the the 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 originate 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. islam is 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 toronto. professor, thank you for being with us now, taking a while 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 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 stayed alongside religion and state as if the church is equal to all forms of religion about

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 9 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 is still the same thing. so many of

these 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 2nd, i think it's a, it's irrelevant it's,

it's an immoral policy. it's an immoral, 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 a 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 subordinate to a 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 supremacists and all this 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 whatever that is going to create this sense of superiority in 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. so premises 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 tell 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 were, 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, 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 fail policies. but also, i think through the selfishness of individual ism,

the united states has a sacrifice its own people. whereas ordinate that of the bulk of chinese society, which was poor, is now moving towards the middle class. and they can, they have a better life, they're fed better, they, they are, they have a better education, they're better health care. and they had before. whereas in the united states, it's the reverse it 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 or try 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. m o will be right back. ah ah

ah ah ah ah ah ah, a ah with what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race move is often very dramatic. development only personally,

i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult. i'm time to sit down and talk. ah, welcome 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 now to and therefore the ideas of mohammed. if not, we'll have our tea and therefore that's why many people say they're well hobby. so i would consider that the, the ideology that was promoted, that has been promoted for by saudi arabia for decades. be very different, different from, or significant ways different from traditional nissan that we have seen and, and across this on the 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 is as long as the chinese respect the sovereignty, a country like iraq, 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. you have shop owners who are secular shop owners who are religious. they do business, they do trade. yes. 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 in 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 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 the beer,

large number of native christians. they massacre them, slaughter christians in the, in the areas which are now called palestine, lebanon, and 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 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, or nato countries are largely a catholic, an anglican partisans, 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 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 use anymore. but when you look at the western media over the past years, that's what they were calling. i think they were speaking about the nazi problem in ukraine. so and nazi is we're we're humanist. so now let's just say religious or human as the 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, as they saw the contemporary grecian people as degenerate. are they?

they admired music 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. well and, 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 for 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 said 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, your 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 a storm in different parts of the world, are different, the different sex with different views. so different societies and 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 because they didn't have a nationwide health care networks. and this goes on. now we have universal education. we have in the villages they have primary healthcare 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 nano technology 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 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 of the credit 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 week's 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 ah ah, a never a ah, we will man in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia for date and split or t spoke neck,

even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube. and with this most evasion of right of the night to pass is fundamentally racist. now, racism least to genocide 1st truthful would they believe that they are superior? if you think that you are superior and that's why you are rich, why's everybody else poor? you shut out of your mind, the idea that they are poor because you are making them, by robbing them by getting to buy your course decimal rest of it. and you think no, it must be because they are inferior people. what do you do with inferior people? get rid of, get rid of,

ah ah, [000:00:00;00] with i'm african return. see and welcome back to going underground, broadcasting all around the world from dubai in the u. e. today marks 20 years since the usa and britain launched an unprovoked invasion of iraq, which would lead to tens of millions killed, wounded or displaced in was throughout the region and beyond. the iraq invasion was characterized by a new type of military strategy, shock and or defined by using of welding force to break the perceived enemies will to resist snow nature power would officially count the number of iraqi civilians

killed. it's now routine across most of humanity to quote iraq at loan, afghanistan, libya, and syria nations in africa and latin america as emblematic of how the ukraine conflict today is now seen as the birth of a new world order. well, the national security strategist behind the shocking or doctrine doctor holland omen joins me for today's episode from washington. d. c is actively advised us government officials and the heads of governments around the world as well as nature strategic commanders and secretaries general. he's the current senior advisor of the atlantic council chair, the kilo and group. thank you so much for coming on to us 20 years since since this sir. seismic a change in the world, you design chalk and or how do you reflect on it today? the shock and awe that we design and i was part of a group of people who had actually thought and desert storm as well as donald rumsfeld, secretary of defense, who was a rough member of the group, the shock and all that we design was not the shock and all that general tommy

franks administered what frank did was a desert storm sort of massive attack on steroids. if the real shock and i had been used, we would have try to depose saddam hussein without firing a shot. and where we would have started was to determine whether or not saddam actually had weapons of mass destruction, which i never believed advised the government. and the reason in many ways why saddam was reluctant to admit that was that he didn't want to tell his enemies. and many of his generals, he was absolutely naked. with the point is that desert storm was the model for iraqi freedom in 2003. it was not shock and awe, tommy franks, the general use that as a slogan i'm going to put in shock and awe. and the day the attack started, there was a full page photograph in the daily telegraph in england of