I'm going to try and hit some of the main points of the argument:
I was asked how my Christian Spirit was feeling today. Well, my feelings are that in no way should Christian morals or beliefs be a part of legislation, it should be freedom and personal liberty should be at the forefront. If this country was a Christian nation, then by all means give to charities and the poor and less fortunate, but I'll be damned if the American government mandates me to give to charity cases and the less fortunate. I'll do that on my own, as well as most Americans. Just don't tell me I have to do, that is a violation of my personal liberty.
When it comes to taxing the rich, it is NOT fair to tax the rich more than the poor! To say that they can afford it is a cop out, and apparently, you have something against the rich. As you might know, I am going to be a high school teacher, so I'm not going to be making $80,000 a year, much less than $200,000.
I do believe that this is unconstitutional, and I am not just throwing that term around willy nilly. Saying something is unconstitutional is a big deal. But this is. This is the first time in history that the federal government is REQUIRING you to buy something you don't want to. Yes, you have to buy auto insurance, that is very true. But you do not have to drive. Driving is a privilege, its a luxury, it can be taken away from you either for your own, or more likely, others safety. Living is not a luxury, it is not something that can be taken away like driving.
Without a constitutional amendment, Congress has no authority to force people to buy insurance. Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress’s reach.
The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress’s authority to regulate the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use. In doing so, however, the justices emphasized that — as in the wheat case — “the activities regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic.” That simply would not be true with regard to an individual health insurance mandate.
The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the “production, distribution or consumption of commodities,” but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate non-economic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.
With all the talk about Federal Taxation, I suggest you take a look at the Fair Tax Bill that was introduced by Rep. John Linder.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
This Is What It Is ALL About
The Ku Klux Klan... Nazis... Anti-Semites... Holocaust Revisionists...
KKK:
One Google search on the KKK will give you several "Homepages" of the secret organization. This shows me that lumping all members of the KKK into one specific ideology is reckless and misguided. Just like many organizations, there are many members that do not think alike.
Many believe that the KKK is just a bunch of white rednecks that want to kill all black people in the South, but as we have discussed in class, this is not always the case. We have learned that most in the KKK want to separate the races, and preserve white culture. Their solution to this is obvious; The members of the KKK would want to be separate the races. This explains the tactics of cross burning and harassment of black people in the early 20th century.
Nazis:
Nazism is very complicated. Just like the KKK, there are many different sects, both past and present, that claim to be Nazis, Neo-Nazis, etc. Most commonly, Nazism denotes the totalitarian ideology and practice of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), and Adolf Hitler’s government as dictator of Nazi Germany, from 1933 to 1945. So really, Nazism is technically a political ideology, just like capitalism, communism, etc. So why are they so controversial? One word, racism.
Adolf Hitler founded the Nazi state upon a racially defined German people, meaning that those within Germany saw themselves as a singular race and this race bound them to the state.
The official philosophy of the Nazi party was that the German people were descendants of Atlantis, and therefore were vastly superior to anyone else. Hitler believed that those who were in power were obviously stronger racially, and likewise, those races that were weak and seen as subhuman or parasites.
The most obvious example is that Hitler believed that the Jews were the weakest of all nations.
The solution to their problem is obviously that Holocaust during World War II. But the Holocaust was not limited to Jews, but also gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, etc. Basically anyone not a "German."
Anti-Semites:
People today that are Anti-Semites are usually called such when they actually aren't Anti-Semites. Those that have a specific hatred for Jews are going to be part of the Neo-Nazis, the KKK, etc. Anti-Semitism is as old as the Jewish people themselves. Being one of the 3 great monotheistic religions, with the smallest population, means that there are a lot of people out there that disagree and don't understand them.
Holocaust Revisionism:
Here's an idea: There are people out there that don't really agree with the history that is taught and presented to them. This makes sense seeing as, "The winner writes the history." There are people who just don't quite agree with what is presented to them. These are not Holocaust deniers, they believe that something horrible happened in the 1940s in Europe, but how many people were really killed? How far did Hitler prepare to go with his world domination? Those that question some aspects of the Holocaust just want to have that opportunity, to be able to question.
ALL OF THESE HAVE ONE SIMILARITY: F R E E S P E E C H!!!
Did I make that clear enough?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
But this doesn't apply to Nazis? Or to Palestinians that are Anti-Semitic, does it? Yes, in fact, it most absolutely does. While the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States of America, the preamble states that it is used in order to secure the "Blessings of Liberty," an idea that is covered by all men in the Declaration of Independence.
