Tag Archives: politics

Politics & Religion – blurred lines?

What is the difference between religion and politics? Before, I have arrogantly called them “separate” but “intertwined” without caring to give a reason for my opinion. But what are they, and how do you succeed to divide the two? I’ll admit if I knew all the answers to that I would be a lot wiser. So these are just some quick thoughts I’ve made on the issue.

How to define religion? If you define it too narrowly, you exclude some that we suspect are religions. Yet if you define it too broadly, you include some that we suspect are not (like ideologies and philosophies). I suppose we all have our own ideas as to what religion really is, so I’ll leave it at that. Politics however can be more easily defined as a process where groups of people make collective decisions.

Spiritual and mundane matters seem to run into each other fairly frequently. When political decisions are made where moral issues have to be considered, religion often comes into the picture. Even within religious groups political decisions will sometimes have to be made. Organized religions may wield significant political power. The Pope may have been the most powerful political figure in Europe during the Middle Ages. Today the War on Terrorism is inaccurately viewed by many as though it was a religious war between Christianity and Islam.

I can’t seem to explain it well, but there is a reason why I think we ought to at least try to separate religion from politics. Personally, I think it is absurd to, for instance, try to draw a line between things like a “free market” and “Christian values”. How do these have anything to do with each other? Another thing is how the West automatically leaps in support of the non-religious political faction in countries like Egypt even if it is rotten. The only reason we do this seems to be because we have already automatically assumed that the Muslim alternative must be even worse. I think that this has been done many times, maybe without even considering the actual political differences. Not only is it hypocritically un-democratic, but I think it highlights a lot of misguided prejudices. For instance, we think that “secular” must always be more gender equal than Islam, and we also tend to think that Islam is less compatible with democracy than Christianity. But why should it be?

Though I don’t think I’ve exactly managed to illuminate the issue much, I’d like to at least bring up the question. What are your thoughts on this?

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Religion & Ideology

The Easy Guide to Why the Six-Party Talks are Not Working

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 21 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–> <!–[endif]–>

Personally, I strongly believe in diplomacy as the best, and perhaps only way to resolve the North Korean as well as many other problems. But for that to work, we really need to start thinking realistically about the offers that we present to the other side. Basically, the only offer that has been made to the North Koreans has been a huge aid deal, including food and energy assistance, provided in exchange for them to give up their nuclear enrichment facilities. Like that, for 20+ years, the only debate in the US concerns how we can get them to disarm and through that period the North Koreans have merely scoffed at every one of our attempts to get them to do so.

The suggested answers to this conundrum vary between saying that we need to encourage, bribe, threaten, smooth-talk or harass them into doing as we say. Recently, it has even been proposed to just push to persuade the Chinese to persuade them. All proposed answers are equally ridiculous except the last one, which is even more hysterical, and which shows the growing despair and resignation in the US think-tanks.

There is no reason to believe that anyone could be successful in persuading the North Koreans with the current strategy. That is true for China just as much as it is for the US. In a way, the attempts so far resemble a fly crashing into a window again and again. Attempting to fly towards the clear sky, it will not realize that there is a wall of translucent glass blocking its way; furthermore that it is also going to be there the next time it tries. If one thinks about it clearly, there are two major reasons why the current strategy, which the Six Party Talks have been just a continuation of, have failed. A; we are forgetting who we are talking to, and B; we are forgetting what we are trying to get them to do.

A: We tend to reason since the famine of the 1990s that North Korea would jump at the offer of food. But this would be unreasonable even if the majority of North Koreans weren’t prepared to go through suffering for the sake of the country. However, we are not sitting across the table from a representative cross-section of North Korean society. The people we are negotiating with are not farmers or construction workers. We are sitting across from the people who rule the country, and just to pronounce the obvious – they are not starving. It is absurd to expect them to come waving a white flag just because their enemies are saying they are willing to feed them.

B: To the people we are negotiating with it makes absolutely no political sense to even consider any offers that have been made to them so far. Does anybody realize what it is exactly that we are asking them to do? If North Korea disarms and gives in to demands, it has absolutely no way left to legitimize itself. Economically it is many decades behind South Korea, and soft power alone is never enough to make a regime survive. What we are really asking then, is for a group of people who enjoy enormous power and privilege to give up all that they have and all that they have built since 1948.

 

To put it simply; what we are offering is too little, and what we are demanding is too much. That is the reason why they wouldn’t flinch even if we offered them a pink elephant with Kim Jong-Il’s glasses on.

Leave a comment

Filed under East Asia, The Hermit Kingdom