a predictable future. At the same time, the goal must have its own objective environment to let it happen.The future development for the whole society in the Marxist theory is far more unrealistic, compared with the present condition in the world. Most of the content in the Marxist theory is in the theory surface, and the social condition to make it happen is not mature now.
4. How were Marx’s ideas developed by succeeding generations?
ReplyDelete(All of my information came from Sodaro, J. Michael et al., Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001), ch. 13.)
Karl Marx obtained his ideas from two different people, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach. Hegel believed that progress from humanity from one historical epoch to the next involved conflict, and he called these contradictions. He believed that “contradiction is the root and movement of all life.” Hegel believed that with time, a synthesis would emerge from conflicting thesis and antithesis, and each synthesis would become a new thesis that would in turn make a antithesis, leading to another new synthesis. Furthermore, Hegel was considered a philosophical idealist. Up until that last statement, Marx like the ideas that Hegel had to offer; however, Marx was an atheist; therefore, not believing in “spiritual” or “ideal” forces.
Marx then directed his study to another individual Ludwig Feuerbach. His work reflected that of a philosophical materialist, which Marx was better able to relate to. Later on, Marx went on to coin his own philosophy, called “dialectical materialism”, which was a combinations of the works and ideas accumulated from both Hegel and Feuerbach. Marx went on to write “Communist Manifest”, with Friedrich Engels. Through this book, Marx was able to share two ideas to understand his dialectical materialism. First, economic issues affect everything in society and second, class conflict. In sum, he believed that the capitalist class would ultimately be destroyed by the industrial working class it creates. Both men predicted that the workers would take over every aspect of the economy. This entire philosophy is what drove Marx to believe that Communism was the answer, because he believed it was a classless society.
Marx believed that socialist revolutions would occur in the countries of Britain, France, and Germany, because they were the most industrially advanced. However, these predictions by Marx never actually occurred. Instead social revolutions occurred in Russian, China, and Cuba, where industrialism lacked and agriculture was the driving force of the economy. He was right that a social revolution would occur, but he was wrong on the where and why. He predicted countries with intense industrialism, but in reality it happened in countries who were predominately agriculture. Lastly, these revolutions did not occur until the 20th century. Marx predicted this before then.
5. What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
ReplyDeleteWhen we discuss democratic socialism and communism and both parties' concepts behind equality and how to attain it, we are made to look at many aspects of both self and community well-being.
Many people argue that "democratic socialism" is impossible concept in general, as Alexis de Tocqueville quoted, "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude". There are many different visions of what socialism is, but fundamentally it is a system that aims to provide equality by removing inequalities among people. What many people would consider basic liberties are now considered burdens to be relieved, such as the concept of private ownership. Democratic socialists believe in societal ownerships and cooperatives. Everyone is expected to work towards a common, greater good for the community as opposed to the pursuit of wealth for the greatness of self. Taxes are higher in order to provide equal healthcare and education for the community. Democratic socialism is regarded as more progressive than traditional totalitarian or egalitarian sociaism. More Recently, Bernie Sanders was quoted, "the goal of democratic socialism is to create “a government that works for working families, rather than the kind of government we have today, which is largely owned and controlled by wealthy individuals and large corporations”.
On the other hand, a communist ideology "seeks to create human equality by eliminating private property and market forces" (O'Neill, 259). By removing "economic injustice" and "surplus value," the system was intended to force equality by giving control to a centralized government that would then make decisions for the good of the people.
While both systems have morally commendable intentions, it begs the question of what becomes more important; personal liberties, or community success. O'Neill writes that "liberal democracy was rejected by Marx and other communists as a system created to delude the exploited into thinking they have a say in their political destiny, when in fact those with wealth actually control politics" (261). I have to say that personally I do see the logic in this statement. Do we forfeit our political and social consciousness for a false sense of "say"? At what point do we draw a line between how much we sacrifice "for the greater good" and how do we decide that for an entire community?