So where is the line between racism and prejudice? My question, rather, is, "Is there a line between racism and prejudice?" Prejudice is exactly what the world say, "Pre-judging." That might very well be because of their race, religion, or way of life. But if you are a racist, you ARE prejudiced. I do not believe that their is a line, I believe that they are one and the same. Basically, you can be prejudiced without being racist, but you can't be racist without being prejudiced.
Being a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, I believe that anyone that has the views of the groups mentioned above has every right to do so. What draws the line is when that speech becomes threatening. I believe that "Hate Speech" is perfectly fine, just so long as it doesn't turn to threatening. In my opinion, I can say that I hate you, without threatening your personal liberty in any way, shape, or form.
Irving_Kristol
"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."
KKK:
One Google search on the KKK will give you several "Homepages" of the secret organization. This shows me that lumping all members of the KKK into one specific ideology is reckless and misguided. Just like many organizations, there are many members that do not think alike.
Many believe that the KKK is just a bunch of white rednecks that want to kill all black people in the South, but as we have discussed in class, this is not always the case. We have learned that most in the KKK want to separate the races, and preserve white culture. Their solution to this is obvious; The members of the KKK would want to be separate the races. This explains the tactics of cross burning and harassment of black people in the early 20th century.
Nazis:
Nazism is very complicated. Just like the KKK, there are many different sects, both past and present, that claim to be Nazis, Neo-Nazis, etc. Most commonly, Nazism denotes the totalitarian ideology and practice of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), and Adolf Hitler’s government as dictator of Nazi Germany, from 1933 to 1945. So really, Nazism is technically a political ideology, just like capitalism, communism, etc. So why are they so controversial? One word, racism.
Adolf Hitler founded the Nazi state upon a racially defined German people, meaning that those within Germany saw themselves as a singular race and this race bound them to the state.
The official philosophy of the Nazi party was that the German people were descendants of Atlantis, and therefore were vastly superior to anyone else. Hitler believed that those who were in power were obviously stronger racially, and likewise, those races that were weak and seen as subhuman or parasites.
The most obvious example is that Hitler believed that the Jews were the weakest of all nations.
The solution to their problem is obviously that Holocaust during World War II. But the Holocaust was not limited to Jews, but also gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, etc. Basically anyone not a "German."
Anti-Semites:
People today that are Anti-Semites are usually called such when they actually aren't Anti-Semites. Those that have a specific hatred for Jews are going to be part of the Neo-Nazis, the KKK, etc. Anti-Semitism is as old as the Jewish people themselves. Being one of the 3 great monotheistic religions, with the smallest population, means that there are a lot of people out there that disagree and don't understand them.
Holocaust Revisionism:
Here's an idea: There are people out there that don't really agree with the history that is taught and presented to them. This makes sense seeing as, "The winner writes the history." There are people who just don't quite agree with what is presented to them. These are not Holocaust deniers, they believe that something horrible happened in the 1940s in Europe, but how many people were really killed? How far did Hitler prepare to go with his world domination? Those that question some aspects of the Holocaust just want to have that opportunity, to be able to question.
ALL OF THESE HAVE ONE SIMILARITY: F R E E S P E E C H!!!
Did I make that clear enough?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
But this doesn't apply to Nazis? Or to Palestinians that are Anti-Semitic, does it? Yes, in fact, it most absolutely does. While the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States of America, the preamble states that it is used in order to secure the "Blessings of Liberty," an idea that is covered by all men in the Declaration of Independence.
So where is the line between racism and prejudice? My question, rather, is, "Is there a line between racism and prejudice?" Prejudice is exactly what the world say, "Pre-judging." That might very well be because of their race, religion, or way of life. But if you are a racist, you ARE prejudiced. I do not believe that their is a line, I believe that they are one and the same. Basically, you can be prejudiced without being racist, but you can't be racist without being prejudiced.
Being a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, I believe that anyone that has the views of the groups mentioned above has every right to do so. What draws the line is when that speech becomes threatening. I believe that "Hate Speech" is perfectly fine, just so long as it doesn't turn to threatening. In my opinion, I can say that I hate you, without threatening your personal liberty in any way, shape, or form.
Irving_Kristol
"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."
Saturday, February 6, 2010
"Zeitgeist," A Bunch of Dog Squeeze
If you Have 2 hours to spare, watch this video, if not, at least watch the first 30 mins.
