Comparison of Universal Declaration and Hammurabi's Code: Examining the Evolution of Justice Systems

When comparing both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Hammurabi’s Code of Law, one of the first lines of the Preamble in the Declaration of Human Rights sums up the notion that there are very few comparisons to be made in terms of these two documents. It states: “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...” Essentially, this breaks down to explaining that never in history has the rights of humans been explicitly laid out, executed, and respected, and if they have, they’ve only done so in a handful of nations. Therefore, it is necessary to establish this document so that all nations are subject to equal human rights and that the fundamental freedoms and universal rights to which humans are granted are taken to heart for the first explicit time. Right away, without even reading the word-for-word document of Hammurabi’s code, I can recognize the substantial difference that exists between the two, as the Code of Law states situations where the law/an overpowering organization must be implied to resolve an issue and restore justice/peace/structure back into society--no where does it mention the concept of respecting, satisfying, and acting in behalf of people’s human rights. Although, in language, the two documents do have some comparisons. The Code of Law refers to people as “Man” or “Woman”, whereas the Declaration consistently refers to “Everyone”; the openness and un-classifications of the term everyone really advocates for the universality of the entitled document, giving a much more communal and appreciable document of establishment of order than the Code does. In terms of content, both document allude to marriage issues, work and occupational issues, property issues and assumption, concept of slavery and ownership, etc. Of course, though, the Code alludes to the darker, blatant, and cruel concepts and methods of resolving them whereas the Declaration merely states out the right which everyone has regarding that issue/characteristic of society. The one thing which the Code lacks and the Declaration exceeds in is the notion of equality and freedoms; the lone word “freedom” or “right” or “people” does not appear once in the code, but appears countless times in the Declaration. I think that this shows incredible progression of history in the sense of lawful intents and contents, as law documents began laying out x-y-z here is what to do and what not to do and what will happen if you do that, and thousand(s) of years later, law documents reside to the choice which everyone has to make, but regardless, everyone has rights which can protect/hurt them if used or violated. The evolution of justice and laws/human rights is certainly one not to be underestimated, as the drastic differences and slim similarities which arose when examining these to documents separated by thousands of years time show us so much not only about the changes which occurred in the law, but the changes that occur(ed) regarding ourselves as humans, part of a larger and greater society according to an ever-evolving system of law. That exact evolution and concept of change will allow us to see what our core values are, as when observing these documents and their similarities/differences, the things that are missing or we feel are essential but not included/alluded to enough tell us enough about our individual lawful values to develop our own code of law to abide by. Maybe that’s what’s next in history--individualized laws and right systems--but who knows?

The Progression of Human Rights: French Revolution Until Tonight

Throughout the entire unit, I have been waiting for the concept of human rights to make its way through the surface. I had begun to question why this section’s theme was entitled Law AND Human Rights, when we had just been discussing law, for the most part, and neglecting the role of human rights in the progression of legal and human history. Why was human rights even included in this unit? I hadn’t really thought about it until I had just read the section on The French Revolution in the textbook, but I had noticed it and thought about it before. I had been trying to make somewhat whimsical and outlandish connections between legal and lawful events/ideas we have been coming up with previously in class and human rights/its relevance in history--but realistically, at the time in history/chronologically, human rights and the concept of them had not even risen yet! I never thought about the complexity and relevance of the concept of human rights itself, let alone when they come into play in history! It is fair to say that my perspective from how we live today in the United States of America, and how I’ve grown up with the rightful practices of this unique nation greatly effected the way that I thought about human rights as a whole. I feel that I merely assumed that human rights were an institution in society just like anything else was, like the law; i.e. if the law existed, so did human rights. Well, now I know that was entirely off. The idea of human rights germinated in 1789 (officially and most effectually)--that’s incredibly modern; 300 years ago! It was in the French Revolution in which the desperate need of restructuring the social, political, and religious organization was called for by the people as the abusive, irrational, and non-enlightened government instilled structures in their society which greatly opposed with the ideas of the Enlightenment and therefore the ideas/ideals of the people which the society made up of; sounded like a great time for a revolution (especially because of the instability and outside pressure coming in on the governing structures in France at the time). So, the Declaration of the Rights of Man was the revolutionary document which introduced and instituted the concept of human rights into society as the people of France saw it was necessary so lay out their undeniable and acclaimed rights to which must be respected and recognized. Such a basic and (seemingly) unquestionable notion, this changed the face of the French Revolution and for history as a whole (legality, mostly), revolutionizing almost everything about human history. Not only did it turn the Revolution all over, redefining what it meant to be a part of the French society, but it redefined what it meant to be human. And from there on, the concept and details of human rights kept on evolving as new events and other revolutions presented themselves. Human rights has developed so much from when they were initiated in 1789 as they needed to be inscribed on a piece of paper, as today, I could barely even recognize that human rights existed before 300 years ago, and the fact that there was a time where humans or groups of people did not even have or understand the concept of a right. That transformation has, for the first time, really shown me what it meant when earlier in the chapter, the concept of evolution of laws and rights and the progress throughout history was discussed. It really went full circle for me when reading the French Revolution passage because now, I am finally able to confidently and accurately make connections between laws, human rights, and history, not to mention answer the question of why human rights was included in this theme.

