ah, ah, hello, i'm manila chan you are tuned into modus operandi. so around the world, polls show that religion is losing its favor among younger generations, doesn't matter if it's christianity, buddhism, islam, in general, religion is less popular than it was in decades past. but religion still influences the law in many places around the world. this week will examine how faith seep into foreign policy. all right, let's get into the ammo. the news in the u. s. the separation of church and state is chiseled into the american collective conscience. often cited as being one of this country's founding values is actually totally incorrect. nowhere is it

explicitly written in the constitution or enumerated in the bill of rights, that religion must be decoupled from the state. it's simply implied in the 1st amendment. quote, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of all the 1st amendment says is the government will not force a particular religion on anyone. and that religion falls under the rights to free speech and expression. so why then is god referenced so frequently? for example, in the american pledge of allegiance, a number of dated laws around the country. or when politicians or scopus justices are sworn in, they take their oath of office by swearing in with one hand on the bible. perhaps

a nod to the judeo christian values of the founding fathers. so regardless of no forced uniform religion in the united states, many laws and policies are originated from these faith based the values of the elected leaders. and some countries, such as iran are loosely something of a hybrid theocracy and republic, where the ayatollah is both the religious leader and the de facto head of state. or in the united arab emirates. islam is not only the majority of religion, but it's also the official one. and in china, the people's republic is officially an atheist state, but the government officially recognizes 5 major religions. so for more on this discussion will turn to professor mohammed mirandi. he's an expert in literature and oriental ism at the university of toronto. professor, thank you for being with us now taking

a why to lens at global politics. how do you view the role of religion and the impacts that has on shaping different countries, policies, both foreign and domestic. i think different countries have different experiences and different arrows also their own experiences. countries today have one experience and 100 years ago their experience is different and there is no singular notion of religion. in fact, often when in the west they speak about separating church and state, they often can faded or they often say church and stayed alongside religion and state as if the church is equal to all forms of religion the european church. and so many non westerners who are

fascinated with the west or west, often liberals, they repeat the same notion or the same idea. so they would say the separation of church and state of it. and they said they said they say the same thing about their own religion. in other words, since the european experience has led many in the west to believe that the church must be separate from the state. these people automatically believe that since they are very pro western, since they're a orientalist themselves, they're impacted by orientalism. they, they, they mimic western narrative, many non western elite. they are

a mimic western ideas and western or predominant western ideas. so they say the same thing about their own religion as if the experience of the church in europe is a universal experience, as if they experience in europe must be the same for the rest of the world. whereas, while it is not universally accepted, i, i'm quite confident in europe that the charge must be separate from the state. i don't think it's universally accepted, but i don't think it's right to even if it was correct for the churches in europe to be separate from politics. i don't think that's necessarily the experience or should be seen as what, how the church should behave, not in america, for example. it's based on the assumption that anything,

any religious entity outside of europe, whether christian muslim jewish or anything else is somehow inferior to the european brand. if i could put it that way, the u. s. for example, claims to be somewhat of a secular state, but its culture is rooted in christianity from the founding fathers. so oftentimes these values are expressed in how, let's say folks at the state department as an example, may view another country's cultural norms as perhaps sexist or even barbaric. and they'll issue sanctions against that country on the grounds of human rights. is this an indirect way that religion impacts policy? yes, i mean their views to whether they are they consider themselves to be christian or secular. i think it's still the same thing. so many of the secular elite in the united states or religious lead to the united states or

secular leads in europe or religious beliefs in their behavior towards the rest of the world is somewhat similar. their policy is directed towards the rest of the world are very similar. so usually we hear that republicans are more religious than democrats. but the wars that have been waged by the democrats and the republicans have been bipartisan for the most part. and the same in europe, europe has been highly secular, but they destroyed libya, the, the most wealthy country in africa and turned it into a lawless land, where slaves are traded. so whether you call it religious or sexual, i think it's a, it's irrelevant it's, it's an immoral policy. it's an, a more immoral behavior. it doesn't reflect the will of europe or north america,

because ordinary people are basically fed information by big business or the mass media that's controlled by powerful elite. so they really don't know what's going on yon their borders and the suppression of countries. for example, the americans have been considered the, the backyard of the united states. so they are all christian countries, but the united states sees them as being a subordinate to u. s. government policy. so i don't, i don't think it's, i think it's, i think there's a lot of, there's racism involved or some premises and all that's tribalism involved. but at the end of the day it's, it's just, it's a type of exceptionalism. now whether that exceptionalism you link it to religion, or you link it to the city,

or to raise or to whatever that is going to create this sense of superiority and hierarchy. and therefore, countries will deem themselves to have exceptional rights. so and joseph or l. d u e. foreign policy chief speaks about europe being at garden in the rest of the world being basically jungle that comes from that euro centric supremacists. and he doesn't take into account the fact that europe has destroyed much of the rest of the world through imperialism. through colonialism, he does not understand, he does not want to understand. i'm sure he knows deep down that too. but he doesn't want to understand that the minorities that have climbed over the walls of this garden are only there because europe has destroyed their lands. they have nowhere else to go. now the chinese government, they are officially atheistic, not secular. they are specifically atheist, although they do officially recognize