"Zeitgeist"
There is a easy connection with the three segments of "Zeitgeist," the blatant hatred for any type of authority. Whether it be religious institutions, the government, or any entity that requires any type of submission. The creators of this film are very wary of Christianity because it requires submission to the authority of God. They don't trust what the government says because accepting what the government says means that you must put your well being in an institution that frankly, doesn't have a great track record for providing for the common man.
This film attempts to break down the basic need of Human Nature, belief. "Zeitgeist" attempts to shatter what we as humans hold most dear, the belief in our god(s), our trust in the government, and the idea that people are basically looking out for one another. However, if a 2 hour movie shatters everything you hold dear and you don't know what to belief anymore, how strong was your belief system before you watched the movie. Apparently not so strong.
Now for my opinions....
Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told
Ok, so this entire part of the movie about put me to sleep. None of the 'evidence' given by the narrator was new information. Obviously the motivation of the filmmakers was to have the viewers question the existence of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Christianity, and most people's belief system. So why don't we look at some of this 'evidence?'
THE SIMILARITIES OF JESUS' BIRTH TO OTHER ANCIENT DEITIES:
-Born on December 25th
Most modern Christians today know that the birth of Jesus was not on December 25th. I've been taught since grade school that the date of December 25th was chosen to ease the transition for those who were converting to Christianity from other ancient religions, as well as other non-essential aspects of Christianity. Does it really matter the date on the calendar that we celebrate the birth of Christ? No.
-The cross not being the symbol of Christianity, but the Zodiac
Well this is just dumb. Why is the cross the symbol of Christianity? It wasn't some random symbol that the 11 thought of in the upper room on Pentecost. It comes from the Roman Empire's torture and murder device they used for criminals. The modern day equivalent of an electric chair or lethal injection table.
Basically, this entire section of the movie was a load of bull. The filmmakers used vague references and tricky visuals to try to confuse and cause doubt in the minds of the viewers.
Part II: All the World's a Stage
I'm not going to go point by point all that is wrong with this section because it would take too long, and frankly I don't have that kind of time.
The filmmakers are trying to make us believe that the U.S. Government was behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. I'm sorry, but it is really hard to believe this. All of the people that would have been involved, from the President to those that supposedly placed the bombs throughout the WTC Buildings, is a staggering number. There is no way that all those involved have successfully kept their mouths shut.
Part III: Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain
In all my research of the American Revolution (of which I have done quite a bit), never has the "prime cause" been said to be because of the British Empire outlawing the colonies to print money. The quote from Ben Franklin presented in the film came from the twilight of his life, when he was known to be senile and incoherent.
All the stuff about the income tax and the federal reserve is completely right (a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then).
So here's what we learned from "Zeitgeist:"
-Jesus Christ is the representation of the Sun God Horas and never existed.
-The Bush family throughout the last 100 years (3 Generations) has been Nazis, Communists, and supporters of Islamic terrorism for their own financial gain
-In the early 1900s, three men controlled the world's money
-If someone gains power and authority they are going to lie to you.
Irving_Kristol
"Democracy is not the equality of conditions, however, it is the equality of opportunity."
"Zeitgeist"
There is a easy connection with the three segments of "Zeitgeist," the blatant hatred for any type of authority. Whether it be religious institutions, the government, or any entity that requires any type of submission. The creators of this film are very wary of Christianity because it requires submission to the authority of God. They don't trust what the government says because accepting what the government says means that you must put your well being in an institution that frankly, doesn't have a great track record for providing for the common man.
This film attempts to break down the basic need of Human Nature, belief. "Zeitgeist" attempts to shatter what we as humans hold most dear, the belief in our god(s), our trust in the government, and the idea that people are basically looking out for one another. However, if a 2 hour movie shatters everything you hold dear and you don't know what to belief anymore, how strong was your belief system before you watched the movie. Apparently not so strong.
Now for my opinions....
Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told
Ok, so this entire part of the movie about put me to sleep. None of the 'evidence' given by the narrator was new information. Obviously the motivation of the filmmakers was to have the viewers question the existence of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Christianity, and most people's belief system. So why don't we look at some of this 'evidence?'
