Declaration of Rights vs. Hammurabi

The language, topic, and overall framework of the Declaration of Rights compared to Hammurabi's code of Laws are quite different. First of all, Hammurabi's code initiated because of Hammurabi ruling, whereas the Declaration of Rights was written and executed as a result of the genocide during World War 2.

In Hammurabi's code most of the articles end in, "they shall be killed" or, "they shall be put to death". In the Declaration of Rights everyone is entitled to equality, even more so than in Hammurabi's code. Another major difference between the two code's and what distinguish them from CE to the 1900's is the fact that Hammurabi's code includes slavery, whereas the Declaration of Rights prohibits enslavement. In both of these documents we see the right to trial, the right to property, and the right to individuality/freedom. In the Declaration of Rights, there are less torturous consequences than in Hammurabi's code of laws. In Hammurabi's code we see more "eye for an eye" and people being thrown into a fire if they break the law. 

Another major difference between the two is that the Declaration of Rights integrates significantly more social and moral values than Hammurabi's code. For example, "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality," (Article 15 Declaration of Rights of Man). This represents the way in which law has evolved over the course of human history because it is a law based purely on equality and respect, which was not often present in our past. There were even laws against letting people express their nationalities and personal identities. Through events such as the Holocaust, the Apartheid, and genocides in Africa, people were discriminated based upon nationalities, religion, and personal identity. This law however shows progress across human history because society has evolved into more of a cyclical nature of respect.  Another example of how law has changed from lets say Hammurabi's code to the Declaration of Rights is, "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks," (Article 12 Declaration of Rights of Man.) This includes protection by the government which was seldom present in laws before these. Terms such as "constitution, declaration, United Nations, the State, governmental authority, and society," appear in the Declaration of Rights, whereas none of those appear in Hammurabi's Code. In the Declaration of Rights we also see words referenced such as, "education, family, children, religion, nationality, protection, safety," which are cannot be found in Hammurabi's code. 

Overall the language and overarching messages/deeper meanings of the laws in the Declaration of Rights are more specific, modern, and just than those in Hammurabi's code. 

Declaration of Rights

I think that several groups of people in the US should have a "Declaration of Rights". We have a Bill of Rights currently, but if I think that citizens deserve other federal and more specific rights. To begin, there should be a set of rights that regard gays and gay marriage. Most of the laws revolving around that topic and that group of people that we have today are state laws and not federal laws. Therefor if I would add a declaration of rights around that hot topic, and make them federal laws rather than state laws, that way everyone would recognize it. Those people deserve a set of rights because they are just like any other citizen in this world, and their sexual identity should not restrict them from any role or opportunity in society. Next, I would provide one universal bill of rights to the major organizations/governments across the globe. If groups like NATO, the United Nations, and the White House all adopted a unanimous and single declaration of rights in all fields of governing and state laws, we would all be on the same page. They deserve a declaration of rights because they are such powerful congregations and groups, that they deserve to be able to all refer and lean to one unified set of rights. I would make a declaration of rights that have to do with rights and protection about kids going to war. I would make sure that universally, there was a certain age where people were required in some cases, or were able in other cases, to go to war. Right now in Israel the age is 18 when you must go to war, and there are different policies in Iraq, however I would make sure various places had the same set of rights. Children deserve those rights because forcing youth to do something uncomfortable at a young age is hard and we need a right that states almost a universal age of maturity and readiness to delve into something like war. Kids should have time to be kids and feel safe, and that is not something that is protected by the government globally right now. I know laws revolving around war would be hard and not very realistic to create. In times of battle, laws are often broken or altered, and in reality people do not abide by all the laws in crisis of war, or else I would give a declaration of rights to that group of people as well.

