Does religion play a big part in world politics?

by sleepy 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Gopher

    Muslims vs. Hindus in the Indian sub-continent.

    Protestants vs. Catholics in Northern Ireland.

    Jews vs. Arabs in the Middle East.

    Catholics vs. Muslims in the "Crusades".

    Muslims vs. the mainly-Christian Westerners in the last 15 years.

    And that list could go on and on. Whatever conflict between people there is, "GOD" is invoked by both sides to fight to the death.

  • BrendaCloutier

    Of course politics are influenced by religion, just look at Isreal vs Palestine (the wall reeks of Warsaw Ghetto), al Quada vs USA, even Dubya's "vision" that god wants him in the whitehouse has given him the idea he is the supreme authority...

    The Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of the new continents and their inhabitants, all for political power and financial wealth in the name of gawd. And during these times (the dark ages and a little more recent) religion and it's "servants" had more power than the monarchies and other political leaders.

    Even our "democracy" has it's founding in religious principals. Although, not all religious principals are bad...


  • Satanus

    Communism is a religion. Marxism is a religion. Even though there is no diety involved, there is extreme idealism involved. Imaginary god, or imagination imposed onto a society, not much difference.

    Many marxist dogmas are piped into every american home. Since they are not seen as religious doctrines, they come in under the radar. People should read up on marxism.


  • Golf

    Yes, without question!

    Guest 77

  • Gopher
    ...people should read up on marxism.

    I religiously watch Marx Brothers movies! I'm a Marxist in the sense that I am a big fan of Groucho, Chico and Harpo. If more people took the Groucho Marxist view of the world, it'd be a lot more relaxed.

  • blondie

    Pat Robertson: God Says Bush Will Win in 2004

    Friday, January 02, 2004

    NORFOLK, Va. ? Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson ( search ) said Friday he believes God has told him President Bush will be re-elected in a "blowout" in November.

    "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," Robertson said on his "700 Club" program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network ( search ), which he founded. "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way."

    Robertson told viewers he spent several days in prayer at the end of 2003.

    "The Lord has just blessed him," Robertson said of Bush. "I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."

    The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, a frequent Robertson critic and executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State ( search ), said he had a prediction of his own: "Pat Robertson in 2004 will continue to use his multimillion broadcasting empire to promote George Bush and other Republican candidates."

    In a reference to Bush's political adviser, Lynn said, "Maybe Pat got a message from Karl Rove ( search ) and thought it was from God."

  • DanTheMan

    With the majority of people in the world including politicians being religious to varying degrees, how could religion not play a big part in world politics? The two are inexorably intertwined, for better or worse. Atheism, though not a religion, in my mind represents an idealogical outlook that can be taken to the same bloody extremes as Xtian or Muslim fundamentalism; witness atheist fanatic Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, or Stalin who presided over a USSR that killed more Russians than Nazis killed Jews.

    "The Lord has just blessed him," Robertson said of Bush. "I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."

    This is exactly why I'll be voting for Mr. K come November, these arrogant fanatics need to be put in their place sooooo bad.

    The question that haunts my mind is - is man's inclination towards fanaticism an evolutionary adaptation that ultimately will result in the failure of the species? The future doesn't need us.

  • Simon

    I think it does.

    This rediculous notion that Israeilis have some god-given right to a certain plot of land and the blind-backing they get frmo the USA is at the crux of most conflicts today.

    Add some dumb ideas that God is working through George Bush (hey, I guess he makes a good choice as a ventriloquists dummy) and voila ... everything you need for conflict and mayhem.

    I still can't believe that the USA is so willing to be a patsy of Israel and used so much. Maybe it's just the rest-of-the-world that sees it but from where we're standing, you are getting used and I cannot see what America get's out of it. You have people in high office who are not working for the US interests, that's for sure.

  • blondie

    I was wondering, who was behind Israel being set up as a nation in the first place? So I did some checking on Google.

    What was the British Mandate for Palestine set up by the League of Nations in 1920?

    The preamble to the League of Nations document that establishes the British Mandate for the territory of Palestine states the purposes as follows:

      Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
      Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty [the Balfour Declaration], and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
      Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
    Balfour Declaration of 1917

    The Balfour Declaration was a letter of

    November 2 . 1917 British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild October 31 , 1917, that the United Kingdom supported Zionist plans for a Jewish national home in Palestine , though nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there.

    The declaration read as follows:

    Foreign Office November 2nd, 1917

    Dear Lord Rothschild,

    I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

    :"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

    I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

    Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour

    At the end of World War II there were over 600,000 displaced Jews in Europe. Where would they go?

    In 1947, Britain turned the whole mess back to the UN which then:

    The UN voited to partition Palestine and Israel.

    Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting:

    In favour: 33

    Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

    Against: 13

    Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

    Abstained: 10

    Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

    When the British Mandate expired in May 1948, Israel proclaimed their independence, war ensued. When that was somewhat settled down, Israel was accepted into the UN in 1949.,
  • stillajwexelder

    I wonder how big apart there religious outlook plays in the decisions they make. So maybe religious outlook is good in politics. But than look at Israel a country that bases its existence on the first few chapters of the Bible. If other countries leaders were atheist how would that affect their attitude toward Israel.If Israel lost this support would the Arab nations fundamentalist factions view Israel?s allies so badly and pose such a threat to world peace?

    There are many books I can direct you to - but in Islam and the Arab world it is obvious we are wasting our time in trying to "give them" democracy" . Isalm is politics in the Arab world - you can not possibly seperate the two. They just do not understand the USA how church and state are seperate. That can not happen in Islam - even Turkey has not wholly done it

    So your question "Does religion play a big part in world politics?" OF COURSE IT DOES AND WILL DO FOR A LONG TIME

Share this