Why the Sociology Theory of Religion helps give an Insight to Politics

After reading Chapter 1 of Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, I was pretty impressed. As a political science major and working towards a security studies certificate, I haven't been exposed to much sociological theory. However Berger's piece made complete sense in my mind, and it served to do more than just tell me about the creation of society.

Society gives mankind three things; externalization, objectivation, and internalization. I am not going to go over them since we talked about them in class today, but they do provide a common basis on which to start the analysis of how someone formulates their views, and consequently, lives their lives by them. I took these three pillars as being the key to understanding the lens the individual uses to make religion their own. The personalization of religion, morals, and truths; the cornerstone to understanding why a person does a specific thing. Pretty powerful if you're looking for reasons of a decision...or trying to manipulate them.

I also took these three pillars as the process of the transfer of ideas. Essentially how ideas are developed and transmitted to another person. Each generation has a different way of transferring ideas, but it all goes through these three processes. It almost reminds me of the movie "Inception".

These three processes are relevant for politics. If one is analyzing leaders of certain states, non-state actors, or movements, learning their truths - how they perceive the world to be - is an immensely important factor. There is an age old saying of "put yourself in their shoes." That's entirely true. However, you also have to walk around in those shoes. To understand the decision-making process of certain people, you need to understand their truths and how they were brought up. You need to understand how they underwent the transfer of ideas. Why are they acting like this? Why do they support something different than I do? How can I understand their point of view in order to have a sustained dialogue?

One can try to look into a person's upbringing, but sometimes its just not possible. The broader picture that I am trying to pitch is that, in politics, leaders are guided by using their worldview in a specific context. This is the constructivist concept of international relations, in a sense. But what this process shows is the root of ideas. If one can successfully understand the other side, they could potentially communicate more efficiently to advance policy goals...or solve religious conflicts.

New Blog Direction

For anyone following this blog, its going to take a new direction. Now back at school one of my courses, Conflict, Violence and Peacemaking, requires me to blog at least twice a week on something pertaining to what we're doing.

Now I'll probably still be able to write about the Middle East and I will certainly write an post non-related to the course if something comes up, but my posts from now until December will predominantly focus on work from the course.

That's not to say I won't be producing some interesting stuff; a majority of my past posts are from a course I took last fall. Stay tuned, as you'll get to see the topics I am learning and exploring about from a more foreign policy point of view. At least that's the plan.

This is gonna be a good ride.

Turkey's Military Resignations: A Hidden Asset for the Future

Last friday, top officers of the Turkish military "resigned" en mass (they technically didn't resign, because then they would lose their benefits). Many were shocked, and forecasting the instability of the Turkish military. However I think many who don't know what's really going on in Turkey, are vastly misjudging the turn of events. By no means I am saying I am a Turkish expert but after intensive research and a 30 pg paper, I'd like to think I know more about the internal dynamics and foreign policy of the country than the average joe.

Since 2002, when the AKP came to power, Turkey has undergone a period of change. Being historically an Islamic party, the AK made prudent economic decisions as well has a moderate approach to governance. Turkey, from the modern state's founding with Mustafa Kemal, has rested on the principles of secularism and loyalty to the state. The military became, essentially, the enforcer and 'protectors' of these ideals and would kick out any government they suspected of trying to undermine those ideas.

Now I am not saying Kemalism is bad, but the rise of the vastly popular AKP changed that dynamic. The AKP has brought more pious Turks into government and have been continuously elected to power since 2002; something that hasn't happen ever in Turkish history. Many in America, and the West, see the recent foreign policy changes of Turkey as turning its back on its former allies; this cannot be farther from the truth. The AKP has used its soft power, and pragmatics relationships, in order to bolster its influence in the region. and on the international stage.

The generals resigning is the beginning of a new era, in my opinion. Civilian subordination of the military is one of the four common factors political scientists use to determine the degree of democratic governance in a state. These resignations show that disagreements between the AKP and the military have came to a head, and instead of trying to overthrow the largely popular ruling party, they resigned. Though they may have disagreed on policy, Turkey as a state and democracy has never been stronger. These resignations are a testament to how far Turkey's democracy has come; only 12 years ago there was a coup d'etat.