Bill of Rights

At first I agreed with Alexander Hamilton's argument that there is no need for a Bill of Rights. He explained that everything that would be in the Bill of Rights is already in the Constitution. He stated that everything required to include is already "done in the most ample and precise manner in the new Constitution," and there is nothing exclusively addressed in the Bill of Rights that is not already well written and clear in the Constitution. However, after reading his proposition another time, I began to disagree with his argument. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 laws of the Constitution essentially, and that is important because it is a layout of the most focal and critical parts of the Constitution. It needs to be separate and it needs to be part of the Constitution because it lays out the almost "mission statement" of the Constitution. After doing minimal research about the Bill of Rights (just now), some people during the time (1789 ish), thought that the document would be insufficient and incomplete without mentioning the human rights and the goals for the new Constitution at the beginning of the document. However, others were extremely opposed to the idea of the Bill of Rights for various reasons. Personally I think that there is no down side to having a Bill of Rights. Who does not what to have the freedoms and the protections of the people laid out for them? Why is it bad to enforce human rights? I think that Alexander Hamilton's argument was actually weak because he had no way of putting down the Bill of Rights, other than saying that it was already in the Constitution, but why can't it be said again, or said in an even better way? Clearly the Bill of Rights has developed today and it an integral part of our government and Constitution

3rd blog of the week/discussion reflection

I mean all of this in the nicest way possible, just wanted to say that up front.

I am sort of unsure and confused about the goal of these discussions. Maybe the goal is to simply evaluate peoples' participation, but I think you should approach that in a different way. Overall, I am not a fan of these discussions which is why I did not participate yesterday. I think that there are already people in our classroom who do not feel particularly open or have the confidence to participate in a regular class discussion, and this type of assignment only makes that pressure increase. I would not say I am the most shy in our class, but I could definitely feel that struggle and inability to find the right time to talk, and I can only imagine how other introverted students must have felt. I think that often students want to chime in and say what they are feeling, but it is truly hard to do that. I am not just saying these things because I did not participate today or because I wasn't the one in the group who talked the most. Im saying these things because I truly think them, and also think we should not have these discussions anymore. I'm also telling you because you are the teacher and you are not the one in the conversation, so I wanted to give you an honest student perspective. Once again I am not sure what the point of these discussions is; what does it reflect or represent in real life? I think we can have a regular class discussion about the topic you gave us or at least just go around in a circle so everyone gets to say something because I'm sure each and every student had an idea or a question in their head that they were eager to say and release, but did not find the perfect second to say it or were not confident enough. I understand you want us to be able to participate in uncomfortable settings and not everything is supposed to be easy. I understand we must fail and discover difficulty in order to overcome our fears and weaknesses. However, this type of discussion can be degrading and uncomfortable for us. Both times we have done this, there were three or four people who talked back and forth and did not give other people a chance. Also, the discussions got extremely off topic and rarely straight-up answered your initial question. I think when you said the comment before we started the discussion that you are keeping track of the conversation, it scared a lot of people, which was probably your intention and you were trying to motivate us, but I think it put more pressure on people. Personally speaking, I definitely felt lots of anger and unease during the conversation today (and a few weeks ago) because I had so many things I wanted to say and I would formulate them perfectly in my head, but before I could open my mouth someone else that had already spoken, spoke again, or I was too nervous. I think that it is unfair that you graded us on these conversations because I was engaged with my body language, eye contact, and internal thinking, I just never had the chance to express all of it.

(Sorry for the negativity :))

Legalists believed that all humans, no exceptions, are evil. They believed that the best possible way to create both an effective and efficient society was to compile as many rules as possible, none integrating human rights or morals. Legalists believed that when people were given an inch of freedom, their interest was to destroy that freedom and not utilize it or respect it. The legalists referred to fa and xing where fa were the written laws and xing were the punishments. In other words fa were the official rules that people were demanded to follow and xing were the consequences if those were not followed or executed. We have similar principles today that even existed before legalism. Today we have things similar to fa and xing because we have a written set of laws and warnings along with each of those laws. An example of a law (fa) would be no murder and the punishment to that law "xing" would be go to trial or go to jail. However something that is different now than legalism is that we do not lived under such a finite world like people did under legalism. Why did people believe that every one was evil and was looking to make things worse? It makes little sense to me why people would place as many laws as possible on a society just to keep things in order and make sure nothing goes wrong. To live like that seems hard and assuming every single person is cruel is inaccurate. Another thing that is different today and even pre-legalism, is the inclusion of collective morality and human rights. Not only would society be extremely strict and almost boring, but it wouldn't run as smoothly as one with the people's opinions and giving them more leeway. Legalists did not even trust or lend power to rulers because they were considered evil. So who was above the rulers and who decided everyone was evil and that laws were the best and only way to go? I think legalism is not effective or efficient because when people have to unwillingly follow laws, it makes them not want to follow it and makes things more hectic, I think. Although legalists argued that their ways would make everyone equal, their values were non existent and their execution was senseless and clearly did not last until today.