3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDelete"Marx and Engles prophesied that the great mass of the population would respond to their new-found freedom with a tremendous burst of creativity and productive energy. Although everyone would be expected to work, hey would work for society as a whole, not for greedy capitalists." That was an excerpt from Sodaro, J. Michael et al. Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction ch. 13. This excerpt was able to paint a clear picture as to Marx ideology being Utopian in nature and strongly flawed in reality.
Any time we attempt to shape reality, aiming for a state in which everything is perfect or idealistic we distinguish ourselves as being utopian in practice. I can agree with his ideals when it comes to capitalistic politics being the downfall or problem with many states but he is overstating his trust in the human condition to do the right thing when there is no governing body or mandate to do so. To create a society where everyone gives freely and only takes what they need is the work of fairy tales but would make for a much better world.
In my line of work i often am the intermediary from production employees (working class) to the executive management (elites) and we find often that the working class opinion is that less management and more incentives for the masses is the key to a happy productive workplace. More often than not these request come without much thought or data to support the ideals much like Marx. These are passions without structured plan and leave the ones that follow through on theses passions wondering how it never worked out once implemented or how did someone else with less pure intention hijack their vision. In the case of Marx it was Stalin and demanding dictatorship that adopted his socialist communism and perverted it into a notable point of history with a less utopian ending.
3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeleteA utopia is when a nation's laws, government, and social conditions reach a state of perfection. The focus of Marxist theory is on the needs, rather than the wants of the people. Economy is seen to only fulfill the needs of the people, not to make profit. With no worries of competition of companies, people would be less stressful, adding to the utopian ideal. The means of production would be owned by a co-operative ownership of the people. It is an utopian ideal for all people to be working together in harmony. The theory seeks to eradicate classes in society, in order to boost the likelihood of harmony between citizens. Under the theory, capitalism can not be a utopia, because there is always someone who has power over someone else. Marxists believe that all people should have the same amount of power within society. They would see society in a state of perfection.
The Marxist theory requires a overall plan for the whole country. What everyone get is not related with what they have done, which ia quite equal. Everyone gets the same share, which is quite different with the present development, especially in the Western world. As a result, this kind of perfection and ideal condition is similiar to the utopia.
DeleteYes, Marx defined labor as surplus values; pay less labor allow government intervention and international imperialism. He believed in an active role for government, especially over major sectors and resources. Redistribution of property; but not preclude private ownership of non-essential resources. He sought to due away with classes in society basically making everyone equal. In his thought process if everyone was on the same "playing field" they would feel equal and nothing would be a struggle thus creating perfection/utopia.
Delete1. In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that religions can be considered political ideologies. I think they are similar and is some ways run parallel to each other. Political ideologies have guided people's behavior in relation to freedom, equality and power in a non-spiritual fashion. I agree with the text that "ideologies have increasingly replaced religion in public life" (O'Neil, 80). Today I believe more and more people are more likely to identify with a specific political ideology versus a specific religion. Religion is now more private whereas political ideologies are becoming more and more public. In my opinion people are more likely in today's political climate to discuss how their political ideology weighs on ideas of freedom, equality and power than they are to discuss how their own religion approaches the same topics.
DeleteReligions and ideologies are most certainly treated different in most societies. But there are societies where religion is the bases on their political ideals and their ideologies. But the premise behind what a religion represents is very similar to what a ideology is as mentioned by Geertz on page 196. Geertz describes how ideology is similar to a lie but the perversion of an ideology is that the person telling a lie knows they're telling an untruth while the person who believes an ideology believes the untruth for themselves. When it comes to religion every religion can't be the true religion; therefore, some people are telling themselves and untruth similar to the untruth described by Geertz and ideology. On page 200 Geertz describes how religion was the political ideology used for many societies but as a result those societies deteriorated. Geertz uses the comparison of religion and ideologies to determine that societies based on particular ideologies are likely to deteriorate similar to the ones based on religion. Therefore, making religion an ideology for how a society should be run. I personally believe there are principles and outcomes as well as laws associated with religion that line up with the scientific methods associated with ideologies. And there is no doubt that societies treat religion and ideologies as separate entities but their outcomes and their goals are essentially the same.