These resignations are also a testament to righting the wrongs of the military. Part of the reasons the officers have resigned is because they disliked the investigations into the 1997 coup. I also did a detailed research paper on the status of democratization in Uruguay. A country with a former dictatorship, the military was unwilling to let the government put former officers on trial. However, with the success of Tabare Vazquez, Jose Mujica and their leftist coalition, the military has been more subordinate in putting former officers on trial for crimes. The case is almost identical to Turkey. A successful party in government, which are sometimes at odds with the military in terms of policy, have become subordinate to the cilivan government through successful policies. Its all in the process of further democratization.

The cool headed-ness in this crisis also bolstered Turkey's soft power. By showing that the government can function, and ultimately has the upper hand, in a military crisis is important to Arab democracies. These resignations have vividly shown the stability in the Turkish system.

Though it is a problem when top military leaders resign en mass, it is by no means a devastating blow to NATO's #2 largest army. Turkey's officers are capable, and by no means should the resignation of the armed forces leaders be translated into the strength of the forces.

Those who have not studied Turkey are prone to look at this event in the wrong lens. The first article above is a fantastic piece which hits the proverbial nail on its head. My blog has other posts on the rise of Turkey, so if you're looking for more info on its current state and history, I suggest looking through.

Keeps your eyes on Turkey. The country that was once the crossroads of the world, is about to claim that title again in a whole new way.

PM Erdogan and Turkish military chiefs

Bruce Bawer and the Norway Terrorist Attacks; Islamophobia takes a Deadly Turn

For those who are counting, this will be my 4th post about Islamophobia. I think this is an important issue that is not being addressed by our leaders, and some are even exacerbating it. I was originally going to solely focus on the Norway bombings however, in light of a recent op-ed by Bruce Bawer, I am going to talk about both. Strap your seat belts folks, this is going to be one long and bumpy ride.

Over the past weekend of July 22, deadly and tragic attacks took place in Oslo, and Utoya Island in Norway. An estimated 92 people were killed, with a majority being teenagers massacred on Utoya Island. Police have arrested Anders Breivik, the man who confessed to be responsible for the bombings and right-wing Christian extremest. While searching his belongings, police uncovered a 'manifesto', in which Breivik calls for a war against multicultural society, hateful rants against Muslims, and mass killings of "marxists." He writes "The time for dialogue is over. We gave peace a chance. The time for armed resistance has come." Breivik writes he was a delegate to a secret meeting to reinstate the Knights Templar in 2002, and he also describes chilling events when he tests the bombs he has made.

The will of a monster, to say the least.

Brevik, in his call for 'resistance', was calling for a resistance in what he thought was a Muslim 'takeover' of Europe. A confessed white supremacist, he disliked the high level of cultural integration going on in Europe and the even higher immigration rate into Europe. He thought that the only way to preserve, what I can speculate, white European identity was through violence. It is no surprise to us now that he chose to bomb central government buildings and massacre youths at a Labour party- the liberal and dominant party - youth retreat. He wanted to kill off all the old and young leaders of the Labour party who did not share his vision.

This leads us to another unsettling fact, the rise of hard-right, jingoistic political parties in Europe in the past year. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' Freedom Party has routinely been hostile to Islam as well as anything that isn't "Dutch". In Sweden, Norway's neighbor, he Sweden Democrats have won seats in parliament. The Sweden Democrats have adopted a hard-line stance against Sweden's liberal immigration policy. It is evident through the resurgence of the far-right that Europe, as a whole, have not taken enough steps in order to integrate new immigrants into European communities. It is also evident that Europeans are taking frustrations/anti-immigrant sentiment out at the ballot box.

But it goes farther than that.

There has been a failure on the part of integration-ists and leaders in Europe to effectively stand up to these leaders in their often intolerant positions. In Europe, the world's beacon for progressive government, there has been a growing anti-immigrant (most immigrants being Muslims) growing on the continent.

