The finish line

Religion and Politics

Americans want to learn about religion, it is a topic they are interested in above all else being covered in the media, well newspapers at least. Sadly though, as has been popular thought for a while, reader's are most dissatisfied with the type of coverage that the media is giving in regards to religion. One main issue they have with America is the mass amounts of coverage the Christian Right get, so what about the religious left?It seems like when an issue arises that involves people on that end of the spectrum, the story is turned around to make it seem like they are making radical, immoral decisions, such as Bill Clinton's support of homosexual rights. Another argument they made was that

"Meanwhile, Islam, with its emphasis on social justice and racial equality, has been caricatured as violent, irrational and bigoted."

Now I have a biased view on something like this, as I see the only reason there is positive coverage of Jews with Christians is because they have ulterior motives having to do with their savior. But I do agree that for the most part, Islam is considered as a bigoted and irrational people. My personal opinion is that for the most part, they are a passionate kind religious group, their portion of extremists tend to outnumber and outdo the extremists in any other religion. Along with the fact that they use violence as an everyday solution to problems. But in the end, the media does need to better itself when it comes to something so important as religion. Tensions are bad enough already and the media needs to get over its selfish greedy ways and stop making biased reports that pin one group against another. One day we'll learn, hopefully it won't be too late.

Another one bites the Dust

A reoccurring theme in my blogs have been that religion is the fuel for the fire we know as war. I was in my International Studies class today and we were talking about 16th and 17th century European history. The specific time period was 1618-1648, the 30 Years War. The one that lead to the treaty of Westphalia. Up until now I thought that war was stemmed from city-states constant struggle for boundary lines to their territories, and today I learned that it was actually the war fought between the Protestants and Catholics as they battled for religious supremacy in Europe. It was said that over a million people died in this war.



This just adds to the list of events that have transpired over the hundreds of civilized years in our world that stemmed from religious feuds and ruined the lives of millions and millions of families and friends. Back then it was between the Christians, now it is among the Muslims and Jews. This one seems even more unlikely to end anytime soon, and the amount of lives that will be affected are seemingly infinite. The two biggest powers besides religion that can control people and bring order are politics(governments) and the media, who have done an amazing job persuading public opinion. We'll see who learns first, or better yet, who cares first.

Perfect Fit

Good timing

The basis of this class is to reveal the role that the media and religion play in the field of politics in the United States; this article broadens the argument and gives some insight to how the world reacts to a similar concept. While the Muslims feel that the world is blaming religion for many of the major crisis going on today, they feel that it is actually the media that incites the majority of problems by trying to pin on religion against another in attempt to increase interest in their product. The pointed out many examples of times where the media immediately pointed their finger at a group after a serious crime, such as the Oklahoma City bombings, a crime committed by an anti-US militia group. Now, I see where these leaders are coming from, it doesn't take too much work to realize the media loves to spark tensions between people because it is the easiest way to expand viewership. The issue I have with this claim though, is that it is trying to eradicate blame from the religious aspect, an aspect that I feel truly has caused a majority of the world's biggest debacles. I do not think there will ever be a day when the media reports fairly, because it would just not be an interesting and eye-catching. But again, I do not feel it is the media to blame here. It is not their fault the so many people flock to this type of news like quarantine patients to their cure. Until the American public, and the rest of the world can lose their arousal with the out-of-the-ordinary and be more in tune with reality, the media will continue to dominant opinion and sway their audience with biased stories created to cause controversy.

Teddy Bear Trial

Another Waste of Time

Hard to get off a topic that is so easy to discuss. Another sad story of close-mindedness and hypocrisy fueled by ignorance and an innocent mistake. As Prime Minister of Britain, Gordon Brown, phrased it, "common sense has prevailed." Now, if I were a Muslim hard-liner, this is a statement that would upset me more than the use of my prophet's name (also the most commonly used name in the world) to name a teddy bear for a class project. Though Brown's statement probably won't be taken out of context, in my eyes, he is claiming her release, against Muslim law, is logically the right thing to do. The other side of that pillow is that putting her in jail to begin with was illogical and irrational. Either way, the confusing thing for me are rules such as death by martyr can land a suicide bomber 70 virgins and honor to the family, but simply naming a teddy bear, in a elementary classroom can be "punished with up to 40 lashes, six months in prison and a fine." Really now? Not only do I not see the logic in this law, but I do not understand what kind of people could justify still enforcing it in today's time. Maybe I'm the ignorant one who doesn't understand how much pride and respect Islam has for their holy Prophet, or maybe I do not realize what true devotion. When it comes down to it, something like this should not cause this much outcry, it should not be headline news across the world, but because of the world-wide respect we have for a people destined to death, we have to deal with stupid situations like this.

Hypocrisy

I've been looking for something like this for a little while now. Good image to tell the story that I have been trying to tell, along with Rabbi Miller's point in showing us the Arabic cartoons. Hypocrisy dominates the world, it dominates religion, it dominates politics, and it dominates the media. It's every where, and it doesn't need to be. One of my biggest beefs with religion now-a-day is the lack of logic involved, especially when comparing one religion to another. If you are going to have belief in a higher being, and have belief in a specific story that has been past down for centuries, and there is no way to tangibly prove these stories to be true, then who are you to criticize the beliefs of another person who believes something different. Furthermore, who are you to use the rules and guidelines you follow to judge people by the same standards. This is why logic is more useless as a tool to judge and create laws and standards. The media needs to start equally representing the various religious views, and with similar bias to all of them. If one is going to be condemned and looked down upon, the others should be held to similar standards regardless of how many people are involved or what the big shots in politics believe.

