Blog post due at 11:55pm on Sep. 15 and comment due at 11:55pm on Sep. 18.
Political Ideology
- In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
- Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
- Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
- How were Marx’s ideas developed by succeeding generations?
- 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?
ReplyDeleteThe separation of religion and politics is a controversial topic with varying degrees of opinion around the world. I do not believe that church and state need to be strictly separated, nor do I believe it is entirely possible to do so. Religion is a sub-section of politics that can never truly be eliminated, because varying religious principles hold too much weight in the forming of ideologies. Religious beliefs are an anchor for developing one's position about political topics discussed every day, whether that be the pro-life/pro-choice debate, international relations, or societal issues such as prayer in school. Some feel as though politicians with religious backgrounds are forcing their practices on others, and religious beliefs are not an acceptable platform for developing ideology, but I argue that it is just as relevant a foundation as any other. Individual's form their ideology through personal experiences and background, motivations, and post-materialism, among a handful of other reasons, yet those ideological platforms are rarely questioned compared to religious principles that influence one's ideology. Ultimately, religion will always play some role in political ideology, because religion will never not influence ideological development.
Our text states, “..the most successful regions have a positive political culture: a tradition of trust and cooperation which results in a high level of social capital,” (Hague, Harrop 98). Those are the important elements to keep in mind when judging a state's political performance, as religion can easily be a positive influence as much as it could be a hindrance to a state's political system, trust, and cooperation levels. Some can easily argue that religion is the backbone of the world's greatest conflicts, which I agree with. To that I argue, these conflicts would exist regardless of the religious influences in these state's political systems. For example, Christianity and Islam have always had a very strained relationship, and the current fight is being fought by a religious nation, not a religious state in the Middle East. These conflicts would exist whether religion influenced politics or not, so in my mind, there is no reason to strictly separate the two, nor is that entirely possible to do so.
This subject is indeed a point of extreme contention with many people across the world, and almost everyone seems to have an absolutist view of the issue. We rarely hear moderate opinions about the role of religion in politics. Either a state is an extremist Islamic state, or someone at home is trying to remove the word "God" from everything possible. It seems that there is no gray area for many. And while many here in the US believe in and desire a complete separation of church and state, you make a very good point that this is simply not possible, feasible, or desirable. For religious convictions shape political beliefs and there is no way to disentangle the two.
DeleteIt is certainly hard to argue that religion has NOT caused much strife and war between states, but perhaps the mistake is not that a state is too religious or not religious enough. I believe the mistake is in seeing this issue as an absolute. An understanding that religion and politics inevitably overlap may contribute to a much larger tradition of trust and cooperation. And if we could achieve this at a political level, we may see the benefits begin to seep into world religions as well.
What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to purse for equally?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Essentials of Comparative Politics, communism rejects the idea that personal freedom will ensure prosperity for the majority. In communist society there is a belief that in the struggle over economic resources, a small group will dominate using its wealth to control society. The result would be an extreme unbalance between the rich and poor. To help prevent this from happening communist advocates put certain policies in place. With the state controlling all economic resources the communist believes that things being centralized would help create a classless society. The state would control healthcare, education, and employment. Private ownership would be forbidden. Anything that didn't benefit the state was forbidden. Private property was taken for the governmental good. The state would take on the task of production and other economic decisions. The communist economy put so much emphasis on the countries self reliance that they discouraged international trade and investment.
On the other hand, social democracy "draws from the ideas connected to both communism and liberalism to form its own distinct ideology". A government that practices social democracy accepts private ownership and market forces. Social democrats still place an emphasis on economic equality. Social democrats believe equality can be achieved through creating programs such as social security and universal health care. Some European countries has inject itself into its financial system in order to take control of the natural resources. European countries such as Greece and Spain has done this to help the general population before the private business owners. In the United States a taxation policy is put in place so the rich can pay more in taxes. Social democrats and democrats believe that the rich need to pull more of the weight instead of putting everything on the backs of the middle class.
I have always thought that the ideas of communism, and especially socialism, made a lot of sense at their cores. In a society where everyone could pursue their true passions without concern over finances and incomes, I believe our world would be a very happy place. Our studies of these ideologies were very effective in illustrating the economic balances that socialism and communism strive for, but are sometimes very idealistic. In a state where there are a few million people, social benefits and economic equality is much easier to manage and facilitate. However, these ideologies would be very difficult to see succeed in larger states, in my opinion, simply because of the divide of classes. Countries who have a history with communism, such as China, provide an exception, and several world powers over the course of history have operated as communists. I simply feel like any transitions to these ideologies would be very difficult to do, even though some may feel like they are the best bet for us economically as a state. We have a current Democratic presidential candidate running on heavy socialist principles and gaining ground in the polls, so seeing how that ideological foundation can perform in the polls over the next year or so will be very interesting!
