Religion and Sectarianism
Sectarianism is the division, discrimination or hatred or arising from the main stream. They can be identified as subdivision within a group such as between different denominations of a religion or the fraction of a political movement.
Religious sectarianism is the subdivision of a group of religious personalities wherever the religious sectarianism competes religious sectarianism is found in varying forms and degree. In some areas religious sectarians now exist peacefully side by side for the most part, for example Protestant and Catholic Church in U.S.A.
In others some nominal Catholic and Protestant have been incomplete, for example, Northern Ireland. This conflict was condemned by most Christian. Within Islam, there has been conflict at various times between Sunnis and Shia, for example, Iraq and Pakistan.
Sects, denominations and Cults
The three concepts of sects, denominations and cults are useful for analyzing aspect of religious organization. However, they have to be applied with caution because they reflect especially Christian tradition.
A cult resembles sects but has different emphasis there focus is on individual experience. People don’t formally join a cult but rather follow special theories on behaviors. Members are usually allowed to maintain other religion connection.
A denomination is a sect which is cooled down and become an institutionalized body rather than an active protest group. Sects which survive over any period of time become denominations. Therefore, Calvinism and Methodist were sects during their early formation. But over the years, they have become more respectable now they are understood as denomination.
Sectarianism in Europe
Since the 17th century, there has been sectarian of varying intensity in Ireland. This religious sectarianism is bound up with nationalism due to the Irish immigration. These tensions (station) can be found in other region of the world including Scotland. In Catholic countries, Protestants have been named as heretics.
Religious Sectarianism in Islam.
The civil war in the Balkans which followed the brake up of Yugoslavia has been heavily affected with sectarianism. Croats and Slovenes have traditionally been Catholic. Serbs and Macedonians are eastern orthodox and most others are Albanian Muslims. Religious affiliation serves as a marker of identity in this conflict.
In Pakistan, there has been a history of sectarian, Violence and (unset) since the 1970 (1917). Although much of the violence may be attributed to non theological clashes over tribal lands and class disputed almost all relation between Shiyas and Sunni are peaceful. There exits a large degree of intermarriage between the two communities. Further, many prominent Shirs play an important political role in the country. However, violence between the two communities is often indentified (obtained or initiated) by extremes on both sides particularly in Pan Jab.
Iraq’s population of Shia people was persecuted during the president of Sadam husen. In turn, the Sunnis have complained of discrimination and human rights abused by Iraq. Shia majority government. This sectarianism has increased the level of immigration and internal displacement. Some people advocate and independent nation for the Shias of Iraq. The idea that Iraq could spread into Kurdistan in the north Iraq, in the center and Basra in the south the thinking is that if each community is busy nation they would not be attacking each other as they would be within a single country. Hindu dominant India was spread (split) and Muslim dominant Pakistan after a two trials. Malaysia was spread (split) into Malay dominant Malaysia and Chinese dominant Singapore.
Sectarianism in Lebanon was caused because of the political sharing (challenge) of power in 1943. Christians were given more power than the other groups because they were the majority. Then, although Taif people agreed to end the civil war, power is still divided along sects. Therefore, Lebanon’s religious divisions are extremely complicated. The country is made up by a multitude of religious grouping. The political system gives no room for inter-sectarian marriage and used (gives) no room for civil non-religious marriages.
Sectarianism also exists between Orthodox and Reform Jews. With Orthodox Jews often characterizing Reform Jew as being non-religion they disobey the Torah. They rarely attain Shul (religiously). They adobe some Christian style of worship. Reform Jews, on the other hand, often view the Orthodox as being intolerance of them and of other religion placing legalistic rule such as the observance of the Sabbath.
The outcome and settlement of world war second made the independent nations, the dominant system of action for managing and governing population. The most important factors are affecting livelihood that religion has a role in the political affair of a nation state are;
· The religious tradition that are present in the nation states, population,
· A nation state institutional and social organization.
The symbol, myth and ideology of a religious tradition are cultural resource that may affect politic whether a religious tradition has the capacity to affect politic depends on ethical and doctrinal component of its symbol, myth and ideology. Ethic and doctrine vary intense (term) of orientation to the affair of the everyday world. The existence to which adherences are expected to express their beliefs in the practical affair of a society and whether clans are made on politically control social and economic resource. Differences on those dimensions determine the livelihood that a religious tradition encourages political action.