Passed on Peace

Story


In the midst of talks about the Israel-Palestinian conflict in school, the Annapolis Peace convention created by George Bush was taking place trying to see is there was going to be in progress in the near future between the Israel and its bitter counterpart. Ehud Olmert not surprisingly denied the United States request to set a deadline for peace. Now, initial opinion on this may make Olmert seem pompous and arrogant to deny such an amiable request with several nations attending the conference, but a second look should help identify the reason why Olmert would be wary of such a promise. First off, the government in Gaza, Hamas, is not the most trustworthy entity in the world, nor have they kept any previous promises of ceases of violent attacks. Secondly, many citizens of Israel are sick of weakness and frailty in their government, who regularly give back prisoners and land in exchange for a false sense of peace and security. But, in attempts to show that Israel does want to make progress to Abbas, leader of the Gaza lead government, Olmert issued the release of 429 prisoners. If I were in this position, I would probably make the same move, you have to be crazy to think a deadline will be kept, especially with the history of both parties involved. But I do believe that it is necessary to show the other side that you are willing to comprise (even though many attempts are made every year. Either way, I do not believe one year is a reasonable deadline because I do not think that this generation will be able to solve the conflict.

Part II

So the next point I'd like to make is on the cartoons that Rabbi Miller showed us in class. Just wanted to comment on the irony of not only the Arab/Muslim people and their unjustified riots of political cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, but also the hypocrisy worldwide of people who thought it was offensive and inappropriate. It just goes to show just how much sympathy there is towards a certain group of people when ultimately there is little known about the subject as a whole. And the subject here is the constant conflict between Jews and Muslims. I think because of the ample financial support from America to Israel (the media plays a big role in this), the public perceives Israel to be a selfish people who just want more and more while the Palestinians are the underdogs who are left out. The reality is, per capita, Palestinians are the most financially aided group in the world. So it comes back to the cartoons, it is clear the Arabic world has a strong bias towards the Jews, and their radically uneducated population can understand pictures hundreds of times better than they can a story written in words. Are they excused then, are they given some leeway because this is the best they can do? Why is it that these newspapers aren't criticized world-wide when in essence, the government is harboring negativity, hatred, and ultimately violence as it is seen as defense to try and kill the Jews who otherwise would "steal their money" "eat their children" or "try and take over the world"? At the same time, when Israel defends itself from terror with strict racial profiling policies, they are seen as racist and prejudice. The world isn't fair, we all know that, but when lives are at stake and violence ends up as the only answer, fairness should be our primary concern.

Alan Dershowitz

Thursday night I went to the Alan Dershowtiz seminar at UCI. He discussed a topic prominent in not only my religion, my culture, and my family, but the world as a whole. His main idea was his argument for a 2-state solution in the Middle East, but the topic I'd like to focus on is his comments about Jimmy Carter's pseudo-humanitarian efforts in Israel occupied territories. He feels that Carter not only mis-prioritizes the regions that he spends his efforts on, considering the dyer circumstances in many nations in Africa as well as inhumane treatment of civilians on several Arabic countries. Carter believes that all of the problems in Gaza stem from poor Israeli policies and purposeful attempt of the Israeli people to keep the Palestinians down. This goes on with a long-line of traditional Muslim ideology that the Jews are trying to eliminate the helpless Palestinians. Now, Dershowitz claims that these accusations are not only incorrect, but assists in perpetuating the stereotype that Israel is the criminal in a undefendable scenario. Examples such as honor killings of women who have been raped in order to maintain the honor of the family, and greed by the leaders of the occupied territories like Yassar Arafat are true reasons for why these areas are still in dense poverty and are in no condition to emerge as a industrialized region. So the point I'd like to make is that if people like Jimmy Carter manipulate the media and emphasize all the critiques of Israel and completely negate all the positives and trials that Israel has had to go through, then it should come to no surprise that world-wide there is little support for a nation that 60 years later is still fighting for their existence.

Grass is Greener on the Other Side

I find it interesting that Olmert thinks that a two-state solution is the only option for Israel in order to continue to exist as a civilized sovereign nation. It seems to me that if a two-state solution is reached, too many Palestinians who wish to eliminate Israel all together. As much as the two-state idea sounds like an ideal one, it would be allowing too much growth and power from the Palestinians who as I have discussed already also want more than what they are given. Especially with Iran on their back, a country that hopes to have Israel wiped off the map in the near future. One can only imagine that if the Arab nations had the chance to suffocate Israel they would jump at the opportunity. I'm not saying that Israel should take things into their own hands and eliminate the Palestinians, but I do not know if splitting the land 50/50 is really in Israel's best interest. The Jews have no where else to call home, where as the Palestinians have no real ties except that they were there first, and if we went by who had which land first, the Native Americans would be the ones regulating American casinos on reservations. There is no easy solution, nor is there one that will please all parties involved, but considering what Israel has had to go through to get to where they are today, I think it should be on the Arabic nations surrounding Israel to take in the refugees when they were the ones who attacked Israel to begin with.

Two-sided solution

Would you like a side of fries with that land?