DeleteI agree that on paper communism, or at least aspects of it seem rather logical however the application of it starts a massive downward spiral as history has shown. We see nations like Canada that have implemented certain aspects, such as health care, and kept the other parts of democracy. I think trying to change any single political system once it has already been established is a much harder thing to accomplish. We have seen this where purely democratic states have tried to implement socialist systems, or when communist nations have collapsed and try to tun into a capitalist nation. It seems that the social fabric and culture that a nation grows into takes a lot more time to change or be modified compared to a government simply adopted a new political ideology.
Delete3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeleteMarxist theory's notion of Communism as an "idyllic utopia" actually derives from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's idea of dialectical history. According to this model, society is pushed though history toward an identifiable direction by the various conflicts inherent in life. The old adage "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is extremely applicable to Hegel's dialectic model; "Hegel termed these ongoing conflicts "contradictions"... Hegel further believed that these contradictions arose because virtually everything creates its own opposite. Just as... masters create slaves" (Sodaro, 293). Every development or movement necessarily created a contrary development or movement. This would in turn create conflict, which would be resolved by the synthesis of a new development. The new development would then create its own antithesis, which would set the cycle in motion again. Each phase of this cycle, according to Hegel, would propel the world into a higher state of being.
However, where Hegel believed spiritual ideals were at the root of this cycle, Marx saw materialism at its center. He believed materialist forces drove these conflicts, which could primarily be viewed as class conflicts. The unavoidable conflict between the working and the ruling class would eventually create the new synthesis of communism. But instead of beginning the dialectic cycle all over again, Marx believed communism would be the final synthesis of material and class conflict, thus halting the dialectic cycle. By addressing the material and class conflicts underlying the dialectic cycle of conflict, these"contradictions" would no longer exist under communism, bringing about a new utopia that is completely free of conflict.
Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world, religion and politics would be kept strictly separate. However, both are social institutions and impossible to completely separate from each other. In spite of this inherent connection, politicians should work hard to differentiate the two and keep them apart. Not only do certain ideologies incorporate the fusion of religions and politics, but also some political cultures do as well.
Ideologies, such a religious fundamentalism, want to religion and politics to be the same thing. In Political Ideologies, an Introduction by Andrew Heywood, the author says “religious fundamentalists have treated key religious texts as ideology.” In order for people in power who follow more secular ideologies to address certain issues, they have to keep in mind that some of their constituents might be religious fundamentalists. On Monday, Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist who is running for United States president, spoke to a religious fundamentalist university, Liberty University. He begun his speech saying that they have differences but tried to appeal to their religious morals (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZB8Lg1tcA). Although his platform is not religious in any sense, he still had to work toward finding common ground. He recognized that politics and religion cannot be separated even though they should.
I agree with your opinion, on the fact, that in a perfect world religion and politics would be kept strictly separate but unfortunately it is not. One country that I know of that has tried and tried to keep religion and politics separate is the US. The settlers searched for a new world because they wanted freedom of religious beliefs and that is what this country was founded on. It is even the first amendment to the US Constitution. But some way or another religion plays a large factor on a lot of things that take place in this country to who be the president of the united states to what schools our kids will attend.
DeleteI also agree with your point on religious fundamentalist. You said that in order for people in power who follow more secular ideologies to address certain issues that they have to keep in mind that some of their constituents might be religious fundamentalists. Most people rather they are politicians or not have some sort of religious background. Their culture and religious beliefs play a large part on how they live their lives and make decisions. That is why Bernie Sander wants to work toward finding some common ground. For these reasons it is impossible to keep religion and politics strictly separate.
Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteReligion and Political should be kept separate. There should be no laws on regulations on what your faith and beliefs are.
It's impossible in the US because our country was built on Freedom of Religion and Speech. It was a religious foundations before a political foundation. Cultures that were tribal is not impossible. There was no question who was in charge. They were small, not a lot of people, mostly kinship and they had the same belief system. There system was easier to become political. There was no religious challenge.
The meaning of Politics is the struggle for power giving one of more persons the ability to make decisions for the larger group. It's impossible to govern on multiple beliefs. You also have a lot of religious leaders in government.
