My Thoughts on Political Geography

            Going into this political geography class I was skeptical as to whether I would be able to do well in the class and whether we would talk about any topics that would interest me. I do not consider myself a very political person and I do not enjoy arguing about politics like many of my friends do. My Catholic faith makes me think “Man if people would just find Jesus and the Church all these problems would be solved and people wouldn’t fight about all this stuff.” I just get headache thinking about politics. The only reason I decided to join the class was because I really enjoyed my professor last year for Human Geography and this class counts towards my geography major. One thing I definitely learned this year was that I am very opinionated on many different political issues and that I am not apathetic. I care about politics and world issues; I simply need to get more information about them so I can form more knowledgeable answers. During the debates I felt as though I definitely had strong opinions, I simply lacked the examples because I need to gain more knowledge of the world.

            The class started off with looking into physical features of countries and how this gave them an economic, defensive and even social advantage. This was interesting to me but I am glad we moved on from it and went on to study more on how a country’s location affected its politics and behaviors. Colonialism was of a particular interest to me because it was interesting to see how colonialism still affects their societies today, some positively and some negatively. One thing I liked about political geography was how it uses an area’s space and surroundings to form how people are going to vote and what their opinions are going to be. This was in strong contrast to a public policy class I took where it tried to track people’s feelings to see what their opinions are going to be. In political geography people vote because of their surroundings: if I live in coal country I vote for a candidate who is not in opposition to coal. It has nothing to do with coal. I also liked how those states or counties in an election which always vote the same were though not to matter and that swing states should be given more attention. This makes things simpler and is less emotion-driven and is more qualitative.

Flat, Hot, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman spoke of how the world is getting more “flat” through technology and media. I would go on to say that the world is getting more flat though super-nationalism and socialism. Borders are therefore becoming less and less important through super-nationalistic organizations like the EU. This would make studying politics through space and location irrelevant as we all simply become one big country. I think we should use Political Geography to fight super-nationalism. Political Geography says that where you come from and what borders you live in do matter when it comes to forming your opinions and what say you have in the world. Borders do matter. Nations do matter. We are a diverse, world full of unique countries which all have different opinions and politics. Political Geography is patriotic in this way.

Gender Geography and What it Means to be a Man!

          The other week we discussed the topic of gender in geography. This is a subject of particular interest to me because I strongly believe that the different genders of man and woman are distinct from each other. I believe that whether you are a man or woman would definitely be important to a political geographer as it would have an impact on your political views and how you think about the world. Men want adventure, danger, and power. Men are goal oriented and always off to conquer the next thing and will squash anything that gets in the way of that. Women are full of compassion and a motherly nature to care for others. They want to be adored by men and to be protected by them. I feel like many people in my society today would not like these last few statements. Yet I do not think this portrayal of women shows them as weak. To be a good mother one has to be strong. My mother has 6 children and had to be a strong figure to raise us. I think many women would agree with the part apart wanting to be adored by men though I think that needing protection by a man is less valued in our society today. Gender may be a social construction but I believe it has enormous value in our society today because it helps one find their identity as a person. If one does not know whether they are a man or a woman he or she is not going to know who they truly are and the person God created them to be. Gender is especially important in families where I believe a child needs both a strong mother and a strong father to raise them and bring them up right.

            I was lucky enough to have many outlets to embrace my gender as a man growing up. Being in Boy Scouts from first grade to my senior year of high school fostered in me a manly love for the outdoors and important skills I needed to learn. Playing football helped me get out my aggression and showed me the values of sportsmanship and healthy competition. I currently subscribe to the blog, “Art of Manliness.” The main premise of the blog is that what it truly means to be a man has been lost in our society and that we need to study our forefathers to find out what it means to be a man. While I am practical in that I think many of the changes in our society are for the better, I agree that much manliness has been lost in our society and that we need to take it back. I also love books like Wild at Heart which show what it means to be a Christian man. Here at Florida State, I am in the Catholic Student Union. The Brotherhood of Hope is a group of vowed religious brothers that help to run CSU. They have been awesome in fostering a thriving men’s community within the Catholic Student Union. They have also been instrumental in helping me seize the great adventure that Christianity is, living out my faith fully, and holding nothing back. I know understand what it means to fight as a soldier for Christ fighting the enemy (sin and the devil) and bringing others to Christ. They have truly shown me what it means to be a man. Being a man does not mean watching sports, smoking cigars, and drinking beer (though I enjoy all of these things). Being a man means standing up for what you believe in and fighting for your faith. I think that if more men were able to understand this, our society would be better. We would not have passive men but men of action who taking control and responsibility in times of need. We would have strong fathers that do not abandon their children but raise them. We would have strong marriages that do not fail when things get tough.

