Critical Review Of Article ' Tolerance And Governance

A religion’s “rules” must stay between the devout people only as taboos; implication of sect into the legislation system and governance not only threatens the wellbeing of country’s own citizens, but it also prevents any kind of brain drain into the country which is an essential source of progression for any community. Therefore, governments should only be serving for the well being of the citizens, peace and democracy among the country; the youth should embrace the values United Nations strictly recognizes and be aware that it is best when the religion is separated from governance. Secularism must be recognized which is a case only possible if there is a massive change in the governments of these religious countries; citizens must be informed about inconveniences caused by religious laws more frequently since the censorship in media is extremely common in these

In terms of whether a leader or civil servant must divorce his religion or personal morals when serving the state, it can be argued the underpinnings of a democratic

As part of the human experience, religion weaves itself through human organizations and institutions. An integral part of social order, governments are built on and around it. Systems of morality, and the very identify of entire societies all fall under the broad and sometimes ambiguous umbrella of religion. Historically, Christianity and Islam represent two religions that often entrench themselves in government, or take the place thereof. It is no accident that religions based on liberation find conquest so fitting to their rhetoric. Although Christianity and Islam preach peace, both have a propensity for violence, which stems from the value placed on doctrine, the concept of salvation, manifesting itself in the creation of state-like organizations.

The notion of democracy has circulated globally, enhancing the development of several nations by creating political structure and enforcing a representative legislation. However, democracy is hindered when underdeveloped countries choose to rather follow a theocratic system and base their whole political foundation on the reliability of religion. Religion can be problematic as it can hold various perceptions and can be translated to mean literally anything that one may want others to conceive. Structuring a nation’s political ideology on one specific religions or its beliefs can further impede the progress of the country as the whole population may not agree on that one specific religion’s values and practices. Instead doing so would only invoke

Furthermore, when the government is secular and consequently all the services provided by the government (like public education) are secular, existence of private exercise of religious services would be possible. To elaborate this view I rather to bring an example of Iran where public education provided by the government is the Official Islamic one with the presentation of the lessons that show the inclination to Islam. Under this system of education, no private Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or even a non-religious education is permitted. There is only with a secular structure that even political activities of religious groups would be allowed. It can be referred to the case of Turkey where the secular structure of the government not only has no conflict with

Does religion foster democracy? This question has plagued many political scientists for decades. Carsten Ancker examines the theories of Samuel P. Huntington in her work “Religion and Democracy: A Worldwide Comparison.” In 1991, Huntington hypothesized that religion led to the institutionalization of democracy, especially Christianity. Huntington referenced the rise of democracies in the 70’s that were related to the spread of religion as well as earlier, when Protestantism was popular. In his book, he refers to these democratic booms as “waves”. The third wave began in Portugal in 1974, when the Estado Novo regime collapsed. The topic of religion’s role in politics is incredibly important in a society with changing religious and moral ideals. America’s moral standards have changed to reflect a more self-centered generation where the deities are more materialistic and less spiritual. As religious ideals seem to fall by the wayside, it stands to reason that we should question what happens next. For the past three “waves”, democracy seems to be founded on religion and the belief in a higher power. What will the next wave bring? We may be better equipped to answer this question if we first examine the true impact that religion has on governments.

The problem with the relationship between secular politics and religion is that it is entirely unnatural: the two institutions are both necessary and both omnipresent. Religion and public policy are two

Clifford Geertz has focused more on the symbolic power of religion. He has talked about the fact that it is the symbolic power of religion that has a strong influence on the people. It is the religion, in accordance to Clifford that helps the people in understanding the place that the people have in the world. The actions that are undertaken by the people are also defined by the religion. Based on the arguments that have been given by Clifford, it can be added here that there is a great effect of religion and the religious values on the kind of politics being observed in the nations (Pals 309). When we talk about the religion, it can be added here that we are talking about the set of beliefs as well as the ethical values, which are used in the creation of the world and the ways in which the world is managed. So where does the symbolic state of religion stand in the modern political world. One of the main facts that need to be mentioned here is that politics is related with the development certain motivations in men. These motivations need to be powerful and long lasting. It has been found in the case of the definition of religion by Geertz. He has added that religion provides a set of symbols that develop long lasting, modulations in the people. There is no doubt about the fact that the politics and democracy has more to do with the development of strong states and nations. There needs to be a general order of existence in the nations and states, which leads to strong

