Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of religion in politics
Motivation of terrorism
The role of religion in politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of religion in politics
Fundamentalism and Religion
For a vast majority, the term “fundamentalism” evokes images of
hostage crises, embassies under siege, hijackings, and suicide
bombers. But these images hardly present a comprehensive picture.
People in the west associate fundamentalism with Islam, this is indeed
a mistaken belief. Fundamentalism is defined as " the affirmation of
religious authority as holistic and absolute, admitting of neither
criticism nor reduction; it is expressed through the collective demand
that specific creedal and ethical dictates derived from scripture be
publicly recognized and legally enforced ." (Lawrence)
Therefore the essence of fundamentalist belief is doctrinal
confirmity, of not only oneself but the conformity of the rest of
society too .While some try to reach their goals through violence, the
majority work through political parties within the electoral process.
People like Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network are only at
fringes. Even if fundamentalism is to encompass such aberrations, such
brand of fundamentalism is a characteristic of all (Christianity,
Islam, Hinduism and Judaism) the religions. This paper by citing
episodes of fundamentalism in leading religions substantiates the
theseis that fundamentalism is not specific to any particular
religion.
Beginning with Judaism, the bombing of Hotel King David in July 1946
is an incident that starkly explifies the Jewish Fundamentalism. The
British entered the premises of the Jewish Agency and took away with
them a large number of sensitive documents. These documents were kept
at the King David Hotel for intelligence analysis. For vengeance and
as a ...
... middle of paper ...
... exceptions to their dogma. It is all but
natural to encounter such people in all the religions. What is
interesting is the reason why people from all the religions harbor
such tendencies? Probably because it offers an easy way out - a
fundamentalist need not think deeply about a doctrine or be highly
educated in it; as one Mormon leader once said, "Don't think for
yourself. The thinking has already been done."[6]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_of_the_king_david_hotel.htm
[2] http://www.facingthechallenge.org/copernicus.htm
[3] http://www.wikipedia.org/
[4] http://www.wikipedia.org/
[5]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/19E6EA5A-8207-4F06-958F-8DD77A05DC27.htm
[6] http://www.bidstrup.com/religion.htm
Religion is a part of society that is so closely bound to the rest of one’s life it becomes hard to distinguish what part of religion is actually being portrayed through themselves, or what is being portrayed through their culture and the rest of their society. In Holy Terrors, Bruce Lincoln states that religion is used as a justifiable mean of supporting violence and war throughout time (Lincoln 2). This becomes truly visible in times such as the practice of Jihad, the Reformation, and 9/11. The purpose of this essay is to show that as long as religion is bound to a political and cultural aspect of a community, religious war and destruction will always occur throughout the world. A historical methodology will be deployed in order to gain
The Puritans were a religious group of early American settlers. ISIS, or the Islamic State, ISIL, or the Daesh, is a militant group of religious extremists in Iraq and Syria. It may seem odd to compare the Puritans to the Islamic State, but both shared religious ideologies that led to horrible atrocities committed in the name of their respective gods. Both the Islamic State and the Puritans are groups that use or use their divine status as an excuse to dehumanize, torture, and kill innocent people without emotion or regret. This paper will show that both groups shared similar behaviors that ultimately led to great atrocities being committed by the groups as a whole and by their members.
In his essay, Rodriguez believes that the diplomatic affairs we see on the evening news are merely being disguised as a religious war. The fight over oil or land when in reality it is the fight between whose side God is on, the attacks under the control of Al Qaeda when perhaps it’s the greed for power or world domination. According to Richard, these religious wars are allowing terrorism to become prevalent; often times within the same culture (147).
...ered a depth of understanding of the progression of the fundamentalist movement, and through that have come to better appreciate its impact on American culture. I have also obtained a better outlook on how the movement’s leaders interpreted and responded to their context which lead to further developments of fundamentalism. Previous assumptions of this movement have been reevaluated and adjusted from a flat narcissistic view of militarism fundamentalism to one that seeings the complex nuances within the overall movement. I appreciated the comprehensive analysis that included both the intellectual and social forces which made the whole movement comprehendible to the reader. One can see clearly where the antebellum period, Baconism, Common Sense realism, Premillennialism, Pietism, and many other influences contributed to the fundamentalist view within American society.