 

Religion: Rational Thought and Dictator or Servant

    

            The other day religion in geography was brought up in class. Rich picked on me a lot because last semester when I had him for Human Geography I would turn every paper he gave me back to my faith and what I believe in as a Catholic. I was okay with Rich picking on me because it gives me a chance to talk about my faith and you never know if something you say will affect another person in the classroom and perhaps touch their heart in some way. I am not saying I know it all. Despite coming into my faith more in college I am still a sinner and I mess up a lot. Also, despite going to catholic schools from kindergarten to twelfth grade, the Catholic School system really failed me on knowing my religious education. I have simply been fortunately enough to find a community that has formed me and lead me to a better understanding of the truth. I have learned to seek the Lord every day in prayer, to follow Him, and be intentional in my actions as a Christian.

            One argument was: does religion hinder or control rational thought. My answer was that for me religion does not hinder my rational thought because as you come to know the Lord better, you will become more like yourself. You become more like yourself because you are becoming the person God created you to be. This, to me, encourages rational thought because you are more like yourself. Further evidence that religion does not hinder rational thought can be found at the Vatican Observatory. It is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world and continues to have Vatican-paid scientists on staff today and it is tied to the University of Arizona. Also, Monseigneur Georges Lemaître of Belgium was a priest and scientist who proposed the expansion theory of the Universe and what became known as the big bang theory. This idea that rational thought and religion do not mix is a fallacy. I believe that they go together and complement each other.

            Another argument that was brought up was whether or not the Pope has the power to collapse the U.S.. This argument came about from how John Paul II helped collapse communism in Poland and ultimately this lead to the end of Communism in Europe. I always think it is funny how people look to the hierarchy in the Church and try to figure out how much power the positions have. Certainly, at some points in the past, hierarchy in the Church was corrupted and people used the hierarchy to seize power. And perhaps by definition the Pope could be looked at as a prominent dictator in the world today. Instead, I propose looking at it a different way. Because of Christ’s emphasis on being a servant and serving others, is the Pope instead of the world’s greatest dictator the world’s greatest servant? In the business world there is the model of a triangle and rising to the top. In the Church we like to think of an inverted triangle and the Pope being the point at the bottom, serving His people. Our current Pope is a good example of that: this past Holy Thursday he was in a youth detention center washing the inmates’ feet. Do I think he could collapse the U.S.? I don’t think so. I believe I am one of the few people in the U.S. who trust my Church much more than I trust my country. I do not think people put as much emphasis on religion anymore. They may still say they believe in God or go to church a few times a year, but I think that ultimately a holy man like the Pope probably would not have the power to bring it down. I think that the country itself, unless it turns to God, will bring itself down.

Terrorism and Hama

          Last week in class we had a discussion on terrorism. This is often a subject that can really spark anger in me because I get angry at the thought of any group killing innocent civilians and trying to intimidate another group through terror. I thought it was good that we tried to define terror in class and that we were able to compare our definitions. It really stimulated my thoughts on the subject. My definition was a small group usually going after civilians by a violent act in order to intimidate another group or to make a political statement. According to a documentary I watched for my Middle Eastern Geography class one of Al-Qaeda main goals for the September 11 attacks was to unify and call to action Muslims against the West. I supposed it would make the United States appear weak and not impenetrable. I suppose it did make a political statement but for the most part I do not think it unified Muslims against the West. In my opinion September 11 is the ultimate example of terrorism for me.  This is probably due to my bias as an American and the extensive use of the term after the attacks, especially by Bush. But what else counts as terrorism?

            One thing we did not really cover in my Political Geography class but was extensively covered in my Middle Eastern Geography class was the idea that terrorism is a one-time event. It is a single event in time. I suppose this differentiates it from war which is multiple events over a period of time. If this is true I can see how it would be an important distinction in geography because geography is the study of space and time is a form of space. With this distinction in mind I analyzed the Hama massacre of 1982 in Syria.