Alexander Hamilton and his Thoughts on the Bill of Rights

Going into reading this document, I had thought that I was strongly going to disagree with Hamilton as the Bill of Rights passed for a reason, that reason being that it a) further enforced the Constitution to new levels and heights, b) amplified the Constitution’s and American government’s lawful intentions and c) introduced new concepts that should have been originally included in the Constitution but were missed. Although, after thoroughly reading this document, I find myself agreeing with Hamilton. From his perspective, it is safe to say that he has a little bit of bias in the sense that he is in a position of power and wants to use and maintain that position but doing so constitutionally, rationally, fairly, and for the benefit of the people which he is governing/has the responsibility for, politcally. But, it can be seen throughout history as a pattern that leaders and people in seats of power, however just and constitutional they may be, seem, or claim to be, have the human quality and desire to use that power to his advantage. I am not saying that Alexander Hamilton was unconstitutional and he governed unfairly--just that he did not want to forfeit his power and governmental position and used whatever means necessary in order to do so; in this case, according to the Constitution, that mean was through a process of voting, so his method was very well thought out, as he wrote to the public, the people who would be voting on him and his ideas, to extend his thoughts which would a) keep him in his position and b) represent his ideas. I agree with his claim that the Bill of Rights is in fact repetitive of the Constitution: “Does a bill of rights specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the new Constitution... Therefore, referring to what is meant by a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the proposed Constitution. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this point.” Basically, that is saying that the Constitution lays out the foundation of the ideas for the government to govern by and can be applied to almost any situation--as it may not lay out the specific orders by which people should act by, it consistently suggests how to go about solving those issues and why to do it in such a manner. In other words, that the Bill of Rights is repeating and suggesting falseness and the lacking of the Constitution--being something that he wrote himself, that would be logical that he would revoke anything else which would cause such degradation (not that drastically, but just a little) to such a powerful and encompassing document. But it makes sense, right? If the Bill of Rights extended the Constitution, that means that there is more lawful text and evidence to turn to and manipulate/make it do something that could hurt (or help) the government that was not intentional in writing such a document(s). More advantage would be given to the people to justify and overthrow/turn against the government and the Constitution, and had the potential to throw Hamilton and the rest of the foundational American government--which was doing very well for/at the time!--out of the power and governing position, which was not a situation they wanted to be put in. So, to me, that is why I agree with Hamilton as viewing it from his perspective (as I see it) proves valid arguments and reason to remain the Constitution as it was, alone, and allow the government to continue developing and empowering itself along with the uprising authoritative nation under the Constitution. 

A Common Thread in More Than Just History Class

The event and topic which we have covered in history class this year that has reoccured throughout my other classes at Parker has to be that of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in relation to the environment and environment-related history. Especially in science this year, we have focused on the sustainability of the planet and actually have referenced and referred to the Hierarchy of Needs as we were discussing how to sustain life and survive on an island (considering consuming renewable versus non-renewable sources, the rate of consumption of resources, etc.). As we were discussing the scenario of the small Islanders, we discussed how without their basic needs, as referred to earlier in the year during the environment unit and early civilizations including that of the Mohenjo Daro, Mesopotamia, etc., natural resources were essential in the survival of the people--all based off of and determined by the hierarchy of needs. I stated: on the island, as the population grew to a new high that the island had never seen before, the island did not have a big enough quantity of resources and materials to accommodate and sustain so many people. As the population increased, space as well as resources which the environment provided society with decreased as the demand for them to be supplied rose to an extreme hight. The island did not naturally have enough to supply each individual with the things they needed to sustain themselves, and without resources from their environment, the society and population decreased until it eventually disappeared completely. The smaller society before this expansive one preserved and maintained the environment so well in order to sustain themselves and provide their living style with the resources needed to survive. This is precisely applicable to what we studied earlier in the history year, as the civilizations earlier on did not accommodate for the essential and fundamental needs of the people involved, and therefore, led to a decline in population and ultimately making history. As civilizations got more modern, progressing over the next hundred years, we get to establishments like that of Hammurabi’s, where law is instituted in order to keep the fundamentals intact and not let society loose hold of them as it would cause much controversy and decline in population, resources, and ultimately the legal powers in place. Although, disregarding the legalities of the scenarios, throughout the year, sustainability has been a common thread in many of my other, non-historically focused classes, and inadvertently, the Hierarchy of Needs came up in the conversation/investigation as it proved to be such a fundamental property of the sustainability and progression of history, and now I see, scientific history and english history as well.

The Ever-Changing Intention of Laws: Law Codes to Moral Codes

When going through the “Asoka and Collective Morality” section of the textbook, there was a couple set of sentences which really got my mind up and running about a new idea that I haven’t thought about before. The introduction to the reading referred to the notion of the evolution of law itself, and how that evolution is determined not by the laws themselves, who they pertain to, where or how they are written, etc. They are determined in fact by their specific intent and what is included within the law which conveys that intention to the people which they will/would govern. I like the quote, “...had the safety and security chunk made up of Hammurabi, Mosaic Law, and Manu...priority was placed on laws to insure the safety and survival...”; to me, that says the certain laws such as those were crafted, instituted, and executed for one sole purpose, or intention: to keep those which they govern alive, sustainable, and stable. Interestingly, at the time which those laws were applied, which was incredibly early in history, correlated with the specific circumstances, resources, knowledge, and applications which existed at their time of existence. The laws pertained exactly with the time and people of the era! So, that laws intention would be to continue or extend, in this case, the people of that era by addressing the issues which seemed/were detrimental to that very thing: the sustainability and existence of the governed people. That is why the early laws, as there was not sustainable measures instituted in society yet as we would see in Asoka’s time, was to sustain the people; laws about flooding and destroying living areas and food sources, stealing essential items, etc. made sense because that was dealing with the issues of the time; the intent of those laws satisfied the present need/demands. Although, as this lawful revolution continued, times and institutions change, and survival became more of a given, the intent of the law, seemingly, changed as well along with the newly established needs of the governed people, mostly as seen by the government (Asoka..). Since law was no longer needed to for the function of survival, the governing member, Emperor Asoka, instated laws which went beyond a “do this not that” policy; it defined a nature of good and a nature of bad, and by distinguishing the two through the laws and punishments, presented her governed people with an option--something new when it came to laws back then in that moment(s) of history. The option was to abide by good-natured policies or by bad-natured policies, and thus, came the issue of morality. Asoka’s laws were the first solid example in history when morality and law coincide with each other, as the laws were instituted to ensure morality and to protect the good natured people (hopefully, everyone) from the evil natured people. Collective morality was the value system which took into account both lawful morality (the extent to which one follows and honors the law) and individual morality (how they a) interpret the law and b) generally act and develop their individual moral code to which they live according to). This means that through the law, every governed person would have their own, societal, lawful, and respected personal values and codes. That would go onto to define their character, life, societal impacts, etc. In this way, the title of collective morality makes a lot of sense as it creates a moral code based off of a collective input of all components of society and makes a collective impact on everything that one does, thinks, acts, etc. Emperor Asoka further pushed on the evolution of the law very effectually as he combined law and moral, two things that would go on to define cultures and societies and individuals throughout history. 

One last thing; when combining such moral codes and law codes, it is up to the individual to interpret and execute their actions based off of those to things. Such openness to interpretation and application lead to much controversy, worry, contradiction, etc. between the governing and the governed. Someone’s moral code could, perhaps, interfere with the law code being executed, and the way to which that situation was dealt with was certainly not included in the modernized law, so people and the government had to turn to the other aspect which influenced their decision making: morality. Collective morality, in this sense, could be seen as the sum of all values of morals from the people in any given group--as when coexisting, morals ought to be exchanged and diffused. Regardless, this is one of the first events in the history of law which leaves it quite open ended and interpretative, making it even more significant that Asoka implied the notion of morals along with the law, as without the collective moral codes, people would have no where to turn when the law did not satisfy something; and in upcoming historical events, that would much be the case. 

