Political Exile

I still dont know the name of the movie we are watching in class, but it is very interesting. Currently, it is very suspenceful. I dont see myself making any educated guesses as to how things will work out because i keep on thinking about all the what ifs. Anyway, while i agree with the parents ideals about getting word out and creating social change in south africa, i dont think that they have the right to avoid telling their children what is actually going on. Yes, they are very young, but i believe they can understand. Personally, i have a connection to this. When i was little, i was told we (my parents and my sister) were coimg to the united states for a vacation. In this so said vacation, we were going to head to Disney World. Sadly, that has still not happened, now, ten years later. While i dont really remember when it was that i understood we were not going back, i do remember understanding i could not complain. My family's reasons for leaving our country were certainly not like _____'s family's reasons, the overal one, of leaving in order to be safe and still create change, was very much similar to what my own parents strived for.

The influence of Peace

Im amazed at the power that peace movements have had through out history. In the movie, Cry Freedom, South Africa has been segregated legally for quite a while by a set of laws named Apartheid. I definitely do not agree with Apartheid, and luckily many others did not either. Propaganda has a lot to do with movements. It helps get messages out there, it helps to influence people to follow a 'movement'. For example. In Cry Freedom, we could see that while Apartheid was very well known, those whom it oppressed were mostly the only ones that felt it's cruelness.

God is Good so, Good is God?

This week, I read about how Religion is Necessary for Ethics. It was an article that spoke about the Divine Command Theory and its counterpart, the Autonomy thesis. As I read through the article found that the divine command theory confused me. It also made me very curious. The article itself talked about morality and what is right and wrong and who decides what is right and what is wrong. I think that the idea that the Divine Command Theory proposes is mind boggling.  Basically, from what I understood, the theory proposes that God decides what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil. It says that God has the power to decide, so if he declares something that was once a bad thing, is now a good thing, or 'tells' somebody that something they are about to do is good, his approval automatically makes whatever the things was, good, just because He said so. The reason I found this confusing was because while the liberty that God has to choose on what is good and what is bad, clearly becomes the standard for human followers/ believers to go on when making decisions, does this mean that all that God claims as either one is really that? Thinking back, there is a part in the Bible there that talks about how God told Abraham to kill one of his sons. Then when Abraham was about to do it, right at the last second, God told him to not do it. But Abraham was only going to do it because God told him to, so he thought it was the right thing to do when in reality all God really wanted was for his devotion to be proved. So if this Divine Command theory was actually the real theory for how it works, would it justify the things that were done in the past, and that we now see as bad because those people claimed God told them to do so? I mean, would it justify even mass murders done by the decisions taken by the people in power in the of God?

It also confuses me how the Divine Command Theory and the Autonomy thesis are in the same article because they technically cancel each other out. The DTC says morality originates with God, The Autonomy Thesis says morality doesn’t come from God, DTC says Moral rightness is willed by god and moral wrongness is against will of god, The Autonomy Thesis says Right and wrong aren't based on the will of God, DTC says Morality is based on divine will, not on existing reasons for action, no further reasons for action are necessary, while the Autonomy thesis says that There are reasons for acting one way or the other that can be independent of God's will. In other words, they basically cancel each other out, invalidate each other’s defense, so what really is the point of this article? To present the reader with information to help make a choice on which is correct, Autonomy or DTC?

Please Do, Please Dont.

The reading that we did that was titled Do Versus Do Not, got me thinking about the way in which religions and their messages are interpreted in different ways by different people. The way I see it, most people, in the early beginning of religion would take the "Do Not" stance when examining and acting upon their religion's views.

While I am sure many can debate my point of view, I have an explanation as to why I think it is Do Not and not Do. Basically, I think this is because in the developing process of religions, most religions' initially sought it as their purpose and they're mission to guide people. By proposing a way to guide people, religion set out rules of what not's, because when developing, there is not much one can say must be done, instead, looking forward towards advancement, one can state what should not be done, the Do Not's. Such guidelines offer the people with an ideal from which is to be viewed as the correct way to live, as agreed and/ or stated by the religion.

Basically, in earlier times, people relied on religion to in a way, 'shape' their reality. This could be partially because back then, they did not have many things that told them why and how things happened or how they should deal with them making it likely for them to follow the rules set. A really good example is the Ten Commandments; they are basically the summing up of the religion's values and does this by stating one must NOT DO. But as I said before, I think this mentality of doing Do Not's instead of doing Do's was more attractive then because religion was just starting out, it was beginning to develop.

As things begin to progress, ideas get more complex, and views change, even if ever so slightly, the need for some change comes. I think its the transition that makes the way it is interpreted change from Do Not's to Do's, its when people obtain understanding of the world around them and feels comfortable enough to challenge beliefs. Do's is a more liberal way of viewing religion, it makes the interpretation more open to discussion, while the Do Not's were already clearly stated, and limited the possibilities of branching out into a more complex kind of life. Currently, I think we are stuck in between, with many of the Do Not's still present and effective in society, and the Do's slowly making their way into our daily lives as people find the need to experiment, to test, and to find their own reasons while still going along with god's word, making them more independent.