To be able to clearly answer the question on whether the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a curious hybrid of authoritarian, theocratic and democratic elements on must define each of the forms of government and compare them to the Iranian system of governance, also to explore the Iranian constitution and make arguments and base an opinion on the findings, This essay will be looking to analyse the Iranian constitution and set out to either question the statement made by Francis Fukuyama or argue a case for it. This essay will also compare the Iranian constitution to that of other states to fully get a grasp of the Iranian system of governance and its many levels. The Iranian revolution of 1979 is maybe the most significant

A Western lens of secularity will be used throughout this paper to understand the paradigm of religion and state and the way religion has often been meshed within Muslim societies. A Western view suggests that secularism is a way in which all religious and non-religious groups will be protected and have rights under the secular state. This view of secularism leans toward how religion and public affairs are integrated in a society and

The church was also willing to work with local official requests so long as they do not violate principles of their faith. This “cooperative resistance” highlights the extremely pragmatic methods the government uses to maintain religious organisations within the country (Lu 2012:4).

In the introduction to “Princeton Readings in Islamic Thought” by Roxanne Euben and Muhammad Zaman, the editors give a broad overview of Islamism and what it constitutes as an Islamist. The conclusion the authors come to is that Islamism is a movement that “attempts to return to the scriptural foundations of the Muslim community…” (Euben, Zaman page 4). Essentially, Islamism is a restoration of norms derived from the Quran, called sharia law. As a function of Islam and sharia law, Islamists are very hands on. Islamists like Ruhollah Khomeini and Hassan al-Turabi aren’t mere theologians but politicians that seek fulfillment of their visions. Islamists believe firmly that the only true way to realize their vision of “authentic Islam” is through an Islamic state, dominated by sharia law. Naturally, with the formation of a state, a government is needed to perform a variety of functions. Islamists go as far to say that the only way to achieve true Islam is through an Islamic state dominated by sharia law. (QUOTE?) Thus, Islamism and politics are one in the same, and the Islamism can be seen as a religio-political movement. In the introduction, the editors bring special attention to the relationship between Islamism and democracy. Because of the tenuous and complicated relationship between western secular “democratic” governments and the Islamic state’s theocratic government, the editors pay special attention to

A set of beliefs, rituals, and practices that serve to define the matter of existence; religion. Present in society, religion sets precedents unifying its followers but religion also can prove to be a centrifugal force within large countries. The more diverse a country is, the more it fosters different views and perspectives. These opposing sides happen to restrict reforming policies in government and affects societal norms. This is exemplified in the Ottoman Empire, where its state religion of Islam became costly in creating a cohesive life for its citizens. During the 19th century, the “Muslim world” lost a lot “of its cultural and political sovereignty” which indicated a shift in the political landscape of the world and a technological gap between both societies (Baraz, 2010). The Ottoman government failed to initiate any progress and exercised a conservative approach to issues. This method completely contradicted the

Mandaville (2014) raises the question that so where do we see religion in global politics today? The first idea that came in response of this question is of the Islamic world. Particularly since the events of 11 September 2001 and following attack such as the London bombing of 7 July 2005, Islam has been a major focus of debate. Much of this debate has been around questions of terrorism and support for violence. The United States, for example, declared militant Islamic extremism to be the foremost aim of its new “war of terror”. Substantial attention has also been paid to Islamic movements in other countries that have used violence in the quest of their political goals, such as HAMAS in the Palestinian territories and Hizbullah in Lebanon. In the same way Islam and “Islamic” groups have been seen to play a role in world politics including the period when Afghanistan was under the rule of Taliban. As a result before the United States accusation and in the end bring down their regime for supporting terrorism; the Taliban had attracted widespread criticism from the world. Finally, countries such as Iran, which regard themselves as Islamic states, are seen by some as a challenge when they claim that they are subject to divine authority. Within Europe, a number of recent incidents such as Danish Cartoon Affair have fuelled debates about whether “religious” Muslims and “secular” Europeans can co-exist.? In recent times new questions arise about

Therefore, the issue of how people’s freedom and democratic rights could be overseen in a notion like sadd al-dharai needs addressing. There is an assumption that Islam would not and could not allow any democracy in its society or any form of human rights. Islamic law is considered and often seen as pre-modern and absolutely no human rights component found within it (Robinson & Wetherly, 2012). A lack of understanding of Shari’ah is prominent in the West. Its worth mentioning that, what may seem ‘just’ in one part of the world may not be accepted in another part must be considered (Rohe, 2014, p.3). Shari’ah is unchangeable and within law resides the preserved unchangeable of human rights (Ahmad, 2000). But the real issue lies on how these rules are applied to its people (Kabir 2011). Though this same argument could be used for the political powers of the democratic society too, where human rights are at times overthrown for the rights of people in power and wealth.