THE SIMILARITIES OF JESUS' BIRTH TO OTHER ANCIENT DEITIES:
-Born on December 25th
Most modern Christians today know that the birth of Jesus was not on December 25th. I've been taught since grade school that the date of December 25th was chosen to ease the transition for those who were converting to Christianity from other ancient religions, as well as other non-essential aspects of Christianity. Does it really matter the date on the calendar that we celebrate the birth of Christ? No.
-The cross not being the symbol of Christianity, but the Zodiac
Well this is just dumb. Why is the cross the symbol of Christianity? It wasn't some random symbol that the 11 thought of in the upper room on Pentecost. It comes from the Roman Empire's torture and murder device they used for criminals. The modern day equivalent of an electric chair or lethal injection table.
Basically, this entire section of the movie was a load of bull. The filmmakers used vague references and tricky visuals to try to confuse and cause doubt in the minds of the viewers.
Part II: All the World's a Stage
I'm not going to go point by point all that is wrong with this section because it would take too long, and frankly I don't have that kind of time.
The filmmakers are trying to make us believe that the U.S. Government was behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. I'm sorry, but it is really hard to believe this. All of the people that would have been involved, from the President to those that supposedly placed the bombs throughout the WTC Buildings, is a staggering number. There is no way that all those involved have successfully kept their mouths shut.
Part III: Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain
In all my research of the American Revolution (of which I have done quite a bit), never has the "prime cause" been said to be because of the British Empire outlawing the colonies to print money. The quote from Ben Franklin presented in the film came from the twilight of his life, when he was known to be senile and incoherent.
All the stuff about the income tax and the federal reserve is completely right (a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then).
So here's what we learned from "Zeitgeist:"
-Jesus Christ is the representation of the Sun God Horas and never existed.
-The Bush family throughout the last 100 years (3 Generations) has been Nazis, Communists, and supporters of Islamic terrorism for their own financial gain
-In the early 1900s, three men controlled the world's money
-If someone gains power and authority they are going to lie to you.
Irving_Kristol
"Democracy is not the equality of conditions, however, it is the equality of opportunity."
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Religion's Effect on ALL of Us
Saying that comparing and contrasting the different religions and faiths that we covered last week is very difficult is a cop out, and I believe shows lack of insight and intuition. These religions, in regards to human nature, are all but entirely the same. When dealing with human nature, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, et al, say the same thing. Do what we tell you is right, what you are conditioned to believe is a 'moral center,' or burn for it. While 'burning' is sometimes literal (Christianity), the punishment for not following the 'correct path' is not all the same.
Human nature is indeed a social construction, because religion is, and always has been a social construction. Whether we want to accept this fact or not, but all religion is based on social aspects of society. Judaism, for example, came about when one man (Abram) decided to leave his homeland and create a new society, a new social group that followed a certain set of guidelines (not written down until the 10 Commandments). How is that different than the Pilgrims leaving their own society, first to the Netherlands, then to the New World. Their motivation was the same as Abram's, to practice the society they wanted.
This is hard to understand in the modern context because of the intense focus on the separation of Church and State. But before the Great American Experiment, this separation did not exist. Religion and social aspects of life were connected at the hip.
But what does this say about human nature? Whether you are Muslim, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, Atheist, Hindu, or follow the teachings of the Buddha, religion HAS had an influence in the way that your social construction, your human nature works. I am not saying that this is a bad thing and all humans are wrong in this set up, because I absolutely fall under this as well. What I am saying is that religion has had a definite imprint on all the societies of the world since the beginning of recorded history. Not limiting itself to the religions mentioned previously, but ALL religions from all history.
Human nature is indeed a social construction, because religion is, and always has been a social construction. Whether we want to accept this fact or not, but all religion is based on social aspects of society. Judaism, for example, came about when one man (Abram) decided to leave his homeland and create a new society, a new social group that followed a certain set of guidelines (not written down until the 10 Commandments). How is that different than the Pilgrims leaving their own society, first to the Netherlands, then to the New World. Their motivation was the same as Abram's, to practice the society they wanted.
This is hard to understand in the modern context because of the intense focus on the separation of Church and State. But before the Great American Experiment, this separation did not exist. Religion and social aspects of life were connected at the hip.