Socrates' Temptations of Justice and Injustice

What does Crito offer Socrates?

In this document, Crito is making Socrates aware that a ship from Delos is expected to arrive within the day and that the day following its arrival, authorities have made it clear the Socrates will be killed, and consequentially die. As a beloved friend and admirer of Socrates, Crito goes on to persuade Socrates to listen and accept his ideas of escaping Socrates from his acclaimed, upcoming death. Crito explains that the opinion of many and the greater population matters as they could potentially view a himself as someone who could have saved Socrates but was not willing to, completely, as they do not entirely know him as a person. He states that the greatest evil to anyone is the one who looses/has lost his good opinion. Socrates, being the wise and deep man which he is, rebuttals to say that whatever change or action which the greater people make is that of a result of utter chance; no man including himself can change another’s opinions. Now, the two dive into a dispute regarding the reasons for which Socrates is acting and responding the way he is. Is he acting in regards to Crito? In regards to other friends? In regards to the authorities and informers? Socrates reveals that he fears that if he is not able to escape, he may get in trouble with the authorities and loose his property and further evil would be done unto them; he fears that escape is not worth that risk. Then, Crito reveals his master plan, defying all law and rightness to which Socrates feared! His plans are as follows, offering to Socrates that: people will bring him out of prison, and the authorities will be bribed with little amounts of money, satisfying their cheapness. Many people and communities are willing to spend money at great costs for the protection of Socrates as he was such an amazing asset in their eyes. Here’s where law and lawfulness versus unlawfulness (and the concept of justice) comes into play. Both Crito and Socrates understand and are fully aware that these actions are not justified, certainly not by the law. By committing such actions, Socrates would betray his entire life, studies, and individual codes as he strived to abide by the law, moralities, and justice; this is everything opposite of that! Whether or not trial would come in regard to Crito’s plan and Socrates’ eventual actions, it was justified that this was absurd, unlawful, and courageous--but not emerges an incredible debate, held mostly internally of Socrates (and I’m sure or Crito as he thought of it before he approached Socrates so early. What is more important: unlawfulness, injustice, and absurdity when absolutely needed in a life or death situation (which was what Socrates was in), or (just like he had spent his entire life) abiding by morals, the law, justice, and individual drive to do what is right? That’s a real tough one. At this time, with this internal debate, Crito concludes his offer to Socrates, pleading him to be persuaded and to go along with Crito’s plan (he’s a really devoted friend!). Socrates being Socrates, began to go through all the possibilities which could arise if accepting Crito’s invaluable plan. He claims they must be guided by reason; it’s what he honors and knows, and be all means this plan has very little reasonability and justification! Socrates then states that only under certain circumstances must Crito’s plan and reasoning apply and work, rightly so. They go on to explain how law and punishment is instituted to condemn those who break it and commit actions without reason, justification, and rightness. He says that the just man is much more honorable and honored/admired than the non-just as they “deteriorate” the body of government/law which they are immersed in. With this, he concludes that they must not take into account what others say about them, but focus on what the truth of the matter is. One more argument which Socrates hold is that of justice: should they cause suffering to others in the aid of his escape in the sense of righteousness or unrighteousness? The question is left unanswered, as the two continue their discussion to justify Socrates’ escape decision based entirely off of law, justice, morality, and their individual senses of right and wrong--their set of truths that will lead them to the arrival of their final answer to the lawful debate at hand. Finally, in a nutshell, Socrates decides to go with “the will of God”, as if he goes forth he id equally returning evil and injustice for itself, and wronging those who have nothing to be wronged! He must think of justice (and law) before the opinions of others, the future of the children, and the being of Crito/other friends, as that will lead him to a happier, holier, juster life which he longs for.

Aspects of Society Influencing Laws and Legislation

I want to talk about the discussion of Hammurabi’s Code of Laws which was held on Thursday during class. Some really interesting stuff came up throughout that conversation, but one concept really stuck with me, and that was the notion of aspects of society influencing and effecting laws. When I mention “aspects” or “elements” of society, I am referring to the different components which combine to establish the life of any given individual during the time of the law’s application. Side-note, real quick, is that also when we were talking, I noticed that people began to make assumptions about the unjustness, unfairness, and wrongness of the law code because, for example, different distinctions in social classes were not right and were removed from (most) of society later on in history, especially at the time which we are living in now! They were bridging and connecting the implications of our society to the society of Hammurabi and his laws, which are in fact two incredibly distinct and separate societies with different societal implications, laws, and overall aspects. People were not looking at the situation through the eyes of someone living at the time in that certain society, therefore distorting the discussion (me included..). I now understand and realize that in order to hold a productive and accurate conversation about Hammurabi’s Code of Law, we would merely have to anticipate and accept the implications and institutions of the society back then in the historical moment(s), and that the laws were in no way wrong, but in fact addressing, respecting, and monitoring the way society was run. It was not unjust, or wrong, so to speak--it was just how it was. Today, we don’t question our society and its governing laws; we just understand that that is the way it is done and we coexist with it. That is what I am going to attempt to do now, but from an ordinary historical point of view. 

