values in the world as well as follow, relics, both muslim and christian. such a thing is an acceptable we in jerusalem, suffer from such atrocities were very b against our holy relics, or palestinians being subjected to the invasion in their homes. israeli embassy in authorities have agreed to a tentative piece still just ahead of the muslim holy month of ramadan. according to the deal clinched in the jeeps and city of shamile shake both sides of the stock unilateral measures and israel must holt settler activity impasse in areas. the government of israel and the palestinian national authority reaffirmed their joint readiness and commitment to immediately work to end unilateral measures for a period of 3 to 6 months. this includes an israeli commitment to stop the discussion of any new settlement units for 4 months and to stop authorization of any outpost for 6 months worth. while jordan host initial meeting to deescalate

pensions in the region, britain did not bring a sustainable result. then this past weekend, egypt posted officials from israel palestine as well as the u. f. angel. him during which this new agreement was reached. the size have failed to take steps that would allow passing and improve their economic well being and pursue further piece. of course a shoot out in which one party and, and she was raised was wounded carsa grim shadow over the pieces in egypt. the incident happened in the west bank city of water is ready for it. he said a palestinian man shots and is really visible, which prompted is ready soldiers, threats, or fire. main suspect was detained. political honest ma hm. made and the jeep, it doesn't believe that the nuclear does, will inspire power. sense of trust is really government. elaine,

it's such a housemaid, but the difference of those weight is with limits disagreements because also it happened and talk about some one month ago on the 26th of february. but there it is, continued in care of june, of those bank faculty knew that killing that is on the, on the mission of the bus, you know, which nothing of that agreement or limit that on the ground. this continue with that, it was a textbook in your is i didn't the pre of about money that for a long time. so it's a whipping on the daily behaviors if they are really going to scope their ideally kitchens. and that is a, since the beginning of this year, it's better, you know, skilled by basically autumn in those bank. actually also the situation has more control over the genie and noblest. a group rate as well as it is a limb, which is like a consent that it will give it

a month that will stop. and next there's day. and also that is i going to locked in the sit last so i don't think that's my change on the ground and back. i mean days oh, hold up will be back. i look over the out. ah . so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk ah, hello, i'm manila chan. you are tuned and, and modus operandi. so around

a world poll 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 seeps into foreign policy. all right, let's get into the m o, the me. in the us, 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 reference so frequently, for example, in the american pledge of allegiance, a number of dated laws around the country, or when politicians or go to 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 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, as long as not only the majority 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 tehran. professor, thank you for being with us now taking a wide 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 era has also their own experiences. countries to they 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 state alongside religion and state as if the church is equal to all forms of religion or the european church. and so many non westerners who are fascinated with the west or pro west often liberals, they repeat the same notion or the same idea. so they would say

the separation of church and state. 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 there are orientalist themselves there impacted by orientalism, they, they, they mimic western narrative in 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 they experience and in europe must be the

same for the rest of the world. whereas, while it's not universally accepted, i, i'm quite confident in europe that the church 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 charges 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. 9 america, for example, is 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 is still the same thing. so many of these secular leads 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 for 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, 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. there's 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 race or 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 and the rest of the world being basically jungle that comes from that euro centric supremacy. 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 the truth, 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 the, the issue is that china, these till now has been focused on its own development. unlike western countries over the past few centuries, which are looked abroad, which i've looked 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. but 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 couldn't, 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 and their own land. whereas the united states, at least in the last few decades, it's basically wrecked 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 of the bulk of chinese society, which was poor, is now moving towards the middle class. they can, they have

a better life, they're fed better, they, they are, they have a better education that better health care. and 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 1970 is of the 1950s. so whatever the ideology in china, we see that the united states is doing more damage. or european, 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 truck doing trade in 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 theocratic governments deal with china's atheism? we'll discuss it when we return. sit tight them out. we'll be right back with oh, look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about official intelligence. the point obviously is to place

trust, rather than fear. i would like to take on various job with artificial intelligence . real. somebody with a robot must protect his phone existence. with o walking back to the ammo. i'm manila chant. 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 religious law, like saudi arabia is a sunni muslim state or iran being and islamic republic. it's shia muslim. there she islam. is it more difficult to see 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 my my now don't was and therefore the ideas of mohammed, if not archie, and therefore that's why many people said there were hobby. so i would consider that the ideology that was promoted, that has been promoted from i. so the rate for decades 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, 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 in 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 owners, who are religious. they do business, they do 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 iranian sovereignty and impose itself more recently. we've seen western countries make that claim about why we and been 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. can the 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 the beer. large number of native christians. they massacred and slaughter christians in the, in the areas which are now called palestine, lebanon, and egypt and, and syria. jordan, so it's not simply about muslims and christians. the crusades were very brutal towards any one who stood in their way. so on the one hand they were religious, but on the other hand the they were, they 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 one of the boxes and you, 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 war taking place and that war is about power and influence. the united states and nato. they expand it eastward, needlessly. they impose the cool, they support it. right. mean groups, they don't want to call them not to use anymore, but when you look at the western media over the past few years, that's what they will be. they will call and talk. they were speaking about the nazi problem in ukraine. so and nazis were we're human a so not necessarily religious or humanistic. nazis in the 1930 s and

fourties. they had great admiration for greek civilization. they saw themselves as the inheritors of the greek civilization, the rightful here was. they saw that the contemporary grecian people as degenerate . now they admired music and literature and the arts and but they will not cease and they carry hell, genocide. so i don't, again, i say that whether this is religion, religious or non religious. i think it's mostly about empire power, well and, and domination. do you view religion as part of laws or policy for a 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 part of the state. therefore, no religion should be a part of say, anywhere else in the world. because if, if it doesn't work in europe, obviously doesn't work anywhere else. that is implied that europe is superior. whether your religious or secular in europe, yours is 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 the in different parts of the world are different the different

sets of different views. 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 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 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 leaving 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 stop, you 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 constitution, that is religious. iran has had significant successes. and a lot of the problems that it has is because 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 vanilla chan. thank you so much for tuning and we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo. ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is very dramatic. a, i'm going to resist, i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very difficult time to sit down and talk

a chinese a fly by the way, to the terms of the world order on russian president of it emphasizes the strength of the countries by that partnership also is it cheaper supplier or roy in the world by a big margin that have seen them african countries, africa shipping out to be in the are just a food supply. so africa where the continental currently accounting for the boss majority.