So maybe this isn't exactly how it is going, but the Middle East Crisis does follow a similar pattern. It usually does not go as peaceful as this and the smile on the Palestinian's face probably does not come this easy, but in the end it is the Israelis who are losing out on what is rightfully theirs. Asides from the fact that the many Arab nations surrounding Israel already dislike Jews and see them as public enemy number 1, they feel like the land east of the Mediterranean should belong to the Palestinians. Last I checked war is the ultimate decider of who maintains or receives land, and I do not believe Israel has lost any wars since their birth, yet they are threatened constantly to give back the land. And for some reason or other (I mean, it's for peace, but we have seen how that turns out), Israel tends to always give back land that it rightfully won, and then some. Not surprisingly, every time they do give back a piece, the Palestinians want a little more, and then some more, and even more. At a certain point Israel needs to just put its foot down and stop giving in to terrorist threats. I am fine with a peace agreement, but it has to be concrete, not something that Hamas will eventually decide isn't enough and bomb some random shopping mall. Clearly someone needs to back down, and after fighting several wars against several nations, I think Israel has earned the right to stay put.

Waffle House

Funny little cartoon, I like it more that it does not focus on his religion, but on the real problem with his candidacy, constant flip -flopping. In an election where minorities are the majority of candidates, and where the microscope has never been so deliberate on the attributes of those running, I think it is really important to keep the attention on the type of politician a man, or woman is, rather than the type of beliefs or physical characteristics of the person. In the beginning, after reading the series of Mitt Romney from the class website, I actually grew quite fond of him. He does not share all the same political beliefs that I do, but I liked his business acumen and his determination to overcome tough odds, such as the 2002 Winter Olympic games, and running for Governor of Massachusetts, a state dominated by Liberal ideology. Then came the stories of his reluctance to answer questions about his religion, which even though I discourage the idea of that serving any importance, I do not belief he should run from the critics, as well as his inability to stick with one side. I understand he has a struggle right now to maintain votes and he wants to please as many people as possible before the primaries, but I do not think that changing your mind whenever someone new asks you a question is any better than sticking with one choice regardless of who agrees. At least the media was able to take some of the pressure off Mitt in regards to his religion, but Mitt is on his own with this latest obstacle.

GOP debate

A third party candidate from the Christian Right if Rudy Guiliani wins the primaries, seems like a rational way to solve a problem, if you cant beat 'em, get someone else who might be able to. If a scenario like this were to play out during the elections, the Christian Right will get their way and Guiliani would lose, but ultimately, they would lose as well as a Democrat would undoubtedly take the Oval Office. Now, I don't know exactly what goes through their heads when they make rash decisions like this, but it seems to me more beneficial to take your losses and still try and back Rudy as opposed to having Clinton or Obama, which would disgust the Religious Right with every move they would make. I can't blame them for trying to put pressure on the Republican Party to find another candidate that better suits their needs..err, wants, but at a certain point acceptance that the government does not work like Burger King, and you can't always have everything your way. Sadly though, these people hold so much power and backing, that these threats could potentially made a difference, but hopefully rationality will prevail and if Guiliani makes it to the national polls, he won't be blindsided by a futile candidacy from a third party Southern Baptist.

Christopher Hitchens attacks Falwell...

...and for good reason.



Jerry Falwell, and people just like him seemed to be a big portion of this class, and similar to Lobdell's view, or at least what I have been able to take out from his lectures on how he feels about these kind of people, Christopher Hitchens also despises the man and everything he stands for. I do not blame him either, and every point he makes is right on target with the truth. Although I have to give Falwell props for attracting so many innocent victims to his cause, I do think that ultimately followings like the one he created, along with those of the Crouch's and Robertson and so on have a negative effect on politics and on the publics' lives. They used the media to manipulate the public through the use of religion which ultimately had an enormous effect on politics. Prime examples of why we have a class like this, to learn from what these blood-suckers did and ensure it does not happen to our generation.

Iran v. Ahmadinejag

And the news story

I had no idea something like this was going on, and I couldn't be happier to know the people of Iran have taken the time to create something so meaningful and provocative in a place lead by a man full of hatred and denial towards the Jewish people. Being Jewish myself and knowing about how Ahmadinejad feels towards my people, it is refreshing to know that something is being down to ensure that a stereotype isn't created throughout Iranian society. I have not had a chance to watch any, but I got Part 1 of the series from youtube in case anyone wanted to take a look. Hopefully, the nut-case President of Iran won't take any offensive actions against this, as he adamantly denies that the Holocaust was real, but was merely a myth created by the Western powers to justify giving Israel its land. The other interesting idea brought up in this article was the distinction made between Jews and Zionists. I myself do not personally like the people that consider themselves to the Orthodox Jews, but I do believe that the Jews should have a home, and whether or not it is Biblically written, or if it is Gods given land to the Israelites, the fact of the matter is Israel has face roughly 6 wars since their birth in 1948 and have given back enough land to expand its size 6 fold after each victory to ensure peace, and has gotten no respect in return from the surrounding Arabic nations.

