This was how people were thought to identify themselves. However, the post Cold War world is a place where people’s identities are cultural. Some may ask, isn’t a shared government, a similar economy and shared ideals the makings for a culture? The answer to this question is both yes and no, and an underlying factor still remains to be discussed, religion. Huntington argues that “Of all the objective elements which define civilizations, however, the most important usually is religion.
Jesus and Muhammad have played a large role in two of the world’s leading religions in today’s society, Islam and Christianity. Although many argue that there are some clashing differences in Islam and Christianity there are also remarkable similarities. It is argued that Islam was founded on Violence while Christianity is founded on unity and peace. One event that made a change in the beliefs and differences of the Christian and Islamic faith was September 11th. In this paper I will be discussing Islam and Christianity as well as the roles both Jesus and Muhammad played in the matter.
Do you think it’s easier to instill Christian morals or Islamic law into the political system of a county? Justify your answer. It is easier to instill a set of morals into a system rather than enforcing a political system to conform to one religious belief which is the centralized focus of Islamic law. Furthermore, Christian morals are viewed as simplistic because of the liberty to conscience. What helped our forefathers create a great nation and form a government were their principles and ethical sense of right and wrong.
Similarities and differences are found in these empires through religious, economical, and governmental factors. The first and most important factor to look at when comparing the two empires is their differences and similarities is the empires’ outlook on religion. One common similarity both groups shared was how they based their life off a monotheistic religion. The Byzantines ran their empire through Christianity, a belief based off the teachings and life of Jesus Christ, and the thought that there is only one true God. The Caliphates were influenced by Islam, a religion that believes there is only one God named Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet.
In other words, there was religious tolerance. To me, this was certainly a novel idea because as a follower of a monotheistic religion, polytheism not only seems out of the norm but monotheism just seems so righteous and pure. To be exposed to such a dark history of monotheism and a bright side to polytheism is certainly surprising. Nevertheless, while it holds meaning for me in a different sense, from the surface this book is about the social evolution from polytheism to monotheism in the West and how two human beings, acting out of their personal passions, literally changed the history of the world. Kirsch masterfully tells the story of this change by centralizing his book around the actions
Some people place debate upon the fact that the bible should not be interpreted literally and that it should be looked at and analyzed as it is a form of literature. If this is so, why would it be considered divinely inspired by the followers of Christianity? The bible is often used to justify both sides of issues of controversial disagreements, at the same time. And, it usually provides just enough if not more than sufficient evidence and support for each side to be considered correct. As we have been studying, both Frederick Douglass and Richard Furman used the Holy Bible to validate their standpoints about slavery, whether they are for it or against it.
However, the word fundamentalism, which originated in Christianity, can be misleading when it is used to describe Islam or Muslim countries. The conservative monarchy of Saudi Arabia, the radical socialist state of Libya, and clerically governed Iran have all been described as “fundamentalist,” but this description fails to take into account vast differences in their governments and policies. Political analysts prefer to use the expressions “political Islam” or “Islamism” when discussing Islam’s many-faceted roles in current social and
On the other side, the Safavids were slightly tolerant. When the Isma’il came into power, he named Shi’a Islam as the religion of hid empire- with this it caused many wars, but change the path of the empire, affecting what we now know as Iran forever. With that, it’s safe to say that all of them enjoyed conquering new states, though not necessarily for the same reason. The Ottoman Empire was mainly interested in conquering, just to spread Islam. Their religion was their inspiration, whereas the other had less of the incentive.
‘Asses the view that religion always acts as a conservative force in society’ Many sociologists argue that the religion is a conservative force. A conservative force is a force that produces stability and maintains the same norms and values. This view is shared by functionalists, Marxists and feminists. However other thinkers such as Weber and neo-Marxists criticise this view, believing that religion is a force for social change. The main Functionalist view on religion highlights religions social role in society for example Durkheim believes that religion includes a mass of people worshiping.
However, as scientific reasoning gained popularity in the twentieth century, crediting religion to new communication technologies and the religious metaphors that surrounded communication fell away; although there is still a religious undercurrent to communication. In addition, he also claims that the transmission view is most popularly used and dominant in today’s society. Control is a major aspect of the transmission view of communication. The sender aspect is controlling what information is being attempted to be dispersed. Senders hold the ability to downplay, embellish or omit facts; they also have the power to add personal bias