1 (pragmatic vs. morality)

An example of a pragmatic law would be the Brush Clearing law that says that a township can make the execute decision about brush clearing without a referendum, meaning a vote or decision made by the government, not by the people. In this law it says they will finance the collection, transportation, and disposal of leaves in that certain area whether the people approve or not. The people in that area are the ones basically paying for this maneuver because of taxes, so to make a decision without their input is slightly irrational. In other words, this is pragmatic and not quite moral because the authority is not doing what is favorable for the majority and is rather doing it because it makes logistical sense. On the other hand, an example of a law integrating morality and appears as the opposite of pragmatic is the Copyright Restrictions law. This law explains that is is forbidden to take/"borrow" sound recordings after a certain date. If that law is broken it is considered copyright or plagiarism, which is prohibited. This is a considerate and valuable law because it includes the interest of individuals, and the mass. This is not particularly a pragmatic law because they do not need this law copyright law to keep things organized per-say; they could do without it. But it is moral to respect the work of others and provide consequence if that protection is broken. Some might argue we need strictly pragmatic laws and others might argue we need solely moral laws. I think that we need a combination of both types of laws in order to keep society both civil, and humane- both sides are essential. We need laws that the governing body decides and that keep things in order, yet we also need laws that are the opposite. That aren't there only because the government decides, but are rather existent because we the people have elected them and chosen them to be moral and just.

3

Accountability was an essential and adequate shift that happened in an appropriate time in history. I say it was an appropriate time because without accountability, we would have never known how life was like without citizen input. In other words, by not having it, we learned even more to appreciate it and learned how society was different without it. Prior to the Roman Republic, laws were made simply to create and maintain order in society. They were made with little if any democracy or interest of the people. They were more of efficient laws rather than good and effective laws. However, when the rise of the Roman Republic occurred, accountability came into action and laws were made with more interest in the general public than ever before, and not made with no purpose. If the government was willing to give the right for people to influence the government, than they clearly cared about integrating and acknowledging those opinions and ideas. Accountability means respecting people while creating laws, and I think that is a very important shift that occurred a long time ago, but the issue is still addressed today, and will still be apparent in the future. Without the citizens being accounted for, we would not have many of the human or civil rights we have today. People's voice while creating laws is vital because laws are followed best when the majority of the people agree and are willing to accept them. Without accountability, society would most likely be more chaotic and negative a lot of the time. People would complain and I feel like accountability was one of the first steps towards democracy. Without accountability, the governing body and their processes would look more like monarchies, or totalitarianism, or anything far from democracy. The Roman Republic, "created a sense of accountability for all," which was why they were so significant.

2

Fairness Vs. Justice

By definition, fairness means a state or condition free from bias and injustice. Fairness is the opposite of injustice. And by definition justice means righteousness and morality. Where do the two intersect, and where do they not overlap? I believe fairness and justice are almost interchangeable, however they do have slightly different meanings. What is the difference between something that is fair and something that is just?

Example 1, Socrates: I think that it was fair for Socrates to escape jail, and it was also just. It was fair because he did not deserve to be in jail in the first place, and he was not truly guilty of the accused crimes. It both fair and just of him to disregard the wrong opinions of others, because if something is simply incorrect, than it is fair and acceptable to ignore. It was fair for him to escape because if he escaped and was let back out into society, he would benefit the mass, the majority. He would educate people and be placed back where it was fair for him to be.

Example 2, Taxes: (I know/recognize you used this example in class, but I am going to elaborate) Lets say Justin makes 1 million dollars a year and I make 100 dollars a year, it would be sort of fair to give us the same taxes, but certainly not just. Law plays a role in fairness and justice, and so do moral principles and consequences. It would be fair because the person who makes 1 million dollars obviously deserves that much money, is working for that money, and has basically earned the opportunity and privilege to have that money. Whereas the person making 100 dollars is not as lucky and does not have as good of an occupation. It is not very just to place them with the same taxes because while the poor person is getting poorer, the rich person is not negatively affected. The poor person needs to work basically day by day and is living on the thread, while the rich person takes money out of his pocket to pay the taxes and is not harmed. It would be more just for the struggling person to pay less taxes and the rich person to pay more taxes.