Iran v. The World

Iran won't budge


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted out on Wednesday that the United States efforts to calm the Middle East Crisis are futile, and that Israel will collapse in the near future. His main issue is with the Zionist perspective that they are entitled to Israel, when Ahmadinejad believes that the only reason they are in the position they are because of lies, corruption and violence. Nice. I hope no one takes this man seriously. A man who chooses his words wisely, yet does not understand how ridiculously hypocritical he sounds. First off, when it comes to violence, he is among the leaders in the world, when it comes to lies, there aren't many better at it, and when it comes to corruption, well his government is not the most respected and fair in the world. Secondly, who is this man to tell the world that peace will never come, that attempts to solve issues are in vain, and that lives need to be lost in order for a solution to arise. Even countries that typically side with Iran aren't please with the President's crude comments in favor of Israel being "wiped off" the map. It is sad that people like this exist in this world, and even more appalling that such a man could have such a powerful position for such a long time. Oh well, as long as he continues with threats and does not try to be the hero of the mislead Arab people, we should all be fine.

Truthful Lie

Iraqi Reporter's questionable claim

An instance perhaps when the media tries to get back to the government that has treated them wrongly for so many years. This reporter claimed that 11 of his family members were slaughtered at the dinner table and Iraqi police did not intervene in the killings. The big issue is when his mom contacted another group of reporters and said that the family is fine and she is ashamed that her son would make such radical and false claims. The bodies have not been identified, and no one but the victimized reporter has verified the accusation. Now, we all know the regime in Iraq has been less than perfect, but I think this might be a time where we have to take the side of the big bad politicians and hope that something horrendous actions like this were merely false stories told by a crazy man with nothing to lose and everything to gain. But, he does live in one of the more dangerous neighborhoods in Baghdad so I guess anything is possible.

The Big Picture

Disarray

This article makes the recent decline in religious politics seem like a damper on future elections, seems to deflate any hopes of Republican success in the next generation of politics; but maybe it's for the better in the long run. Instead of Republican candidates using God to try and persuade voters, they will stick strictly to the issues at hand and not bring in some intangible, external being into the mix. True, the Democrats might have the advantage in the upcoming election, but look at the mess George Bush got into by justifying his actions through the Bible. Halfway through the article the reporter cites a few young adults who feel embarrassed to have any association with their church because of the bad name politics have created for them. Leaving politics out of religion is the smartest move for church leaders who are finally beginning to catch on. Church is a place of worship, and everything else should be left at home; same goes for politics, someone can use their beliefs to shape their own opinions but they should not be imposed on those who not only do not follow the faith, but may not have any faith at all. This article tends to take an understanding, yet confused tone on the split between evangelicals in this election, and as long as they continue to not harbor any harsh criticism towards the division of religion and politics, the public might catch on as well. I understand it will never be possible to completely abandon one's religious faith when discusses the many political issues that may stem from religion, but making decisions that effect an entire nation should be done under different pretenses than words from a book that not everyone believes in.

Interesting

I'm not as educated as I thought, cause this design does not make complete sense to me. I am a little lost on the Dark Ages and Fundamentalism sections but it humors me nonetheless. This was found from a forum on the biology of aging, something to do with God's plan for everyone. But this is something that would get a lot of attention if the media for some reason or another decided to air this but it would most likely spark intelligent conversation on the subject, so not all would be lost...

Religion, a cause or a scapegoat

Now that religion is so deeply embedded into our culture, is it possible to ever go back to the days before religion. I mean, they did exist, so it isn't too unrealistic to think we can survive without it, but would it be de-volving ourselves to a less organized place in time or would it better us by not creating so much turmoil and conflict? Although I do not question the amazing things religion has brought to this world; passion, love, devotion and a sense of belonging to something greater, I do believe that tangibly, it has cost the world a much higher price. Conflict can be traced back long before Christianity came into the picture, but just since then there has been more death attributed to religion than any other cause (now I do not have evidence to back that up, but I do not think anyone could argue a more persistent killer of the innocent.) It is a shame to see that something that was brought to this world to help solve problems and bring people together, has been able to cause such hate and destruction on a global level.

Now, this forum tends to disprove my point a bit, but the arguments are somewhat intriguing, if you are bored take a look, maybe add your opinion

War, why?

Another Brick in the Wall

Stones and Insults

You have to give the man props where props are due; he is a brave soul to put himself in such a gut-wrenchingly difficult position. To choose between loyalties to the ones who spill their hearts and soul, and the ones who wish to protect the innocent from being hurt.

“Imams like Mr. Shata — men who embrace American freedom and condemn the radicals they feel have tainted their faith — rarely make the news.”

The power of the media…America stands by what the media chooses to cover, and big hearts typically lose out to empty threats and police chases. What would you do in a situation so dyer? Would you confront the speculation about your religion in an attempt to appease the same people that will most likely stab you in the back if they feel necessary, or would you keep to yourself knowing you are not causing any harm but not break the stereotypes that society has placed on you?

On a side note, while reading the article I noticed the image they had on side of the article, one of a Muslim young adult smoking Hookah, with the caption reading, “Fadi Alkhatiba, 23, like other young Muslims, has embraced his Islamic identity more fully since 9/11.” Well, thank you for the enlightenment on true Islamic culture…

The Wall of insults is another example of what biased stereotypes can produce, rather than breaking down the barriers between us, we strengthen the wall that separates us, leaving less hope for a brighter future.

Mormons to the Rescue

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=143

…A little insight into the Mormon faith, for two high ranking Elders who work with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

This could possibly answer some questions you may have had about Mormonism, but it comes down to how trustful you are when you know people are put in a situation where only one answer can really fit.