a few big world religions. how does this lack of religion and government reflect in how they create laws or develop their foreign policies? again, here i think that the issue is the china. these till now has been focused on its own development. unlike western countries over the past few centuries, which are looked abroad, which have look to expand their empires and they were rivals western countries. war went to war against each other because of these empires because of the land that they each wanted for themselves. or the chinese, at least in recent history, they've been looking to develop their own country. and therefore the rest of the world, whether the chinese are better than the americans or not. the experience of the

well rest of the world is that the chinese have not impose themselves on other countries. now western countries would say that if they could, they would. but so far they haven't, they haven't overthrown different countries through cause. and in fact, the chinese government has helped bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in their own land. whereas the united states and this in the last few decades, it's basically racked their own middle class, not only through perpetual wars and through liberalism and liberal capitalism and failed policies. but also, i think through the selfishness of individual ism, the united states has her sacrifice,

its own people. whereas ordinate that of the bulk of chinese society, which was poor, is now moving towards the middle class. they can, they have a better life, they are fed better, they, they are, they have a better education, the better health care they have before. whereas in the united states, it's the reverse, it's in europe, is the reverse, it's declining, i'm not saying it's non existent, but it's the united states is definitely not the united states of the 1960 s or the 1970s of the 1950s. so whatever the ideology in china, we see that the united states is doing more damage or europeans, secular, or otherwise. they claim to be secular, but they're doing more damage to them, to the rest of the world and to their own people through these policies. then then,

then the chinese, the chinese are doing trade and business, whatever their intentions are. we don't see the sort of behavior that we've seen among western governments. and so they're, they're building their country. professor randy, don't go anywhere. lots more to discuss with you. coming up next with religion on the decline, how will be a credit governments deal with china's atheism? we'll discuss it when we return, sit tight and i will be right back with operation. the aerodynamic began shortly after. well want to last it almost 3

decades. it wasn't a major effort to try and split the ukraine off from the soviet union, u. s. intelligence together with hypnos, executioners, jane, hundreds of saboteurs, to be deployed and the soviet union risk focused on the east of bundle. so we'll have started with you on server shootings more than yes. today, security service of ukraine use is not only the statistic methods, but also the ideology of the nationalist, a rec center that i'm here to plead with, you, whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. seriously, why watch something that's so different. my little opinions that you won't get

anywhere else working with please. if you have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead, change and whatever you do. don't watch my show, stay mainstream because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way. mm. thing . the me yeah. watch and was in control. if i give you the shot and showed on phenomenon from this day last year, now when i went back with dr. joe, just question the profile is national shylie your when you bought it up. i mean

oh mm. welcome back to the m l i. manila chan, let's turn our attention to china. as you probably know, china is expected to overtake the u. s. as the biggest economy in the 21st century . now professor mohammed mirandi is sticking around with us. thank you so much for staying around professor. so how does an atheist state such as china address a country that is based on a religious law, like saudi arabia is a sunni muslim state, or iran being and islamic republic. it's she unless from there she islam. is it more difficult to see either i because of the opposing views on religion as a matter of law?

i wouldn't say that saudi arabia has been promoting sonia, i would say that it's highly influenced by mohammed now to have and therefore the ideas of mohammed, if not, we'll have our key and therefore that's why many people say they're well happy. so i would consider that the ideology that was promoted, that has been promoted from by so the rate for decades to be very different, different from one significant way is different from traditional. so nissan that we have seen in, in, across the atlantic world, in the case of china, what i know. so in the case of china, i would say that the issue is not so much religion. i don't think religion is key here. as long as the chinese

respect the sovereignty of a country like iran, as long as china respects the sovereignty of any other country. then i think that regardless of the religious ideology or the lack of a religious ideology, trade and business can continue. in iran, you have people who are very secular and you have people who are very religious, your shop owners who are secular shop homes, who are religious. they do business, they tray, you have neighbors who are religious and secular. the issue with between china and iran, is that so far we haven't seen china attempting to undermine iran and sovereignty and impose itself more recently. we've seen western countries make that claim about why we and then

a chinese high tech industries. but for us who are looking from a more, let's say about a more balanced perspective, we know that it's in europeans. they are competing with china with regards to high tech for products. now if we look back at western history at the crusades that began in the 11th century, these wars were waged based on religion kind of world escape this history or do we still see remnants of religious wars today? do you have any examples that might come to mind? well, you know that in the crusades the europeans kill them. they are large number of native christians. they massacred and slaughter christians