How does this tie into the terrorist attacks?

Well heated rhetoric and irresponsible use of the right of free speech persuaded Brevik to perform the acts he did in order to 'save' Europe from Islam. Just think about it, a man hated a group of people based upon their religion so much, that he was willing to massacre youths and government officials. The fear-mongering of a Muslim-takeover is extremely foolish and irresponsible. Those who espouse these racist and fear tactics fail to think that they're comments can be taken to such a level. On this such occasion, it did.

Now on to Bruce Bawer. Why is he in this post?

Bawer, the author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom, recently wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. I ask that you read his piece before you continue reading this post.

Did your jaw drop yet? It is also astonishingly disconnected emotionally, almost like an apologoy a 5th grader gives you that they really don't mean.

Lets begin with the subtitle "In his 1,500-page manifesto, Anders Behring Breivik slides alarmingly from a legitimate concern about the rise of Islam in Europe to propose 'terror as a method for waking up the masses." Apparently to Bawer, Islam in Europe is a legitimate concern. He uses this "legitimate concern" later in the piece too. What about Jews in Europe, Christians in Europe? Oh course they're not concerns for him. No, he solely focuses on Islam. In his piece, he goes on to give examples of the strict patrichial nature of Muslim families, and numerous other things which do raise some concern no matter which religion. However, Bawer has skewed his facts, and his views, into focusing only on the small misgivings of a group of people who Bawer defines by their religion and not their individual character.

What really stunned me was the first sentence: "When bombs exploded on Friday in a compound of government office buildings in the heart of Oslo, I assumed, as did pretty much everyone, that the perpetrators were Islamic terrorists." Sir, are you too jaded and Islamophobic that you automatically assume it was a Muslim? There is historical precedent in all religions of terrorism in Europe. Bawer is terribly out of touch in his own world when he says "as pretty much everyone." Religious stereotyping  and prejudice at its finest; and it serves to diminish the authority of an opinion.

Bawer is "stunned" it wasn't a Muslim terrorist. I mean with such a narrow viewpoint and author of the book mentioned above, who wouldn't be stunned. I cannot even begin to describe the atrocious stereotyping and false view he has of the European-Muslim population. To make things worse for Bawer, he mentions that Brevik mentioned Bawer's name/works 22 times (so unfortunate because that is one of my two lucky numbers.) I don't know about you, but if anyone used any of my writings or work to legitimize violence or killings, I'd be ashamed of myself for not being responsible enough in the use of my freedom of speech. And that is what it really comes down to; being responsible in what you say and write. It is obvious that Bawer is to naive to see this point.

His cause, he writes, has been "seriously damaged" by Brevik. Well I am not sure what your cause is Bawer, but judging by your book title antithesis you make, it has to do with the '"threats" of Muslim-Europeans and their rights as individuals. I am sure I have to be close to it.

At the last paragraph, he tries to protect himself by saying that many will falsely accuse him of being Islamophobic, which I am currently doing. However this being my first time hearing about him ever in my life, its pretty clear he is Islamophobic. I can accuse religions and minorities too, but oh no, don't dare say I am racist; its not like that. But that's exactly what it is. Take responsibility for what you write Bawer, because its unmistakeably Islamophobic.

A parody piece was done on Bawers op-ed, essentially using extremely minor diction changes to make a point on how poor (in my opinion, to put it nicely) Bawer's op-ed actually was. When you can use so minor diction changes have it relate to another terrorist attack, you know something has to be wrong with an op-ed.

In conclusion, it is deeply saddening and my heart goes out to the victim's families in Norway. However, we see that a larger problem of extreme rhetoric, extreme fear-mongering, and extremely prejudice views. Brevik was motivated out of insane fear of a cultural takeover, no doubt exacerbated by the irresponsible works of Bawer and many others. Be responsible in your use of freedom of speech. Looking towards the future, more must be done in order to address these problems which caused Brevik to do what he did, and singling out the Muslim population is not the right place to start. We must come together and spread tolerance among each other because in the end,  "Why can't we see/ That when we bleed we bleed the same?"

