'Religion as a cause of IntraState War\r'

'Disputes and disagreements over ghostlike beliefs suffer been and continue to be ane of the main microbes of betrothal, civil war, terrorist act and even genocide in the modern beingness. As the famed theologian Hans Küng has said: â€Å"There entrust be no serenity among the volumes of the serviceman with verboten sleep among the worldly concern worships.” (Shaefer,2004) unearthly practices and beliefs stupefy often been at the center of troths throughout history.  unearthly conflict send away learn two or more than completely incompatible godlinesss or drive out rip unconnected virtuoso righteousness from within.  Religious beliefs argon so profoundly engrained into cultures that conflicts arise with change or when organized pietisms come into contact.  Even if the differences be minor, followers of all religions can become fervent when queered.  In short, religion is something worth bit for, according to history.  However, po ssibly virtuoso of the greatest ironies is that ghostlike conflict usually goes against the teachings of the religions involved.  Imagine the competency of religion when war and strength argon justifiable all when defending the organized religion, a faith that promotes good- go out, peace, and the acceptance of former(a)s.â€Å"The fact that religion appears in such(prenominal) rich variety †that in that respect is non iodine single religion but a gang †has always been a offset of irritation for people,” writes Dr. Schaefer, laying out the problem. â€Å"Religions are in umteen ways similar, and yet they are so different; in that location is much which unites them, but to a fault much which divides them. This is indeed irritating. in all the world religions teach that on that point is only one last reality, which we call God. If that is so, there can logically only be one truth: simply if there is only one truth, why are there so m both religio ns?”(Shaefer, 2004)â€Å" formerly started sacred strife has a tendency to go on and on, to become permanent feuds. straight off we see such decide inter-religious wars in Northern Ireland, between Jews and Muslims and Christians in Palestine, Hindus and Muslims in due south Asia and in many early(a) places. Attempts to bring more or less peace accommodate failed again and again. endlessly the extremist elements invoking past injustices, imagined or real, will succeed in torpedoing the peace efforts and bringing about a nonher bout of hostility.” Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, salad days Minister of Malaysia, addressing the World evangelistic Fellowship on 2001-MAY-4In the Philippines, the migration of Christians settlers  to Mindanao and the transmigration run-in favoring the Christians causes intrastate conflict.  Furthermore, the under-representation of the Muslim in nearly categories of public serve up to a fault brings conflict to Christians an d Muslims in the Philippines.States have tended to approach religious reverse tactically kinda than strategically. Countries such as Saudi-Arabian Arabia and Pakistan have focused on short-term political gains utilize the most expedient tools getable to counter religious opposition †from c at a timessions on social issues to crackdowns on political opposition. The history of ever-changing and shortsighted state policies toward religious opposition suggests these approaches are not sustainable in the retentive term. Nor have states shown much winner in managing the spiritual/ideologic dimension of conflict once it has begun †even if they started to stir religious passions in the first place. Increasingly, religion is both an identifiable source of wildness around the world and simultaneously so late interwoven into other sources of frenzy †including economic, ideological, territorial, and ethnic sources †that it is difficult to isolate.(Treverton, Gregg, G iblan & amp; Yost, 2005)WARS WITH A RELIGIOUS DIMENSION( Gantzel et al., (1993) 1. Mayanamar/Burma 1948 Buddhists vs. Christians 2. Israel/Palestinian 1968 Jews vs. Arabs )Muslims-Christians) 3. Northern Ireland 1969 Catholic vs. Protestants 4. Philippines (Mindanao) 1970 Muslims vs. Christians (Catholics) 5. Bangladesh 1973 Buddhists vs. Christians 6. Lebanon 1975 Shiites support by Syria (Amal) vs. Shiites supported by Iran (Hezbollah) 7. Ethiopia (Oromo) 1976 Muslims vs. cardinal disposal 8. India (Punjab) 1982 Sikhs vs. telephone exchange giving medication 9. SudanWITH 1983 Muslims vs. Native religions 10. Mali-Tuareg Nomads 1990 Muslims vs. aboriginal government 11. Azerbejdan 1990 Muslims vs. Christian Armenians 12. India (Kasjmir) 1990 Muslims vs. primaeval government (Hindu) 13. Indonesia (Aceh) 1990 Muslims vs. exchange government (Muslim) 14. Iraq 1991 Sunnites vs. Shiites 15. Yugoslavia (Croatia) 1991 Serbian orthodox Christians vs. roman type Catholic Christians 1 6. Yugoslavia (Bosnia) 1991 Orthodox Christians vs. Catholics vs. Muslims 17. Afghanistan 1992 fundamentalist Muslims vs. Moderate Muslims 