But what does this say about human nature? Whether you are Muslim, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, Atheist, Hindu, or follow the teachings of the Buddha, religion HAS had an influence in the way that your social construction, your human nature works. I am not saying that this is a bad thing and all humans are wrong in this set up, because I absolutely fall under this as well. What I am saying is that religion has had a definite imprint on all the societies of the world since the beginning of recorded history. Not limiting itself to the religions mentioned previously, but ALL religions from all history.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Sound of Silence... No Thank You
Today, as I was hanging out between classes in my room, I came to a realization. I hate silence. I noticed that in between shutting my XBOX360 off and turning the television back from input to TV, I freaked out a little. There was about 3 minutes of silence while I read something online and before I turned my TV back on.
Why do I feel this way? I don't even watch the TV about half the time it is on. Am I afraid to be alone with my thoughts? Am I scared that once I am alone I will forever be alone? I don't know. Even as I sit here, in a computer lab on campus, with no sound but the humming of computers and the tap, tap, tap of the keyboard, I feel like I could be doing something else. I could easily occupy my mind with my favorite music, or a television show I have never seen before.
'Nuff Said
Why do I feel this way? I don't even watch the TV about half the time it is on. Am I afraid to be alone with my thoughts? Am I scared that once I am alone I will forever be alone? I don't know. Even as I sit here, in a computer lab on campus, with no sound but the humming of computers and the tap, tap, tap of the keyboard, I feel like I could be doing something else. I could easily occupy my mind with my favorite music, or a television show I have never seen before.
'Nuff Said
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Human Condition: An Islamic Perspective
Coming from a Judeo-Christian background myself, I can easily relate to the human condition of Islam. In many ways, the three great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) are very similar. Just as Judaism and Christianity, Islam believes in the creation of man from clay by Allah, followed by a fall from grace at the hands of Satan (in Islam, Iblis).
A uniqueness of Islam is the role of angels in the story. Allah creates man to be praised by angels, since humanity was made in the image of Allah. It was Iblis' denial to worship man that led to his banishment from paradise. The story of Adam and Eve differs in that their repentance for their first sin was forgiven, and therefore no original sin plagues humanity for the rest of time. Humanity now, is subject to the deception of Iblis in order to make them disobedient to God. Humans are charged with not repeating the mistakes of Adam and Eve, but all humans fail and sin because of the passion that Satan puts on them and their carelessness about the demands of the Quran.
Therefore, Islam calls for humans not to sin, and the sins that they do commit, as well as the good deeds they do, follow them until the time of Judgment. Those who follow Islam are charged with following the Quran, living a good life, and have a life full of good deeds. Allah puts these charges to Muslims as a guide to enter paradise. All of this shows the close similarities of the three great monotheistic religions.
Most of the world news from this week comes from the Caribbean. The 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck the island nation of Haiti has caused massive death and destruction. The world sections of the BBC and NY Times are showing the massive international efforts to give aid and relief to the Haitian people. This follows the Islamic perspective of the human condition. Allah calls for humanity, even if full of sin, to perform good deeds. According to Islam, two angels are assigned to each human, one one the right and one on the left. The role of these angels is to record both the sins, and the good deeds of each person. Therefore, Muslims should feel the call to help their fellow humans in need.
Along with the news from Haiti, the world news is full of war. While some religions permit the use of 'just wars', it would be hard to believe that the arming of Hezbollah that could spark an Israeli-Syrian war, along with the fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine/Israel, along with constant fighting all over the globe, could all be considered just wars. Therefore, someone with the Islamic faith would feel that all this fighting, killing, and destruction would not follow Allah's wishes. That these actions all over the world are stemming from passions spurred on by Iblis (Satan).
I believe that the Islamic perspective on the human condition has similar problems to those in all religions that offer eternal paradise and eternal punishment. Do humans do good and avoid evil because it is the right thing to do, or because they are afraid of fiery punishment that lasts an eternity? If this is the case, then all good done by the followers of these religions are doing good deeds for selfish reasons. This critique is not alone with Islam, it is in all religions. For those that do not have an eternal punishment, there is no motivation to do good and avoid evil. In the Christian denomination Calvinism, there are people called the 'elect' that are 'predestined' for heaven and hell. They believe that only certain people are chosen by God to enter heaven, and this decision is made at birth and cannot be changed throughout the lifetime. This brings up the question again of motivation to do good. If you know that there is no way to change your eternal status, what motivation do you have to do good? If I know that my eternal destination has already been determined, whether it be fire or paradise, I am going to be living it up, not worrying about doing good or helping others, not caring about what I do to others or myself.
But since these religions, including Islam, have a punishment set out for those who do wrong, there is great motivation to do good and avoid evil. Whether it be for selfish purposes or not, Islam still has its followers doing good deeds and avoiding evil.
