Religion should not interfere with politics.

As our electoral process has begun to speed up, issues related to religious membership and calls for people to support religious bias are in the news. People who are involved in  religious groups claim that  religion has to be the central part of politics. Actually, the policies and laws that those groups support are mainly based on their religious beliefs. However, I believe that religion and politic should not mix.  Here are some reflections on the general question of the role of religion in our political life.

One view holds that religion has no place at all. In fact, religion is related to the private sphere which means all what is related to  members of a community who have the same way of thinking; for instance, a church. However, political life is related to the public sphere which is concerned with all what is related to  an individual of a larger community (state or nation) in which people have varied views on different issues like religion. This distinction appears important when we realize the violence and historical conflicts which were caused by religious disagreements. If we don’t agree to disagree about issues related to intense divisions, there will be a little hope to establish a civil society.

This exclusion of religion from the political discussion has raised different positions. Some have found that all religions were equal since they were all ignored. Others have considered their own religious views as true, but facing the fear of the flow of political systems they all agreed to withdraw from the public sphere and flourish in private. Still religion interferes in the public sphere as a voice on particular moral issues. Based on the last point, the question that could be raised is should “religious views, even on moral issues have any impact on our political debate?” Some people say no, on the basis that “effective arguments require premises that virtually everyone taking part in the discussion accepts. Therefore, the authority of religion would come out  in a public debate within citizens who do have belief or disbelief.

People who are taking part in a religious group state that their ethical convictions should not exclude and stop them from exercising politics. In fact, this argument lead us to be in a position which states that religion must be the core of politics in a country. Those people are failing to acknowledge that the country will loose it’s balance if there is no balance between religion and politics and if we use religion to formulate regulations and laws. Both are different from each other. Religion is based on spirituality and emotions, whereas politic is based on sensibility and a good sense of orientation. Every single person has her freedom to choose the religion she want to pursue or pursue her ancestor’s and parent’s religion, and therefore it does not have to be linked to politics.

Many people could think that politics rely on religion to keep on working. I totally disagree with this argument because politics can subsist without the interference of religion. Let’s look at the example of Turkey and Tunisia. They are both secular countries. In other words, religion has never been mixed with politics. Doing so would have lead those countries to conflicts. Since a country is enclosed by ethical and religious convictions, there will never be a chance to succeed in making a political decision.

The historical facts undoubtedly affirm that religion and politics were always closely linked. This relation have been challenged by the scientific minds of the world to achieve the increase if social realities and diversity.  “ The overpowering consensus in relation to international human rights is that religion has absolutely no rational for controlling  the state or the government either to support or approve their religious convictions ”. This is to say that extremely no religion should be permitted to manipulate political decisions with the chance of affecting  the personal rights of any individual.  

To sum up, I totally believe that religion should not interfere in politics. Feelings and emotions are not allowed to take part in an extremely complicated field of politics. A lot of positive changes and improvement can be noticed in our next generations if we break up the relation of religion with politics.

Works cited:

Wiki answers. Answers. Web. 13 April 2012.

Peterson, Gregory R. "Are Evolutionary/Cognitive Theories Of Religion Relevant For Philosophy Of Religion?." Zygon: Journal Of Religion & Science 45.3 (2010): 545-557. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Apr. 2012.

Bellouti,Zaynab. “ Religion and politics”. 10 December 2011. Print.

If Black English isn't a Language, Then tell me What Is ?

The main topic of James Baldwin article is basically concerned with language. The author  affirms that the language someone speaks reveals and reflects who he or she is. He claims that language is a critical key to identity. Once you open your mouth, you may be  confessing your parents, your youth, your school, your self-esteem, and your future. Even though there are common languages within certain places, people can speak a "subtly and different language" than others who are  from another place. Baldwin illustrates this through an example based on his observations of people who speak the French language; "A Frenchman living in Paris speaks a subtly and crucially different language from that of a man living in Marseilles; neither sounds very much a like from a man living in Quebec although the 'common' language in all these areas is French."

Baldwin also talks about the evolvement of the African American language and how it has influenced the language of the White Americans. The evidence he provided to this is the example of how the White Americans have adopted the Jazz Age. Throughout history, African Americans have only been viewed as slaves to their masters; they were considered as servants with nothing to contribute. Thus, the author addresses his argument: "If this absolutely unprecedented journey does not indicate that black English is a language, then I am curious to know what the definition of language is to be trusted." At the end of his essay, Balwin offers us the  information that White Americans were not interested in educating African Americans; if a child was to be educated that he could no longer be black and that he knows he could never be White. But if the White American language is influenced by the African American language, why would an African American child need to be educated by a White American? The aim of Baldwin's argument is to inform his audience about this matter and for the black English language to obtain recognition.

The Egg and The Sperm

The Egg and The Sperm is an essay   written by the anthropologist Emily Martin. It explores  the socio-cultural gender stereotypes and how  they affect the description of the egg and sperm interactions in biology books and research reports.

Since the start of contemporary man, gender stereotypes have existed. They are all concerned with female weakness and male dominance, controlled male and uncomfortable female, violence and excitement and many others that mainly lead to the same thing. The egg and The Sperm takes the issue of gender stereotype to a more serious level. Emily Martin is concerned with the socio-cultural effects on different fields counting biology. Through her article, Emily Martin tries to “ shine a bright light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology” (Martin,1999).Martin believes that if her suspicions are true, then what we learn in biology books and class would be partly wrong. She claims that traditionally scientific researches give the egg and sperm defined feminine and masculine specifications. She also believes that descriptions of reproductive systems are considered as a result of the historical view of society of gender roles. The egg is seen as weak, and the sperm as the powerful violator. New researches credit the egg. In fact the egg has more functions than those of a sperm. Those new researches reveal that the egg coat “serves as a sophisticated biological security system that screens incoming sperm, selects only those compatible with fertilization and development, prepares sperm for fusion with the egg  and later protects the resulting embryo from polyspermy.”(Martin,483)