Religon

This week we as a class took a religious quiz. Although collectively we were able to ace it, we were also informed that to do this is an extreme rarity, and that the majority of Americans are actually not very knowledgeable on both their religion and religion as a whole. The most interesting part of this segment was that the people who score the highest on religious test are actually atheists.

The biggest problem I have with religion in today world, specifically in todays politics is the hypocrisy and those it is used by. For instance, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and highly popular within the G.O.P during the 90s has stated he is opposed to gay marriage because it ruins the sanctity of marriage. However, this statement is coming from a person that not only been married three times but has also be accused of adultery during two of them. Examples of instances such as these given by people that still wish to be taken seriously goes on and on. Americans will point constantly to the separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution, however religion still seems to be able to find a way to get into our laws. Currently the issue at hand is how southern states are trying to get around the LBGTQ Supreme Court ruling that grants homosexuals the right to marry. This again create hypocrisy, as they are rejecting an issue, which is mentioned in a total of four verses out of around 30 thousand throughout the bible, that leads to the inequality of others. For a religion that promotes and insists on following a supposed “loving god” on top of have faith in him enough to believe where you are and what is happening to you is all part of his plan for you, it absolutely has double standards. 

The sad truth of the matter is, I believe, is that if the U.S had no knowledge of the bible or any religion and another country were to rule completely and solely in accordance with the bible, we would view that country very negatively. A country that must stick to the same principles without change or question and discourages those that attempt to would not be a strong, much less a free, country. Yet an uncomfortable portion of Americans still instate on it having merit in the laws that govern our nation. It is not at all a problem to be religious, however it is a problem to force those views on others, in addition to rejecting discussion and compromise on the basis of how you read the bible. What makes this even worse is that as we were informed, the majority of Americans don’t even understand religion to the extent that they think they do. This means that the reasons they are arguing in favor for it are at best bias and at worst outright false. This misinformation about religion among the majority of Americans is why a separation between church and state is imperative and why religious arguments against or for laws are almost always invalid due to there hypocrisy.  

Syria Reflection

The thing that stood out to me above all else when learning about Syria is how hard it is to break the cycle. What I mean by "the cycle" is oppressive governments in third world or Middle Eastern countries, and how they stay this way for decades on end. 

Although things are undoubtedly terrible in Syria currently, the countries modern history has not been optimistic either. Prior to Bashar al-Assad and the problems he has been responsible for, his father governed the country for multiple decades. Not only did he never relinquish power, showing not only his but the countries true color as a government, but also under his rule the country faced an oppression regime. Although it was not nearly as bad as how the countries currently stands, the continues state under the dictator saw restrictions on many rights. 

Following Bashar’s brothers death and his subsequent accession to the throne, there was a brief period of optimism for the country and the restricted rights of its citizens. However, this hope would be short lived, as al-Assad would soon return to his fathers oppressive ways. I don’t believe it was ever a question of “could he/the government just try harder” in term of establishing a long term change but more a question of how long was this facade going to last. It would be much to bold too assume the son of someone that had produced the type of results Bashar’s father had to be much different. His performance should also not come as a surprised due to the fact that as soon as his brother died, he was tapped and therefore expected to one day take the throne, qualifications and all other standards that actually mattered aside. The worst of it all perhaps, is that despite not only constant pressure from world leaders to step down after his country broke out in civil war on top of proof numinous orders he gave broke international laws, there does not seem to be an end in sight. 

Syria is one of many countries that has faced continuous problems such as these in the past few decades. With leadership being passed down, contested in ridged elections, or some other undemocratic form, it becomes extremely difficult for countries to break the cycle. As we have seen in recent years, the only way this cycle is usually broken is through some dramatic action. Although this might possibly be successful, it will undoubtedly result in many lives lost, thousands of people jailed, almost all rights stripped away, and ultimately put citizens of the given nation through months, if not years, of hell. Even when this does not happen, such as outside intervention, citizens are still forced to endure hardships between their government and the foreign country for extended periods of time. Comparatively, even though this would often be the better choice of the two, it still is no easy task to endure. This is the true tragedy Syria, and many countries around the world like it, are faced with. 

Trust Issues

What worries me most when learning about the recent state of media in Egypt and Tunisia is the prior and now current lack of trust. Although this could be viewed as ignorant, with large amounts of people losing their lives and many more being jailed during this time period, I believe the lack of trust in the government and media is more detrimental to both societies in the long term than both the latter are in the short term.  

The first reason for this is that it is borderline impossible to mend trust between a government and its people. For instance, it could be suggested that taking all the people that were in power out, or replacing all those currently holding office will solve this problem. In theory with starting over, trust would be established as those that were deemed untrustworthy are no longer in a position to be. However in reality this would almost never be the case. The face of an oppressive regime almost always falls on one man (Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Saddam, Etc). Due to this, the fall of a single person is often representative of the entire regime. Therefore, even if a dictator is overthrown, an incredibly challenging feat in itself, the entire government would not likely follow. 

Furthermore, another suggestion that could be made in order to mend trust would be that the government grants freedom to the press. In theory, with people being free to write what they wish, people would be able to trust the government as their actions would be accounted for. However, in reality this also does not work as well. The first problem is news stations putting out sensationalism laced stories in order to gain viewers. With the ability to say anything, media is able to release extremely bias and even sometimes false stories. With this kind of media available to the public, trust is not able to become established. Another reason this does not work is because it is not possible for a country to come to a complete consensus on all issues, leading to conflict. Take the United States for instance with its freedom of the press amendment. During the 2008 election season, our current President was accused of being a muslim born in Kenya. Despite this claim having no evidence, it grew a large following that believed the claim was true. Such a large number of people believing a claim such as this shows a clear lack of trust when that man was then elected into office. This is why freedom of the press does not work in mending the trust between the government and its people. 

Putting an elected official in power by a fair nationwide vote could also seem to have the potential of mending this failed relationship. By holding an election, the people could decide for themselves who they wish to be ruled by. However, as history has shown us many times before, the state of a country following the falling of a oppressive leader often struggles and in some cases does not improve. This is because following a dictator's downfall, the country is almost always in a very delicate state. This state not only makes it easier for a well sounding leader to take advantage of the desperate citizens, but also is under a tremendous amount of pressure to success immediately. When success can not be meet in a short amount of time, citizens are prone to negatively response which can lead them right back to where they started with the prior leader. This is why nationwide elections would, in most cases, also not mend a failed relationship between a government and it’s people.