Example 3, Westboro Baptist Church: I personally do not think it is fair or just for this protesting group to be able to protest. It might be legal, (even though I strongly don't think it should be) but it is not fair or just. If they are loudly, obnoxiously, and ignorantly, and everything negatively protesting at a funeral, it is not fair or just. It is not fair to the emotional and serious people at the funeral, and it is not morally or righteously acceptable. Even though we have the right to free speech, and even though it is an opinion, it is so clear that what they are protesting, enforcing, and doing is rude and unnecessary so the government should enforce certain rules regarding protesting and where it can be done, and consider more of what is fair rather than simply what is the pure law.

1

           In the Mosaic Code, there is a law that states if a man hurts a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, he must serve a consequence decided by the court. If the woman dies because of the mans’ actions, the man is put to death. An example of one of Hammurabi’s code is if a man goes into a fire in attempt to stop it, but steals something, that man is killed in the fire. Both the Mosaic Code and Hammurabi’s code contain the idea that if you do not follow the rules, you are either dead or receive a penalty from the governing system. In the Ten Commandments (part of the Mosaic Code) it says “Thou shalt not steal,” and in Hammurabi’s code it says “If a man has robbed and been captured, the man shall be put to death.” In both these codes they enforce the idea of no stealing, as well as no cheating, and no murdering, etc. Although Hammurabi's code is more based off of social values and the Mosaic Code derived more from religion, they still have several similarities. They both have morals implemented in the laws; aside from the consequences of breaking the law if you steal, there are morals in the laws that came from religion, cultural diffusion, and social values. Additionally, I think it is important to take a tradition and make it into a written code, or “codify” something because once something is officially written down, it allows for that thing to spread more easily and affect people throughout history- to be passed on. A tradition turned into a written law is what created religions and creates routines that develop overtime, but are based off of traditions.  Codifying traditions also turn simple routines into more of expectations that people learn to follow and reflect on. Now people look at laws and that can almost guide them through life and people can refer to them both negatively and positively. They can look at the good laws and make the world better and practice those laws, and they can look at the bad laws and figure out how to make things better. Codifying laws is essential because it culminates a governing and safety aspect along with a reasonable and valuable sense, therefore people want to follow it.  

3!!!

I just realized that I spelled Hammurabi wrong on my other blogs, sorry!!!

A lot of Hammurabi's code is similar to today, and a lot is different. Some aspects and rules that are similar consist of no stealing, no murdering, and you must have reasoning/an explanation for your actions. Some rules that are different in this code of laws is that several of them involve slavery, and lots of them contain the idea that if you do something wrong, you are immediately put to death. Today we have more of a governmental/trial/investigation process, but as written in these codes, they were less tolerant and more vulnerable to quick deaths. Another aspect that is different than what we have today besides the mentioning of hierarchy and kings, is the missing presence of social values. In other words, Hammurabi's code is extremely detailed and specific, and serves more like commands than laws like we have today. For example, if a fire broke out and someone tried to put out the fire but happened to steal something, they were pushed into the fire. In this 25th code, it is very specific and has no social value or religious moral clear in it. However there are some that have to do with religion such as the 8th code, that says if a man steals an animal from the temple, he must pay his respects back and if that is not possible, he is put to death. Who argues against these code of laws? I think that these laws can be argued from a religious standpoint, a governmental standpoint, and a communal standpoint. Hammurabi's code can both compare and contrast with than the rules we live under today.

