Building Your Business – Are Politics and Peacemaking Mutually Exclusive?

[ad_1]

It is easy to assume that all politics and peacemaking can be mutually exclusive. The truth is that there are many situations that in order to keep the peace, politics may be involved or even get in the way. Where there is a dispute of uncommon interests, whether it is to gain control, power or leadership that is politics. God teaches us on how "we should be" if we are to be His children. As human beings created by God we are asked to be images of the Father. In doing so, we bring peace to ourselves and to others.

In many organizations, there are internal conflicts, and even key leaders begin to make their case and use politics in what they hope may either bring the peace or put an end to what they believe is disrupting their peace. Vice Presidents will threaten other departments by flexing their control should those departments not do as they are told. When we discuss politics, we discuss the policies and processes that are brought up for debate. These same policies dictate the path towards peacemaking as a societal whole. But it is also important to remember that it also brings about additional conflict within the groups and hence another opportunity for peacemaking. Take a look at what took place in Ireland in 1997.

"In August of 1997, less than a month after the second cease-fire took hold in Northern Ireland, thousands of Presbyterian pastors and lay leaders gathered in Belfast to make a, historic public recommitment to peacemaking between Protestants and Roman Catholics.

Michael Cassidy, a South African evangelical influential in producing open elections and the end to apartheid in South Africa, challenged them to a new level of personal responsibility for bringing about reconciliation and tolerance. At his invitation, nearly two-thirds of the 3,000 in the audience stood up to signal their pledge to peacemaking. Earlier this year, the Anglican Church of Ireland took similar steps when its general synod voted to condemn the presence of sectarian views within their denomination and to conduct an inquiry to determine how severe the problem is "(Morgan, 1997).

Without politics they would not have taken the additional steps to really determine what the problem was and rededicate themselves towards peace. But there are other examples where politics and peacemaking are not mutually exclusive. Take the military for example. Our leaders wage war on other countries that have different political views than ours. We are sent to war using force. And only as the victor can we then define what we believe peace to be. Whose war were we fighting? Whose definition of peace were we attaining? Ours, the people, another nations?

[ad_2]

Source by Paul Resurreccion

10 Political Books Every Student in College Should Read in Politics

[ad_1]

Politics professors require some of these books, while some are integrated as parts of college textbooks. Deepen your understanding of politics through these written works of prominent political figures.

  1. The Federalist Papers. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles which aim to endorse the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. It is included in some college textbooks because it is considered a classic in the exposition of the Constitution.
  2. Democracy in America. French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America. A book looks at the American democracy through a European man's eyes in the 1800s.
  3. The Republic. Often a required as part of college textbooks on basic politics, The Republic, Plato's best known work, was written in the early 400 AD. It talks about justice, forms of government, and the characteristics of a just city-state, as well as the just man.
  4. The Politics. The Politics was Aristotle's political philosophical work which regarded men as natural political animals. It discussed a range of political subjects including the community, citizenship, constitutions, and states.
  5. Nichomachean Ethics. Another work by Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics is comprised of ten books, and has become an essential part of medieval philosophy. At the core, it attempts to answer the question: 'how should men best live?'
  6. Leviathan. In this book, Thomas Hobbes constructed his social contract theory which questions the origin of any given society, and the legitimacy of the state's power over its citizens.
  7. Animal Farm. George Orwell's novel is an allegory to the Russian revolution during the 1940s. Using farm animals as main characters, he addressed the how the revolution was corrupted by self-indulgence, ignorance, apathy, and even its own leaders.
  8. Caesar's Commentaries. The Commentaries may refer to one or both of written works of Julius Caesar: Commentarii de Bello Gallico (58-50BC) and Commentarii de Bello Civili (49-48BC). The Commentaries contain Caesar's description of the battles he went through, including the intrigues he witnessed thereof.
  9. Discourses on Livy. Written by Niccolo Machiavelli, the Discourses on Livy focuses on the structure and advantages of a republic. The novel is a contrast to Machiavelli's better-known work The Prince, which holds the total authority of monarchs over the people.
  10. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Reflections shows intellectual opposition against the young French Revolution. Although written in the 1790 by Irish political theorist Edmund Burke, the book influenced many modern conservatives and classical liberalists who are against communism and socialism.

[ad_2]

Source by Jules Mariano

One Difference between Law and Politics

[ad_1]

To me, education is not just the matter of financial livelihood and social status, but why education is needed? Whether the provided education is authentic, what the lacks or loopholes of education are and to the final stage: would education make the absorbers immortal? These are some of the questions and rhetoric that make me view education very differently from those of my peers and even my parents and lecturers.

Law and Politics are usually confused with one another and can not be meticulously separated from each other; as we usually hear the Faculty of Law and Politics, Center for Political and Legal Tuition, Professor of Law and Politics, etc. These are the facts that initiate me an idea to bring the core difference between Law and Politics and put it on a public display. The core difference would help the student to deeper understand the subject matters.

Do you have such the wonder? If no, start to make yourself curious about the core difference between Law and Politics to initiate your mental vocation and if yes, this is an article to unveil you a unique difference between Law and Politics to make you deeply understand.

As a student of Law, newspaper columnist, expert author, media liaison officer, legal and political assistant, I have found one complete differences between Law and Politics. This difference is "the interpretation."

Most students of Law and Politics do not know that the most important theme of their education is "the interpretation." Why I dare to say this? Up to the present, we have billions of sources ranking from books and international media publication to the abstract sources, but these so-called information will not make us a true political analyst or lawyer.

What we are seeing on these sources is just "plain information", so what are these information are. If information is just all about information, University is not needed, because most of these sources are available everywhere and even free. The things that we have not found on these sources are "the interpretation" or the path to interpretational secretes. Let's now jump up to the very core of our article.

Legal interpretation must be "within": in interpreting the law, the lawyer of any party or the conflicting parties themselves can not interpret the law out of the law being enforced in the country where the trial is being heard. This may seem very vague and let us bring an example to clarify. If you commit or are accused of committing a crime in the country in which you are residing in, you or your lawyer are not entitled to interpret the law out of the laws being enforced in your residing country. To a stricter extent, the laws being used for interpretation must circumnavigate the crime that you did or are accused of committing. This case is different from "political interpretation."

Law and Politics may be equally broad, but interpretation in politics is much broader than in legal one. Have you ever noticed that a political analyst for a university in America would use approach in political interpretation by drawing examples from any country, any sources and any celebrities in the world. Political interpretation (analysis) is not as "within" as in law.

Politics is much more flexible and so much softer than law. Other merits why politics allow much broader interpretation, because we even see a huge similarities between socialist and capitalist states (similar political application), but the laws in these two separate kinds of state are totally different. I know the last one sentence is too vague for you, but let's start the legal and political interpretation.

[ad_2]

Source by Vicheka Lay