Back to aspects of society inverting the laws which govern such. The first thing I want to point out is the issue of social class effecting the content and application of the law on people. Historically, law has been written, executed, and enforced by government, usually the higher end of the governing body, i.e. the royalty. Obviously, because all history is, there will be bias contained in the law, specifically towards that of their upper class. Hammurabi’s Code of Law, however, had extensive amounts of contributors who assisted in creating and writing the laws themselves, as they were not simply from Hammurabi’s direct mouth. In this sense, there would still be bias and what we referred to as “wrong” or “unlawful/unfair” within the written law, but not entirely. And the extreme variation and extensiveness of the law exemplifies that ideally. So, in that spirit, social class and individual origins of economic, social, and over societal standings do have a major role in the execution and development of law, and should have a well-deserved spot to do so. Although, it gets iffy around the time when that power is overused to commit unlawfulness based entirely off of social class, as seen in historical events comparable to the French Revolution (but that’s more religious class considering the implications of that certain society at that certain time in history). That transitions very well into the next aspect I want to discuss, that of religion. Previously, we read a short passage regarding one of the earlier laws in history, the Mosaic Code. These laws addressed things that needed to be balanced, i.e. justified by morality as they were created around the time of Moses leading the Israelites through the desert, three thousand five hundred and three years ago, to be exact. It dealt specifically with issues of justice and virtue/goodness as the people yearned for an identification of the right versus the wrong (action and thought alike) and something to enforce such behaviors, governing among the (mobile) society. Legislation was the way to do it, and thus, the Mosaic Code came about. The only issue with this set of laws is that more than any of the ones we have studied (Laws of Manu, Hammurabi’s Code of Law, etc.), these had the most influence and fluctuation as religion inspired and drove them. Again, these laws were not wrong or unjust (in the standpoint of an opposing religion, per say--because at the time everyone subject to such law shared the common religion of Judaism). It was just that, at the time and that certain location(s), religion was the dominating notion which controlled everyone’s life; Moses, the follower or government in this case, instigated the Mosaic Law to help control, justify, and solve issues which were among his people. In his eyes, religion was the thing to turn to, and thus this law code was based entirely off of religion. 

Being just two examples, religion and social/economic class have influenced law and the way things are justified and “work” in society. So, I would argue that aspects and elements of society as described above do have a part in determining the laws which are created and applied among societies, all depending on the society which those specific laws are in at that certain time period; out of that is where/when it is fair that people claim such laws unlawful, wrong, and unfair. 

Legal Laws and Moral Laws

Laws have been an institution in the history of man that have foundations in two different places. The first provides a moral framework that in the case of the Mosaic Laws and somewhat in the Laws of Manu, is supported by religion which goes to justify the laws set forward; a set of morals is determined by such religious principles that are used to satisfy the laws and achieve justice. The second spring up out of the many necessities which humanity has in their every day life; the legal side represents that laws which determine what must be done or not done, and how individuals should go about life. Simply, in most cases, the moral side explains why a law should be followed and the legal side states that law, or what must happen or not happen. In the case of the Mosaic Laws, religion played an integral role in the development and execution of the set of laws which were established. The written laws were, or had said to been originated from a higher authority, and merely because of that notion, those laws retrieved great validity, eminence, and influence. Being from an origin of higher power, those laws were not subject to that much change over time, as they were set in stone (pun intended) by someone who the subjects of the law already confided in, so those laws were rarely changeable or not-executed. These moral laws were rarely changed or generally did not alter even when taking cultural diffusion, time, and location into consideration. The laws that grew out of the necessities of an everyday, civilized society could change and adapt depending on its content, circumstance, and its mere subjects. This change, though, was very influential though. This is because foundations of law were generally found within that of their predecessors or previous codes, or other legal systems which existed during that time. Although, in every case, the elements of morality and legalism coexisted, as one was in fact the support and fundamental property of the other, blatant code which so many people abided to. The process of this invention and reinvention of legal codes and justice system blends together to form the upcoming legal code. Significantly through historical diffusion, people evaluate, apply, execute, and then build off of what os there in order to achieve better, more relevant laws which could or should be included in such a code. In this way, moral and legal laws coexist with each other as both of them are fundamental concepts which are at hand when evaluating and creating new laws, making up the entire history involving laws and legal systems. 

Justice Changes: Hammurabi

In the introduction to the chapter in the textbook, the line which mentioned that notion that justice is an ever evolving, fluid, and developing aspect of history struck me. How was justice, a component of history, something that would change and never stay somewhat consistent? The fact that it had a direct relationship with law and human rights, though, justified the notion that justice is an ever-changing concept in history as laws and human rights have progressed just as much and as fast as history of humans has. Makes sense, right? There were these set of “truths” which were developed, established, and executed all depending on the society which inhabited them, but right there shows historical proof of how justice changed and was an ever-moving, constantly fluid process throughout history. Justice, in the sense of thinking about it like how someone bases their actions and thoughts off of in order to “justify” them for themselves and others as determined by their system of justice and their “truths” which they held, would move along the rapidly evolving path as society has/would in history as different sets of “truths” as defined by different groups of people which would require some system of justice to govern not them, but their lives. In this case, as a side note, religion could also play a large role if religion played a part in the community/society which these set of justices or truths were being acquainted with. Religion provided things such as incentive, reward, or justification for one’s thought processes, actions, and life; in some cases, justice could be derived from one’s religion itself as it provides the required/yearned for structure that determined justices of people in history. Regardless of religion, though, justice could be defined individually or more communally or on a larger scale that applies to a bigger group of people, sometimes executed by a government force, which is what and when we see history come up and is made. Justice, though, could also be defined by the individual and one could live in accordance to such a set of truths, as long as they are not (breaking a law!) under a larger power like a government and is therefore obliged and committed to living in accordance to that larger scale set of truths which defines justice for not only one person, but for multiple, usually millions of people who are under that exact jurisdiction of the enforcement. Now, when talking about Hammurabi’s Code of Law, it was obviously regarding to a set of truths which define justice for many people, specifically those who existed within the Babylon Empire--which was enormous! That’s why Hammurabi is such a large character in history of law and justice, because he was the first one to apply a system of justice and enforce it among so many people in order to establish some sense of civility and order within his realm. This Code of Law caused a large shift in the way things ran in history (even though this is really, really early history!), as the laws were so expansive, general, and applied to every single individual within the Empire, law/order, but more importantly, justice, revolve around everything somebody said, acted, executed, etc. Life was redefined by this expansive set of laws which set the guidelines which were to be followed, and therefore, reformed how people operated and lived in accordance to. In this way, we see justice being something that has further changed as it began as a prevailing notion which people were acclaimed to live by, or attempted to live by; with the Code of Law, justice was required and enforced on the people, and it was served. Instead of anything else influencing the way people acted on behalf of a/their set of “truths”, Hammurabi’s Code of Law established those set of truths (not religion, not (strictly speaking) government, not their environment, and not the individual!). Justice was the central and an integral component of life as the law enforced such. So, in this way, laws (not so sure about rights yet) are merely a way to establish, apply, and enforce justice in society. Hammurabi did exactly that with his Code of Laws, as they redeveloped the fundamentals of society in order for everything in life to revolve around one thing: justice. Hammurabi was just one individual and event to change justice, setting it on its way to be further evolved.   

