Religion Behind The Conflicts example essay topic

Religion in Our Society: Everyday Ritual of Life In our time of progress and technological evolution, it is hard to imagine more powerful force, except nuclear weapon, maybe, to destroy the universe. However, humans invented machines and guns, became strong and defensive against each other, but not against their beliefs and morals. It is very easy to destroy a building if you have a rocket launcher, but it is much more energy in the crowd, united in fanatic desire to kill. To kill, because of different thinking and beliefs. On the other hand, to force religious practice will only raise hate and distrust rather that fanatism.

Religious conflict, needless to say, is presently a very pervasive feature of our international society, and is likely to remain so well into the 21st Century, unfortunately. Every now and then, people switch on their TVs and are greeted with news of religious violence: the Moslems fighting the Hindus in India and Indian-controlled Kashmir; the Christians and Moslems battling it out in Indonesia, the Philippines, Spain, the Sudan and Nigeria; the repression of the Buddhists, Falun Gong and other religious groups in communist China - to mention a few. As such, there is now an increasing number of people who think that religion is now much more than "the opium of the masses", that it is actually a destructive feature of the society. However, is it?

In spite of the above, we must not forget the immense positive role religion has played in our society, past and present. Religion has given people in this world hope and a future where there was aversion. It is worthwhile to notice that people are much more "into religion" in developing and underdeveloped Religion, page 2 countries than in advanced nations. These people, often in the throes of financial troubles, turn to religion as a source of fulfillment and sustenance. In addition, the basic ideals of all religions are, on the average, the same: do not kill, do not steal, do unto others, as you would have them do to you, honor your parents. Thus, we owe our social civility to religion because it has lain down in our hearts the basic rule of law, which is another foundation of government; every law and every constitution is based on these simple beliefs.

Several important social breakthroughs have been championed by religious leaders: such as Martin Luther King Jr. (a Baptist reverend), leading the fight for black civil rights, the fruits of which benefited all minorities; Mahatma Gandhi's successful fight for Indian independence from the British, wielding only the Hindu principle of ahimsa (civil disobedience). An even better example is that of Mother Theresa, Albanian by birth, who, despite her strong Christian affiliation, was able to successfully take care of millions of Hindu India's poor. Above all, religion has the capability to unit a people; unfortunately, as there are so many religions; it ends up dividing people. So what indeed accounts for the religious violence that has so characterized our dispensation? What aspect of religion could make a Palestinian youth jubilant holding high hands covered with the blood of an Israeli soldier? Put simply, it is religion plus politics.

Religion has the potential to do a world of good, but when it gets tangled in politics, it becomes another matter. In the days of old, there was often no real clear distinction between religion and government, and this accounts for the numerous religious wars and religious repression that was rampant at the time. These also set the groundwork for most of the religious conflicts we have today, in that it caused imbalances of religious groups everywhere. Religion, page 3 During the Middle Ages, religion was often an inherent part of government. This is reflected in the Four Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire (headed by the Pope who wielded enormous power) the primary waves of Islamic Jihad, and the growth of the Ottoman Empire, which caused serious religious imbalances especially in the Balkans. At birth, the United States, most of whose citizens were from Europe, took note of these and made a clear separation between church and state.

Today, most states have declared themselves as secular, yet there are still many instances for clashes to occur. The main difference between now and then is in the real and true motives. Then, it was largely religion behind the conflicts, but today it is not. Moreover, this one truth, which is hidden from many. That there is much more to religious conflicts today than mere die-hard fundamentalists on both sides, that behind all that noise is political greed, and a protracted struggle for power and resources. Once such conflicts begin, it is very hard to break its momentum.

Take any politician, who is running for executive office, for example, the president. He knows that there is a majority Christian population in the country. He also realizes that he can win the election if he appeals to this majority. Thus he pledges allegiance to them and swears to support their cause. In another model, politicians of the same religion gang up and form religious political parties, and there is destined to be big trouble if you have two or more of these in your country. A struggle for power between the two strongholds can lead to civil war, and it did in the Sudan.

A similar situation exists in Northern Ireland, where the Protestant Ulster Unionist Party and the Catholic Sinn Fein (Pogatchnik, Seattle Times) and its military wing, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) have been struggling for power (Walker, Times). Thus, there have been several confrontations between the Catholics and the Protestants, such that at present fences have been built to separate Catholic neighborhoods from Protestant ones. Even Religion, page 4 though it started as a struggle between two political houses, it has reached the stage where Protestants demand their right to do their traditional marches through Catholic neighborhoods, while Catholics, on the other hand would rather die than have that happen. As passions continue to burn, violence is inevitable. Sometimes it a struggle over resources that eventually leads to religious violence. Most times the resource that is the subject of contention is land.

For India and Pakistan, the subject of contention is Kashmir. And most of the conflict resides in the Indian-controlled Kashmir, because it just happens to be that India is Hindu, Pakistan is Moslem and the majority of people in Kashmir are Moslem. The Kashmiris on the Indian side, being Moslem, want to become part of Pakistan. Thus, a lot of fighting takes place in Indian-controlled Kashmir. For Israel and the Palestinians, the bone of contention is Jerusalem. The Jews were promised this land in their Holy Scriptures.