P.S. A fantastic piece on what I have stated in past posts about tolerance and to look on the bigger problem of radicalization, and not just Muslims (*cough* Rep. Peter King).

Update: A 9 part piece on the attacks came out on Spiegal Online. This 9 part piece is amazingly detailed and takes the ideas presented in this post to form a fuller, more professional argument.

A Response to Mr. Weigel; in what Logic can you Compare Gay Rights and Equality to Totalitarianism?

Instead of talking about the the debt limit debate happening (which I have choice words), I am instead going to respond to Mr. George Weigel's article posted on the National Review's website. Before reading my post, I encourage you to read his article, or you may not know what I am referring to.

In an article titled "No Homophobia", Mr. Weigel goes on to argue that the state changing the nature of marriage in order to include gay couples, since marriage existed before the state, is a characteristic of totalitarian government. He uses examples to demonstrate that couples in the Soviet Union had to have two ceremonies (one civil and one religious) in order to be married in the eyes of the state; thus giving the state leverage in one's personal life. He goes on to say that the state is redefining reality in order to accommodate new communist principles into social life. Lastly, he states that since the state has the power to change marriage, it can change other personal relationships as well; bringing totalitarianism into everyday life. The only reason his title was"No Homophobia" was to shield himself from being called homophobic. He wanted to show that he was making an argument on opposition to gay marriage on the basis of being homophobic (then why write an article in the first place?), but to show the state has too much power to change personal relationships and the meaning of marriage.

Mr. Weigel, in what bizarre logic can you compare the quest for equal rights under the law to totalitarianism? This is not a subject where relativity rules, its plain objective fact. The United States is a country of laws, where everyone should have equal rights under the law; regardless of who they are. This principle, folks, is in the Constitution and other founding documents. By not allowing citizens to get married based upon moral preference, not law, you have actully increasing the size of government in daily life; something conservatives and libertarians rally against. Rather, Mr. Weigel bypasses that fact and views states legalizing gay marriage as changing the essence of marriage itself. Ill get back to this point.

First of all, Weigel asserts that "a reality that existed before the state, for marriage as the union of a man and a woman ordered to mutual love and procreation is a human reality that existed before the state." Isn't that technically false? The Christian tradition of being married didn't start until the CE (common era). Marriage, of alternate kinds, were around in the BCE (before common era), where guess what - states - existed. Marriage happened pagan empires, and if we're going to go further, basic civilization - a state - needed to exist to create this union. If you count nomadic hunter-gatherers as deeming woman to be their property as marriage, then ok, have fun with that. If we're continuing on this point, if marriage really existed pre-state, then so did men loving men (and it most certainly did)! Thus, depending on the nature of state; they are allowed to deem what legitimate marriage is; for good or for bad. The United States, founded on equality and laws, does not have this same privilege. Therefore, the state does not have to "just" recognize a union between a man and a woman; they are free to define it between same sex couples too. Essentially, Mr. Weigel, your point has been proven false. With this point proven false, the logic of the state changing an institution that was pre-state (essentially the growing power of the state)  and having to recognize as pre-state, is null.

Moreover, I am still not completely sure what bringing in Soviet Union communism does to the validity or seriousness of his argument. He uses the examples of the Soviet state to show how the they stifled individual action and used totalitarianism to change the nature of marriage. However, with his previous point of marriage being a pre-state institution being false, these comparisons are just a reflection of Weigel's old view of the world. Mr. Weigel, as evident of using his comparisons to Soviet Union, still lives in a world where it is us vs. them. The bipolar world he grew up with is still in his head, and he has carried that over to draw a sharp line with same sex marriage. It begs the question, why would he bring up Soviet references at all? Does relating the Soviet Union with the state allowing same sex marriage (in his eyes totalitarianism) make gay marriage un-American? One can only guess using the old and outdated United States-is-opposite-and-morally-correcter-than-the-Soviet-Union anthesis is his way of saying gay marriage is un-American. If the Soviets did it a certain way, no way are we! Or rather, does he use the Soviet Union to illustrate to unfounded-in-fact possible dangers that go along with leftward ideology? Anything to scare people, right?? That view is not appropriate for the globalized world, and more importantly gay marriage. Obviously, these have no place in his article and just serves to further diminish the legitimacy of his argument.