Cry Freedom Exemplifies Change for Law and Rights

In Cry Freedom, Donald Woods, a white man, tries to save a black man that is already dead as a result of the very cause he is fighting, by contradicting and exposing the immoral rights movements taking place within the African partite. Going into the start of the film, Woods’ character had a somewhat-established notion of what he believed humans in Africa had the rights of, obviously whites having more rights, privilege, name, and superiority than the blacks; but he was not one of those people who generally determined that black had aero rights or inherent human/connectable notion whatsoever to the white man. He was more acquainted with the cruelties and injustices that occurred in South Africa, in his backyard essentially because of his job position as an editor and journalist for a major media source in the area which he lived and worked. He understood that the actions being taken against the bantus and blacks within such a segregated, yet shared geographical area (and the fact that they are all human!), it is undoubtable that someone, at least one individual, would diffuse into the other culture opposite their own, and through this new perception and understanding of life, would determine the need for change of the wretchedness and cruelty of society. This is exactly what happened in the case of Donald Woods and Steve Biko, as Biko merely served as the prompt to have Woods enter the realm of black life in South Africa and realize that there needed to be a change--and it was his responsibility to make the change. One of the most amazing lines in the movie, I thought, was when he was convincing his wife to let him escape in order to publish his book: he said something across the lines of that it is his responsibility to make the change which others do not make, because everyone has their meaning in the world to do something significant--and publishing his book which would be his act of valor. He was planning to publish a book in attempt to publicize the atrocities which the government imposed on all the non-white members of their society. Steve Biko claimed to die of hunger strike, whereas he really died as a result of being beaten, persecuted, and basically destroyed by the government which he was subjected to; Woods had proof that he died because of the discriminatory principles of the governing bodies, and wanted to share that to the world in hopes that it would spark more diffusion between cultures and societies and make an overall change in the structures and functions of South Africa’s society and government. Through cultural diffusion, Woods and Biko worked together directly and indirectly in order to provoke the sense that the laws and human rights being practiced at the time in South Africa we not what they themselves (and many others) believed should be and acted upon that change for the world. This is only one example of how that overarching notion of laws and human rights initiating change for the better and drastic historical events and periods which would go on to define societies, cultures, and ultimately, history as a whole.

Law/Human Rights in relation to Government and Religion

I don’t want to talk about “Cry Freedom” as much as I do about my personal viewpoint on law and human rights throughout history and my own life--and I am planning to blog about this same exact thing following the unit’s completion after studying about its role in history and how it has manifested into such a colossal notion in human history and life. I think it will be interesting and incredibly, personally valuable to see the difference which studying this theme will have on me in comparison to my viewpoint after learning more about it--those differences between the original one and the concluding one will be really interesting, I think.

So, I want to start off with talking about how religion and government, our past two units have impacted laws and human rights since personally, I think those are two very large aspects of the concept which are influential to a very high extent. First off, I firmly believe that every human, no matter what race, sex, gender, orientation, location, subjection, background, diseases, abnormalities, etc...everyone is human (no way around that!) so everyone should be subjected to human rights as equally as the next man, yet those rights are defined individually for the most part. It’s entirely individualized--somebody can subject themselves to few rights and be completely fine with it, yet another might subject themselves to thousands of rights and be completely out of line and non-bearable without those specific rights. In this manner, human rights are merely another part of history, as just like the study and acts of history, is subjected to themselves and have many point of views/angles of perspectives which can be viewed upon.

We established the notion that religion is a lens by which people perceive and view the world, and that lens justifies and is the root cause for one’s actions, thoughts, and character, essentially! In this way, it makes sense that religion would go onto effect the human rights of an individual/s throughout history as human rights are subjected to the same extent that history and religious action is. Religion, also, has provoked a set of truths, morals, and codes by which individuals or groups of people abide by and live their lives in accordance to. Religion additionally tells people the morals by which they should live their lives and therefore, it dictates some of the rights and laws that individuals or groups of people should be subjected to and abide by. Not everyone is dedicated to the same religion, and if this notion is accepted, then it goes to say that different religious people are subject to different human rights. That is a notion to which I got the idea that religion and human rights do not have much affiliation (in my eyes) because human rights applies to humans, not religions.

In addition to religion, we also studied government in this year’s class. Now, unlike religion, government has not been used to see the world throughout history, but rather is something to maintain whatever views may exist under the government itself. Although, I think that government has more of an influence on human rights (definitely laws!) than religion does because government is the force which imposes the human rights on people. Whether or not it dictates them is a different story, and completely depends on the type of government which is being considered. Some governments have the human rights which everyone under their rule is subjected to built into their makeup and structure of the government itself--in this case, human rights definitely is effected by/plays a role in government throughout history as they, in addition to laws, are very much defined, determined, and enforced by the governing bodies. 

What I’m really trying to get at here as that just like the themes which we have covered so far in history this year, and the concept of history itself, is that (more human rights part than laws, but either way) human rights and laws are completely subjected and individualized to the individual to whom it concerns! The extent by which someone follows or observes/respects a law is entirely variable when talking about a generalized group of people--history, essentially. The degree that human rights are determined, respected, and practiced in any given moment/situation is unpredictable. Religion may enhance and provoke the methods by which one follows a law, or perceives/acts in accord to human rights; government may enforce different laws to different people and execute human rights to the extent they see fit. Regardless, the general concept is that laws and human rights cannot be established or defined through looking at history, but rather can be observed, developed, and changed along with history; but one thing stays the same--law and human rights have been a root cause for many actions and modifications in history. Why? Because no one can ever agree to what they entail and the degree to which they are applied.

My Take on the Religion and Ethics Debate

Since there was not reading posted for the week so far, I wanted to talk about the religion and ethics debate/discussion which we held in class on Friday. The source which I was assigned had to do with religion being enhanced by and supported by ethics and moralities of society. In the reading, the speaker defined five separate arguments to back up his overall theory of ethics being able to enhance religion in humanity. The argument I find to be most persuasive is the argument that every individual will get what they deserve based off of the quality of their morality throughout their lifetime as that is a motivation to understand religion and use it in the name of morality and goodness as it individually applies to one being and presents a conflict (hard but moral, or easy but unjust) which we are all familiar with; it does not look at humanity as a whole, but rather the individual as a whole which makes it more convincing and compelling to understand and apply to real life. The argument I find to be least persuasive is the one regarding God treating all creations equally, and therefore equality and morality must be implemented in society to honor that. I say this because every individual, regardless of religion, has their own interpretation of God or divinity, and it cannot be a universal concept which applies to all of humanity regarding God as a motivation to be moral. Creation, being part of religion and God varied belief systems is something unique to the individual, and merely saying that God created equality and it must be sustained is not enough of a driving force or motive to act moral on behalf of something interpretative, unproved, and undetermined! 

