How religion and nationalism affects our way of life

Student Answers bpabian Student Human beings throughout the entire world share certain aspects of their experience in common with all other human beings.

How religion and nationalism affects our way of life

Sources of Basic Human Rights Ideas: A Christian Perspective 4: He is the author and editor of numerous books on a wide variety of topics including most recently with Peter Paris a three-volume series entitled God and Globalization. His work has indeed taken him global; he has taught and lectured in places as wide-ranging as India, Germany, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Hong Kong.

Other lectures in the series to be announced. More Pew Forum events on human rights: Sources of Human Rights: He has been gracious enough to stop off in Chicago—en route from California to Princeton—to be with us tonight. Let me also take a moment to recognize the Pew Forum Chicago staff responsible for organizing this event—Mieke Holkeboer especially as well as John Carlson and Erik Owens.

Academic Policy Definitions of Peacebuilding

Without them, this intriguing lecture series would not be possible. He is author of many volumes including Covenant and Commitment: A Study in Three Cultures.

How religion and nationalism affects our way of life

His research on issues and themes of globalization is particularly impressive; he is editor of Christian Ethics in a Global Era and currently working on an extensive multi-volume series God and Globalization.

His personal experiences overseas are equally vast: More than a quarter century ago, I was invited by my church to participate in ecumenical discussions and to serve as a visiting lecturer in the theological academies of sister churches in the German Democratic Republic and in South India.

On the basis of these extended exposures to non-Western interpretations of human rights at that time, I engaged in a comparative study of the roots and conceptual framework that made modern human rights discourse possible.

The invitation to contribute to this forum is a welcome opportunity to rethink the issues in view of new conditions. The new conditions are probably obvious to all.

Beyond the judgment against the inhumane barbarism of Naziism, that triggered the United Nations Declaration, the great struggles facing issues of human rights and pluralism of the last third of the previous century had to do with racial justice, the rising parallel movements of equal rights for women, and the worldwide movements for de-colonialization.

It is not, of course, the case that the world became pluralistic all of a sudden — it had been so for as long as we have recorded history; but the direct awareness of cultures, traditions, customs, moralities, social orders, and religions, brought to us by modern communication, transportation, urbanization and immigration made the pluralistic world more present to us.

In some ways the consensus has grown that human rights are universal, at least with regard to the issues of race and sex. Racism and sexism are widely condemned although they have not been abolished, and a number of regions are experiencing new diversities that evoke new forms of ethnic consciousness and conflict.

Still, the suspicion remains that human rights in other areas of civil and political rights are an invention of the bourgeois West, in spite of the fact that the Soviet world has collapsed, and with it the chief advocates of this view. This has happened in the context of massive globalization in technology, science, democratic ideals, the increased power and range of professionalism, ecological consciousness, media influence and economic interaction, all of which also bring a fresh encounter of the world religions.

To be sure, many people think about globalization only in economic terms. But this narrow understanding of our present situation B as if the economic challenges where not themselves largely a function of educational, technological, legal, communication, and, indeed, moral and spiritual developments B blinds us to one of the most difficult problems of universalistic principles in the face of pluralism, the conflict of values, of definitions of what is human and what is right held by the world religions.

On this point, those who defend human rights as global principles have reason to be cautiously optimistic. We can be optimistic, for the wider vision of human rights ideas have, at the least, become a part of the ius gentium, the operating consensus as to what constitutes proper behavior by states and other formal institutions, and what counts as compelling moral argument in contemporary international discourse.

The background story of how this definition of human rights came to enter the official, cross-cultural, international definition of standards, however, is only now being told. These organizations, notably led by Lutheran O.

Searle Bates, and Presbyterian John A. They worked closely with Jacob Blaustein and Joseph Proskauer of the American Jewish Committee and with twelve bishops of the Roman Catholic Church to encourage the formation of the drafting committees of the United Nations Charter Committee and the committee that composed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and deeply shaped their results.

Further, they worked through their church and synagogue contacts at the local level to build the popular support for what they were doing.

Moreover, there are, at present, more people living under democratically-ordered constitutions that seek to protect human rights, there is a broader public constituency interested in defending them than at any point in human history, and there is little evidence of their fading from normative use soon.

Indeed, even those who violate human rights plead special conditions, temporary delays, or hermeneutical differences regarding the relative weight of some as compared to others; they seldom deny their validity as ideals or goals.

This is so because it denies that there are inalienable human rights that stand beyond and above civil rights, which are granted by a state and thus can be withdrawn by civil authority.

It makes human rights a function of state policy not a matter of universal principle. This points to a deeper threat, for it takes human rights outside the realm of universal, meta-legal norms that cannot be repealed by political authority, no matter how powerful.

It is a refusal to see human rights as the same as the prohibition against murder. The world, after all, has known that murder is wrong for many centuries, and every people has laws against it. Today, the threat to human rights is deeper than their sometimes violation; it is a profound intellectual and spiritual problem, for many today doubt that we can have or defend any trans-empirical principles to judge empirical life.

Tradition and Particularity: Foundations of Religious Peacebuilding

And since human rights ideas were formulated historically by those branches of the biblically-based traditions, especially Jewish and Christian, that were willing to recognize, learn from, and selectively embrace philosophical and legal insights from other cultures if they saw them also living under universal principles of right and wrong that they did not construct and could not de-construct.

Certainly we cannot say that all of Judaism or of Christianity has supported human rights; it has been key minority traditions that have argued their case over long periods of time and become more widely accepted. Nor can we say that even these traditions have been faithful to the implications of their own heritage at all times, and the horror stories of our pasts also have to be told to mitigate any temptation to triumphalism.

And while many scholars and leaders from other traditions have endorsed them, and found resources in their own traditions that point to quite similar principles, today these views are under suspicion both by some Asian leaders who appeal to Asian Values and by some communitarian and postmodern philosophers in the West who have challenged the very idea of human rights.The Pros and Cons of Nationalism - Nationalism at its core is the support of a country.

The goal of a country is to have some sort of resonance within the individuals . Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE)..

Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation. Émile Durkheim (—) Émile Durkheim was a French sociologist who rose to prominence in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries.

Along with Karl Marx and Max Weber, he is credited as being one of the principal founders of modern sociology. The hypothesis of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or timberdesignmag.com known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined to include two versions: the strong hypothesis and the weak hypothesis.

The strong version says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and. Originally Answered: How could culture influence our way of life? I agree with David Kincade, though I can envision and hope for a world without culture or nationalism, as I see culture as a false human environment and comes from nationalism which separates us from other cultures and the natural environment which we depend on for survival.

I've come to the realization that if people would let go of their fear and worry about the unknown and what is strange to us that we would realize that most religions were created by ancient, un-evolved minds as a way to answer unanswerable questions as to why mankind exists, and to subjuga.

OT The Early Thread Gets The Worm | Slate Star Codex