18. Tadzhikistan 1992 Muslims vs. Orthodox Christians 19. Egypt 1977 Muslims vs. Central government (Muslim) Muslims vs. Coptic Christians 20. Tunesia 1978 Muslims vs. Central government (Muslim) 21. Algeria 1988 Muslims vs. Central government 22. Uzbekisgtan 1989 Sunite Uzbeks vs. Shiite Meschetes 23. India (Uthar- Pradesh) 1992 Hindus vs. Muslims 24. Sri Lanka 1983 Hindus vs. MuslimsHunttington (1993) xpects more conflicts along the cultural-religious fault lines because (1) those differences have always generated the most prolonged and the most savage conflicts; (2) because the world is becoming a smaller place, and the make up interactions will intensify the civilization- consciousness of the people which in turn invigorates differences and animosities going or thought to stretch back deep in history; (3) because of the weakening of the n ation-state as a source of indivi doubleity operator and the desecularisation of the world with the revival of religion as basis of identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations; (4) because of the dual fibre of the West. On the one hand, the West is at the period of its power. At the same time, it is confronted with an increase desire by elites in other parts of the world to shape the world in non-Western ways; (5) because cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and then less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones; (6) finally, because increasing economic regionalism will beef up civilization-consciousness.It is clear that the causes of religious wars and other religion related ferocity have not disappeared from the baptistery of the earth. Some expect an increase of it. Efforts to make the world expert from religious conflicts should then likewise be high on the agenda. Religious actors sh ould abstain from any cultural and structural violence within their respective organizations and traveling bag inter-religious or denominational conflict in a non-violent and shaping way. This would imply several practical musical notes, such as a verifiable agreement not to use or threaten with violence to settle religious disputes. It must be contingent to evaluate religious organizations objectively with respect to their use of physical, structural or cultural violence. A yearly overall cut through could be published. Another step would be furthering the ‘depolitisation of religion. Power also corrupts religious organizations. In addition, depolitisation of religion is a major presumption for the political integration of communities with different religions.Religious organizations can also work on the conflict dynamics by abstaining from intervention. As most conflicts are ‘asymmetrical, this attitude is partial in its consequences. It is implicitly reinforci ng the ‘might is right principle. During the trice World War, the Vatican adopted a neutral stand. It didnt publicly pooh-pooh of the German atrocities in Poland or in the concentration camps. To bushel its diplomatic interests, Rome opted for this management and not for an evangelical disapproval. The role of bystanders, those members of the society who are uncomplete perpetrators nor victims, is very important. Their support, opposition, or impassibility based on good or other grounds, shapes the course of events.An expression of sympathy or antipathy of the head of the Citta del Vaticano, Pius XII, representing close to 500 million Catholics, could have prevented a great bang of the violence. The mobilization of the internal and international bystanders, in the face of the mistreatment of individuals or communities, is a major repugn to religious organizations. To realize this, children and adults, in the long run, must dumbfound certain personal characteristics such as a pro-social regard as orientation and empathy. Religious organizations have a major accountability in creating a worldview in which individual needs would not be met at the get down of others and genuine conflicts would not be resolved through encroachment (Fein, 1992).ReferencesFein, Helen, ed. 1992. Genocide watch. New haven: Yale University Press.Gantzel, Klaus, JürgenTorsten Schwinghammer, Jens Siegelberg. 1993. Kriege der Welt. Ein systematischer Register kriegerischen Konflikte 1985 bis 1992. Bonn: Stiftung Entwicklung und frieden.Huntington, Samuel. 1993. The confrontation of Civilizations? New York: Foreign Affairs.Shaefer, Udo 2004 beyond the Clash of Religions:The Emergence of a New Paradigm.  Zero ornament Press. Prague. Treverton, G. et al.  2005.  Exploring Religious Conflicts.  Rand Coporation: CA, http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF211.pdf Varennes, F. Recurrent Challenges to the death penalty of Intrastate Peace Agr eements: The electrical resistance of State Authorities.  New Balkan governance Issue 7/8. http://www.newbalkanpolitics.org.mk/napis.asp?id=21&lang=English â€Å" visor minister of Malaysia calls for end to inter-religious strife,” 2001-MAY-5, at: http://www.worldevangelical.org/default.htm.\r\n'