Agent of The Powerless

In class, I am part of the group that is in charge of learning about Oscar Romero and the Liberation Theology. So far, I have learnt that Oscar Romero was a guy who preached to large crowds about the Liberation Theology and about the role that the church should play in society. From what I understood, the Liberation Theology wanted for the Church, mainly it's holy men of power, to use their religious power to fight for the 'people'. It wanted for the church to fight the main power against oppression, their goal was to achieve justice, equality, and liberty. The liberation Theology was a popular movement with strong connections to the Marxist ideology, involving its own twist that asked for the Christian Church to support the movement by essentially become politically aware, then preaching to the public to also become more involved in political affairs by encouraging uprisings against all that was unfair.

From what I understood, this Liberation Theology movement was unsuccessful, but there were many people who felt passionate about it. While I agree in what this movement was trying to accomplish, I think the reason it was not successful was because while preaching to the public, talking to people about some of the issues that they wanted to change and improve could raise awareness, I’d say that the amount of people that would actually act upon their concerns on the issues being faced, was minimal.

The way that I see it, while it may be very close minded of me and what not, the reason for why the Liberation Theology was not successful in achieving its goals was because the execution of their plan relied far too much on religion itself along with its holy men of instead of basing some of it on the people themselves, as the bigger percent. I think that the Liberation Theology was either far too complex or too simple, and the people who supported it just found it hard to decide how to help it thrive and grow and be successful. I think its a poor example of how through out history religion has been used as an agent of the powerless because it relied on power.

Simon Says...,

The guideline for assuming a place of control: First of all, one must have and/ or claim a legitimate connection to god. Then followers who believe in god must be obtained. Out of these followers, devotees are formed and having devotees equals full support. With support, power is given to do almost anything with god's 'blessing'.

Most religious leaders believe that their religion is the max, is the best, and is incomparable to any other due to its greatness. Such religious leaders try to gain followers by convincing them of this: that there is no such thing better or more real than what they believe in. Once the convincing is done, I think it is the sense of community created that leads many to feel passionate about the beliefs presented. These feelings have shown time and time over again that it is quite possible and quite easy to acquire the feeling of wanting and needing to make an impact in order to become an important part of a religious movement were many are involved.

Religious leaders use this as a way to get people on their side. Once people get on their side, its all about extremity and conservatives. I think its they who at levels inspire people to want to join, because i think people are naturally attracting to things that show the possibility of success. Usually, the more people that support something, the more that others want to support it too. I think that it is all mostly about what is the mainstream. Through this idea of mainstream and following others, i think religion develops the ability to turn those very people ignorant.

Its Simon Says do this, and you do, because it is Simon, and if you don't, you lose.

Emotional Supression

In one of the readings that we were assigned for this week, I was part of the group that had to read from the point of view of a Muslim on Christianity. I had a work by an Islamic traveler whose name was Usamah ibn-Munquidh. His work was a narration of his experiences with those belonging to the christian faith, whom he referred to as the Franks. He begins by saying, 'Their lack of sense' and how although they are nothing but animals to God, their level of loyalty, faithfulness, and dependency to him is astonishing and admirable, but not very impacting. He also presents the idea that all Franks are cold- blooded, insensible, undisturbed people who find no need to help others see what is being done wrong.

I find this curious. One of the examples he gave was of a man who arrived home one day to find a stranger lying in bed with his wife. He proceeded in a very calm way to ask why it was that he was there. The other man responded that he was awfully tired and entered for a responsible nap. The man then asked why it was that he laid in that particular bed, the other man responded, because it was already disturbed. The man then asked why did he lay with his wife in it, the other man said because it would be rude of him to ask her to leave pertaining that it as her own bed. The man then told him to get out and if the event occurred again, he would be forced to challenge him in a quarrel. Given this story, could it be that Christianity actually teaches suppression of emotion, lack of sensibility along with lack of interest, and cold attitudes towards others? Although i am not of the christian faith, i did grow up with a catholic grandmother and later her values were taught to me through my own mother during my early years, as a little child. I like to think of myself as a warm hearted being, but with my lack of strong education on Christian beliefs, i am unsure now.

Considering the fact that the writer of this text was a Muslim of the Islamic faith during the period of the Crusades, and during the time when not everybody and not even the majority of the population knew how to read, it could be that he was probably trying to strengthen the beliefs of those who did know how to read? I mean, those higher up with power were the ones able to read, so he could also have been trying to appeal to them as an intellectual person who was devoted. Whichever goals that Usamah ibn-Munquidh was trying to achieve, i think he might have done because it makes Christianity appear as a religion that takes away from its followers the ability to have strong opinions, to feel strong feelings, and to be of free will.