EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS PROPENESS OF RELIGION TO PROMOTE VIOLENCE. This narrative is widely accepted in Western nations. It serves as the foundation for many of our institutions and laws, including restrictions on the exercise of religion in public and initiatives to advance democracy in the Middle East.
That conventional wisdom will be contested in this article, but not in the manner typically used by those who identify as religious. These individuals occasionally assert that economic and political factors, not religious ones, are the proper drivers of alleged religious violence. Others will counter that those who commit violent acts are inherently not religious.
First of all, it is hard to distinguish between religious and economic, and political objectives in a way that makes them free from violence. How could one, for instance, distinguish between religion and politics in Islam when Muslims themselves do not do so? Second, it's possible that the Crusaders misrepresented the real teachings of Jesus, but this does not absolve Christianity of all blame.
Christianity is not simply a body of doctrines, but a historical lived experience that is embodied and developed by Christians' outward behaviors that can be observed with the naked eye. I don't intend to absolve Christianity, Islam, or any other religion from critical examination. Christianity, Islam, and other religions can and do contribute to violence under specific circumstances.
Politics and religion share the same objective:
that is, to gain political influence and use it to further their objectives. However, they use various strategies to accomplish this goal. While politics uses scheming, diplomacy, and attempts to win public opinion either democratically, if the system permits it, or usurps power with the aid of the army, if the society is underdeveloped and backward, religion mobilizes the religious sensibilities of people to gain their support to seize power.
Wajid Khan shares, As a result, during a power struggle, both politics and religion try to discredit one another. If religion has political sway, it wants to use it to further a heavenly purpose. It asserts that because it has divine authority, it is on a sacred mission to transform society with the help of the divine.
Contrarily, politics, which lacks any intrinsic worth, bases its decisions on societal needs and demands, forcing changes to the legal code and political system as a result. Candian politician Wajid khan analysis, A fundamental distinction between the two perspectives on religion and politics is as follows:
Three historical paradigms of religion and politics exist.
When politics and religion band together to seize control of the government. The term "integration and sharing model" is used.
In the second paradigm, politics utilize religion for its purposes after subduing and dominating it. According to this approach, politics takes precedence over religion.
In the third scenario, W
2. Politics and religion share the
same objective:
that is, to gain political influence and use it to further
their objectives. However, they use various strategies
to accomplish this goal. While politics uses scheming,
diplomacy,
3. Three historical paradigms of
religion and politics exist.
When politics and religion band together to seize
control of the government. The term "integration
and sharing model" is used.
4. In the third scenario, Wajid Khan Mp discusses
both parties' clash, which ultimately results in
their separation. They are depicted as rivals in
this concept and engage in conflict over
dominance.