The only way I see it would be possible if there is no dominant religion. Reading from Essentials of Comparative Politics(6) (84-85)
I agree that our country's history is steeped in religion, and clearly America's religious roots have affected the country in major ways and have blurred the lines between religion and politics. But I don't think that means that change is impossible. Huge cultural shifts occur all the time. What if some sort of separation-of-church-and-state movement were to gain momentum in this country?
DeleteHaving religious leaders in government might be seen as taboo by the general public if this were to happen. It raises an interesting question of whether religious officials should be able to serve in public office. On one hand, everyone should be eligible to be in office and making clear laws that determine who is and isn't allowed to run for office could get very messy. But is a religious leader really able to set aside their religious beliefs in order to think about what is best for the country from an objective perspective?
I agree I don't believe change is impossible. I believe the stability, integrity and longevity is what will be hard to substantiate. True enough change can be good or bad even both depending on what s changed and who or what's been affected. Religion runs deep and combining the two to reign as one, I feel will task any society especially those of multi cultures babxkgktbds abs many beliefs. Even the founding writers of the constitution were of many faiths and some without any. Would it be worth the change is my question no matter how feasible the attempt. Could we maintains and if so how long could we expect one Supreme belief to reside over the many without triggering dissension and in my opinion bedlam.
DeleteTo address the question whether politics and religion should be kept completely separate is to ask one of the most debatable questions in all of politics. If we look at history one of the leading causes of wars and conflicts in general have been due to the interpretation of this question in one form or another. Before we can even try and decide for ourselves whether it is right or wrong to combine the two we must acknowledge how governments function all over the world, and more often than not wars have started due to one nation disagreeing strongly with the “faith” or ideology of another. If we look back at Hitler’s Germany we see a prime example where a fascist government found Jews to be there victims as well as any nations that did not follow their political ideology to exact detail. Another example of nations that combine religion and politics completely would be the Middle East and Islamic states, ironically these are also the nations that tend to fight amongst each other over belief systems at an alarming rate. On the opposite side of the spectrum are westernized nations like the United States and England; these nations have done their best to use religion as a foundation of ethics and morals while keeping day to day political action separate. In our recent news we see a perfect example where the government has allowed gay marriages and yet a woman’s religious beliefs caused a major issue that rippled across the country. This is a great example of a nation that tries to separate them as much as possible but it is clearly impossible to separate them completely without becoming a fascist or absolutist type of country. This becomes even more difficult to separate when we have a nation, like the US, that has so many different religions; here we can separate them as much as possible yet we must construct our government accordingly so that no religious rights are violated or ignored.
ReplyDeleteShould religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteI think that religion and politics should be kept separate, however this seems to be an impossibility. The United States is a combination of many religions, histories, and morals. We should not be made to combine religion with politics. There should be a clear distinction between the two, however they are not. I am not in any way offended by taking prayer out of school. My husband and I are both Atheists and choose to let our children choose their own paths in life. We give them the information to lead their own thoughts on politics, religion, or any other subject. They are free to make their own choices and ask questions.
All religions should be respected and can be observed by those who follow them, but should not be forced into politics or any other aspects of daily life. Political action should be based on the decision that most closely meets the needs/wants of the majority of the population and meets the needs of the country as a whole.
Holly, I totally agree with what you said about all religions should be respected. and they should not be forced into politics. Political should be based on meeting the needs of the country as a whole.
DeleteReligion and politics should be kept completely separate. The intermingling of the two has caused many global disasters. Religion is based on faith, which is important to many people. But politics should be based solely on logic rather than faith: what will benefit the country most? When people bring religious beliefs into the political arena, they are forcing those beliefs on everybody in the state, which is not fair. A country's culture is stronger if it is more diverse and its laws are not exclusive to any religion (or lack of religion).
ReplyDeleteI think separation of church and state is definitely possible if each person keeps their religious beliefs as a personal thing. Many would argue that religion is best kept personal, as your individual connection with the divine--however you see it. But many people enjoy and rely on the communal aspects of their church communities. And, once religious communities form, bad things start to happen relating to politics. Religious groups can "brainwash" entire generations of people, lobby governments, gain the majority vote, and have huge influence on the political structure of their country.
Vince, you pose several interesting points. I completely agree that religion and politics should be kept completely separate. The foundation of our democracy was meant to serve the people of our nation and not their individual belief systems. Your idea that political interactions should be based solely on logic as opposed to faith continues down this same train of thought. But in looking at our country as it stands, do you actually believe that the people (not to mention their elected officials) actually know what is in their best interest as a whole? Your second point regarding the negative policies enacted on behalf of religion, which have cause serious social regression, is a defining example of your argument and clearly shows that the majority of the populace (including politicians) do not understand how to make decisions and lead in a manner beneficial to all. On a more philosophical note, even when you disregard the issue of religion intermingling with politics, our society is fractured and divided on so many important issues that it would require a serious shift in our mentality as a community in order to gainfully make progress towards the cultivation of our social values.
