- 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, April 15, 2016
Blog Discussion Group Ten
Blog post due at 11:55pm on April 19 and comment due at 11:55pm on April 22.
Iran
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteReligions is a giant question that still stands till this very day. Not everyone full understands let alone devotes themselves completely to the ideal power of one or multiple gods. Granted religion is a means of motivation and “transportation” for many people around the world and serves as a soul purpose towards a nation, but the reality of it is religion is considered a major road block in today’s day and age. Maybe back during the biblical era when people truly believed in miracles, religion was the way of life but with a growing nation with a constantly growing population religion gets lost along the way, thus losing its influence on many. Look at Iran and Syria, they live by the rules of Islamic Law (Sharia) that is based all around the Qu ‘ran,. Their nation years ago fell into a revolution because people are wanting to stand up and change the laws, women are wanting to rewrite the way their viewed and treated. Now take a look at the United States, we’re considered a nation of free religion where anyone and everyone can study and abide by whatever they please, but it’s mainly because religion has been absent from any state enforced laws and regulations. Back in the 1800s we disconnected church and state which ended in our favor! I believe religious identity does not sustain secular state and serve developmental goals, I believe it’s a means of a mask for people to hide behind and others to use to their control. Religion is supposed to be sacred and viewed differently in the eyes of every individual, not used to rally a nation together because they happen to share one common interest.
I agree with your position. Religion is definitely a mask that people hide behind and its also a vehicle used to play on peoples' emotions. Religion should be sacred and never used to benefit politics but sadly this is done all over the world. I believe that religion and politics should be kept separate.
DeleteI would have to say I agree. Unfortunately people try to use religion in policies to dictate a moral ground, but people who identify with different religions in the US can still have the same moral ground. At the same time they can perverse those religious views into discriminating against people. This example highlights how religion can interfere and inhibit progress for their country to develop. This doesn't mean that they lose their religion or their history. In few countries have they been able to still use religion as the basis for their state institutions and sustain it long term. Most of the time it leads to unrest, human rights violations, and revolutions from it's own citizens. This does not provide long term stability.
ReplyDelete•What parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteAn interesting parallel that can be made is that both the revolutions were made by men who were previously exiled from their countries. They either led or started the revolutions from far away before being invited back or smuggled back into the country. They each had the growing support of the citizens of their countries to contribute to the revolutions. This says a lot about how unhappy the people of each country was with the current leaders. The current leaders in each country had strong violent rule over their country and this led to the uprising of the people.
One of the interesting differences though is how during the revolution in Russia the economy was suffering and there were food shortages which is a normal recipe for revolution. Yet in Iran their nation was doing well and the economy was prosperous, but they wanted a more religious rule. This shows that even though there are parallels of the uprising from the citizens it was for very different reasons.
Heather I agree with you and like the similarities you listed of the two revolutions. One thing ironic worthy of mentioning that differs the two revolutions is the fact that the Russian revolution was a "marxist" revolution and the Shah's fear of socialism and marxism is what caused him to overlook the threat put forth by Koemeini and his followers. The islamic revolution simply established an authoritarian theocracy, and not a marxist utopia.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteI think that religious identity could sustain secular state institutions but I do not think that it would be easy. Religion does not determine the qualification of a person in a position in government, however, many people have a hard time separating the two especially in countries that rely so heavily on religion. For instance, presidential nominee Bernie Sanders has been rumored to be an Atheist. Because of his lack of religion, many people do not believe that he would make a great candidate for President, but this has nothing to do with his qualifications to run the country. He could have great ideals and policies, but several people will not follow him because of this decision. Another example of this is the several presidents of Nigeria. Many presidents are elected based on religion and several of the issues in Nigeria are caused by Muslims fighting with Christians.
Secular state institutions could cause an issue with developmental plans depending those plans. For instance, developments of churches or other religious structures may be an issue if the official can work with the religious parties in order to complete the plans.