For me, though I respect their willingness to come out and be put in the hot seat to answer some political questions, I think it might take a little more than an interview with the Pew Forum to really curb the negative perception the public has on Mormonism.

I am satisfied though with the thoroughness of their answers, and they don’t seem to beat around the bush too much. They state their opinion, give a religious explanation and defend themselves pre-maturely against counter-arguments they know they will face. After reading the interview though, I can not say their justification for their political views is any different then those of another other denomination or faith, just like any other religion, God is the reasoning behind nearly every answer and whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant when I take into consideration that a majority of people got their political points of view from a similar place. Interesting though that those same people are the ones that would have the biggest problem with placing a Mormon in the Oval Office.

Convenient Truth?

Some pretty basic information on American’s attitude towards two of the most heavily criticized and negatively approached religions in America. I did find it surprising that the perception of Islam has gotten worse since 2005, I figured that the years after 9/11 would increase tensions, but as the time past, wounds would heal and the heat would die down as people learned more, but I guess not. As for Mormonism, I do not think they allow themselves to be analyzed enough for anyone to gain a proper understanding of their views on religion. Ignorance is what brings about hatred and fear, so it seems counter productive to the Mormons cause if they do not allow us to divulge into their world, unless of course they would prefer we stay away and keep our opinions to ourselves.

The media plays a huge role in this though because it is through the mass media that a large proportion of citizens get their news and information from, and when the media chooses either not to focus on a certain religion, or never shed positive light on their beliefs, it causes a biased view among the people. Although the public should share some of the blame for not taking the time to educate themselves, in the modern, lazy world we live in, it is understandable why we shift our opinions on important issues based on the words of the reporters. It is to no surprise though that the largest demographic to have a negative view on Islam and Mormonism are the conservative right, typically the most devout Christians. So maybe instead of the media being put to blame, the focus should shift to the leaders of the Christian organizations, the ones who hold the most power and whose opinions are heard and respected throughout the congregations.

But when it comes down to it, I think that thinking for ourselves might be a better idea, assuming we take the time to learn and hear different perspectives it shouldn’t be such a terrible chore for us to take on, who knows, maybe we will end up making some new friends in the process.

Muslim in America

Based on the Imam series from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/nyregion/05imam.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Sheik Reda Shata’s journey is quite a remarkable one, and it’s satisfying to see not only how much he has learned throughout his journey, but how much he appreciates that his opportunities have given him.

"America transformed me from a person of rigidity to flexibility, I went from a country where a sheik would speak and the people listened to one where the sheik talks and the people talk back."

It is amazing how people, biologically nearly identical, can vary so drastically in their views on the world and the way they are programmed to think. Some of us are stubborn and refuse to acknowledge the differences amongst cultures, but Mr. Shata understands that rules must be bent at times to accommodate the lifestyles of others. He realizes that the life he had back in Egypt can never be the same in America, so he has become flexible with his views and understanding of a different culture.

In this tense world filled with religious hostility and ignorance, seeing a person who can acclimate himself to a new world, all the while holding on to deeply rooted beliefs is an impressive yet sadly an endangered quality.

“A judge sentences. A doctor tries to remedy”

Unlike in many Islamic nations, Mr. Shata does not punish those who disobey or break the rules, because he realizes everyone is going to make mistakes. Instead, he carefully analyzes the situation and creates a solution rather than condemning the convicted. This is another aspect of his teachings that I find would be very helpful for many religions, not just Islam to adopt and assist in alleviating some of the negative perspectives on religion.

King of the Hill

Couldn't draw it better myself. But, can you really blame them, with 15% of the electorate following the Religious Right, it seems only wise to befriend the people who could get you the necessary votes to win an election. And for the leaders of the Religious Right, it is also a wise move to support certain politicians, as the politicians ultimately hold the power to make decision that will effect how society is governed. It is interesting though that this cartoon makes it seem so one-sided, even though in reality it most likely is closer to this then the other way around. But since it the Christians that want the policy changes and desire the ideals of the Right to be reproduced throughout America, I wonder why the politicians allow them to control the power and how they are the ones that end up on their knees. But is it worth it for the politicians to rebel, and defend themselves. Churches can use the threat of excommunication, in which case the vast majority of any follower would most likely not vote for that candidate anymore, but in turn, he or she would earn the respect of people who are on the fence because of their bravery and sticking to their principles. It could also set a standard for other potential candidates who have slightly different beliefs then their church to have the confidence to stand against their church and speak what they truly believe rather than what they are told/asked to think and speak. If that idea doesn't work, it might be up to the voters themselves, to start thinking outside the box and try to show the candidates that they aren't interested in what the Catholics have to say, or the Protestants, but what the candidate themselves think is the best policy for our country.

The Double Standard of Sensitivity

Although I have not been blessed with the opportunity to witness all too much of this in my life, it does exist, and not just with Christians, but with almost all groups of people across the spectrum of race, religion and political view. It seems like people have no problem trying to impose their beliefs on people who do not share the same view, but if those people in turn, criticize or disagree with any of the aggressors opinions they become offended and enraged. I have no problem with a healthy debate and exchange of opinions, but I do have a problem when someone blatantly disrespects another person simply because they have an opposing belief. We all are raised differently, in different environments and by different parents; so it seems nearly impossible that we would all share the same opinions. In the end, establishing the difference between who is right and what is wrong is not only implausible, but a waste of time.