When we discussed in our small groups about our individual assigned arguments, all of their back up and support, and the validity of them, and surprisingly I found mine the most valid and meaningful to my individual life and throughout history. I began by asking my group if and how religion and ethics are interrelated with each other at all throughout history. What I discovered was that the two had come into contact with each other, and either one may have been a result of the other, but realistically, they are entirely different things. Here’s my point of view: religion is something that applies to an entire part of humanity, making the individual part of something bigger than itself because it applies and subjects to so many people, so equally. Ethics, on the other hand, is something completely defined by the individual as there cannot and has not been a system of morals and ethics to which everyone is subjected to like a religion; even if everyone were subject to it, that subjection would be far from equal as some would impose their morals/ethics more intensely and efficiently than others as rationally some would reject and neglect them--you can’t do that with a religion. Also, ethics are determined by the individual for that very individual because every person in history has an internal set of morals which they subject themselves to but not others, that would not be reasonable or moral (irony intended)! So, maybe an individual’s system of ethics and moral code can be influenced by or structured based off of one’s religious affiliations and practices as religion does incorporate ethical and moral themes, suggestions, and reasoning (lessons) within itself, but by no means would religion dictate and set those morals in place for the individual because like I stated before, ethics stem from the individual and his/her surroundings, upbringing, environment, etc.; moral are not determined communally or generally as opposed to religion which is imposed in a much more general, interpretative sense. Therefore, I find it somewhat irrational and meaningless to discuss or debate over these three different arguments (religion needs ethics, ethics needs religion, or religion enhances ethics) as religion has absolutely no affiliations with religion whatsoever! It is merely an internal tool(s) which individuals use to enhance their lives as they act according to reason and standards composed by themselves, and because that individual set of ethics enhances life, it would reasonably effect one’s religion/religious experience. In this way, ethics are able to/are used to increase or strengthen one’s religious experiences and practices as they are merely a set of tools used to live one’s life, religious or not. 

Religion is a Rulebook: Do Versus Dont

Religion is a complex and overruling aspect of human history that over the course of countless events, situations, and settings, religion has been the root cause for human thought, conflict, and ultimately a great part of history. Clearly, each of the different religious groups and beliefs, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Although, the religious groups almost have more similarities than they do differences, different than what may seem on the surface; but when looking historically beneath the mere outline/structure of the religions, they share so much that it almost contradicts the entire reason for having multiple religious beliefs and practices. It breaks down to really one primary difference: that is the difference between “do” and “do not”. Now, it may seem obvious and elementary, but when looking at it from strictly a historical perspective, it explains so much of the history regarding religions. Religion has revolved around a series of rules or beliefs that have been set according to a god, physical ruler, a king (basically anyone in a seat of power or influence over a certain group of people), and the followers and believers of a religion would be determined so based on the extent to which those rules were observed and acted upon. Accordingly so, religions had seen the most spreading and expanding during the time when a ruler either ruled under or over a certain religion as it had interfered with the politics of history, and therefore, more people following the “Dos” and “Do Nots”, or the rules of a religion, means more followers; the religion would further grow in size, placement, and importance in human history. I quote: “Instead of rules that were to be followed, religion became a set of beliefs that followers needed to embody by what they did, not what they did not do...the very "truths" of these religions, open to interpretation, change as humanity changes.” Essentially, this is saying that religion had transformed into something comparable to a rulebook or guidelines to which people abided by throughout their lives, following and believing the religion they saw fit best for them and their individual lives. What happens when it is individuality that plays a key component in the growing and setting of religions? Individual interpretation. People had begun to determine what religion means to them on their own, based on their own lives. These personal meanings clearly went to effect what it meant to be a follower of a certain religion, as that religion’s identity and/or rules (Dos or Do-Nots) may change as well. So, it makes sense to say that religion changed and progressed as human history progressed as well. Now, the world continues to adjust and gauge itself to the concept of religion on a Do versus Do-Not basis rather than looking at it as something that unifies a group of people together based off of a common belief. Don’t get me wrong, religion is still a communal label and brings together the people that share it, but it has developed into a general rule book of ways of life, but how those rules are interpreted and executed are entirely variable, up to the individual. In that way, religions are not that much different as they all serve as an overarching rulebook by which humanity can follow in order to gain something in their lives or for whatever personal reason it may be, but religion has become so much more personal and individual than it has communally or generally speaking. This may be as a result of the progressing history or accomplishments like mobility, where religion has the ability to move with the individual to individual places, not staying in one greater area and being forced upon those constituents, not changing as everyone was subject to the same thing; but when people could spread out, it pertained more to them alone than to a greater crowd, allowing it to individualize itself. That being just one explanation, religion progresses with history, and because of that progression, religion means something entirely different than it did throughout all moments in history. Although, one thing has not changed: religion is something that tells you what to do and what not to do. But just like religion as a whole did, the interpretation and execution of those dos and dont’s altered as well.