in the, in the areas which are now called palestine. and i've been on egypt and, and syria and jordan. so it's not simply about muslims and christians. the crusades were very brutal toward anyone who stood in their way. so on the one hand, they were religious, but on the other hand, the they weren't weren't just about religion. and again, even if we were to say that this was, this was a war wage against this farm. i would argue that the problems that we see in the war, the world today are not as i was saying earlier, not necessarily about religion itself. right now. the conflict in europe is between christian countries. the russians are orthodox

nato countries are largely catholic and anglican comparisons. and some orthodox as an ukraine, but the conflict is one about power and influence and it's often racist and oriental to listen itself. the depiction of russians, for example. and i say this because i the same sort of trucks are used against our country or are part of the world. russians have often been historically depicted as barbaric as brutal in western literature and western discourse and, and racist. troops are constantly even though they are not dark skinned. they don't look like many of them don't look like me or you,

but we do see this. we're taking place in that war is about power and influence, the united states and nato, to expand it eastward, needlessly name a qu, they support it right when groups they don't want to call them not to use anymore. but when you looked at the western media over the past years, that's what they were calling thought they were speaking about the nazi problem in ukraine. so and nazis, we're, we're humanist, so not necessarily religious. and they were humanistic. the nazi is in the 1930 s and fourties. they had great admiration or greek civilization. they saw themselves as the inheritors of the greek civilization, the rightful heritage. they saw the contemporary, grecian people as degenerate. and they, they admired music, chin,

and literature. and the arts and, but they were not sees and they carry how genocide. so i don't, again, i'd say that whether this is religion, religious or non religious. i think it's mostly about empire power, wealth and the, and domination. do you view religion as part of laws or policy for our country as being a good thing, or is it detrimental to its advancement? well, we don't have a single religion in the world. and different religions are different world views and within different religions we have different sex. and therefore, just like at the beginning when i was talking about church, you know, when they say church and state should be separated, then they say therefore religion and state should be separated. which in a way,

assumes this hierarchy, this, your central clarity hierarchy because the church in europe shouldn't be a part of the state. therefore, no religion should be a part of it anywhere else in the world. because if it doesn't work in europe, obviously doesn't work anywhere else. that is implied that europe is superior. whether you're religious or secular in europe, you're. so even even the religion that you don't accept is somehow superior to all those other religions that you don't accept if you get what i'm trying to say. so the experience of the church in latin america, the experience of as far as in different parts of the world are different the different sets of different use. so different societies in communities have to make their own judgment. but what i can say is that in the case of iran, we have a country where before the revolution overwhelmingly, people were impoverished. before the revolution,

most of the country did not have electricity. they didn't have running water. and they didn't have national cuz they didn't have a nationwide health care networks and the list goes on. now we have universal education. we are in the villages. they have primary health care services in the country based upon that religious ideology, despite all the sanctions, despite the wars that have been imposed upon it, it is remained independent. and even under the sanctions has been able to develop its hi tech industry. whether it's nanotechnology or stem cell research you are on, is creating country in the world. and with regards to its military capabilities, i think it's now being talked about. so even though i don't think i don't know military capability is it's, it's a sad thing,

but it should be even debated in the world that we live in. we should be living in a more peaceful world. but the point that i'm trying to make is that despite all the sanctions and despite all the pressure under this system under this, under the credit constitution, that is religious. iran has had significant successes. and a lot of the problems that it has is because of sanctions, because of foreign pressure because of animosity from western countries. all right, we'll leave it right there. professor mohammed mirandi, thank you so much. so for all intents and purposes, it sounds like the policies arrive at decisions more based on exceptionalism, rather than religion these days. all right, that's going to do it for this weeks episode of modus operandi the show that dig deep in the foreign policy. i'm your host manila chan. thank you so much for tuning

and we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo ah march 20th 2003 u. s. army and its allies invaded iran. a minimum of 7. was it m b a made a was 2003, u. s. president george bush declared victory in the iraq war id. the project are, you know what that would put up for july and i found the engine potential hired to december. the 30th 2006 said,

i'm hussain was executed and results will shut down them. from december, the 15th 2011, a ceremony was held in baghdad to mom the end of the u. s. military mission. in reality, the u. s. army is still in iraq, a. she had the village are still a couple people, but there are oh, when i was showing wrong, when i just don't hold me well, yes. to see how this thing becomes the advocate and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look so common ground

a with the clinician with no go. you have to be on a deal. plus, you know, we do a lot. that was rude enough. i just wonder, was it a little record? what's in which it is work for those who will do a bite, b,

loan all to something more, that will be less. would you do less hours . so on is it is jim being a bus to visit moscow. he takes a full life at westgate sense, all right, the world order, while russian president vladimir putin emphasizes the strength of that countries. biological partnership also is this cheapest supplier or rise in the world by a big margin that has seen that so rural african countries now africa. c shaping out to be the largest market increases it arrives as well. so africa helping the consummate cope with food shortages in certain regions. pathway currently accounts with 2 thirds of.