            For my last test in Middle Eastern Geography we had to read an article called Hama Rules. The article was by Thomas Friedman who wrote Hot, Flat and Crowded which, interestingly enough, is one of the books I am writing on in this class. I do not know how Friedman made the switch from writing about the Middle East to writing about Climate Change or “Global Weirding” as he calls it, but he seemed knowledgeable enough on the subject. The article was not only on the event itself but on the political implications behind it. According to the article, President Assad mowed down an entire town to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood. Assad's brother, Rifaat, Commanding General at the time bragged that they killed 38,000 people including men, women, and children. Looking at our definitions in class this event definitely seems like a terrorist attack. It was a group using terror systematically to intimidate a group and serve a political agenda. But I question whether it was a single isolated event or whether it was just part of a war. According to my Middle Eastern class and the stipulation about being a single event in time I am not sure that this would be terrorism. The civil war in Syria has been going on for years. This brings up the argument of whether acts of violence in wars are considered terrorism or just part of the war. This causes me to think that terrorism is really defined according to which group is defining the incident. Assad may have considered it a price of war which may be different to terrorism. To the Muslim brotherhood this would definitely be terrorism. It depends on how you define terrorism and which group is presenting the information.

            Ultimately, I do not think that the specific definition of terrorism really matters. What matters is that groups or countries should be held accountable for their actions and analyze the moral implications of their actions before they carry out their actions. Whether terrorism or just an act of war, people should know that it is wrong to murder civilians and should count the cost.

The Primative Western World

            A few weeks ago my group had a debate on colonialism. My group was defending the idea that colonialism is bad. I thought that this was going to be very easy because when one is against colonialism, that person can always just point the finger and say that big mean Western countries simply exploited and crushed smaller less-developed regions of the World. However, the debate was not as easy as I thought it would be because the other group had many well-formed ideas and there were about four of them who seemed to have opinions on every issue. Despite this, I think my group did a pretty good job.

            After forming my arguments and even after the debate was over, I still have not decided what my views on colonialism are. The term of colonialism is so loose that it could simply mean a government’s influence over a certain country. I do not believe that mistreating humans and exploiting their land could ever be looked at as a good thing even if in the long run there are good outcomes out of it. However, there are cases where a country could influence another country in a positive way, especially in terms of economics. So, I suppose I have mixed views on the subject.

            One argument I made during the debate, I simply have to analyze further. The argument was made by the Pro-side that colonialism helps societies advance. I counter-argued that the West should not always be looked upon as this great model for advancement. There are some things the West does that could be viewed at as very primitive to others parts of the world, for instance the use of abortion: the outright murder of babies. As a good Catholic it is my duty to draw attention to this issue whenever I can and I admit I am very biased. But I believe it is a valid argument in this situation. The West itself should not be held as a beacon of light for other countries to follow if we continue to murder our babies. This is very primitive to me: to kill a baby for your own selfish desires and your own economic reasons.

            If one looks at a map of which countries allow abortion one can see that the Western world is primarily the leader in this aspect. Yes China and India also fall into this category though I would argue that this is the West’s influence on them. Most of the primarily Catholic countries, the Muslim countries, and African countries value the dignity of life. I think this is because of their religions’ effect on them, but also because poor people understand the value in a human person and a human person cannot simply be disposed of like an unwanted piece of fruit. For a person in inner Africa to even think about getting rid of one of their children would be unheard of. They know that life is precious.

            Now, of course one could argue that it is because of lack of abortion that these countries are poor but I think it is more because of governmental instability and poor distribution of wealth that poverty occurs.

            Another aspect in which the Western world could be viewed as primitive is in our treatment of our elderly. In many Western countries when a person gets too old we simply stick them in a nursing home. In countries in the Middle East and South America, you take care of your parents for life. This is another way in which these countries express a respect for life that is far superior and advanced in my opinion to the Western world.

Moralistic Boston

                Last week I went on a mission trip with the Catholic Student Union to Boston. Boston politics being very different from that of the South, I could not help but think of the political geography of the area. In our class we learned of the different political cultures including Individualistic, Moralistic, and Traditional. The Moralistic or “Yankee” culture of the Northeast is the spirit of everyone working together to solve a problem and everyone should participate in politics. This is in stark contrast to the Traditional culture of the South where only the elites should participate. We had an entire class discussion on who should participate in politics. Having never been this far North before I tried to keep these themes in mind.