Tanesha I agree with you, especially with the fact that religious dispute is still alive. Due to the conflict amongst religions it can cause a drastic alteration in nearly all political decisions if especially entwined with politics. In Israel their struggle to grab control of their government because of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict that's been going on for centuries, causing terror through the streets of Gaza during horrid raids.Religion in retrospect keeps a nation form growing and reaching it's true potential.
ReplyDeleteI defininitley agree with you guys on this subject. As I said in my post, I believe religion is played as too much of a factor in politics. I also agree with Darby's response in talking about Israel and all the conflicts they are going through with the Palestinian situation. Religion plays all too much of a factor I believe in the country and making the country better as a whole. I believe religion is talked about too much and focused so much attention on that it takes away from things that are more important.
DeleteWhat parallel's can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteThe Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and the Iranian revolution of 1979 are two examples of important and sudden changes which has significantly altered the nature of the state and society to this very day. Even though both revolutions might come off as very different in the sense that in Russia the Tsarist monarchy was replaced by socialism and in Iran political Islam was put forth. However, the two revolutions can be seen as being similar to one another due to the fact that the both of the "people" and society in the revolutions displayed opposition towards Western-inspired modernization that both the Russian Tsars and Iranian Shahs were advocates of. So overall, both revolutions had people that shared a similar outlook regarding "reform".
I agree with most of the parallels you have drawn between the two revolutions, but I think there is a significant difference in the draw away from "Western-inspired modernization" between the two. For Iran, this is completely true, as the Islamist faction revolted almost as a direct response to increased Westernization; however I would argue the Bolshevik Revolution lead to increased modernization (however, not necessarily in the "Western value" idea of it) in the Russian state, as compared to feudal regime and Mercantilist policies of the regime prior.
Deleten what ways can the global context influence Iran’s development from this point forward?
ReplyDeleteIn 1997 Iran elected Khatami president of Islamic Republic and he was reelected in 2001 by an increase majority, he had promised like any other President of any other country to get things done, but wasnt, so he promised to create for Irana more civil society and improve the country sick economy. He promised to help with freedom of expression, women's rights, the rule of law among other things going wrong with the country. I believe if like the othercountry's work with a global economy it can work people believe, if they dont like current regine then it suppose to work, and they dont realize you dont work with that government, then it is going to be the same as before. In 2005 Ahmadinejad who was the mayor of Tehran won 60 percent of the vote and also made a promise and I say how surprising, to reduce poverty promote social justice and end corruption. There goes that oil thing again, just like in our group project when we was talking about Nigeria, I believe every country should have its own oil well and not count on other countrys unless they really need to. To stop this going back and forth arguing over oil. Stop counting on other places for their supplies if a certain country runs out oh well But this should solve. I believe Iran is to m4ean to help any other nation, but wants help themselves.
In what ways can the global context influence Iran’s development from this point forward?
ReplyDeleteIn one sense, the global context will completely influence Iran's development going forward. The world today is incredibly globalized and Iran's best products are those used for export (e.g. oil and fruits [Kesselman 592]), and not products that can sustain the country the current isolation-esc state. It will have to work and rely on other countries (unless drastic changes in its economy occur) in order to both survive and remain a relative power in the Middle East.
In other ways, the current and previous sanctions on Iran have held back the economy and state in drastic ways-- drastic ways as a result of its place in a global context, and its pursuit of production of nuclear arms.
Oppositely, Iran could accept these sanctions, isolate itself completely from the world and continue to pursue to nuclear arms, but this most likely would result a larger arms race in the region, intervention by the global community in the state's affairs, and the destruction the Iranian economy in its current sense.
Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteAs we have talked about before. Religion is a huge deal in the world we live in today and it has always been a big deal for a lot of people in the world dating back to the early days. People associate candidates and presidents along with there religion. I really wish religion wouldn't play a role in politics. I think it is overblown to some sort because just because somebody believes something that is religious doesn't mean you have to like or dislike them. I think people should solely pay attention to the political views that the candidates have. It some different countries, presidents are elected mainly on there religious beliefs!
I don't think religious identity can sustain secular state inceptions and serve developmental goals. Iran is pretty much islam in a whole. There religious beliefs play into almost all of the decisions they make as a country so its interesting to see what religion can really do to different countries.
