3 (Religion enhances morality)

I think that religion enhances morality because "religious faith has inspired some of the most altruistic behavior the world has ever seen." Religion inspires morality that without religion people would not ordinarily have. If religion did not exist, than people would not be as motivated to do good and be moral people with a set of ethics. Even if you don't believe in G-d, you can still believe that religion enhances morality. The social cues and many of our daily decisions are derived from a long time ago from our religious ancestors. With things like the Torah and the Bible, G-d shows us what is right and what is wrong. I think that religion enhances morality because people refer to religious traditions, not necessarily G-d, but religion as a whole to be better people. I personally do not particularly believe in G-d because I find no clear proof of him, but I still believe that religion amplifies and encourages humane people. Although people do great things without religious references and although there are immoral people who are religious, throughout history and ultimately religion does enhance morality. Some may argue that G-d as the divine one says what is good, and that is what makes us think it is good. However others say that G-d obeys and listens to what WE say is good, therefor in this case G-d whose role in morality is almost redundant. I believe that religion can enhance morality without going through G-d because not all traditions and beliefs within religions are based off of if G-d did this, or if G-d exists, or if G-d said this.

2 (Do's Vs. Do Not's Reading)

This section is titled, "Do versus Do Not." What does that mean? AND Who were the Liberation Theologists? What is the historical shift represented by these people?

"Religion became a set of beliefs that followers needed to embody by what they did, not what they did not do." In other words, religion went from being rules to beliefs, and more of guidelines, than something super forced. Followers embodied these beliefs meaning they carried them at all times. If you chose to embody the beliefs of your certain religion, than you stuck with it and referred to your beliefs in everything you did. One would carry the values and the roots of the religion and use them with what they did do, not with the bad things that they did not to.

Additionally, the liberation theologists were a group of religious believers who adamantly believed that voicing and advocating social justice and equality whenever possible was vital and always necessary. Located mostly in South America, the Liberation Theologists also strongly believed that the rich and the poor should be equal, especially the poor should be granted more power and more opportunities. The Liberation Theologists were not asking for power, but rather they preached unity and pure humanity. To execute their goals they battled and questioned the government, they gained followers, and they spoke up. No matter what their personal position in society was, they stood up for the minority, and stuck to what they believed in. Like many individuals and also groups in the 20th century, the Liberation Theologists used religion as motivation and determination. The historical shift represented by these people was basically shifting from religion used as a way to gain and maintain power, to the idea of continuing, developing, and implementing social justice.

This idea of do versus do not, was basically turning a negative into a positive. Instead of saying don't do this and don't do that, religion was shifting towards something where people did do this and should do that. Religion went from being a list of rules, to enforcing power through morality and truly good people. For example, Gandhi believed that actions guide religion, not strictly belief systems. Also some people disagreed, like mentioned in the reading as history changes, the role of religion will continue to change. The "Do vs. Do Not" is still unfolding itself today, and people with various views on the significance of religion, have a drastically different view on life.

1 (Religion)

In your opinion, does religion have an inherent “goodness” or “badness” or is it simply a medium that can be manipulated in every way? AND What similarities were there between Gandhi and MLK that allowed them to embody this new version of religion?

I think that religion is a medium that can be manipulated in every way, it does not necessarily have a "goodness" or "badness" to it. People like Gandhi and MLK have proven that religion is sort of a neutral aspect to life. MLK was all bout underlying values and just and inputs problems in life, he was not focused through one lens on religion. His reasons for doing things and his attitude were not based off of religious figures or scriptures, but rather on society as an equal unit, not divided by religion. Gandhi promoted peace and independence throughout India, and he exemplified that goals may be achieved without violence and without religious intentions. Both Gandhi and MLK were living and working through situations where religion was an agent of the powerless. However, the caste system in India was an example of agent of the powerful, where religion was used to maintain power. During that time, religion was looked at as instructions for life, and strict (religious) rules to abide by. Whether or not everyone was in favor of the caste system, it was an efficient way to organize people and the different powers and opportunities they had. Religion can be looked at in countless ways; one way being a way of life, somewhere to turn to for any answers and for hope. The other way being something that is there for you and acts as a community you are a part of, but is not relevant for decision making, or for using as explanations for certain decisions, and is just overall less apparent in everyday life. I think that religion is a neutral thing because of how it has shaped history and because of how people chose to view it. Throughout history, religion has not always been good, and it has not constantly been bad, which is why I say it is neutral- once again, one can manipulate religion however they chose.




Personally in Mr. Moran's class we learn about certain events that took place or certain individuals who have represented BOTH agent of the powerful and agent of the powerless, which is probably why I think religion is neutral. But those who are raised in very religious homes or schools, who are not taught both sides of the spectrum would probably think differently than me. However, I believe religion is neutral because while things often change throughout history, so does the way religion plays a role in people's lives, and religion's significance in society. In other words, religion has not continuously been "bad" or "good", it has been something that people can interpret however they choose.

3 (Kony, Technology, Our World)

Response to Kony 2012 Video
I know this blog is not about "the agent of power", but my other 2 blog posts this week were about proposed/assigned questions, but I just had this all on my mind tonight, so decided to write about it...


