Every aspect of a politician’s life is magnified and critiqued, especially during an election. When people think of Mitt Romney, the word Mormon might come to mind. Some believe that Romney’s LDS faith is one of his defining values, while others may ignore his religion and personal life, and look purely at his political ideologies.
The fact is, personal experiences and beliefs (not necessarily religion), will always influence a person’s decision making. While Romney may be the first Mormon presidential candidate, he certainly is not the first man of God. Going back to the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln spoke of the “nation under God”. Many presidents incorporate the idea of God into their speeches, without narrowing down to a particular religion. Whether it is Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, etc., the unity of faith in a higher power seems to be more important than a single denomination.
The United States is fundamentally Christian, but I feel that people today are much more accepting when it comes to many ideologies. Americans are able to identify, for the most part, what makes a good politician for their nation, rather than a good pastor. Religion may influence his decisions, but Romney is clearly intelligent and has used much more than the ideas of Joseph Smith to achieve the status of a presidential candidate. While religion is important to many, it is a small detail that is overshadowed by political fundamentals. Romney is looking to get a job as a politician, not a minister.
Legal systems worldwide have encompassed freedom as a human right through a colorful array of channels to invoke a sense of identity and free expression among the masses. The secular states of the West promote freedom of rights, freedom of art and freedom of religion. The recent anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” has ignited protests across the Muslim world, resulting in several deaths including a US ambassador in Libya. The creator of the video was a Coptic Egyptian with a US citizenship. According to an article translated from German by Paul Cohen, Muslim protests show limits of free speech. Critics argue in some Islamic countries there is a blurring of the differences between religion and politics. The offensive portrayal of the Islamic prophet has caused great political damage. Politicians argue the west is losing credit that it gained from its opposition to dictators such as Libya’s Gadhafi and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. Was this act of free speech a blatant attack on the Islamic religion to deliberately provoke global unrest, or an attempt to shine a negative light on the faith to steer people away from it such as Jakob Wilhelm Hauer sought to move Germany away from Christianity during the Third Reich. The article states the ambassador was killed by Radical Islamists but he also died for the freedom of the Christian agitators. There are laws in some countries that deem blasphemy a crime but little of this legislation is effective. If those laws are not advocated the fine line between religion and politics diminishes.
Israeli fighter planes were scrambled to intercept an unmanned aircraft that ventured into restricted Israeli airspace on Saturday October 6th. Hezbollah has claimed responsibility and also put forth the threat that they have “more surprises and would not hesitate to use them in any future war with Israel.” The aircraft was reported as being made in Iran, a fundamental enemy of the state of Israel, before being assembled by Hezbollah in Lebanon. This event is greatly magnified by the fact that Iran is suspected of supporting many Islamic terrorist organizations while simultaneously developing its own nuclear technology. The threat of war in the region is becoming more real every day with events like this reinforcing the image of Islamic militant groups (such as Hezbollah) as being real and dangerous threats to the Jewish state of Israel. Although it is said that this drone was not equipped with weapons, I believe it is only a matter of time before armed drones can and will be sent into Israel. This event is significant because it proves Iran’s continued anti-Semitic views, which leads me to believe that Israel will execute a preemptive military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities sometime after this year’s U.S. presidential election. The political climate of the region is hard for me to comprehend because I have been raised in a liberal secular society; however it is important to realize that in countries like Israel and Iran politics is just one branch of the religion that shapes their lives and worldviews. Although the event of a drone being flown into Israel seems rather insignificant to us as Canadians, news such as this raises big questions about the responsibility of Canadians (and the rest of the world) to ensure that a destructive, possibly nuclear war never comes to fruition anywhere on the planet.
This news story tells the tale of two brothers from Tripoli, Libya, and their relationship to America and Al Qaeda. In an interview the eldest and only living brother, Abdel Wahab Mohamed Qaid, explains his Brother’s reasons for becoming apart of Jihad against the West, and his own reasons for not. In the end both brothers disagreed with the tendency for Americans to perceive every Islamic militant as being apart of Al Qaeda and a threat to the West. Qaid argues that this is simply not true. While the article presents a necessary perspective that is often silenced or forgotten in the war on terrorism, it also demonstrates that the line which separates religion from politics is not always found. For the youngest brother, Abu Yahya, what was first a political fight against dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, became a political war infused with religion against the West. Abu Yahya became his own weapon when he “joined the global jihad against the West”. But was he partaking in a religious or political war? The Muslim brothers interpret (have interpreted) their world through the words written in the Qur’an and therefore it isn’t one or the other. One could argue that their actions are not so much solely religious or political as they are a reality comprising of both. Perhaps the American’s reaction towards any found Islamic militant is a response to such a reality because the Americans fear that these men act politically as religious fundamentalists, which is contrary to the American way. Every Muslim, especially the militant ones, become a threat because one fails to understand that although there often is no distinguishable separation between the Muslim religion and politics, not every Muslim (actually very few) is acting out against the West. One forgets that each person despite their religion still has their own lens with which they perceive the world. This would account for the various ideologies which include political views, that were and are active among the various Islamic militant groups or individuals, and which were ignorantly ignored. As well, one forgets the ideologies of the American’s themselves which fueled the imprisonment of many Muslim men, including Abu Yahya.
Pakistan has recently been the host of a violent, controversial act that is believed, by the nation’s religious officials, to have been in abidance with Shari’ah Law. It is understood that if a country’s dominant religion is Islam, the Muslims are obligated to enact Shari’ah law. It is viewed that one who wholeheartedly believes in the Holy Quran must accept that the Book comprehensively defines every area of human activity and behaviour. However, much of the religion and how one goes about conducting their religious actions is based on interpretation. Therefore, it is hypocritical to enact a religious law in a nation where religious differences are visible. Although Pakistan is predominantly Sunni Muslim, there are vast Shi’a, Ahmadi, Ismaili, Christian, and Sikh minorities. Integrating such an idea into a government infrastructure, political and religious conflicts would be definite; all laws would be attributed to God’s will, yet contradict each other diametrically. Daily, innocent children are killed, the blood of countless civilians is shed, and schools and hospitals are attacked. To label any of those inhumane acts as Islamic law is profoundly wrong and misguided. It is unfortunate that Islamic values, at times, are interpreted in the most violent, and barbaric of ways. Malala Yusofzai was only 14 years old when she was shot outside of her school in the Taliban ruled, northern Pakistan. There are several chapters within the Quran that encourage education, the liberation of women, and prohibit against any form of violence towards them. The Taliban often manipulate Quranic verses to satisfy their personal violent, illiberal, and fundamentalist ideologies. Is it justifiable, under Islamic law, to commit such heinous crimes against humanity?