He claimed that the book was against religion as an Islam itself. A similar of the same happened in India, the country Salman Rushdie was born in, the book’s sale and possession was banned as a small minority of Muslims claimed that it hurt their sentiments, and that the government not taking any action against it was going against it Secular policy, thus a religion influenced the operation of a government and its laws, this is precisely why a global charter should be made, in order segregate the two and prevent one disruption the efficient operation of the other. The same was also the cause of the Charlie
Huntington states that people’s culture and religion will be the main cause of conflict from onward. “People are discovering new but often old identities and marching under new but often old flags which lead to wars with new but often old enemies” (Huntington, 1996, 80) .example is the clash of Islamic culture and western culture.as a result this clash between these this two worlds was mainly on their different view, which is the secular view and religious view. Civilization will clash because Huntington believes that Nations are aligning themselves along cultural lines, and this will lead to
Religion is a touchy topic to debate and every time it is brought up in conversation, they become more attentive, tense up especially when two people disagree with each other, it is easy to see why a fight could break out. People are generally not upset that they don't believe in the same thing, but are simply upset that they were told that they were wrong. This will easily demonstrate that religion is not the main cause of fights because in this instance the two people would want to engage in a debate because they were told that they were wrong. Even though religion is often an underlying cause of war,the ultimate causes are political and economical gain, struggles for power,wealth and territory, and the leaders who seek power use religion as an excuse.They twist religion ideologies in order to
Nationalism creates a division in society as nations begin belonging to their own specific classes. The mindset of divided nations and conquering those of less worth, led to the necessity of militarism. That militaristic mindset, promoted aggression and approved violence. Militarism was funded on the idea of building a strong military in comparison to other, especially the neighboring nations (“The 4 Main Causes of World War One”). It created a culture of paranoia and a lust/need for competition, to prove their nations worth; which resulted in a larger pressure to act out aggression.
Religion is just an easily controllable/ corruptible system that can affect the people who believes in it. One example is U.S.A. U.S.A separated religion and state so that unethical/ corrupt politicians could not infiltrate it and use it to justify war. If I were to explain it I would say, U.S.A does not allow religious arguments to triumph or make a difference as to whether a certain thing should be done or not. Everything that is decided (such as war) needs to have a valid explanation, not something such as, “God is telling us to fight so we have to fight” or “we are not allowed to fight because that is not the will of God”, these arguments are not accepted by the state as a reason to act. If you put a
Huntington’s theory is one in which the world is divided into the following major civilizations; Western, Islamic, Chinese, Japanese, Orthodox, Hindu, African and Latin. His theory of the clash of civilizations predicts alignment and wars among these civilizations. This conflict according to him is brought about by the global differences in culture and religion of these civilizations. This is his general hypothesis. According to Huntington in the new and coming future world the most persistent, eminent and dangerous conflicts will not be between socio economic statuses, rich and poor or other economically defined groups but between people that belong to different cultural groups (1996).
Clash of civilization by Samuel Huntington is believed to be containing facts about the political scene during the cold war era and stated or hypothesized that there is a new order prior to the end of the cold war. Societies and civilizations were divided by ideological differences. Political struggle between the ideologies of democracy and communism fueled Huntington’s arguments within the book. To begin his argument, Huntington classified civilization as the broadest cultural entity he also stated that civilizations are mortal but endures for a very long time and evolves overtime. Huntington also refutes some of the past paradigms that have been ineffective in explaining or calculating the reality of the global political order.
While both philosophers’ writing can be very useful to the government in some ways. The leader should not be cruel or mean to the people but should know when to tough. The big difference is how they disagree most strongly on how a government should run and how they believe in war. They also disagree on when mercy should be given and how the money they own should be spent. Neither one of the ideas that they have for the government will work for the world today, because the world is not as good and peaceful as Lao-tzu describes in Tao-Te Ching, and not as chaotic or mean as Machiavelli says in The Prince.
According to Machiavelli rulers were of the thought that expansion of power was an important criterion to wage war. He had a broad perspective towards war. A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, then war and its rules and discipline for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. Machiavelli says a ruler should wage war always to expand its power and whoever thought more of peace they would lose their state. The reason of losing is to neglect the art and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art.
In the past, states are insecure because it is no boundary between states so people fight each other to survive and to gain power. On 24 October 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in Munster and Osnabruck to emerge the boundary of states around the world to end the conflict. Anarchy shown that state is a main actor which seek power to enhance military, economic, and increase power in international system to defend themselves from other state aggression. States are ‘self-help’, which imply that states must largely rely on itself; it would be too risky for state to trust others. The country must be always ready for any possible attacks.