The Kony 2012 video relates to history in countless ways, and was a video that I really felt a connection with after I watched it. First of all, the young boy in the video, who was the film makers son represented his generation. In other words, by interviewing his five year old son and incorporating him in the video, he was showing the perspective of a  different generation, and why that was important in history, and is still important. The producer explained the story of Kony and his murders to his son through words and pictures to show that if someone that young can understand the  concept, than truly anyone can. That even though different people are exposed to different things and are provided with various surroundings and opportunities, by human interaction and telling stories we can spread anything. The second major point that I think was raised in this video was the idea of diffusion and coming together. The idea of diffusion was apparent because millions of people shared ideas, and had similar beliefs; they interacted. A sense of community was explored in this video, and the fact that so many individuals and groups can raise awareness about one topic, leads to my next point of technology. This video is obviously on the internet and got millions of hits instantly, which is a form of technology. Plus all of the promotion and connections through mass communications online, and Facebook groups, and twitter, and cell phones, was not something that could have been possible just a few centuries ago. I think that a really well done video can make a big difference in the world because the online world is so significant today, and is a way for the government and for ordinary citizens to be on the same "page." This video has lots to do with history because of the different generations displayed in it and how that has affected us and will continue to affect us. Also, the concept of diffusion and coming together as a society was recognized. Plus, technology and how it has influenced our world, and how that is different from our past. By definition power means, "the ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something." How can someone like Kony be in power? Is our world that dysfunctional? I don't understand how someone who kills and kidnaps children, can still be alive. Who created the standards for power? Why do they exist? Just because people have different amounts of money, live in separate places, don't have the same skin color or beliefs, doesn't mean a certain amount of those people need to have power, and others don't. The idea of power is powerful and is a big responsibility. People listen to authorities because they feel obligated to, but why do people always follow others, and listen to those in "power?" What are other ways of gaining and maintaining power besides religion and class? I think that while diffusion is beneficial and efficient, it is sometimes excessive. Because there are so many people in the world, and because technology is continuing to advance, diffusion increases-meaning that the ways humans interact and are exposed to each other will increase as well. Just like in this video, technology is also drowning people's lives. What if one day no one has the ability to talk, and everything is through the internet and through typing words? I have noticed that my generation is having trouble expressing themselves in person. We are so used to typing how we feel as a way to sometimes escape reality and not accept certain things. While technology is making our society quicker in some aspects and more interesting, it is scary. Our world is scary.

2 (Witchcraft)

Witchcraft began at the end of the 15^th century, but was never proven to be true. I have observed that the whole witchcraft phenomenon was a big cycle of untruthfulness. The sprouting of the idea was a little bit crazy and unrealistic which was the first sign of nonsense. Then when “witnesses” of the witches were being threatened and were forced to threaten to prosecute others, that was another example of untruth and unjustness. People were purely being used and blamed during Witchcraft. The accused witches were put in an uncomfortable position as well as the confused, indecisive citizens experiencing the craze. The people who claimed and instigated these hunts were crying and complaining children, nuns, and nearby neighbors. Those are the people who initiated the hunts however the spread of the hunts and the ideas were through text. That piece of information reveals that during the Witchcraft people could read, in fact reading and sharing texts was an efficient way to communicate and get reactions out of others. The witches were seen as representatives of the devil on earth, just like prophets were representatives of G-d on earth. The majority of the people who died during witchcraft were women and the target of this whole thing was women, though some men did die. People who were tortured and abused who did not confess but did survive were set free. And those who survived but did confess and give in were killed. Finally a trial took place and the believers of witchcraft ran the trials. Guilty people were obviously executed, and goal of the judges/leaders of the trial was to basically kill witches and exterminate all witches because they were part of the devil, and the devil was absolutely forbidden. I think it was unfair to have believers of witchcraft as the authority during the trials, because then lots of people die and are wrongfully accused. If there would some believers of witchcraft and some non-believers, than there could have been arguments and more discussed and accurate reasoning behind people’s beliefs and decisions. Plus, how could there even be “believers” in Witchcraft if there was no proof at all. But that leads to my question of how are there believers in any religion if there is no proof? People clearly convert to religions and believe in countless things without real and literal proof of G-d, or proof of traditions, or ancestors, or anything. I think too often in history people are wrongfully accused, blindly obedient, and simply used.

1 (Why are the authors writing if people are illiterate)

Most people during the time that this document was written could not read. This document is The Capturing of Jerusalem in 1187 by Ibn al-Athir, and during that time point only certain people such as the priests (wealthy) and educated (also wealthy) were NOT illiterate. However the majority of the people and ordinary citizens could not read at all, let alone this document, so why was it written? I think that one reason this document was written even if people then could not read it, was for future generations. It was written for posterity, and not to help the religion or group at the time in particular, but to help the future decipher and more easily understand things in time. It was written so those in the future could really visualize and learn about what happened during the battle during the crusades, and why it was important to their background. They could learn about the team the Muslims battled against (written from a Muslim point of view), in order to ready themselves in the future. They could learn about their strengths and weaknesses, and just overall more about their history. Just like any form or teaching of history, we learn or record it for the future. In this situation, Ibn wrote this document most likely for the Muslims to read in the future because the majority of people could not even read it at the time. In general we learn about history in order to discover patterns within our people and within our society. Also to see what worked and what did not work, so we can do better. I believe that is exactly why this document about the Franks gave Jerusalem to the Muslims during the crusades battle was written.