5. What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
ReplyDelete+ "Communism rejects the idea that personal freedom will ensure prosperity for the majority." (O'Neil, page 77) The idea behind communism is that a small group will eventually come to power and rule both the market and the state, using wealth of the state to control and exploit the society as a whole. Although prosperity will not be widespread throughout the society, it will be monopolized by that small group for their own benefit. In order to eliminate exploitation, communism pushes for the state controlling all its economic resources in order to constitute true economic equality for the community. This requires a powerful state through the idea of autonomy and capacity, able to restrict individual rights that would curb the idea of economic equality. Communism supports the idea of giving up individual rights to see the entire state prosper.
+ "Socialism or social democracy accepts a strong role for private ownership and market forces while still maintaining an emphasis on economic equality." (O'Neil, page 78) A state with strong capacity and autonomy is extremely important to social democrats to ensure the greater economic equality through many specific policies like job protection or social benefits, such as medical care, retirement, and higher education. Although social democracy may limit freedom more than liberalism, it recognizes the importance of individual liberties as a compliment to freedom.
Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteThe concept of church and state throughout history
The concept of whether religion should be separated or integrated in accordance to politics has been debated on since the about the time of Charlemagne and Otto the Great. Each ruler sought to statute their country in a way that would benefit the country. Which in turn they manipulated the church to benefit them such as appointing who they wanted as Clergy, abbots and even popes. The result religion, specifically Christianity, was integrated into politics. However, integrating the “church and state” comes with consequences. Religious officials push their own political agenda and are not tolerant of those of other religions. A good example being the church during this time saw all other religions as heresy to the one true religion. In short, the church will eventually seek to control the state. Looking throughout history there were extreme conflicts that arose do to the integration of church and state. Such as excommunications, reformations, and formations of new churches such as the church of England. (HIST 101 Notes)
My Belief
I believe that church and state should be separated in The U.S. because combining them would violate the constitutional rights and the churches views on certain topics
Integrating a religion involves combining one religion with the current government. First choosing one religion would make it seem that it is the favored religion or the true religion. Which would cause controversy and conflict with one another. Tensions would build between groups or grow if tensions were already there. The reason is that citizens would feel forgotten or betrayed if their religion wasn’t represented and having to follow a church that is not their own. I feel that combining church and state would result in laws and regulations that would force individuals of the opposite religion to assimilate like the native amerricans and reservations. For these reasons, I believe that an integrated church and state would violate the first amendment because you can’t have religious equality if one religion is more powerful or in control.
Having one church integrated into politics and government is unconstitutional in another tense as well. Integrated church and state would violate the fourteenth amendment which is that every citizen is equal under the law. Depending on the religion they would have different views on certain topics such as abortion and Gay marriage. This is just my opinion and I know that not all religious individuals think this way but I believe that if a church was integrated with our state abortion would be illegal, with no debate to change it, and gay marriage would not have been legalized due to religious reason. Making decisions based on faith or with the influence of a church would violate the 14th Amendment because groups or sections of men and women would not be treated equal under the law
The world knows “the United States is indeed a nation, where people are bound together… among different things” (Essential Politics 62). We are not bound together by religion we are bound by our decisions and our love for our country. That is why we are unified not because of a church so why bring in something we don’t need. All I need is a friend or family member or even a stranger who supports the same rights I do. We are all bound by the desire or the will to survive and change the world.
Personally, I enjoy the fact that there is almost no integrated church and state here in America because I feel freer now in the current government then I would living with a combined government.