Human Rights (2)

To be honest I am not really sure if human rights exist, but I am leaning towards the idea that they do exist, but where they came from and whether they are executed, varies. I think that some human rights originated from groups of people/communities, and others originated from the government. Like Jeremy Bentham of the 1800’s said, human rights do not exist just because people want them. Throughout history people have gathered and created values, morals, and ideas. Those combinations of thoughts then formed/helped shape some laws we have today. Why? Because their ideas were strong and they spread, and people argeed with them and used them to a further extent passed just some idea. Other human rights initiated by communities were those in religious communities, and those human rights came basically from G-d, which were then passed on to people/spread through diffusion and turned into human rights. As stated in the declaration of human rights, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Where did this right come from? It could have come from a group of people who once lived and decided that killing each other or hurting each other was not right. But those values probably came from one of G-d’s religions which were then passed down to the government. This leads into the idea that some human rights came from the government. I think there is a difference between human rights and civil rights, but I think both of them come from the government to some extent because what the government enforces usually influences people and can alter their opinions. I believe an example of a human right would be the right to be free. In another sense we are not born with human rights because depending on the time period and depending on where you live, we do not all have human rights. We are born into a family and born into a society but whether or not we execute our human rights depends on our surroundings. Less than 100 years ago we were not all free because blacks and whites were not equal, and even today people still murder each other daily and that is not an example of living freely or peacefully. I think the whole issue of human rights and where they came form is one that can be debated with both facts and opinions, and I am learning to develop more knowledge about the difference between human rights and civil rights, and also where they were originated from.

Hammarabi's Code (1)

I think Hammarabi's Code is so important because it enforces the idea of equality. It implements the idea of having equal laws, regardless of class. These code of laws would also make everyone equal because they were laws from G-d, therefore they were above everyone else making those below G-d all on the same wavelength. In Hammurabi's code, there were three separate sets of laws for the three classes, and each set was manipulated and created in a way that fit the class. Today we are equal, I think, because we all have the same laws placed on us by the government. Whether we execute or abide by those laws, and no matter what social class and economic class we belong to, we still have the same laws. A homeless person and I are equal because we live by the same rules, even if we were raised with different opportunities, which has little to do with the government's laws. That is society now, however society just 100 years ago and even more recent than that, was not equal. Blacks and whites were not equal because they did not have the same laws and the government did not "place people on an even plain" like Hammarabi's code was doing. One social value that the Ancient Babylonians under Hammarabis code possessed was that of an efficient government with comprehendible and fair rules. In this reading was explained that the reason for establishing laws was to avoid disputes and basically protests against individuals or against rules. Moreover, that having a set of laws that were not fluid but rather stable would prevent disputes and prevent people trying to change them, and make sure that everyone understands the unshift-able laws. I would disagree with that though because even if we have laws decided by a strong government, not everyone will agree with them and people will still protest against those laws and want to see change in the rules they are forced to follow. Just by having those laws set and stone, does not mean people won't dispute, it could even cause more dispute even if it was a democracy. Various laws and numerous definitions of what is "just" have changed with changing societies and communities, and will hopefully continue to change in order to fit the time period.

Law vs. Justice (3)

I think that law outweighs the justice in this movie, which even though was sad and we would like to think was not true, made the movie more powerful and conveyed a stronger message. The last scene stood out to me because it was a clear example of following laws, and not processing or realizing what is just. There was a large group of Africans protesting that they should not have to learn Afrikaans, which is like us Americans protesting that we should not be obligated to take Spanish (or a certain language) in school. They were fighting for nothing against the government, nothing inappropriate, nothing offensive or racist. It made me so frustrated that the white police had to pull out their guns and just start firing. How was the protest in any way affecting them? The land they were in? It did not disturb their days or negatively affect their jobs or their lives in any way, shape, or form. They could have moved about their days smoothly without killing hundreds of innocent kids and adults. The fact that the police were white, and the group of Africans were black, made the situation even worse. This was an example of authority figures just blindly and obediently listening to the law just because it is the law. Who made that law where protesting in that way is illegal? Were those people bias or racist? Was it a diverse and and tolerant group of people, or just a few people's close minded opinions? Did they consider every factor before making the law and realize how seriously people would take it? I know that the government is a specific, intellectual, and carefully chosen group, but I feel like that diversity should expand even more. Every law goes through many people and levels before it is seen or passed, but not necessarily did that happen during the time of the Apartheid, which is unfair. It is unfair for that rule not to exist because the lack of that rule led to hundreds and hundreds of deaths and injuries, which you cannot do back and change. Did those people ever feel bad? Where were their hearts? Similarly, during the Holocaust followers of Hitler were listening to him because they were afraid something would happen to them and/or because they had to follow his rules. The fact that law overrode justice led to MILLIONS of deaths in this case, which definitely changed the world. Times when justice is not a part of the picture and laws are ignorantly followed, are the times where history has changed. But times when people go against the first instinct of the laws and promote justice and peace, are also when things change. We need to keeping pushing for justice because none of what happened in "Cry Freedom" in the last scene was just or right in any way.