DeleteShould religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteI believe that there should be separation between "church and state," or religion and politics.
However, I am not sure that this is possible. It can be a very difficult task to accomplish and maintain within our very fallible human makeup despite of our very best efforts.
Many of us are governed by our foundation or our belief systems rooted heavily in our up bringing grounded in religious beliefs, consider by many to be one of the principle characteristics of being "ideally American, well originally anyway. Thus because many of these traditionally desired American beliefs extend over into our politicians , law makers and elected officials judgments and discernments as they conceive make and enforce laws.
I do not believe that one religion or dominate religion can govern a people of many denominations fairly and when religion is presented ,situations become personal, passionate and in some cases violent.
.another reason to keep the two bodies separate. They church is very powerful and very persuasive and its power control and force plays out often cinematically. This amount of power I believe would be almost capitalistic to and fearful from the concentration of such power.
There is no reason to believe that just because the Establishment clause was written that there is and has been separation between church and state. In my opinion ,They will always go hand in hand on some level. Two powerful bodies corroborating under the guise of two separate functioning authorities whether intentional or in secrecy. I believe it to be a good idea to try and keep the two separate but I honestly do not believe it has happened or that it could ever be completely fulfilled.
What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
ReplyDeleteAlthough both Democratic Socialism and Communism are committed to equality, the approaches are quite different. Democratic socialism encourages individuality while offering equal respect, moral worth and opportunities. While communism achieves equality by eliminating individual freedom altogether.
Democratic socialism, without violence, rejects capitalism, seeing capitalism as contrary to the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Democraticsocialism). Economically this involves equitable distribution of the community’s wealth with key economic elements publicly owned or socially controlled to ensure equitable distribution. Socially this involves the belief that all human beings, in a cooperative community, should have the opportunity to fulfill their good and creative potential.
Communism rejects capitalism, with force/violence, based on the idea that private property and free market lead to individual wealth and power which ultimately leads to social classes (inequality). Economically this involves the states having complete control over property and economy on behalf of the people. The states makes all economic decisions and many social decisions including labor (who works where), wages (who earns how much), residence (who lives where), and even what a person may purchase. In essence, equality if gained by eliminating individual freedom as if every person is identical versus equal.
3. Why is Marxist theory called Utopia?
ReplyDeleteThe central goals of Marxist theory involve creating social equality through the development of communities without poverty and eliminating the the separation of 'public' and 'private' conceptualizations through the rejection of capitalism; and while these are positive ideas which could improve the overall human experience, they disregard basic aspects of human nature. The application of the Marxist theory is the essential component in living in a true Marxist society. The defining example of the manifestation of Marxist theory in practice is the early 20th century, USSR. The idea that true change towards communalism and socioeconomic equality would only be a direct result of violent revolution persisted in allowing the Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin in developing their own "version" of Marxist theory and shaping communist Russia into their own vision. Therein lies the very reason why we perceive Marxism as a Utopia. The idea of having a perfect society where all are equal and the distributive paradigm of wealth and material resources ceases to exist is clearly idealistic and counterintuitive to the human experience. This Marxist Utopia disregards vital concepts such as competition, progression and social evolution. Human beings, as a species, are never static and their cultures, governments and economies are dynamic and constantly shifting in time. The presence of our ability to fulfill our individual potentials and actualize our decisions through free will precludes the possibility of maintaining a Utopia indefinitely.
I agree. The definition of Utopia is "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopia). Marxist theory is called Utopia because Karl Marx’s theoretical system encompasses such a perfect place in which all of society, economics and politics are combined into one, perfect, classless, automatic, government-less system based on voluntary common ownership of all economic means of production, and social sameness. In my opinion, Marxist theory is unrealistic because a perfect society would require perfect people.
Delete
ReplyDelete1. In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
There are approximately seven different types of religious ideologies. They are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and Sikhism. These faiths have throughout the century been utilized to influence political view and leadership. Their doctrines and beliefs have been misrepresented by individuals seeking political power or influence for a particular movement. Certain religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism have multiple internal organizations that are different in their beliefs and practices. One of the reasons the laws that govern the separation of church and state where put into place where to prevent the religious influence of the government and government officials.