As I respect all the comments you have made. I still disagree I believe that the should be combined. I do come from a religious background so I don't agree with some of the points you were pointing out. I respect all the comments you made but I don't agree. I don't think I would ever say that they need to be separated. Because that is how I believe. Chapter 3 (Essential Politics) it talks about a lot of different county's not just what all is going on in the United States. So my point with Religion and Politics being together all over the world would make sense. we aren't just talking about America.
Delete1. In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
ReplyDeleteI think that religions are political ideologies because in a sense they are tools for their followers. Religions like ideologies “help individuals, groups, and societies to make sense of the world in which they live.” (Heywood 15) Religions help followers navigate daily life by telling them how to treat others, moral obligations and so on. Religions are created to attract followers based on their beliefs and ideals. If a person is not a member of any religion but is interested in finding one, there is not an objective way to say which religion that person should join “no one can ‘prove’ that one theory of justice” or in this case religion “is preferable to any other.” (Heywood 15) Additionally political ideologies provide ideal worlds based on the specific ideology. Religions also provide the steps of how to make an ideal world by providing rules for people on how to live their life.
Why is marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeleteKarl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the first thinkers to refer to their thoughts as utopian, referring to all socialist ideas that simply presented a vision and distant goal of an ethically just society as utopian. This is basically suggesting that people have a misrepresentation of visions and outlines for imaginary or futuristic ideal societies. Marx and Engels portrayed Communist societies as an idyllic utopia. They wanted a classless stateless society. “They blithely assumed that, without any class conflicts to divide them, the people themselves would find ways to manage their common affairs.” (Sodaro,297) A classless society would keep everyone under the same standards. Under this Utopia, Marx and Engel believed that capitalism would never work. Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves. Marx thought that employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall. Though Marx didn’t really know what Utopia would really look like, he knew the only way to get there would be through his form of socialism.
3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeleteI enjoy this question because it addresses the theoretical/philosophical aspect behind the Marxist/communist practice. In theory, the concept doesn't sound so bad. In fact, after giving it some thought I concluded that it is one of the most "loving" systems that we as a species have come up with. It views life as something above materialistic possessions but as something that flourishes with our peers, families and fellow citizens. In a Marxist society, one does not work for profit, for that would be selfish, one works for the good of his nation as a whole. It comes down to each individual accepting and playing their part in society. A brain surgeon and a janitor can justifiably earn the same thing because in theory, one job is not more important than the other. Both are things that a nation or a society needs, and without them it will suffer. In this society, there is no upper, middle or lower class but only one. This way the upper class does not become the ruling class, because "the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. (Marx and Engels, 1970,p64)". (Haywood 6) So Ideally, in a Marxist society, everything is fair, everyone is dedicated to the nation and it becomes a Utopia.
ReplyDelete5. What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
Social democracy seeks to attain economic equality in a free-market society. It is a blend of Marxism and liberal democracy. Social programs include policies like public education, public health care, and job protection policies. Social democracy believes in a heavier government then liberal democracy and uses taxes, regulations, and bureaucracies in order to redistribute wealth to the poor who must be protected in order to attain economic equality. O'Neil discusses on page 78 how "Social democracy may limit freedom more than liberalism does, through such mechanisms as regulation or taxation." The parliamentarian systems of Europe have pushed those nations to have a more social democracy then the liberalism in the US.
O'Neil also talks about communism on page 77. Communism promotes and extremely heavy hand from the government in addressing economic resources. The control of resources in communism is much greater than that in socialism. Countries like China and Cuba employ the communist ideals. Communism is based off the Marxist ideal that if economics is left to individuals then government will be controlled by the top 1% to benefit the top 1% at the expense of environmental and human resources. O'Neil describes how in order to prevent such an exploitation of resources there must be a compromise on individual liberties. In communism the government not only controls the welfare programs like socialism, the government also control businesses and wealth redistribution.
