- In what ways can the global context influence
- What parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in
- Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
Friday, November 20, 2015
Blog Discussion Group Ten
Blog post due at 11:55pm on November 24 and comment due at 11:55pm on December 1.
Iran
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteReligious motivations can influence secular state institutions by not focusing on its religious belief, but focusing on developmental goals for mankind, for example, reducing extreme poverty and hunger, improving education, reducing child mortality, and helping others. The meaning of religion defined in Wikipedia “is a collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. The meaning of secular state in Wikipedia is “a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion.”
Islam is the second largest religion and Christianity is first. People have different perceptions about religion and the developmental goals which may require a change in attitudes. Religion can be complex both faith-based and secular. It can complement and motivate development. It can also obstruct or undermine. You just have to stand strong on your faith and what you believe in. September 11, 2001 was a great example of a religious motivation of an attack on the World Trade Center which brought USA institutions closer.
I have to say, I see room for conflict in your statement that you have to stand strong in your faith and what you believe in. Some religions believe strongly in inequalities among individuals for countless reasons. These inequalities are ingrained into some cultures with strong religious identities. It divides nations in what they want from their governments. Some religions teach people that not everyone deserves the same basic human rights as they are taught to believe they deserve. Nations with religious identities that boast inequalities are usually the ones that intertwine their religious beliefs into their governments, resulting in a lack of developmental growth overall.
DeleteWhat parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, many parallels can be drawn between the Russian and Iranian revolutions. A dynastic monarch overthrown by the people in favor of a leftist regime describes both revolutions. However, the differences are perhaps more striking, and indeed, what sets the Iranian revolution apart from other "typical" radical revolutions. Unlike the Russian revolution, the Islamic revolution was not preceded by an economic crisis. It was not a military coup, and there was no "peasant" uprising. In fact, it was preceded by a time of relative prosperity. It was actually overestimated economic expectations due to oil wealth, and a backlash against the Shah's westernization, that set off the Islamic revolution. And perhaps the most profound difference is the regime brought in by the revolution. The Russian revolution was a Marxist revolution. In fact, the Shah's fear of Marxists and socialists is what caused him to overlook the threat posed by Khomeini and his followers. The Islamic revolution established an authoritarian theocracy, not a Marxist "utopia".
Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteI believe that religious identity can sustain secular state institutions and serve development goals. There are several countries today that have strong religious identities within their state institutions.
The United States has always held a strong religious identities within it's state institutions. Within the constitution it gives us freedom of religion, but Christianity was strong in many of the higher institutions. In the courts, in school, even printed in on it's currency. All of the presidents were thought to be Christian. Some were rumored to be Atheist but never claimed themselves to be such. Though religion is being removed from many of the institutions, people still stand strong together when crises arise. They will pray together, regardless of their personal beliefs. They are praying to whomever they believe in, united with people of other religions.
The Chinese also have a very strong religious unity that is deeply embedded in everything they do. In China Confucianism is the religion that the majority of the people follow. It drives how the people live their day to day life. They practice their religion in their home, in their schools and at work. One of the most impressive aspects of the Chinese people how they truly live their lives by the words of Confucianism.
Lisa, I believe that you make several interesting points here. While I disagree with your argument that a religious identity can sustain a secular and developmental nation, I can agree with your suggestion that religious identities are inherently rooted in the formation of governments. Much like America and its presidents. I would like to argue, however, that your example of Chinese Confucianism as a religion and its association to Chinese political culture, is mildly flawed because Confucianism is not a religion - but rather a cultural philosophy relying ethical-sociopolitical teachings. That being said, you do pose an interesting corollary for these ideologies, which were originally distinct from politics, being incorporated into national politics of the modern era and how this seems to be a cross-cultural phenomenon.
DeleteWhat parallel's can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteBoth revolutions were meant to overthrown an autocratic government in which one group started the revolution while later on those revolutions were hijacked and taken over by other revolutions. They were both lead by lower class societies and political parties of the left. The two revolutions went as far as they did because the rulers declared themselves absolute monarchs who did not want to negotiate on anything. The Shah of Iran tried to gain a basis by introducing "land reforms" which were used to enrich the nobility and the absentee land owners. But the real motive was to push the peasants off their land in order to provide land for the factories. And similar to the Russian Revolution in 1917, during the Islamic revolution, the soliders who were supposed to be backing the old regime turned on those regimes and supported the people by saying "we are with the people". Both revolutions took place because the people felt that they were being oppressed by the government. They also felt they would be better off with out an authoritarian government.