It would seem as though it's easier in some countries than others to set religion to the side in order to make decisions best for the country. Based on the presentation from last night Iran is a country with a large mixture of religions, with Islam being the more prominent one. I wonder how citizens of Iran that immigrate to the US other or democratic countries with no state religion feel after their transition.
DeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteIn the right hands, I believe that religion can do great things for a secular state and, indeed, serve developmental goals. In the wrong hands, however, religion produces violent fanaticism, the likes of which can tear apart at the very fabric of a society. Now, obviously balancing the powers of the Church (Church being used as a general term for powerful religious institutions) and the powers of the State would be a delicate game, from which power plays and political intrigues would inevitably arise from, but to do so would be to placate both those who are religious, and also those who are not. This may be a touch hyperbolic, but I think a great example of a civilization/state that managed to balance both religious and secular institutions would be Ancient Egypt, a nation invariably defined by its scientific and architectural marvels, yet one that was also steeped heavily into religion. So, with that example in mind, I do believe that religious identity can sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals--but there has to be a system in place that limits the powers each one has, and prevents one from encroaching upon the other's territory.
I agree with you completely. The main thing that would have to happen is controlling the powers of each group. religion can be an extremely deadly way of ruling. Examples from Iran would be the mass executions they hold just for the simple fact of difference in religion. If you want to run a country with religion being a high point then you would have to know when to put your religious views aside when someone with different beliefs shows up. So yes it can work but you can't be biased and have to have a open mind even if you are pro one religion over another.
DeleteWhat parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteThere are some parallels between the Bolshovik revolution in Russia and the Islamic revolution in Iran. In both situations the respective governments were collapsing and the leaders (Czar Nicholas of Russia and the Shah of Iran) had to flee the country and seek exile elsewhere. Both countries had leaders who had been exiled (Lenin for Russia and Khomeini for Iran) return to take power of their countries. Finally Iran’s current quest for a nuclear bomb is similar to Russia’s quest for he same following Lenin’s revolution.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteI believe it can depending how you go about it. Religion in itself is a very touchy subject and I believe shouldn't be used in ruling a country. Iran on the other hand says the "constitution guarantees basic rights to religious minorities as well as individual citizens...."(Kesselman pg. 611) Even though they give these rights to minorities in religion some religions aren't accepted in Iran. Baha'is are an example of a group of people in Iran with no rights. Iran has executed some of their leaders saying they were "spies" and "heretics." Iran is still developing as a country but they are not allowing freedom of other religions as they do it. They are allowing their religious views to guide them in their decisions. America has managed for the most part to keep religion out of their decisions when it comes to the country and has managed to develop past it. People might bring religion up when it comes to politics and with laws but over all religion doesn't decide what laws are made.
Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that religious institutions can serve a secular state and developmental goals by building a partnership. I believe one of the challenges that would be faced is that most people think/believe their particular religion is superior to other beliefs, pushing this type of agenda would limit the ability of the religious group to serve in any capacity. In areas or country's in which religion is used as a type of punishment or governing body, rather than a choice or the cability of those groups will be disabled from being able to serve anyone that is not the same belief. Religion becomes a source of contention across many groups and has been the cause of many wars. Instead of individuals using their religion drive their support many times it is being used to drive division.
I definitely agree with you, in terms of there needing to be a partnership before any real progress can be made. I also see your point about how people tend to view their own religious beliefs as being superior to other people's. Overall, great argument!
DeleteI dont agree with you Laura we are talking about Iran and I dont think they can have relations of any kind with anyone. Only because of the fact, theyre under dictatorship if anything they need other countries to help them out. I think if they help other countries and get it together and stand on their own, then maybe we can talk and I can agree with you. Especially religion because of until they allow Christians to worship freely then I will also agree.
DeleteI agree with you for sure that religion plays a major role. Religion is a major issue for many country's in that sense. It's the main cause of death if you really think about it. That's how most wars begin. There definitely needs to be some sort of partnership agreement.
Deleteyou have a nice piece there. I thknk you can really make money online being a good writer
ReplyDelete