            Looking at the geography of the city every house was right next to each other and very old. I was told by those that live there, that even though the houses are small and old; they are worth millions of dollars because of how crazy the housing market is up there. All these people living so close together, made me think of this Yankee culture of compromise. One absolutely has to work with their neighbor to get anything done since they live in such close quarters with each other. In the South everyone is spread farther out so you guard yourself and your piece of land with a gun and you make no compromises to get what you want. Limited government would apply to the South too; because you are spread farther out you do not want others to tell you what to do. This limited government should only be led by those elite in society instead of everyone working together. Where I live in Pensacola, my family lives on an acre of land. This is not as much land as some in the South live on or how much land used to be available in the South but it is much more than the narrow allies of Boston, where the houses go up instead of out. Of course in the South there is the small town idea where everyone knows everyone but that will not be discussed in this blog.

            There was a very solid example of Moralistic culture at one of the shelters we worked at, spooning soup out to people. This was a homeless veteran’s shelter. However, this shelter’s goal was not simply to feed these veterans who have served their country fearlessly. No, the shelter wanted them off the streets and into jobs and had established programs to do so. In fact Lieutenant Governor Murray has announced that he will end all Veterans’ homelessness in the great commonwealth of Massachusetts by 2015. I do not know if this goal is realistic but I do know that it is characteristic of a Moralistic almost utopian society. They will help their fellow man and work together to make society a better place. This is certainly not characteristic of a Traditional political culture of elitists and definitely not Individualistic.

            There also seemed to be more solar panels up North, especially, on every light pole. I think this could also be Moralistic and utopian: working together to make society and our world a better place. The trip was a time of much spiritual growth but it was also good for me politically to get exposed to a culture much different than the one I grew up in. I do not think I would want to live there but it was a positive experience.

Gerrymandering and the Individual

     A few weeks ago we talked about gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when the border of a political district is redrawn to give certain peoples a political advantage. It is only legal in the U.S. when it guarantees political representation of a minority. Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of gerrymandering but for different reasons. Democrats favor them because they give minorities their own voting district. Republicans favor them because they put all the people of a minority in a certain district, so then they do not influence their surrounding districts. This way if the majority is Republican they can beat them with their higher number of congressional districts. This later example is a good example of using political geography to your advantage. All this talk of gerrymandering made me wonder if it was right and whether or not I support it.

     If one looks at the U.S.’s Electoral College one can tell that it favors minorities. We had an entire debate on the Electoral College in class and whether it was a good system or not. Whether you agree with the use of the Electoral College or not, at the end of the day the Electoral College does favor minorities. The minorities in this case being little states versus big states. Little Wyoming’s amount of votes and Texas’s amount of votes are not proportional to their respective populations. The Senate also favors minorities with two senators to every one state. It would seem our founding fathers set our government up to favor minorities, at least in this fashion.

      All this talk our minorities makes me think once again of Les Misérables where Victor Hugo uses these miserable peoples’ lives to emphasize the importance of the individual in society and to combat Marx. The U.S. does think the individual is important. We take pride in men who strike out on their own and make it big by themselves. The “rags to riches” idea is so engrained in Americans and I believe this idea is very individualistic and want to give chances to minorities. I believe that Americans’ fear of communism also shows our individualistic culture. These ideas do not always coincide with my Catholic faith which focuses on a community rooted in Christ. But I digress.

     Gerrymandering favors minorities. Minorities are important because the individual in society is important. Does this mean gerrymandering should continue? The strategy for Republicans and their use of gerrymandering certainly does not support the individual. Throwing them all in one district so that they do not influence the other districts does not support the individual. I think gerrymandering is one of those things that looks good on paper but in reality does not do what it is intended to do. In reality this is not the best way to represent minorities. Instead we should keep minorities in districts with the majority. Representatives will then have to appeal to both them and the majority. I believe this is the only fair way to represent them. If they join together within their communities, the voice of the individual within society will still be heard and representatives will have to listen to them.