Move-In Day

Found it a little interesting. Regardless of whether religion is taking the place of ethics, I do believe that ethics have been displaced a little bit by both parties. It's extremely disappointing to see all the corruption in the government, but not all too surprising when you consider the monetary rewards in exchange for the unethical acts. but is even more saddening when the corruption is linked to religion.

Part 2

...The missing piece? How about the Religious Right in America? What about those staunch conservatives like Ann Coulter, the late Jerry Farwell, and maybe even George Bush? Did Pat Robertson ever think about how his complaints about the Islamic religion being a façade for political domination by a group of radicals are could be juxtaposed to the ideals of the far right Christians of the US. Now, I understand that terrorism and suicide bombings aren’t scare tactics of these faith-filled politicians and preachers, but that does not change what the main goal they are trying to accomplish is. Both, in my mind, would love nothing more than for all the non-believers, all the homosexuals, all the Jews, and all those who fight against them to either conform and “find the light,” or simply just go to hell.

This is where the media serves as a clear advantage to the power-hungry religious and political leaders of the Christian Right. They spread their word through the radio, tv, and mail and use the power of persuasion through fear and the possibly of great riches to attract the naïve and helpless to join their cause.

I wonder why it is so easy to spread these radical beliefs across the nation through these media outlets, but so difficult to create a counter attack against the mega-churches who prey on the poor. Is there even a way to convince people that they are being led down the path to emptiness without offering them something tangible to please their needs.

Religion, a Worldly threat: 1

Though Mr. Robertson’s ideas might be a bit exaggerated and possibly a little on the harsh side, I do have to agree some what wit the fact that Islam, though indeed a religion just like any other, is used in large part for political and social gain by Islamic leaders throughout the world. There should be no surprise that many if not most of the nations around the world under the rule of Islam have deeply routed political and social struggles that the citizens within those countries have little to no control over. Religion shifts from being a place people can go to when the feel lost, alone, scared, thankful, to a place people in power can use to abuse their position and kneel followers over in submission because of their deeply rooted faith. I do feel bad for the true religious Muslims, who have their name smeared by green-eyed politicians whose sole purpose for preaching the religion is for self-gain. This is my main argument for why religion needs to stay out of the political world, there is rarely an advantage that can be reaped by all parties involved, and the disadvantages are typically far worse and irreversible. But even with the case Pat Robertson is trying to make, there is something I believe he might be missing…

Final Inning

“Politicians use God for their own profane purposes”

So maybe it isn’t that religion has a negative effect on politics, maybe it’s that manipulative people, who work their way to the top, are wise enough to understand they can use God’s name to their advantage. Maybe religion is only bad when it is the hand of the wrong, or the intelligent people. But can we blame them? Is it their fault for exploiting the naïve? Or the naïve for taking God’s name for granted?

It is tough to say with the inherent nature of mankind whether enough people would actually desire to do only what is for the greater good of their people instead of becoming corrupt like so many leaders in our worlds short history have proven to do. Even if people start as innocent and heavenly souls, it is unclear whether or not a massive surge in the amount of power over other people they could possess would cause a change of heart.

As to the question of whether one can give their life to their country without religion, Sharpton nails it when he says it does take a belief in something bigger. Nothing specific, and maybe not God himself, but I do agree that it is hard to allow yourself to put your life in the hands of something bigger than you are physically, and not have a belief that something intangible is also there to support you mentally.

Some more ball

Why does religion keep popping back up in politics, why are the religious organizations so persistent in threatening politicians that excommunication will be the punishment for going against a view of the church in the political field?

Sharpton’s argument is somewhat convincing, stating that religious organizations do not want deviations of their beliefs, held by elected officials, making a bad reflection of the religion in the public’s eye. Although this may seem like a reasonable point, I see it negatively affecting the way politics are run. It creates a sense of power to the religions who dominate the political arena and allows for a clear disadvantage to the minorities who occupy a far less amount of seats and power in Washington and across the United States.

For me, this goes back to the idea that religion and politics will never find a way to stray away from each other. There is too much at stake, too much power involved, for any one or any group to let that opportunity pass by them, especially when someone else is likely to snatch it up.

Sadly, like the crisis in the Middle East, I do not see a solution to the problem, nor do I see any side making a valiant attempt at finding a way to compromise and look for a happy median.

Hardball, Soft bats

So Christopher Hitchens is a bit of a radical and his beliefs contradict mine a bit in regards to religion, but regardless of how I feel, I have to give the man credit for making consistently great arguments and has decent evidence in defense of every question being thrown at him.

An interesting point I thought Hitchens made was that religion did not have a part in Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. The Methodist and Catholic Church, along with many others, Hitchens says, did not support the war from the beginning, so it seems clear that religion did not give Bush the motivation to send troops over to the Middle East.

The next point is the question of whether everyone prays to one God, or a multitude of gods in respect to political leaders in different regions of the world. My personal belief is that there is one God, who has similar expectations and foundations for any believer regardless of faith. Sharpton thinks that although there is only one God, yet people receive misguided answers from different Gods. I’m not sure what that means, or if it makes any sense at all, but I understand the point he is trying to get at is that people might twist their idea of what story God has given them to gain the advantage they can for themselves and their people.

Sharpton’s comment on Mitt Romney’s candidacy being ended by people who truly believe in God because they will not vote for him is beyond hypocritical and his defense on Hardball is even more pathetic.