Over the course of the last century, the Islamic Republic of Iran (formerly known as Persia) has seen colonialism, the end of a dynasty, the installation of a government by a foreign power, and just over three decades ago, the popular uprising and a cleric-led revolution. These events preceded what could be considered the world’s first Islamic state, as politics and fundamentalist religion are inextricably linked in contemporary Iran. Looking at Iran from the mid 1940’s until the present day, one can trace the path that led to the rise of fundamental Islam in Iran in three distinct periods. The first is that which began with the rise of secular nationalism and the decline of Islam. In the second, the secular, western-friendly government eventually gave way to the Islamic revival in the form of a government takeover by hard-line clerics and disillusioned, fundamentalist youth; both motivated and led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Rule of Iran by these fundamentalist clerics then led to the formation of the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy that governs present-day Iran. The current government has some democratic appearances, but all real power is in the hands of the supreme leader, an Ayatollah who is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a group of clerics chosen by the Guardian Council. With the Iranian Revolution, political Islam was born, with the fundamentalists holding the reins of power in Iran to the present day.
Religion and Politics Both liberals and conservatives have become quite adept at mixing religion and politics in our current society. One also continues to observe an ongoing practice of civil religion demonstrated by presidents and office-seekers on both the left and right. Generally, the leftist merger of religion and politics has received greater social acceptability because it has been cloaked in such rights' causes as civil rights, women's rights, or economic rights (the social distribution of wealth). The advocating of these rights issues have provided an appearance of transcending religion, keeping the left relatively free from criticism of any church and state overlap. Christian Conservatives, however, have found it more difficult to reasonably combine faith and politics because they have more overtly recognized that their political positions are grounded on faith assumptions.
Griffith, William E. “The Revial of Islamic Fundamentalism: the Case of Iran.” International Security. Volume 4, Issue 1, 1979, 132-138.
Most religions specify that violence is not allowed and yet extremists will cause major destruction in the name of their God. However, some people are too quick to blame religion on terrorism (Winchester, 2). In actuality, it is the nature of human beings to prove that their way is right, there way of doing that is using fear and destruction (Winchester, 3). It is not religion that causes the terr...
Religion is a symbolic representation of society. The sociological approach to religious belief looks at how society behaves on a whole, to answer the question, “Why are people religious?” We express our participation in religious events through plays, acts of confession, religious dances, etc. To begin to understand why we have such term, let’s understand the common elements of religion. There are different types in which people believe in or follow and that is: animatism, animism, ancestral spirits, god and goddesses, and minor supernatural beings. Beyond these different elements, such one is to have religious leaders to follow.
There is a strong belief that Islam and politics are directly tied. They are tied in the sense that the building blocks of the religion dictate how they ought to behave in the political environment. Through this mandatory follow up behavior that the religion delineates, many have come to believe that its teachings are a form of terrorism. Mandaville argues that what has challenged the Islamic link between politics and religion was the emergence of secularism, which went against the belief that politics and religion could go together. Islam has been a religion that has been accused of supporting terrorist activities in the world. Different assumptions have been brought up to understand better the linkages between what really lies behind the Islam religion and politics. Peter Mandaville argues that Islam is dynamic and that it has changed over time; situated within time and politics.
CHANDRA, ABHIMANYU. "Review: The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid." The Yale Review of International Studies RSS. N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. 07 Apr. 2014.
Yet not all Religious Fundamentalism can be categorised as both totalitarian and violent as they are not all involved in terrorism or violent protest but usually one or both. The overwhelming evidence does support this as Hindus and Muslims in the state of Gujarat partake in communal violence, the Amish can be debated using symbolic violence (Heywood, 2012, p. 305). This suggests that Religious Fundamentalism will always be linked to violence and totalitarianism, because of the majority's actions and principles. Works Cited Ball, T. And Dagger, R. (2009) Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader.
In both given articles, “The Roots of Muslim Rage” by Bernard Lewis, and “The Roots of Muslim Rage Revisited” by Nicolaas J.E. van der Zee, argue about the enhancement of the Muslim fundamentalism with different perspectives; however, I believe that Lewis’ view may be quiet misleading to the actual perception. Lewis indicates that Muslim fundamentalism is conceived through the Muslim community’s oppression and dissatisfaction with the West’s political involvement, as well as “Islam is a source of aggression” . In defiance of Lewis’ opinion, the word ‘Islam’ comes from the word peace as well as the will of submission to God. The notion of aggression and violence that Lewis conceptualizes to be the headline of Islam does not have any supporting
Religion can be defined as a system of beliefs and worships which includes a code of ethics and a philosophy of life. Well over 90% of the world 's population adheres to some form of religion. The problem is that there are so many different religions. What is the right religion? What is true religion? The two most common ingredients in religions are rules and rituals. Some religions are essentially nothing more than a list of rules, dos and don 'ts, which a person must observe in order to be considered a faithful adherent of that religion, and thereby, right with the God of that religion. Two examples of rules-based religions are Islam and Judaism. Islam has its five pillars that must be observed.
Lord, that I was not born a woman.' With this at the very core of