Weigel states "moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society, that free space of free associations whose boundaries the just state must respect." So if a same sex couple wants to be marriage, then the state shouldn't be prohibiting it, right? Though Weigel is only seeing his view of pre-state-man-and-woman-only marriage, he consequentially argues against himself due to his narrow minded thinking. I can't really say more, he does it for me!

I would just like to point out, before my final points, that you can replace many of his examples and words and make it an argument against civil rights of all kinds. Just replace his title with "No Racism" and his examples illustrate things against inter-racial marriage, or civil rights for minorities. I am not calling Mr. Weigel a racist so please do not take my comments the wrong way, however, there is a major problem when your argument and logic pattern, with minor diction switches, mirror racist remarks used to go against inter-racial marriages and greater civil rights for minorities. I am just calling it how I see it.

In a concession, I do see his viewpoint in that states artificially making all reality equal is inherently more state intrusiveness in daily life and more totalitarian. However, we aren't talking about making the world "equal". We are talking about a right that should be entitled to a segment of the population but haven't because they have been discriminated against. I am not arguing to make the world equal, I am saying that gay marriage is a right gays should already have due to our legal system and founding documents.

My final points against Mr. Weigel is that he seems to forget that the United States is a nation of laws, where citizens get equality under the law no matter who they are. It is as simple as that. The further where I think his real argument lies is the state legitimizing marriage in general. In the modern world, one gets certain benefits from being recognized as 'married' by the state. Due to the United States recognizing marriage, we also must give all the same civil benefits and equality chance for everyone to get married to achieve those benefits. Thus, since the state gives these benefits to married couples, the cannot discriminate who can get marriages and thus this is where we get into the whole "totalitarian" view. Mr. Weigel, if you don't want the state 'changing' marriage at all then your real argument is that the United States shouldn't give benefits to married couples of any kind. Simple as that.

Mr. Weigel's article hints at a point he doesn't make. The arugement he does make is filled with inconsistencies and irrelevant support. The only way to get the state out of marriage is to stop entwining marriage and benefits together. Even then what you stop same sex marriage? Nothing. The claims of totalitarianism are vastly unfounded as with you examples of the Soviet Union.  I would really like to know if Mr. Weigel has any friends or family members that are gay, maybe then he would be more clear on his real point instead of embarrassing himself as an educator. The United States is a nation of equality under the law, and marriage should not be an exception.

"South China Sea, or me"

I came across an interesting article by Clyde Prestowiz on the U.S. economic condition and national security issues in East and South East Asia.

Prestowiz asserts that the national security establishment has taken us through a "detour" in the Middle East, and it is finally return to its attention to where it should be; East Asia (aka China).

He also states that since we have such a broad security blanket on the Pacific, our weathly companies know there is little risk in investing aborad, thus drawing money out of the U.S. economy.

Personally, it appears Prestowiz is a true realist with a Cold War tinge. While I loved this article and the way it got me thinking, it appears he is arguing that the U.S. should make the Pacific less secure in order to take the low-risk factor away from FDI in Asia. With this blanket gone, American companies would be more prone to invest back into America, while also making the American pull stronger for those Asian countries fearful of China's rise. He's also argues for more financial uniformity on free trade treaties, which I don't know much about, but it sounds more beneficial.

In essence, create an atmosphere which works for our interests; pretty realist.

If I am wrong on this, please correct me.