Hello Christy,
DeleteI find your post insightful, but I am confused concerning your position on the cause of each revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran were similar due to exiled leaders attempting to gain power. Can you expound?
Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDelete---
In theory, maybe. But Iran certainly does not exemplify this idea. The Iranian government aligns itself with Islam so tightly. The supreme leader is thought to be selected by diving forces. And the branches of government are called the interior ministry for example.
Within this set-up, the government is so allied with the religion, that any reformist views that contradict the current government also can be said to contradict Islam itself. And if the government labels it "anti-islamic", that's the final word. This form of government leaves no room for change and improvement. I think change is so important within an institution and without this, the government cannot sustain developmental goals.
I agree. In Iran, religion is the tie that binds and therefore was crucial in the development of their state yet this same religious identity impedes Iran’s global development because of the clash with western beliefs.
DeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a possibility of religious identities sustaining secular state institutions and serving developmental goals. I believe that this would not hold true in all countries though. I think that specifically in Iran, there is a strong influence of religion, but it does not seem to have such an overbearing influence on the entire workings of the country. Religion gives the people of Iran common goals to make the country successful and as strong as possible. Religion has been a major influence on many countries for thousands of years. People of common religious views also tend to have common developmental goals as well.
I agree with you Holly about the possibility of religious identities sustaining secular state institutions and serving developmental goals. Like for an example this country was partially founded on religious freedom. Different religious beliefs are ok but like you said Holly, in some countries like Iran for an example it is not true. Most of the country practice Islam but if you are not Muslim you don't have much of an influence. I think that in Iran though your religious beliefs do play a overbearing role in the entire working of the county. That is the only thing in this blog that I don't agree with. If that was the case then people could walk around town without being stopped and questioned about the clothing they are wearing. To me, this is a large is a part of how there society see and judge each other based on what they are wearing. The religion in Iran is the bases on how the policies are made and how they develop as a nation. Unless there is a major change in the political structure in Iran I don't see this changing in the near future.
DeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the western understanding of Islam and the Arab nations is riddled with fear, resentment, and misinformation. While some could argue this is justifiable (or at the very least understandable) due to the impact that Arabic terrorist groups have had on the international community. Considering this question without taking into account the public sentiment of Islamic ideologies, it is abundantly clear - even beyond the context of middle eastern governments - that a religious ideology cannot, in the modern era, sustain and support secular governments that seek developmental improvements within the country. Using the middle east as an example, it is imperative to understand that Islam and its cultural values had centuries of influence on the Arab people and, in turn, their politics - much like Christianity has had on the American political culture. As Fareek Zakaria states in his 2004 article Islam, Democracy, and Constitutional Liberalism, certain scholars believe that the problem with the interrelation between Islam and middle eastern political organization is much more complex than simply the institutionalization of repression and backwards thinking, but rather he offers Elie Kedourie interpretation, “The idea of representation, of elections, of popular suffrage, of political institutions being regulated by laws laid down by a parliamentary assembly, of these laws being guarded and upheld by an independent judiciary, the ideas of the secularity of state...all these are profoundly alien to the Muslim political tradition.” (p. 280) Most middle eastern countries, two of which are trying to recover from direct American military engagement, are facing serious political and social unrest and while the causality of such unrest cannot be entirely attributed towards the Islamic tradition and its integration into national politics, it does show an interesting trend in these governments (notably dominated by theocracies) are mostly unable to meet the social and economic needs of their voting populations, regardless of their religious ideologies. From a secular standpoint, I believe that the authoritarian influences of Sharia Law are generally contradictory towards secularism within the government. With regards to developmental goals, the incorporation of Islamic ideologies in economic policies have not proven to be historically successful or supportive of economic development; a problem which is compounded by the middle eastern nations reliance on oil exports. There is obviously no single issue or solution to point to within this paradox.
I touched on these topics as well and I like how you focused on the importance of how information becomes misunderstood between nations and cultures. Unfortunately we see how the uneducated and misunderstood on both sides do not realize the true intentions of the other causing conflict to arise easily as well as fragment extremists to rise up as well. With the growth of globalization and integration one could hope that things will become easier to create better relations between western nations and Iran, as well as other middle eastern nations. However we can see the globalization and global village could actually cause more problems between our two nations as the need for integration becomes greater while relations become worse.
DeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteNo with Iran in its current state, I do not believe that with the religious structure and the religious control in the government that it will ever be able to sustain secular institutions enough to serve developmental goals. With the interior ministry making many of the critical decisions. The interior ministry has too much power to determine what interest groups can be formed. If they are too secular and serve a purpose and if they have a voice to be held. The control over media is also another proven stifling or preventative impediment to developmental goals. If the government is not open for change, potential opposition or justification then how can you move forward to a more democratic nation. How can you move forward at all. They can not expect progression with these types of control and resistance. The lack of acknowledgement of its minorities is also indication of the lack of progression. No voice in the government, not enough representation,they are simply ignored, persecuted,brow beat into submission or forced out of the country for not conforming. I wonder why they stay in such confinements and inadequacies.
So with all these restrictions I am not sure how developmental goals will be reached.
Can you really say because of Iran current state? When you think about it, what kind of state was the United States in when 9/11 happen. September 11, 2001 was a great example of a religious motivation of an attack on the World Trade Center it brought USA institutions closer. You have to believe in the power of your religion and have enough faith as a mustard seed. Yes anything you do in life is a struggle but you have to keep trying. You will always have people that will fight against you. But you have to know that no weapon form against you shall prosper. We can’t just look at the development goals of turning a secular state into a religious state. We have to look at the welfare of our people. Religious motivations can influence secular state institutions by not focusing on its religious belief, but focusing on developmental goals for mankind, for example, reducing extreme poverty and hunger, improving education, reducing child mortality, and helping others. People have different perceptions about religion and the developmental goals require a change in attitudes. Religion can be complex both faith-based and secular. It can complement and motivate development. It can also obstruct or undermine. You just have to stand strong on your faith and what you believe in.
DeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteSince Iran is predominately Shia Muslim, religious identify is ingrained in their society. With the overthrowing of the Shah in 1979, a theocracy was instituted. So, even though there are state institutions they are far from secular. In Iran, the secular and religious are intertwined. When Iran was under the control of the U.S., the oil profits were helping the U.S. while the Iranian population was monetarily ostracized. This was not helping the developmental goals. In a strong religious-based country such as Iran, the main way for development goals to be achieved is through religion. However, since Iran is Shi’ite, they do have issues incorporating developmental goals from Western nations. Women have more power in Western countries and the theocracy is not doing a good job granting power to women. Iran forced religious identity to sustain secular state institutions even though more recently other ideas outside of Shia Islam have been incorporated into the government. For instance, the Sunni concept of Mashalat was instituted but has been unpopular with the Shia clerics (Kesselman 607). It is a religious idea but not in Iran’s identity. However, I believe that it will eventually be incorporated fully into Iran's identity. In short, state institutions can mesh with religious identity while also retaining some secular aspects and serving developmental goals.
I would have to agree with you that a country can have a religious identity while retaining some secular aspects. There are several examples of countries that have both a secular aspects as well having a strong religious identity. I believe that China would be an example of a separation of religious beliefs and the state. Even though China has strong religious beliefs, those beliefs do not run the government. They follow their religion by choice.
DeleteAnother example of a country that has strong religious beliefs but those beliefs do not carry over to their government is America. America at its start claims freedom from religious prosecution yet it still seems that Christianity is still the base religion within the United States. So church and state run side by side.
I like your key points of how the US did not address the main issues of religion when dealing with the Iranian people. It seems that the US, along with many other nations, gets blinded by the price and need of oil from this region of the world. Unfortunately it also seems that these nations, like Iran, will not forget quickly how western nations have done whatever it takes to reach or try to control these oil reserves while ruining relations along the way. The fine line of respecting and addressing religion while also realizing it does not necessarily mean it controls identity must be understood by western nations.
DeleteIn what ways can the global context influence Iran’s development from this point forward?
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that comes to mind when thinking of Iran in global context is their nuclear abilities. In recent years Iran is one of the nations that has been in high contention with other world nuclear powers. Although they maintain diplomatic relations with many United Nations countries they do not see eye to eye with the United States and Israel making tensions high in many matters of foreign relations. Iran also supports many western enemies including areas in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. For Iran to fully become part of the global system they would have to start agreeing to some actions that would relieve them from the many trade embargo's and sanctions that exist today. Accompanying all these issues is the fact that Iran is a leader in crude oil production which equates to over half of their economy. More than anything Iran's future lies in whether they will agree to the Joint comprehensive plan that the other UN nations have also signed and agreed to.