A uniqueness of Islam is the role of angels in the story. Allah creates man to be praised by angels, since humanity was made in the image of Allah. It was Iblis' denial to worship man that led to his banishment from paradise. The story of Adam and Eve differs in that their repentance for their first sin was forgiven, and therefore no original sin plagues humanity for the rest of time. Humanity now, is subject to the deception of Iblis in order to make them disobedient to God. Humans are charged with not repeating the mistakes of Adam and Eve, but all humans fail and sin because of the passion that Satan puts on them and their carelessness about the demands of the Quran.
Therefore, Islam calls for humans not to sin, and the sins that they do commit, as well as the good deeds they do, follow them until the time of Judgment. Those who follow Islam are charged with following the Quran, living a good life, and have a life full of good deeds. Allah puts these charges to Muslims as a guide to enter paradise. All of this shows the close similarities of the three great monotheistic religions.
Most of the world news from this week comes from the Caribbean. The 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck the island nation of Haiti has caused massive death and destruction. The world sections of the BBC and NY Times are showing the massive international efforts to give aid and relief to the Haitian people. This follows the Islamic perspective of the human condition. Allah calls for humanity, even if full of sin, to perform good deeds. According to Islam, two angels are assigned to each human, one one the right and one on the left. The role of these angels is to record both the sins, and the good deeds of each person. Therefore, Muslims should feel the call to help their fellow humans in need.
Along with the news from Haiti, the world news is full of war. While some religions permit the use of 'just wars', it would be hard to believe that the arming of Hezbollah that could spark an Israeli-Syrian war, along with the fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine/Israel, along with constant fighting all over the globe, could all be considered just wars. Therefore, someone with the Islamic faith would feel that all this fighting, killing, and destruction would not follow Allah's wishes. That these actions all over the world are stemming from passions spurred on by Iblis (Satan).
I believe that the Islamic perspective on the human condition has similar problems to those in all religions that offer eternal paradise and eternal punishment. Do humans do good and avoid evil because it is the right thing to do, or because they are afraid of fiery punishment that lasts an eternity? If this is the case, then all good done by the followers of these religions are doing good deeds for selfish reasons. This critique is not alone with Islam, it is in all religions. For those that do not have an eternal punishment, there is no motivation to do good and avoid evil. In the Christian denomination Calvinism, there are people called the 'elect' that are 'predestined' for heaven and hell. They believe that only certain people are chosen by God to enter heaven, and this decision is made at birth and cannot be changed throughout the lifetime. This brings up the question again of motivation to do good. If you know that there is no way to change your eternal status, what motivation do you have to do good? If I know that my eternal destination has already been determined, whether it be fire or paradise, I am going to be living it up, not worrying about doing good or helping others, not caring about what I do to others or myself.
But since these religions, including Islam, have a punishment set out for those who do wrong, there is great motivation to do good and avoid evil. Whether it be for selfish purposes or not, Islam still has its followers doing good deeds and avoiding evil.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Back to Action
Hello again!
I am starting this machine up again. Although it is because of class assignments I am really looking forward to the posts to come.
This semester I am in a Global Studies class on the Human Condition. This class involves posting comments to the class blog Destroying Humanity on topics ranging from religion to sexuality. We are supposed to post these comments anonymously, without the class knowing who exactly says what. This is in order to ensure that everyone in the class will post using absolute honesty. Anyone that knows me knows that I will be honest with you no matter what. So I will be commenting on the class' blog, and then reposting my responses here.
So enjoy this over the next semester, it should be fun and maybe we can cause a little debate as well. Feel free to comment on all of my posts, and I will try to respond to questions, or defend my views further throughout the week before the next week's assignment is done.
I am starting this machine up again. Although it is because of class assignments I am really looking forward to the posts to come.
This semester I am in a Global Studies class on the Human Condition. This class involves posting comments to the class blog Destroying Humanity on topics ranging from religion to sexuality. We are supposed to post these comments anonymously, without the class knowing who exactly says what. This is in order to ensure that everyone in the class will post using absolute honesty. Anyone that knows me knows that I will be honest with you no matter what. So I will be commenting on the class' blog, and then reposting my responses here.
So enjoy this over the next semester, it should be fun and maybe we can cause a little debate as well. Feel free to comment on all of my posts, and I will try to respond to questions, or defend my views further throughout the week before the next week's assignment is done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