3 (Battle of Tours and More)

The Battle of Tours occurred in 732 in Tours, France, between the Frankish and the Islamic army. The outcome was the Franks defeated Islam, however that is not all that resulted from this war. This battle was so historically significant because in this battle paused Islamic migration from the Iberian Peninsula was paused; almost stopped. This lowered Islamic conquests, while simultaneously preserving and growing Christianity. During the battle, thousands of Muslims died, which contributed to the downfall of Muslims in Europe, and led to the majority being Christianity. Christians were favored in Europe at the time, and they did not want Islamic influence. I think the reason being for that is the fact that Christianity was sprouting, advancing, and developing and they did not want a swarm of a different religion to interrupt them. Converting people and enhancing a religion is important, and when you interact with a group with different beliefs and values, you are more prone to getting out of hand and becoming less organized.  After reading about the Battle of Tours, it was another example of what we have been learning. What I mean by that is 1. There is usually always a religion that is favored in a certain area that conflicts or does not want other religions /the idea of majority vs. minority
2. There is repeatedly that conquering/invading/falling/rising cycle.
Furthermore, in the Battle of Tours, Islam was having a fall in Europe, however Christians were rising up.

Throughout history we have seen that there will always be a majority and minority, and that quickly after one event occurs or something collapses, you can be sure another thing will take place.

2 (Muhammad)

Unlike many leaders in Judaism, Buddhism or any religion, Muhammad was a political, military, and religious leader as opposed to strictly a religious figure. Muhammad was born around 570 CE in Mecca and grew up in an orphanage. As Muhammad grew up, he started gaining followers early on. He married a wealthy and wise woman, which soon turned into having his family as some of his main followers. Muhammad strongly believed in preaching one G-d, and one G-d only. This concept was one that rubbed off on others, and gained him followers. Muhammad was someone who actually had the ability to implement his vision and his ideal Islamic society into his people. Muhammad is known as the true prophet of Allah, and is renowned as the father of Islam. He is recognized to have a direct correlation with G-d, and he received the Quran straight from G-d; he teaches G-d’s ideas to the Islamic religion. Muhammad has gained so much significance in the Islamic language that you almost can’t mention the religion without mentioning Muhammad. Muhammad suggested that his religion was like Jews wanting to get to Jerusalem; they were determined. He was a charismatic leader who knew how to talk and listen to his followers, and also convert and persuade people. Many people dislike Islam (like any religion), which ultimately is controversial for Muhammad. Also, because his words were so closely listened to and because the religion is big, people interpreted his words differently and they claim he was says one thing and not another. Additionally, he altered the social status and how the tribes were running when he finally came to Mecca, so many Muslims wanted to persecute him. Muhammad could be seen as controversial because he brought new ideas into the religion and his tactics were viewed differently by different people. I think that he was a strong and beneficial man to the religion, and because he was linked with G-d, he had a lot of power and order to maintain. His troops listened to him, however he did not always listen to his troops. I think any leader like Muhammad can be perceived as conflicting because people interpret him differently and because he is authoritative. 

1 (Torah Vs. Quran)

The Torah for the Jewish religion and the Quran for the Islamic religion, are extremely similar. The Quran unfolds and represents the presence of G-d, and the Torah symbolizes and is an example of G-d as well. After reading the Quran or Torah, people often convert, meaning that these two books are so essential that they help gain followers of the religion. In both texts, the idea of one G-d is enforced, as well as a sense of community. In these two books the religion is represented in a unified and peaceful way, and G-d is praised. These books both tell the stories of the Jews and the Muslims, and these texts are things that the religions can constantly refer to. They are the "words of G-d and the core of the faith."The word Quran literally translates to "to recite", whereas the Torah translates to "to teach." These are similar words in the sense that both books are to be recited, taught, and are meant to spread and uphold the religion. This also means that the texts are supposed to be "recited" and meaningfully preached rather than simply read. Another aspect of these texts that are the same in Islam and Judaism is the fact that the text was a direct descent and correlation with G-d. For Muslims, the Quran was passed from G-d to Muhammad and then to the rest of the religion, and for Jews, the Torah was passed from G-d to Moses, and then soon to the entire religion. Muhammad and Moses appear to be like G-d's representations on earth, like prophets. The Quran is divided into five pillars, which are basically the five main ideas that you have to believe in the Islamic religion. And the Torah is split up into five different books, each one containing a different part of the religion. Both the composition of the Quran and the Torah took placed over centuries and were based off of the creation of the world, the history of the religion, G-d, important figures, beliefs, and much more. Not only are the Quran and Torah similar because they are both divided into five parts, furthermore their significance in the religion and their messages are very closely linked.