The governmental responses to the Marxist ideas, socialism and communism, are proactive responses to prevent a revolution or an overthrow of the government, not just a quest to attain equality. Regardless of the motivation of a country to use socialism or communism, I find the quest to achieve economic and social equality to be more valuable then a capitalist free market which exploits human resources for profit.
How were Marx’s ideas developed by succeeding generations?
ReplyDeleteKarl Marx was interested in a modern philosopher, Friedrich Hegel, philosophy of history. Hegal argued that conflicts in history were part of the progression of humanity and parts of the past and new things make up history. He believed that eventually there would be no more conflicts and humanity would reach a state of perfection, which he called the final theses. Marx was greatly interested in the dialectical idea that Hegel believed and connected dialectical with his idea of materialist. Instead of God being the cause of the dialectical process, he believed that material forces, such as economics were in control.
Sodaro, J. Michael et al., Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001), ch. 13.
2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteI strongly feel that religion and politics should be kept strictly separate. However, this doesn’t seem possible. Take America for inference we can practice any religion we choose to practice. However, we still reference 'god' in our pledge of allegiance, and have it printed on money. Politics and religion are like water and oil. They don't mix well. Many wars have been fought over the way different governments view different religions and religious beliefs. This leads to conflicts of interest and misguided motives. "Even Muslim countries typically separate religious and civil leadership within the context of an overall commitment to Islam." (Political Science: A Comparative Introduction, p.72) Being Muslim requires devotion and overall commitment to being a good person. However, even in Muslim majority countries they see that religion and politics should be kept separate but it still finds its way into politics. Religion and religious beliefs are in my opinion the main factor why people and government react.
I completely agree. Too often policy makers reference religion as the foundation of their political arguments. Take legalizing gay marriage for example, most arguments against were based on religious beliefs and quotes from the Bible. Freedom of religion is something that should never be denied to anyone, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. However these beliefs should not influence how our political policies are structured.
Delete3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeleteI feel like Marx saw his own view of capitalism, socialism and communism. I feel like it is not 100 percent utopia. I feel like there are some aspects that are considered utopia but only pieces and parts of it. I feel like they wanted to take care of all there people. I feel like this is the Robin Hood approach. The workers no matter there job work the hardest and they get paid the same as a person that has an entry level job. I feel like there is no reward to work hard and put the time in if they all get the same pay. I know that George said that people were brain washed and this was acceptable. I feel like they took care of there people but at the same time that would be great for the under dog but how is that fair for the person that puts in all the extra hours that strives to be the best and I feel like that is where it is not utopia. I know that this is seen to make means and not to make a large profit but it doesn't seem fair for the hardest working people. However, it makes the world cycle itself over and that is good and it doesn't have the recession or the over and keeps it more in a normal state.
2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteI believe that religion and politics should be kept separate. Unfortunately, they tend to intertwine just because of a persons religious beliefs if serving in a political arena. Meaning, for example, if the President of the United States has a strong religious belief about a particular issue it may influence his political decision on that topic thus either helping the greater good (which is what politics was designed to do) or instilling your personal belief on the masses and ultimately hurting the people. Some may argue that if a person is religious they have a stronger moral value and can be subjective in their decision process while others would argue the opposite. As stated by O'Neil (pg 87) "Society's role in politics is clearly complicated, shaped by an array of factors that affect the ongoing debate over freedom and equality". I believe that at the end of the day one should not impose their beliefs on another but make decisions based on the greater good of the people and their constitutional rights. We must also consider that there are so many religions and their belief systems differ, so how then do you have religion on one side and politics on the other? It truly becomes religionS vs politics and each religion would want their belief system and ideologies to be the accepted measure. Separate is good, no lines crossed, free to worship as you choose and politics are decided by the laws put in place to make informed decisions and put people in places of authority to make decisions for the people.
