Donald Trump: a self-proclaimed Christian; Malala Yousafzai: a self-proclaimed member of Islam; both political figures, both stereotyped, and both with a cause. Who you prefer is personal, but religion will always play a factor in their work and your opinion. Both Malala and Donald are important political figures and actively advocate in many areas. However, religion, more than anything else, will influence how people perceive them. Malala must be a terrorist for participating and embracing Islam; Donald must be a bigot for being a conservative Christian. Both figures, in addition to thousands of political leaders in America, use personal religious belief to shape their every opinion and decision, many of which affect people across the nation. Religion should play a role in political decisions, however, it should be minimized and consistently regulated.
Blasphemous speech and misinterpretation, often derived from harmful media, causes the majority of religious intolerance and anger, not the religion itself. Buddhism was built on peace but has been compressed to nothing more than an iconic statue and lame harmonious jabbering. The media throws out irrelevant speech using all too effective methods. “There is a global issue of authority,” acknowledges Gibson. When interacting with news outlets, the key to successful understanding is the remembrance that the news outlet is a business, nothing more than a corporation in search of their next dollar. An age old technique that began with useful intentions and a direct purpose has evolved into a business, much like religious institutions. However, unlike religious institutions, the evolution of media needed no help.
America was built on religious freedom, the driving force for the mere idea of constructing this new nation. However, over time, many colonies developed prejudice, for instance, Massachusetts was drawn to puritanism, but other colonies banned it. The legal boundaries and confines of where to worship created the same issues that the pilgrims had previously evaded. Opinions are a part of human nature, but can easily be misconstrued to prejudice thought and action, even if unintentional. As America progressed, boundaries became erased as religious guidelines diminished. The influx of immigrants and beginning of international politics brought new influences which in turn inspired new ideas spawning political thinking in a growing government.
When looking at America’s leaders and presidents in the past, every single one has had some sort of religious affiliation no matter their political stance. The right wing is traditionally conservative, often aligned with Christian belief, however, left wing is traditionally “liberal,” and seemingly open to numerous lifestyles. However, an Evangelical lifestyle focuses on the integration and sharing of religion with those around them. While these people may be seen as “bible thumpers” or, even, extremists, they genuinely want to share, learn, and find peace.
Current legal standards maintain a separation of church and state, however, this takes more tolls on the church than the state, and in no way reflects individuals. Many eastern and European countries do not have a separation, however, different governments and religious factors do not necessarily call for it. The way our government was set up, and due to its foundation, separation is a lovely idea, however, it is straight from a story. The separation of church and state is not a logical, possible idea due to America’s foundation in politics, economics, and societal norms. However, separation is beneficial when it comes to financial matters, both parties benefit and it decreases the risk of brainwashing religious participants or political activists. The best option is maintaining understanding and tolerance between the two institutions. Working in harmonious fashion is the most probable option with great reward.
If Iran can make peaceful treaties with America and WWII can find a conclusion, then politics and religion can find standing ground together. Early education, time, and money may very well be necessary, however, the reward will be far greater than any foreboding price. Through education, prevention, and new thinking can be born. By regulating and minimizing religious impact in politics, a collective is more likely to succeed and thrive in international or interreligious situations. To enter back into a time of community, rather than competition, and acceptance, rather than hate, would be to provide future generations with the same foundation our ancestors had, better equipping people for life, leadership, and practical contribution.