Steve Biko (2)

When I asked my dad about Steve Biko the first thing he said was "Gosh, I remember hearing about him on the news almost every night." He remembered vague things and overall remembered what kind of person Biko was and how he affected the world, but not necessarily specific details. My dad recalled that Biko was a young African American leader of the Apartheid movement, and he was part of an uprising, and was a true leader. Something that also stood out to my dad was the Peter Gabriel song, Biko, which really spoke and resonated with him. "When I try to sleep at night, I can only dream in red, the outside world is black and white, with only one colour dead, Oh Biko, Yihla Moja." These are Gabriel's lyrics and Yihla Moja is Afrikaans meaning, "the man is dead." The line that stood out to me most was "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire." Meaning you can kill one African, one black man (Biko) but the rest of the community will still be there, and will never die. "They are like a strong storm" my dad stated, and they are a force that cannot ever be killed. Their spirits are stronger than fire, and when one black man died (or white man), it is a communal mourning and affects everyone. Especially in this time of the Apartheid when everyone was even more unified than ever because they were protested and fighting side by side. In the Apartheid prevalently, you can blow out a candle and not a fire because Biko was one important and inspiring man, and if anything happened to him there was that "storm" to support him and remember him. I found it interesting that even though my dad did not particularly remember specific details about Biko, he remember the overall message Biko was trying to convey and how he was a role model during the Apartheid movement.

P.S. I asked my mom if she knew who Steve Biko was and she said "No not really besides the Biko song by Peter Gabriele and the fact that he stood up for black people in the 80's"... uh oh!

Apartheid (1)

After one day of watching video:

So from my understanding and without much education on this subject, the Apartheid laws were a set of laws that black africans and white africans could not live together. It was a system of racial segregation by the National Party in africa, but it was more than segregation and a controversy, it was a legal set of laws that were in affect from nearly 1950-1994. The Apartheid was a time of political, economical, and racial discrimination in South Africa. South Africa is a place divided into 9 provinces, and it is a diverse place containing people of all ethnicities and origins. South Africa is a country where over 10 languages are spoken and 80 % of the population is black. South Africa is at the very tip of Africa, and an important man by the name of Nelson Mandela basically represents South Africa today.

Furthermore, the movie we are watching reflects the Apartheid in South Africa and how that actually looked in society. It was interesting, rather disturbing how the main african black man could only be in a room with one person at a time. One scene stood out to me where he was at the doctor and his wife came and said that she needed money form the cash box so the doctor stepped out of the room and his wife stepped in. This happened to him because he was banned from speaking out about the Apartheid, but people like him are the ones who make a difference. He knew the entire government, and additional people were completely against him, however that did not stop him from speaking out. He put his needs behind those of his people by serving as a voice of those who felt like he did but were not as strong or brave. At the football/soccer game he spoke up and demanded change in front of hundreds of people. It was inspiring and intriguing to see how the Apartheid laws digested in people differently. Some people took it as a way to gain power or just hate even more, and some realized how inhumane it was, and knew it could not last. The main guy in this movie so far reminds me of MLK Jr. who spoke up as a minority for his people, and would not let things get to him. The whole idea of someone stepping out (the doctor) and then someone stepping in (his wife) was like a metaphor for the story of that mans life during the Apartheid in South Africa. When he did something good for the benefit of his people, he always had the drag and degrading feeling that the government was against him and he was banned. In other words whenever something good happened or someone stepped near him, he could unfortunately rely that something negative would come along as well, and someone would step away- nothing was ever completely balanced or perfect. These hateful and victimizing laws were so disturbing, and the movie does a realistic but touching way of showing them.

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.