The Chains of Supranationalism

     Last week we talked about, and even had a debate about, supranationalism. This is the idea of countries giving up some of their sovereignty to come together for a better cause or economic power. The UN, the EU, NATO, NAFTA, and the Arab league would all be examples of Supranationalistic Organizations. I, for the most part, am not a big proponent of supranationalism. I want the U.S. to keep a fierce control of its sovereignty and it should not give up any of it's rights for a so-called "greater cause". I guess I am kind of old school that way. Supranationalism to me is just a bigger government to limit my freedoms.I think its always good to have a healthy fear of the government. If the government has too much control, gradually, I am not going to have any rights for myself, like for instance: how much money I can make or how many children I am allowed to have. Like any good American I like my freedom. Supranationalism just brings this to a new level where entire other countries will tell you what to do with your money. If you love governmental control I can see how one would be for Supranationalism because to me it is a form of higher governmental control. I for one love my own freedom and do not want my own country along with an entire group of other countries telling me what to do.
      I believe that it was in Washington's Farewell Address that he said we should not interfere in other countries' businesses. I agree with him for the most part. A few weeks ago in my Middle Eastern Geography class, we skyped with students my age from Egypt. My teacher encouraged them to say what they did not like about America. One of the things they complained about was how the United States always interferes in other nations that is should have nothing to do with, especially Israel. In many ways I agree with them. Why can't we just worry about our own problems and stop getting involved in other places around the World? We have plenty of our own internal issues to worry about. I guess one argument to this would be that the U.S. is a model for democracy and economic growth and we should share our ideas with other nations and help out those striving for democracy who are trying to gain their freedom. This is a good argument but we can spread these ideas without having to get involved there ourselves. Also, our model of freedom is not going to work in every country and we often cause more problems by being there. I believe that in most of the cases where we have gotten involved with other nations we have caused more harm than good. We as a nation should learn from this. The only time we should get involved with another country is when that country threatens our own freedom.
     The only time I think supranationalism can be a good thing is in foreign aid to other countries. If people are starving to death and we have more than them, I believe it is our duty as a Christian nation to help them out. But even this has to be done carefully. People often complain that the U.S. exploits Africa by giving different countries food and those countries give them valuable resources in turn. This giving has to be unconditional with nothing expected in return.
     The argument that supranationalism is good for trade is also valid. If a country can gain economically through supranationalism, a country should go for it. The U.S. simply must seek ways to do it that do not give up any of its sovereignty. Otherwise, countries will use trading power to gain control of us. I do not believe Mexico and Canada have very much control over the U.S. at the moment but I can see how a country could gain control over another using trading.
      Except in a few cases, I believe that avoiding suprantionalism is the best way for the U.S. to keep its sovereignty, keep its own people's sovereignty and avoid conflict in other nations.

A Campfire or a Roller Coaster?

      The other day in class my professor began a discussion on the idea that my generation can no longer enjoy nature in its pure wild form. In other words national and state parks no longer can just be untamed wilderness with a few trail and campsites in between, they need action. My generation needs roller coasters and high action adventures, white water rafting, and zip lines; walking through the woods or toasting a few s'mores under the stars just isn't going to cut it anymore. As you can well guess this prompted any number of different responses from my peers. As usual I have a loud opinion on the subject.
      I would like to start by simply stating that I agree fully that people of my generation within my culture have fully embraced an "ADD" culture. We can no longer sit in the quiet and enjoy life. Things soon become boring and we must be in a constant state of activity. Before class everyone is texting away on their phones; even into class when the lecture becomes too boring people return to their phones. People cannot walk to and from class without being "plugged in." The T.V. is always on in our homes, day and day out. Let us compare both movies and books of our day to those 40 years ago. One can see this constant need for action and for something to be happening, compared to a slow start and the building up effect. One recent exception to this would be the movie The Hobbit. The movie had a very slow start which I thought was very "Tolkienesque" but I could not help but wonder how my peers would react to it. Yet I am not going to pretend for a second that I am impervious to this trend. For religious reasons, I have started a media fast. I allow myself a limited amount of media a week including T.V., movies, recreational internet time, and music. However, 50+ days into the fast I still dread taking a 15 minute car ride because of the prospect of sitting alone in the quiet with nothing but my thoughts for company because I am not allowed to turn on the radio.

 

 

     So, now that I have established the "ADD" culture that I now live in, let's apply it to nature. I fell in love with nature at a young age. I was in Boy Scouts from the first grade to the end of high school. I have slain six deer to my name and I have a lake-full of largemouth bass in my backyard. When I came to college I decided to major in Environmental Studies because of my love for nature. There's nothing I enjoy more than sitting around a warm campfire under the stars. All I need for recreation is miles and miles of untamed wilderness. I believe my peers should conform to this as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about high adventure. If someone wants to whitewater raft through the Grand Canyon or zip line through Hawaii, I'm okay with that.Yet there's something about being out in the wild that makes me feel more human and my peers should experience the same. It is good to escape to the quiet of a forest or canyon not always for the high adventure but for the solitude. As a Christian I see the beauty in God's creation and the time He took into making things "good." As a man there is something about sleeping in a tent and cooking over an open fire that "puts hair on your chest" and makes you feel better in your identity as a man. I'm not Theodore Roosevelt or John Muir but I think the U.S. should put forth every effort to maintain these precious resources as places of refuge from our busy and chaotic world. The National Park areas and other lands like them should be preserved simply for their scenic beauty. The addition of things to make the parks more exciting would only deter from their purpose. I believe the ADD culture only makes the need for these places greater as people need places away from their cell phones and laptops and seek the peace they offer. On a recent camping trip I went on with the Catholic Student Union, we were really encouraged to turn off our cell phones. To me this was a relief and I could then enjoy the trip more fully. So, America, the next time you get a free weekend, throw a cooler and a tent in the back seat and drive until you cannot see the city lights. We've still got miles and miles and untamed wilderness to enjoy and there's nothing boring about it.