Scandals are so Convincing

Yeah I know, it is a bit out-dated, but it related to the topic we discussed in class of Televangelists. The thing I find most saddening about this entire scandal, is the fact that it is not over. This video had to of been made in the early 90’s, and it seemed like a pretty big crisis back then, but for some reason the rush is back and people are once again flocking to these money-hungry churches. My question is not so much what is wrong with the system to allow these kinds of behaviors and actions to go through, but what are these “reverends” and entrepreneurs doing so right that is attracting such a big crowd?

I have to give the Bakker’s credit though, their apology did come out very sincere, and the tears of Tammy while being interviewed in regards to her husband’s blown cover are truly convincing, and her innocence when asked about her salary seems heart-warming; and it worked. I think what needs to be done is education to these poor areas that are being exploited. There needs to be a mediating group that can counter this televangelist revolution and stop the bleeding before it gets any worse. It is not a coincidence that the majority of people that associate themselves with these false religions are in the poorer income bracket. It’s not too hard to understand why these are the types of people being taken advantage of, and not the wealthy folks in Orange County, or the Businessmen and women in New York. And this isn’t to say that the religious views of the wealthy are any more accurate or concrete. But those who have more money, typically are able to be better educated and experience and hear more of what the world has to offer, rather than thinking they can send the remaining balance on their credit card in to God with promises of unbound fortune to follow.

"Bill Maher on Religion"

The “rational minority” according to Bill Maher can potentially make a difference in the American political system, a system which thrives off of a religious background deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs. The question the Bill Maher raises is whether or not the American public will ever get over its religious ties to politics, and learn to leave the government and their personal religious beliefs separate. My only critique of this philosophy is that many of the mainstream issues circulating through the media and that are highly covered around any election time are issues that have answers strongly mixed with the religious views of the majority of Americans. It’ll be hard to stray away from the temptation of mixing faith and politics, especially when the public has made it clear that some sort of religious affiliation is a necessity for any would-be President (atheist being the least likely to get a vote from the American public).

What needs to be understood among the opposing religions when deciding whether or not a Presidential candidate’s religion will make a difference, is that every religion has its abstract on imaginative stories with somewhat unrealistic and scientifically unproven miracles, and we can not single out one religion’s stories and say that they are any different than our own. Although the world Bill Maher imagines seems like an ideal one, one where people don’t hold prejudices based on intangible beliefs and don’t base their political platforms from revelations from God, it seems highly unlikely and far-fetched to think that America will soon deviate from its deeply rooted religious history.

South Park

South Park may not be the best symbol that America should emulate, but I do consider their point of view (Trey Stone and Matt Parker), to be a realistic and sensible way to calm the quarrels of the religiously sensitive. The video is an interview referencing the episode where the climax was supposed to be the revealing of the prophet Mohammed. Although there were originally planning on airing the scene, Comedy Central eventually folded and ordered them not to show his face.

But look at how Matt and Trey treat all the other entities they ridicule and satirize, Jesus is a somewhat important character who appears often in episodes, and rarely as a saint-like son of God. The devil also plays a decent sized role, and special guests have been Saddam and the leaders of the Church of Scientology. There seems to be no limit on whom they poke fun of, and even through all the criticism they receive, the show remains incredibly popular. I just find it hypocritical that exceptions have to be made in fear of retaliation, when they is no doubt that Muslim cartoonists and columnist also make jokes at the ideas and philosophies that they find radical and obscure.

America needs to take a page of Stone and Parker’s book, and learn to take things less seriously, especially when it is something that is harmless, something as child-like as a cartoon. I know certain things needs to be taking seriously and respectfully, and I understand that a major concern is the ignorance that can stem from false truths about a religion based on stereotypes, but ultimately we can learn from things like this by asking questions and doing the research ourselves.

No way out?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html

It’s tough to say what I would do if I were in Romney’s situation. If there was one huge issue I could change about the way Romney is going about this barrage of interviews criticizing his religion, is to be open and honest with more questions. I realize that he does not want his religion to make or break his candidacy, but at a certain point he has to understand that the scrutiny is not going to cease, not until he drops out, loses, or answers the questions. And since personally, I see him as a viable candidate with a legitimate shot of winning, I feel that he would be better suited in the long run to try and please the public’s curiosity. On the other hand, I think he has done a good job reiterating to reporters that he will make sure his religion stays out of his policy making. I would also prefer, though entirely unrealistic, that journalists and reporters focus more on other areas of his life, such as the success of the Winter Olympics in Utah, or his strong term as Governor of Massachusetts.

I believe there is a good reason why Mormonism is looked at as such a “weird” religion in the eyes of the public, even with their newly discovered religious tolerance. They are sheltered, hidden from the limelight that religious such as Catholicism, Judaism, and Muslims share. Although I’m sure they do not mind what their perception is outside of their community, Romney might want to reconsider keeping quiet about the ins and outs of his religion, especially if he wants to have success in the primaries, which are full of critical conservatives and opposing liberals.