I like the points that you make here. I agree that Iran's nuclear ability combined with their conflicts with certain countries such as Israel and the United States makes for a delicate matter. Their huge role in oil production is something that they will always be a part of and it seems as though they can control that part of other countries' economies to some degree because of their domination in the oil field (pun intended). I feel that it would be better for them and their foreign counterparts if they agree to the joint comprehensive plan of the United Nations.
DeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteWhen you break this question down, the answer is no. Secularism means that the people mandated to represent the state and government institutions must be separate from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. It is the view that religious beliefs and practices should not influence public activities and/or decisions. The purpose of state secularization is to separate church and state by replacing any laws based on scripture with civil law. That being said, sustaining secular state institutions with religious identity is contradictory. State institutions are non profit and are supported somewhat or entirely by the state. Throughout history, when a nation seeks modernization and development it adheres to secularism. Leaving traditional values out of the government welcomes religious tolerance and equality, and has repeatedly shown to resulted in developmental growth overall.
I agree with this analysis. I believe Iran's religious identity certainly stands in the way of their development. However, I must admit that it depends on what these "developmental goals" are. From a Westerner's perspective, Shi'ism prevents Iran from moving towards a more democratic identity, based on equality and freedom. These are ideals that are considered to be of the utmost importance to Western nations, such as the US. However, from an Iranian perspective, Shi'ism may be seen to drive the country's development toward a "higher" ideal rooted in their beliefs. That being said, there is no question that sustaining religious identity through secular state institutions is inherently a contradiction. The very purpose of a secular institution is to divorce it from any religious ideology. Thus a religious identity can not healthily sustain a secular state institution.
DeleteIn what ways can the global context influence Iran’s development from this point forward?
ReplyDeleteThe international community distrusts Iran because of its nuclear program and alleged terrorist funding. However, should these issues be resolved (or set aside), the sanctions imposed on Iran in 2010 could be lifted. Reportedly the sanctions crippled Iran’s economy considering the sanctions related to financial and banking measures, insurance measures, the energy and petrochemical sectors, the shipping, shipbuilding, and port sectors, gold and other precious metals, software and metals, and the automotive sector. In essence, lifting the sanctions would allow Iran to resume economic development.
I agree that the international community is weary of Iran's nuclear program. I think it's unfair to Iran to assume that Iran only wants to produce nuclear weapons. This is especially problematic because the United States originally supplied Iran with nuclear reactors (http://www.iranreview.org/content/Iran_Spectrum/Chronology-of-Iran-s-Nuclear-Activities-in-Past-60-Years.htm). Supplying Iran with a nuclear program and then putting sanctions on the nuclear program will cripple the program and Iran's economy and decrease Iran's faith in the international community. Also, oil is the main source of the economy and Iran needs other sources of economic growth because oil, a nonrenewable resource, will eventually be completely depleted.
DeleteI disagree, especially where Iran is concerned. I think specifically with secular ideas the religious would reduce, eliminate stifle all secular identities and were not idealy in conjunction with religious practices .
ReplyDeleteWould and could majorly impact and slow many developmental goals.
However maybe in the republic of Nigeria it could be beneficial as to bringing a country at odds into unity. Maybe Nigeria should adopt some Iranian policies
What parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteThe parallel would be between Nikolai Lenin and Ayatollah Khomeini efforts to return to cease control of power after being exiled from their country.
Lenin returned to Russia from exile in the 1910's to launch his Bolshevik Revolution which toppled Czar Nicholas II. A Georgian by the name of Joseph Stalin joined Lenin in the revolution and became powerful. They were successful in their efforts, However, Lenin did not get along with Stalin and did not want Stalin to be his revolutionary heir apparent. Because of this their was a struggle for power after Lenin's death. Stalin was able to maintain power.
In the 1970's, Ayatollah Khomeini was in exile. At one time, he lived in Iraq, and the powerful Saddam Hussein did not like him. So he had to leave for France. In 1979, Khomeini returned to Iran from exile to launch his Bolshevik-style Islamic Fundamentalist Revolution which toppled Shah Pahlavi of Iran. Soon, a bloody war broke out between Saddam Hussein and Khomeini's Iran. Had Saddam Hussein defeated Iran, he would have annexed Iran and become the supreme leader of a quasi-Stalinist union consisting of both Iraq and Iran.