I completely agree with you. Even if a politician has the best intentions to serve the community unbiasedly. You can see clearly see what their religious beliefs are based the different decisions they make in any scenario. Religion and politics should be separated as much as possible. Individuals who make decision based on religion may seem rational to themselves but to another individual with different beliefs those decision may seem irrational. Having decisions based solely on the greater good of the people will help everyone. Instead of making decision based on religion which only serves to help a limited number of people.
DeleteHi Joy
DeleteI absolutely agree with you, as a matter of constitutional principle, that no public official should impose their “personal belief on the masses” and generally agree that an official’s personal beliefs can “influence their political decisions,” and I wanted to expand on that a bit and add to your conversation with a focus on another observation you made, “each religion would want their belief system and ideologies to become the accepted measure”. The establishment clause in the US Constitution states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”. It was derived from enlightenment era principles and from lessons learned during early experiments with democracy in the original 13 colonies.
Sartori pointed out that unlike ‘the social-welfare liberalism which began to take shape during the Roosevelt administration,’ early liberalism was an ideology that preferred a "system of government that guarantees liberty" (288). It’s “theories about political relationships and the role of the state” (287) centered on limited government involvement in the economy (287). Its theories on “what constitutes political legitimacy” (287) centered on the principle that “the citizenry, not God, was the source of [political] legitimacy” (288). I take “God” to mean that they preferred that “religion” would not be the source that legitimized political power.
That was indeed what took place in some of the thirteen colonies. It is a generally known fact that religious tests were required to hold public office in some of the colonies. Article V specifically stipulates that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. However, neither the Establishment clause nor Article V prohibits an office holder from professing religious association or belief or “freely exercising” their beliefs in the passage of policy.
This entirely opens the door for members of various religions to elect office holders who will promise to pass their beliefs into law, as a matter of their “free exercise” rights. Of course this also can and often does trigger petitions to the courts that such policies impose religious belief upon unbelieving members of the citizenry. This also creates issues of conscience for the office holder when a conflict arises between adhering to their faith and honoring their duty to uphold their oath of office and represent their citizenry by passing a bill that violates the tenants of their faith. This more anything else, I think represents the tensions you discussed in your post.
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
1. In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
ReplyDeleteThat depends on how “political ideology” and “religion” are defined. The formal meaning of political ideology to those who are heavily vested in political theories and their outcomes is “a coherent set of [political] ideas that typically includes: 1) theories about political relationships and the role of the state, 2) notions about what constitutes political legitimacy and the highest political value, and 3) ‘a systemic action program to implement those ideas’” (Sodaro 287).
Accepting that definition, the extent to which a religion can be categorized as a political ideology depends upon whether or not its defacto source of authority actively professes such sets of political ideas, regardless of whether those ideas exist as tenets of the religion’s underlying faith or merely operate as vehicles to express its faith or cultural values in a State context.
This would also require defining a religion as its political ideas, as something distinct from the religious organization, the social entity that supports the religion. Failing to thus constrain the definition of religion and differentiate it, would misdirect the blog prompt into asking questions like “do all religions (religious organizations) POSSESS political ideologies,” or “are the belief systems of all religions (religious organizations) political ideologies” rather than the stated prompt which is, “ARE all religions political ideologies”. The prompt and my selection of Sodaro’s definition of political ideology requires defining “religion” as I have here, a collection of political ideas.
Allowing for the active profession of political ideas EXTERNAL to a religious organization’s tenets of faith further requires defining “tenets of faith” as a hermeneutic belief system subject to interpretation rather than a fundamentalist one. Then where the set of political ideas which define the political ideology do not entirely agree with the fundamental tenants of faith, members of the religious organization who are heavily vested in the ideology’s political theories and outcomes can justify –– through interpretation of the fundamental tenets –– professing the political ideology as the religion of the religious organization and as an interpretive extension of the tenets of faith which operates as a vehicle for the injection of those into the State realm. In the case where political ideology and the tenets of faith fundamentally agree, this latter consideration is not necessary.
In terms of the foregoing definitions and conditions, all religions are not political ideologies, but some can be.
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
Delete