Supreme Decision

Link

Although I had not heard of this court decision, I am not surprised to see that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. I can understand that they do not want the courts to be flooded with hundreds upon thousands of cases, most of which would probably be insignificant and too vague to make a decision, but I do agree with the opposition that this limits the separation of church and state amendment. When it comes down to it though, there are too many people out there that would sue the government for personal issues and try to contest things that they personally do not agree with, and seeing how deeply rooted religion can be in some people, even if they receive a ruling against them, the appeal process could end up causing an even larger back-up in the system. I am a personal believer in the clear separation of church and state, but experiencing the last five-ten years of my life, and watching how many ridiculously stupid cases have been brought to the courts, I would not want to deal with that as a judge either. I realize that this is something much more serious than McDonald’s coffee spilling on someone’s lap, but I also do not think religion is something concrete enough to be brought to court on a consistent basis and from many different angles. It will take time to see whether or not this decision, made nearly six months ago, will end have having a dramatic effect, or whether there is just a false alarm.

Church and State

So I was watching Bill Maher on HBO and he was having an interesting chat with Mos Def on politics and religion so I figured Youtube would have some other interesting clips. The one I found related to a stat Lobdell had given us in class about how large of a percentage of Americans would not vote for a President if he did not have a religious affiliation with God. I find it very interesting that in the world we live in, a world full of change from the past, we are still stuck in a pothole when it comes to diversity in our presidents when it comes to religion. I understand that a majority of Americans are Christian, and therefore would most likely prefer a President with parallel beliefs, but it is disheartening to me that a man who would proclaim himself as atheist has absolutely no chance of winning not only a presidential election, but any election for a government position. Although nearly all the government positions are filled by some denomination of Christianity, there are a few different religions occupying some seats in the House and Senate.

An interesting statistic was that 43% of Americans surveyed said that they would not vote for a Mormon under any circumstance, and nearly the same percent said they would not vote for a candidate of no faith. Maher brings up an interesting point in that, as crazy as the beliefs of the Mormons may be (special underwear that brings spiritual power), a burning bush or a virgin who was pregnant are just as radical of ideas in today’s modern world. Being religious myself, it is hard for me to just accept these statements, but it does prove that Americans are very stubborn and stuck in their deeply valued principals and values based on faith that can not be proven.

Critique of a Critique

----In response to certain portions of Lobdell's Religious Beat.----

After reading Lobdell’s article on his new Religious Beat, my respect for religion in as a general benefit for individuals in society has waned a bit. I previously believed that although religion is dangerous in the hands of powerful politicians and world leaders, it is a positive form of extracurricular for the public worldwide. This article’s insight on a couple different religions exposed some of the ignorance involved by the members within them, and I know that the mentioned religions are not the only ones who has followers who can be ignorant and naïve.

So it makes me question whether or not this whole religion thing is actually a benefit for mankind. Would mankind be better off without diversity in faith? Or is it necessary to create the various cultures and ideas that have made this earth so rich and complex?

As much as I can see the bright side of religion and the great effects on people’s lives, reading things like how the Mormons shun those who have left their church and act is if they do not even exist in their world and how the Catholics completely ignore the facts of their priests committing heinous crimes and still consider naming a church hall after them. It just goes to show how blinding religion can be, and it stretches far beyond America.

I have all the respect in the world for anyone who is deeply religious and I have respect for their beliefs as well, but when those people and their beliefs blind them from simple realities in the world, that’s when I lose respect, that’s when I begin to question religion myself.

Moral Majoritry

Okay, so I’m not exactly sure who this guy is or whether or not he is a credible source, but he does make an interesting point about halfway through this clip when he talks about how Islam has much in common with the “moral majority” that Jerry Falwell inspired a movement out of. It’s a sad truth, one that until it is fully acknowledged by both sides will not change. Regardless of which religion we belong to, a large portion of it is shared with several other religious views out there and even though America is relatively diverse, we do believe, morally at least in a lot of the same things.

The problem we face is our focus. We gear our emotions towards the negatives aspects, almost looking for something to fight for, looking for a reason to disagree and argue. I don’t want to seem naïve because I do not truly think everyone can just leave their hate behind and embrace each other, but I do envision a process that human society can take part of in order to shift our focus to what we have in common, rather than what we see differently.

Every religion has their fanatics, but there are enough people in each respective religion that have their heads on straight to be able to pursue a stronger connection with our religious counter-parts. At the moment, I see different religions almost as enemies of each other, which I find funny in a cynical sort of way because when it comes down to it, religion can not be proven, it is merely a faith based on stories from centuries ago.

Will our generation get to experience a world that embraces one another rather than prioritizing our differences? Almost seems like too easy of a question, when the answer is so simple to begin with.

P.S. Sorry if my writing is all over the place, lazy summer and I am still trying to get back in the swing of things. Thanks for the patience.

Blog 1, A quick run-down.

For my first blog i wanted to keep it simple and just lay down some basic trains of thought that my mind goes through. My basic perception on how religion is tied into politics as well as the media is a negative one. I do not believe that the general public is educated enough on the mass diversity of religions that not only exist in America, but ones that are shown in the news on a daily basis.

But, regardless of the perception of the public, I still do believe that mixing religion with politics will eventually lead to trouble; whether it is violent and physical, or demeaning and subtle.

When it comes to America, it is hard to get away from mixing the two. American politics were based on the religious views of the founding fathers when America first became an autonomous nation. The core principals and values were derived from the Christian faith and since little has changed when it comes to the majority of those who ran the government today, it is easy to see why little has changed.

Do I think that we can ever stray away from religion when dealing with political affairs and keep the government completely secular? No, it is too deeply rooted in not only our traditions but also in the people who run our government. But we do need to find a way to make a more effective system not only within the United States, but with our foreign affairs as well.