Popular portrayals of religion often reinforce the view of religion being conflictual. It is an institutionalized test of strength: Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine have engaged in violence, but they also gained supporters through social service work when the government is perceived as doing little for the population.
Peace is a structure of expectations, a social contract. At this stage in a conflict, grievances, goals, and methods often change in such a way so as to make the conflict more difficult to resolve.
Without them there is no innovation. And the weight peacekeeping should be given against, for example, protecting or enhancing freedom, equality, or rights, depends on the situation.
Believers are called upon to spread the word of God and increase the numbers of the flock. It defines rights and obligations--who gets what from whom. But in order to do this, accept some conflict now.
This does not mean that we should always compromise, suffer exploitation, or appease aggression or murderers. I tried to analyze elsewhere this threat, drawing on the material in these volumes where relevant. At most, one can provide facilitating conditions for individuals, groups, and states to make their own adjustments contextually and the rules and institutions to enhance this process.
I am particularly indebted to Fisher for this idea. Relevant change in this balance will increase or decrease the likelihood of conflict. I do no accept this as a principle, for in some conflicts, as in an aggressor totalitarian state militarily conquering a weaker neighbor, or a revolutionary fascist movement trying to overthrow a democratic system, we should be partisans.
Both parties will gain. If, on the one hand, diversity of opinion is what enriches us as humans, on the other, it is what feeds the worse that we have to offer. Given this familiar framework, how can we choose a path that leads to a better life, with more personal and social harmony?
This aspect of religion and conflict is discussed in the parallel essay on religion and peace. Other institutionalized settlement procedures are mediation and conciliation, the jury system for deciding legal cases, and the Supreme Court for deciding disputes over the meaning and applicability of the law.
Perhaps the most widely used and valuable decision-making procedure is the vote. Religious nationalists tend to view their religious traditions as so closely tied to their nation or their land that any threat to one of these is a threat to one's existence.
For example, the effort to impose Christianity on subject peoples was an important part of the conflict surrounding European colonization. Does one want to avoid intense, nonviolent conflict, violence, or just extreme violence, revolution, war?
It is a pressure toward change in expectations more in accord with what people want and can and will do. Moreover, peacekeeping must have in mind a specific peace--a particular structure of expectations--and a specific level of peace.
But to foster nonviolent peace is a primary goal. As the society becomes more complex in its division of labor, size, and diversity of groups, many different institutionalized adjustment procedures develop.
The first is to redress the balance of powers by making compensating changes in what one wants and can and will do.
We live in a world of rapid change. Institutionalization should be guided by four considerations. This helps avoid that large gap between the balance of powers and status quo that requires an adjustment possible only through much more extreme conflict and violence.
It is encouraging the conflict helix. All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question. Workers can still strike, but only after certain conditions required by law have been satisfied such as a vote among union members.
Negotiating changes in a status quo requires the agreement of all involved and is difficult to achieve in the absence of an action-demanding crises or violence.
More generally, fighting ignorance can go a long way.
At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation.Nov 22, · ‘Without conflict, there is no progress or change.’ 4. ‘Conflicts from history can teach us many things about ourselves and the times in which we live.’ 5.
‘Social order can deteriorate into conflict and anarchy with disturbing ease.’ 6. ‘Conflict is a destructive force in our lives.’ 7. ‘Conflict is an unavoidable part of.
Conflict usually can involve ones inner-self, two or more people, different social classes or cultures or two groups of people. In the result or end of conflict, the outcome is often a change in the society in which the conflict concerns.
In many cases without the conflict there cannot be change. Nov 06, · If there is no conflict, there is nothing the better the person.
If you are having bad grades in school and do nothing, you not going to see any progress from that person. If the person tries and gets his grades up, you will see progress in the person. Without conflcit there cannot be change " Without conflict there cannot be change " Conflict is very much existent in society and alway has been There are many types of conflict that can be small and trivial, and some that are extreme and lead to injury or death.
"Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." - George Bernard Shaw quotes from currclickblog.com "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." - George Bernard Shaw. Learn how to make "If I can change the world" essay really fascinating.
Use one of 15 brilliant ideas. But we cannot change the world outright. Everything that we have in the world today has been created by many generations of people over a long period of time. Check to see if your essay makes sense.
Make sure there are no grammar and.Download