Its not that this whole idea doesn't make sense, if it would work, but that it kind of has the old Cold War 1 vs. 1 redux to it. Prestowiz is a veteran of Cold War, free trade, Reagan policies; he was commerce secretary during Reagan's administration. While I agree that Washington was too busy spending time in a unnecessary war in Iraq and running up the debt than paying attention to Asia, I don't think the U.S. should be actively looking for demons to fry. Instead of having another Cold War showdown with China that many speculate, we must double our diplomatic efforts in order to court China.

The world is different than in the Cold War, and we should adapt our policies accordingly. Veteran policy-makers of the Cold War do provide insight and wisdom, but it seems many have difficulties leaving behind the old "us vs. them" mentality. While Prestowitz's realist economic policies for the Pacific could work; we must be weary not to have China become even more aggressive and sense we cannot balance them out. Though some old concept apply in short term international affairs, there are many new ways to achieve long term relationships than ever before.

If you want to be President, you have to act like a President

Now I know all of the Republican candidates are going to be reading this blog for opinion because they agree with my positions on issues (don't worry, I'm kidding). However the CNN "debate" (more like an anti-Obama rally) on June 13 raised and presented a serious problem about respect and presidential behavior with a just about all the candidates on the stage that night.

Keep in mind when I tuned in, I knew many shots were going to be taken on President Obama. Politics is a messy game, and when you play prepared to get dirty. However, it got disgraceful when each of the candidates where questioned on social issues and religion. For the next few paragraphs I will be using this Poltico article for my quotes.

For instance, Hermain Cain said at an earlier interview “A reporter asked me, would I appoint a Muslim to my administration. I did say, ‘No,’” Cain said. “And here’s why. … I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. And many of the Muslims, they’re not totally dedicated to this country.”

Got that? OK. So at the "debate" he tried to retract that comment by saying “And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us,” Cain said during the debate. “And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, No. 1."

Well, I don't think any president would want to have a militant-any-religion in their administration, so that is a pretty bad cover. What empirical evidence does Hermain Cain have that Muslim-AMERICANS aren't loyal to this country. Why would one single out Muslims also? There have been plenty of Christian terrorists in our past. To think, how could Cain get away with this outward hostility to a group of fellow Americans, judged solely by the religion they practice? If you ask me, it seems contradictory to our values to judge people based upon their religion, and it is clear Cain doesn't have the capacity to be president of ALL Americans.

Also at the debate, Newt Gingrich "tumbled over the historical cliff with the idea, announcing some kind of loyalty oath to serve in his administration, similar to that used in dealing with Nazis and Communists.” I really can't begin how offensive it is to relate Muslim-AMERICANS to Nazis, and to the now evil-stereotyped communists. But to have loyalty oaths for just Muslims? Why not everyone in your administration, Newt? If a candidate is willing to ridicule a portion of Americans based upon thier religion, they are not being presidential; rather acting like pundits.

Though the other candidates were smart enough to not stoop down at their level, it was very apparent that NONE of them called out the other. By not defending Muslim-Americans, or other groups, it was clear that the candidates couldn't muster up enough courage to act like a president, or it was that they tacitly consented. Though each are vying for the party's nomination; it is a shame that defending Muslim-Americans may hurt their chances (if you're going with that defense) and that none of them stood up above partisan politics and acted like an adult to defend their FELLOW Americans.

Noticeably absent from the "debate" was Jon Huntsman. Huntsman is the most moderate Republican running for president. Maybe I am giving him too much credit, but I have enough faith in Huntsman's ability to be a good person that he would have been the only one to defend Muslim-Americans.

The point of this post is when you're running for president, you're running for president. You're not a pundit, an ex-governor, a businessman, or whatever you are. Your not the president of one group of people ether. You are running to represent every American, no matter political view, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. The presidency is for individuals who embody a higher set of values, and ideals; for those who are tolerant; and for those who respect every American no matter who they are and what they believe.

In order to be treated as a presidential candidate, one must act like they want it.  As of now, Huntsman is the only one of the Republicans in my view whom carries these qualities. When engaging in partisan game playing, a necessity to win a party's nomination, one must keep the ideal of president in mind and have the ability to represent all Americans.