For example, within protestant Christian tradition in the United Stage Pentecostals emphasized individual religious experience and behavior while many other sects tent to stress social action and reform. Pentecostals are less likely to be involved in the politic. Some religious traditions value withdrawal from the everyday world as a part to enlightenment. Others stress the methodical performance of ordinary task and jobs as a religious duties and calling Adherences of world rejecting tradition are look likely to be involved in politics than followers of world affirming tradition.
Claim on the resources of a society are major focus of political action by rejecting in principle the authority of any state, and thereby the mechanism of resource distribution that are found in government. Some religious traditions exclude themselves from ordinary politic. Jehova’s witnesses fit into this category. On the other hand, subject to constitutional and other contain that may be involved by national authority. The Roman Catholic Church has an interest in obtaining resources that are distributed through state action, Thereby implicating itself in politic.
Whether religion becomes a force in the international politic of a nation state depends in cult up on the extant of religion diversity in a population. However, it is seldom a direct cause of political action and conflict. Religion in combination with other property those properties include differences in language, race, partners of settlement and class. Religion inspires political function and conflict can occur when religious differences are correlated with differences in language and other social characteristic. If religious references are only weakly related to other significant division in a population, It is unlikely that religion will be implicated in the internal politics of a nation state.
What should we think about the relationship between religion and politics in today’s world? There is little doubt that there is a strong relationship between the two—religion and politics—given the actual strong hold that religion has on the world. But the important question here is what the relationship ought to be, not necessarily what it actually is. Religiously motivated terrorism has over the past couple of decades raised our consciousness so that we are now aware of the potential danger of horrific violence brought about when religious fundamentalism animates political action, on the part of both state and non-state actors. Conditions exist in which a dangerous proliferation of non-state and non-church actors has emerged on the world scene. We are also very concerned about state-sponsored religion in certain parts of the world as well. For example, we worry that the Iraqi constitution cannot separate itself from a religious foundation, just as we worry about the same reality in Iran.
But if we can worry about the influence of religion on politics in other parts of the world, why are we not similarly worried about the influence of religion on politics at home. We used to think about the relationship between church and state, and the debate used to be about whether or not they should be separated. With the advent of the Enlightenment, church and state were separated, at least in the West, and reason rather than religion suffused politics and political theory so much so that the sociologist Max Weber gave this kind of modernization the name of Occidental Rationalism. This debate over the separation between church and state has never been more relevant precisely because of the more dangerous forms of violence on the part of religiously motivated non-state actors who act for political goals while representing neither church nor state power. After all, those who flew airplanes into buildings were men of faith with a political agenda, but they were sponsored neither by a church nor by a state. The putative legitimacy of religiously motivated political action on the part of the state helps to legitimate the religiously motivated political action on the part of non-state actors. And so our acceptance of religion entering the political dimension of the state indirectly helps to legitimate religion entering the political motivation of non-state actors. This connection is analogous to the one Sam Harris makes in The End of Faith that our toleration of religiously motivated rationale on the part of religious moderates in politics helps to legitimate or at least empower the religiously motivated rationale on the part of religious extremists. We have an external threat, to be sure, but we also have an issue to deal with inside our borders as well.
So, we should also be concerned about the religious influence in the political arena at home. Religion’s influence on politics in America is so strong today that the question may no longer even be literally couched as the relationship between church and state, first because religion’s grasp far exceeds the institutional organization of any church, and second because not only does religion reach throughout state structures but also has its fingers into the internal and external non-state activities that cross boundaries of all types—sustained by a growing number of what we could call religionists without borders. Has the metaphor of the “wall of separation” been completely dismantled? Every branch of government falls under the influence of the religionists. For while no church as an institution has been established in the United States, religion has become embedded throughout the structures of the state, not only in the background culture but also in the public forum. While some may deny that this relationship amounts to establishment, it would be hard to deny that there is entanglement. In order to evaluate this relationship and then to establish what it should be, it may be helpful to look to the debate between the two philosophers on this issue, John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas—we could use some finer distinctions.
No comments:
Post a Comment