Borders and the Middle East

      With all the talk on borders in the past few days my thoughts keep going back to the Middle East and the effect borders have had on this area. This is appropriate because I am taking a Middle Eastern Geography class at the same time I am taking this Political Geography class. Most of the countries in the Middle East did not become independent nations until the twentieth century even though the region was the location of most of the world's most ancient human cultures. I believe that this goes to show that borders are primarily a Western construction. Most of the borders were laid out due to European colonization. This makes most of the borders either antecedent, subsequent, or superimposed with the actual inhabitants of the Middle East having little to do with their borders. To this day the Middle East exhibits characteristics of not being able to be controlled by borders. An obvious example of this would be the United States attempt to control Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. Looking through the eyes of a Middle Eastern person one can soon see why the region seems to be so opposed to borders and why they are not organized the way the West wants them to be. The effect of empires, tribes, and most importantly religion have made the region what it is today and opposed it to the western ideas of borders.
      The Middle East area has hosted just about every great empire throughout history. From the Hittites, to the Persians, to the Romans, to the Mongols, the Middle East has seen it all. The region is used to some empire coming in and ruling them. And many of these empires still have cultural influences on the region today. Of course every empire had different ideas about how to rule them: sometimes the ruling empire would make these people little more than slaves, other times the ruling empire altered their way of life very little. The point is that the region was ruled by others for thousands of years and was not used to the idea of independent states. The idea of turning them into states all started in the Netherlands with Hugo Grotius. The Dutch needed the construction of borders and countries in order to compete economically in the region with other nations. The Middle East was rich in resources from their silk road. Europe wanted in on this and they needed borders for this to happen. It was not until the twentieth century, mostly after WWI, that these nations started becoming independent. And so, all of a sudden, when this region had been told what to do by giant empires for thousands of years, they are told to govern themselves. I think this could explain some of the messes going on there now. The only thing I am surprised about is that one nation has not rose up and conquered the whole thing.
      Next we must discuss tribes. Tribes are another system which has been present in this area for thousands of years. You remain loyal to your tribe and the tribe will provide for you. They will give you a job, a wife, a house and everything you need simply by being born into it. The Western idea of moving out and starting on your own with nothing, the "self-made man", is not present in this region. One's loyalty to his tribe comes before his patriotism to his country. This is another reason that borders do not matter much in this country.
      One simply cannot truly discuss the Middle East unless one talks about religion and the influence of Islam on this area. Like one's loyalty to ones tribe, one's adherent to his religion comes before his patriotism to his country. Islam encompasses every aspect of their lives from the time they wake up to the time they go to bed. I cannot help but respect them for this. I know that this sounds like a radical thing to say coming from an American but as a Christian I cannot help but admire them for being so devout in their faith and following the five pillars so zelously. I feel like there are not as many "luke-warm" Muslims as there are Christians, though I could be completely wrong on this.
      The one thing the entire Middle East is united in is hatred for Israel. This succeeds all borders. I believe this is an example of where religion is a bigger player than borders in the Middle East.
       Egypt recently had a revolution. After they overthrew the president they elected an extreme Islamic fundamentalist leader, Mohamed Morsi. I got a chance to do a video chat with Egyptian students in my Middle East class the other day. They spoke of how the political group, the Muslim Brotherhood, was using religion to manipulate the people, telling them they would go to heaven if they elected this president and so on. The students were frustrated by this and they were in favor of a more liberal candidate. This last example greatly shows the influence of religion on the country. I do not know that a tactic like this would work in America. I believe it will take a long time in the Middle East for borders to not take a back seat to religion, tribes, and the influence of empires on the region.