Manipulation of Religon

Throughout this entire unit, I have not seen that religion can be used for the good or for the bad of the people subjected to it. When introduced to the concept of religion being an agent of the powerful, I thought to myself that that was a very large step to take in terms of my understanding and perception of religion, but it made a lot of sense as religion has and is been used as a mean by which people use to achieve/gain certain things. But, the notion of religion being used as an agent of the powerless was something alien to me. As I made sense of it, it began to sink in and I thought of some instances in which this occurred. Although, other ideas began to foster in my head about religion in general. I began to think that religion wasn’t something spiritual or meaningful to most individuals, but rather was utilized as a mere tool in order to gain something which they strive for in their lives. In the concluding section of the textbook reading, it says that, “Powerful people often use religion to retain their power by violent means often use religion. However, religion certainly may be used by those without power in a nonviolent manner to achieve social justice. History has shown that religion is a means by which people see the world, and their use of religious beliefs, depending upon the way in which they see the world, can be either for or against those in power.” For whatever the reason may be, I feel somewhat uncomfortable when I read this statement  because to me, religion is something much more than just a tool or utility in life. I find it controversial, however, as religion can be used for horrible intentions, such as gaining more land via battle and brutal violence, or, can be used for really good reasons as to gain social justice or equality in the world. Although, I began to disregard my personal feelings when I looked at this blog prompt and it actually cleared a lot of thing up in my head. I think that purely looking at religion through a historical perspective, it is merely a mean by which people manipulate in which ever way benefits themselves or their cause the most, and is entirely disregarded as a spiritual or deeper meaning in one’s life. In the example above, I pointed out that religion can be used for positive of negative reasons and in good or bad ways as well as people’s methods when using religion contrast with good or bad. But once again, the idea of historiography comes into play as the justification of what is good versus what is bad is entirely pertaining to those involved in the action, being the contributors or the receivers. For example, Pope Urban used religion to further spread his religious ideas and empire, and to gain power. That is not necessarily a bad or evil idea, but the ways by which he executed his cause were--now to him they may not have been seen as crimes or unjust, but to the history observers and the persecuted ones, that act would have been seen as vile and inhuman. Plus, its interesting that religion itself could and does provide the answers to whether or not such acts or good or bad in the name of the people and participants of the religion. Although, because religion has developed into such a powerful, driving, and  unifying force throughout history, people have completely neglected the fundamental reason that religion exists, and are using it for the wrong reasons in whichever manner that one would. The justification of how one uses it and for what reasons one uses religion cannot be entirely answered as there are countless perspectives on the subject; but, religion itself may provide good insight. When looking through history, religion has sparked political motives, social motives, economic motives, cultural motives, etc. It has been an overlying source of unification and a commonality between most people in history. Therefore, it would makes sense that in order to fit and play a role in all of these different situations, it would be manipulated in all sorts of ways so that it could fulfill the role which people sought to in their lives. It’s interesting now that I look at religion that way, that it is not something that fulfills a spiritual or meaningful aspect in life, but rather is a mean by which things are done by. On a side note, that could be one of the reasons why so many different religions were established; one couldn’t fit the needs or circumstances of someone, so they sought out something new to fill that emptiness which the other religion used to hold. But who knows, religion has become so much more than just a spirituality in life, it has become a defining, fundamental property of human history. 

Missionaries: Why Would They Kill?

Missionaries in my mind are another version of the Crusades, just without most of the military and physical force in the good of spreading a religion. Their world views of religion, cultures, and societies were, just like the Crusades, altered or different in some ways than most of the other members of greater society as their religion had provided them with a purpose and “rational” (in their minds) reason to do something with their lives--spread their religion throughout the common geography. Interestingly, as the Crusades pertained only to Christian force and in the name of Christianity, the Missionaries involved more than one religion, as Buddhism came into play in order to prevent Christianity from spreading to the utmost amount of people and making it a world power; Christian missionaries did the same toward Buddhism. Although, it is important to note that both Buddhist and Christian missionaries had a common enemy/interest--that is to prevent the spreading and popularizing of Islam, another threatening religion in the geography, which could cause potential damage/undermining of the respective religion’s society and members. That common notion did not unite the two, however, as the missionaries' role in their religion’s history was to spread and overpower the other religions in the area and convert others with different belief systems, cultures, or societies while implementing their religious beliefs and philosophies on differing cultures/religions throughout the geography in places such as Africa, Asia, and the “New World”, or Americas. The missionaries were willing to use any force necessary, although did not initiate as a military force, to convert and greaten the chances of their religion becoming one of a world power/dominance over the other religions which existed. They did this by killing, preaching, threatening, etc. and all the other forces which could be beneficial to the spreading of the religion. They did this not because they “wanted” or “intended” to, but because that was what their religion entailed and told them to do; the religious officials, the ones close to God, sent the message to commit such actions in order to greaten the eminence of the religion itself. That provided solid reasoning and backup for the participants of the missionaries, and thus, the missionaries converted others and gained followers, and in the process, naturally had people turn against them, angered. I think that this occurred mainly in locations around Asia and older civilizations because they had had a lot of time and exchange and experience to establish their own defined lifestyle, and when someone stomps in by forces and forces you to convert after living an exposed, defined life, I’d imagine I wouldn’t be too happy. But in places like the “New World”, the Americas and Africa, people had had relatively zero exposure to other religions and cultures, and did not have the extensive history which the other’s had as their history had merely just begun, whereas in Asia it had already been continuing a history of one thousand years (more or less). But, the missionaries provided those with no religion in their lives with a religious, powerful force, those people would gladly join something bigger and pledge their lives to something already established amidst the mere origins of a new society. In that way, the Missionaries were successful as they provided those with none a new religion which would then, through cultural exchanges, spread on its own throughout that newly born geography; that would allow the religion to do a majority of its spreading, gain of power, and ultimate achievement of overpowering the other religious forces during the time.

