A social problem is a contentious issue that relates to people’s individual lives and interactions. A condition is undesirable to some people in society. Race and social problems provide a global and multidisciplinary discussion for the publication of articles and debate on matters relevant to race and its lasting connection to psychological, socioeconomic, political and cultural problems. Most publications are filled with stories concerning the adverse social condition. Some of these issues include; violence, gender inequality, drug abuse, crime and environmental problems, among others. Such social issues can be witnessed at the local, national and international levels. The aptitude necessary for solving social problems is not a thing of the mere mental power. It must be animated with the religious attitude and warm with empathy for human anguish. It must extend beyond self-interest and seek justice.
It is surprising to think how destructive in a civilization would be such violent conflicts as filling the account of the past. The wars of substantially enlightened countries, since the beginning of the age of machinery, have been the fight of armies rather than disputes conflicts of peoples or classes. The growing difficulty and fragility of organization, which provide the top capacity and increased authority, are accompanied by increased needs and hazards and require, therefore, increased intellect running through nature.
There are two key factors, which can be traced in connection to political problems. First is linguistic ethnicity and nationalism; the second is the view that Western history involves ontological degeneration, which ends in covetousness and naturalism that are critical to all modern political principles.
Traditionally, women have more inferior position than men in terms of power, richness and standing. The number of women in key political positions, the money they make and how they think about themselves are reliable indicators (Hao). The gap among the rich and the poor has progressively increasing in the past years. This can be significantly associated with political problems, where the rich become richer and the poor remain in poverty.
The effect on international organization of political structures, struggling to give the basics of life and nourishment to their citizenry causes social justice, and environmental accountability seems to be inconsequential problem.
There seems to be a strong belief for religion having a key influence on disputes and war from the Middle Ages up to the civilized era. From most of the history, war emerges to have been fought between the self-centered rulers in search for power and resources. Pereus argued that there is a strong inspiration for conflict from primeval culture than religious ideas (Perseus). Many religions are followed all over the world.
Each religion has its values, definitions and ways of dealing with the issue like supernatural power or god. With a little profound understanding, it becomes clear that there is a consistency in the elementary deliberation and education of various religions. No religion teaches the message of abhorrence or war. Instead, showing sympathy towards fellow human beings and nature are the main principles of all religious groups. Religion assists human beings in appreciating their significance and role in the entire universe.
There has been a popular, misleading notion that most wars are connected to religion. This is purely false. A study on the matter of the function of religion in the major conflicts over the past 3,500 years indicates that 60% of wars had no religious incentive at all, and only 4% were identified as truly religious wars (Will). The governments prefer to resolve many matters by means of conflict. In addition, there are unquestionable cases in which governments have sought to use existing social disunity, including religious conflicts, in order to trail their own agendas.
There are no tangible examples in the past that link religion to the crucial cause of war. Some of the appalling incidences, which occurred, raise questions concerning the function of religion in human lives. Only World War I and the continuing Israel- Palestine conflicts are hypothetical to stand based on religious differences. Lately, in India, the religious uprising in Mumbai and the Godhra unrest in Gujarat, but displayed a remarkably worrying image. The present Islamic terrorism conception that is established all over the world is the most horrible illustration of the human thoughts and discriminations.
In all these incidences, religions have been held accountable for the conflicts. In the factual sense, the religion is not wrong. There is no evidence in any religion of the world that supports the assassination of the innocent people. Almost all religions advocate for spreading love and not fighting. There are few self proclaimed delegates of religion, which mislead the people and display a vulgar picture.
Religion is a belief to which people are attached. Ideologies are well-and-good except that politicians or leaders with self-centered agendas try to use them to encourage violence. The execution of black people by the Democrats of the South was panic enthused by group leaders who used their lifestyle as a justification to kill people simply for the color of their skin. Hitler used patriotism and fear against the Capitalist as the motivation to invoke dictatorship and oppression over Germany.
Religions have been used for Crusades; however, it was only an instrument to get the land and resources that occupied the land. Inhabitants are a tedious group who are simply aggravated into being blood-thirsty. While there is no denying fact that operations, such as the Crusades War foundationally rested on religious beliefs. It is incorrect to declare that religion has been the leading cause of war. Laying war at the feet of religion is not correct, sincere or warranted. All wars witnessed in American history from the radical War, the Civil War, the Mexican War, and the World Wars all had nothing do with religion.
The greatest war cited by the atheists is the Crusade. Although, one group (the Christians) stimulated under that group, since it wanted something that the Muslims had. The point here is that one group was fighting for something that the other had and not because of their ideological differences. Even though, religion was the spurring factor in this incidence, it could have also been something else; for example, Arabs verses Europeans, and in the real fighting, those individualities broke down as allied with whichever would be most supportive in attaining their ends (Schumacher).
It is naive to conclude that with the absence of religion, there would be little conflict, although it is factual that there would be one less social division that can be influenced by those in power. War is a recurrent outcome of one society seeking to rule another for whatever reason. Getting rid of religion will do nothing to do away with a war. There are numerous other group entities, which are abused that the eradication of one could eliminate war, but if eliminated, it would have no effect on the war.
This is not to imply that group entities are awful; it is just that it may be abused like anything existing. I would not campaign an effort to liquefy all group ties just because they are not intrinsically immoral. I believe, it is impossible to obliterate them at all.