Palestinians have lived there ever since the Diaspora of the Jews in A.D. 70, and as they are Moslem, Jerusalem is one of the holy sites of their religion. Nationalism often has a heavy hand in the prolonged crisis in this case. Such conflicts never die down because no one is ready to give concessions to the other. They fear that if they back down in any way they will look weak. Thus the conflict continues. It is important to note that some of these conflicts have risen out of countries that used to be under dictators, or were communist.

Again, we are apt to dismiss them as purely religious. These peoples have been oppressed for so long that even after the dictators are gone, they feel a need for more rights and more power and a true identity of their own, through their politicians. Thus, nationalism grows. Nevertheless, as they search for their own space, they come across each other. Moreover, in cases where each ethnic tribe has its own religion (which is common), the passions of nationalism could explode into gigantic proportions.

This has been the case in post-Suharto Indonesia, whose nascent Religion, page 5 democracy has been undermined by separatist rebellions and fighting between Christians and Moslems. This is also true in the Philippines, the Balkans and Nigeria. All of the above, among others, are examples of underlying issues in religious conflicts. Of course, they can be much more complex than this. So why are we so apt to dismiss them are simple religious conflicts? It is largely because of the way the situation is presented to us.

The main reason for the imminent misconceptions about these situations is sue to the incomplete work of the media. Often a little more than vehicles of ignorance, they certainly fail to give complete coverage of these events. Because most times, they are not what they seem. One has to learn to look beneath the surface when observing these situations. Religious violence in the 21st Century is not just about people of different beliefs who hate each other's guts and show it. It is also about a struggle for power and resources; it is also about historical mistakes, among other things.

We should not now be convinced that religion promotes intolerance. Rather we should strive to keep religion as far away from politics as possible. Put simply, its like adding fuel to fire. Not only politic side effects captured my attention, but also education touched deep by religious pressure. Prayer in school has been the topic of the century, "Is it right to pray in school", stated a Texas teacher. The society as a whole believes it is wrong, but there are some people that think it would be a good addition to our school.

Maybe it will lower school violence. Will it? Our country has had violence before we created prayer in school. School shouting around the country is not a new thing anymore. Thirteen injured and two dead -- that is the result of tragedy, which took place in Santana High School in California. 15-years old Andy Williams was not affected by any religious thoughts, he was just 'mad at life, mad at students, mad at whole school' (Stern gold, Baltimore Sun).

Religion will probably make it Religion, page 6 worse. Sociologists have looked at this issue. They perceived it preposterous. Sociologists also think if we had prayer in school, might as well force us to read a Bible and say 'amen' every time a teacher finishes a sentence. Of course, there are always opposite views to the same problem. On one side, it is unconstitutional and a clear violation of our First Amendment.

Remember that amendment contains the 'Establishment Clause' which prohibits the government from 'establishing" religion. Simply put, secular institutions like the public schools should NOT be a forum for religious ritual or indoctrination. In addition, do a majority of people "support" school prayer? Often, those results depend on exactly how the question happens to be asked. Surveys suggest that most people reject the notion of mandatory prayer. Nevertheless, even if the overwhelming majority thought that prayer was, somehow, a "good idea", that does not make the practice ethically just or constitutional.

Prayer is not efficacious, therefore school prayer is obviously a form of religious indoctrination. It teaches children that there are invisible, supernatural entities, which can be implored and appeased through mumbling prayers or reading from holy books. Many people believe that just because there is a Bible, it means we have to take it seriously. If we wrote a book, put it in a time capsule, and send it back 4000 years ago, will it become a religion?

What about school initiated prayer? Before getting excited about "student initiated" prayer, ask yourself: "which students" are doing the initiating? Student populations often reflect the diversity of the culture. Some students may wish to pray in class or at official school ceremonies like graduation exercises or sporting events, but are they being fair to other students who may not wish to pray? Lately, there have been court cases involving this very question.

It is clear that even in areas such as Utah, where a school may have a high percentage of students from the same religious background, not all students feel comfortable with this bogus "student Religion, page 7 led" religious ritual. If you see a huge group of people praying will you join them? Over a decade ago, the Supreme Court struck down this type of proposal; legislation of this type often calls for the "moment of silence" to be used for "meditation or prayer. Besides, consider the declining number of hours that students are in school each year. Every "moment" should be used for useful and educational instruction, not meditating! The whole idea of this is: If there is a way to save a balance between ' mandatory' and ' volunteer', society should give it a shot.

Government must admit that religious beliefs are as private, sacred to individual, as Holy Bible, Torah, and Koran, and equivalent scriptures to religious groups. Religion in our social life is very light, almost invisible. Even those, who think of themselves as total atheists, are affected a little. Every time that someone sneezes you say 'Gob bless you,' not thinking of your religious preferences. It became a ritual for American Presidents to finish their speeches with those words. Even sport event articles will remember God time after time: during Superbowl victory or necrology to auto racer.

I would say that religion might disappear, but old sayings will live in the language for a long time. Therefore, religion influence is present in everyday life, but it effects it with different pressure..