The Crusades: Shaping Reality

As I have blogged about this before, I feel that it is important to revisit one of the central ideas of the religion unit as it perfectly relates and fits into the situation of Pope Urban and the establishment and action of the Crusades. Religion shapes and changes the way certain individuals in certain circumstances view things and think about their lives. Religion is an easy agent of the powerful to obtain and achieve a common goal throughout their rule, and serves as an incredible motivation for people, usually those who are powerless, to do certain things that isn’t considered rational or correct--but religion says it is and will put be in a better place, so it’s got to be right/good to do? That’s the question that popped in my mind when reading about the Crusades and Pope Urban’s admirable quality of convincing people through his language. His speaking attributes definitely made a considerable effect on the Christians among his rule, as his ability to mobilize and promote the religion to those who were barely even subjected to it (more obliged to their leader than the religion itself!) and make them go as far as to fight for their religion is astounding. The fact that Pope Urban was able to change the way people think about their life and religion and alter its philosophies to make the people under his rule think differently was quite the accomplishment. Regardless of Urban, though, Christianity and religion as a whole was such a driving force, maybe as a result of Urban’s inspiring words and actions, but the religious force caused so many people to think and see the world differently than they usually would, and therefore, justified radical actions such as the involvement of the Crusades throughout European and some of Asian religious history. The responsibility that all of the participants in the Crusades does not fault to the Pope’s speeches or irrational actions or secret societies--it is the fault of the religion itself (not that it is a bad fault, but it was the force which provided the means to which the people would participate/support the Crusades. Also, because so many new religious emerged during the uprising reign of Christianity throughout Europe, threats were posed indirectly to Christians as their world power, land, influence, and institutions were all subject to destruction, persecution, or overpowering from the other religions which existed. So, how did the Christians react to that posing threat and danger--they originated the movement of the Crusades. Christian officials were determined on preventing the Muslims and HIndus which shared the common geography in the area which the Christians centralized, as more participants and followers calls for a more powerful and to increase the presence of the religious force; followers and believers are essential to the success, spread, and popularizing of religions, so that was another key which the main powers of the opposing religions used to gain eminence. The last thing I want to touch on is the peculiarity of the reasoning for the Crusades and involvement in them; this is really good evidence for the notion of religion shaping one’s reality. Throughout history, including today, people usually don’t do something that extreme (like the Crusades) without good benefit for themselves or something/one of their own. Now, it can be argued that people participated because they were so loyal to their religion and conscious of the potential dangers undermining it. Although, I think that that was the only benefit in the actions of the Crusades, but the people involved in them were doing it according to a false notion either they created for themselves or handed to them by the persuasive and mesmerizing words of Pope Urban. There was a specific benefit for each person who was willing to fight on behalf of their religious beliefs and prominence in history, but they were not fighting for some cause that just existed--they fought for themselves because through the cultural interaction/exchange, and the general influence which others had on one individual would foster an idea that if I fight, I am saving myself from potential danger if one of these other religions rises to power, and if not (either way), I will be in a good place, solidified in heaven. All of these thoughts which were all very real and was the main reason that the Crusades escalated to such large numbers and heights, and shows how much religion and the perception (or misperception) of something can lead an individual or group of people to do things that they usually would not commit. The Crusades embodies the concept of religions seeking overall power and using it as an agent of the powerful to gain more power/get people to do things that they usually wouldn’t because religion changes the way people think about their lives, and therefore, act. 

The Origins of Islam and Christianity Compare

The origins of Islam are similar to those of Christianity. These means are obviously varied in many ways as they involve different people, times, places, etc. Although, they both revolve around a similar principle that happens to be the heading of the chapter: there was a messenger and the messenger sent a message that revolutionized the world of religion, initiating something new, appealing, and to become enormous. Islam began with the birth of Muhammad in 570 CE in Mecca. Accordingly, Mecca was going to become a holy, acclaimed, and historically significant site in Islamic history--all because of Muhammad. He undertook periods of disconnection from society, and when he was amidst the rest of life, he went through a deeply religious and eye opening experience which would set him with his drive for the meaning of the rest of his life: to enlighten and spread the words of God which connected with him during his periods of withdrawal and religious connection. These experiences had him convinced that he was the messenger of God, Allah, and that he was to do his work without question and with faith, devotion, and willingness. This is very comparable to Jesus, the initiator of the Christian movement and religion in history, who was born and raised in an outlandish home, far away from much civilization. There, after being born via immaculate conception (an already spiritual, god-like feature to his life) he was raised without much interaction with others in rural areas. He had experiences in which he personally established a connection with a higher power and that power (assuming God) provided Jesus with his insight and messages. Because of this, Jesus was considered the son of God, in the sense that he represented and embodied everything that the higher power consisted of. Both Jesus and Muhammad were individuals who, as a result of religious experiences, allegedly gained something from their Gods and went on to spread their message and attract others with the insight they possessed. They were both messengers of God, embodying everything that God was, and therefore, both became crucial figures in their respective religion’s history. Another similarity between the origins of Islam and Christianity was the reason which both of them succeeded in spreading their religious ideas and beliefs. Both Jesus and Muhammad were born without a holy scripture of their religion, and lived their lives in the absence of either religion’s religious texts. This was because they themselves would be one of the first things that would appear in their religion’s holy scriptures since they were the main root causes for the religion’s existence. Anyways, Muhammad was still actively spreading and teaching the principles of the Quran because what was in the Quran were God’s attributes and therefore the beliefs about Islam since they revolved around Allah. So, Muhammad had been teaching the lessons from God that were recorded in the Quran; being written down allowed Muhammad and Islam to spread much faster around since just verbally, Muhammad could not introduce Islamic tradition and belief around the entire region at the time. Oppositely, Christianity’s holy scriptures were written way after Jesus’ actual time spreading Christianity. He had to personally, verbally popularize and explain Christianity to everyone he interacted with, making the process of its spreading and appealing much slower than that of Islam. The Old Testament heavily revolved around Jesus and the beliefs of God, only because Jesus’ messages were implemented and transferred so strongly, historically, throughout society. So, both Islam and Christianity compare in the sense that their holy scriptures revolve around them, their interaction with God, and the religious beliefs according to them (and God), but Islam was able to use that to their advantage and widespread at a faster rate than Christianity did, considering their holy texts were not established yet. Considering both religion’s holy scriptures and messengers/messages, the origins of both Islam and Christianity (especially the lives of Muhammad and Jesus) compare to one another.

Religion in India: Mixed into Everything

In the beginning of the unit concerning religion, the central question posed was about how religion shapes different people’s realities and their lives as a whole. Throughout the course of the unit so far, I began to neglect that question and focused more on the specificity of certain religions, its practices and beliefs, their impact on history (historical significance) and the connections between different religions and branches of ones alike. Although, when asked to go through aspects of life and lifestyles in India, I really tried hard to bridge together those two concepts and establish a good foundation as to attempt to answer the overarching question, or find somewhat parts of evidence which I could use to back up my argument about religion in general. Anyways, what struck me to see when I reached the website was that religion one out of twenty four different topic to be discovered and looked upon. What? I had thought that the sole purpose of the assignment was to learn more about vast religions in the world, but here it said that religion was a minuscule fraction of the aspects of daily life in India. So, from the get-go, I forced myself to really critically think and find out how religion was incorporated in this given assignment, and what it would serve use to me in the development of my understanding of religion, generally speaking. So, after going through five different gateways, I had solidified a generalized opinion/argument about religion which I will soon use evidence to back up. I concluded that religion includes, covers, influences, is a result of, and is a part of everything (daily life) which consists of any individual or group of people. Religion is, usually (or in this case is) the root cause of everything; everything is an outcome of or is a result of a certain religion--and encompasses a specific aspect(s) while doing so. 

I’m going to start of with backing this up with the Ganges River. That river is used for everything, centralized right in the middle (geographically) of India, running through the entire region, assisting populated areas to fulfill the need for water. This river was relied on for an enormous variation of things, from agriculture to food and water, to hygiene, to history, and ironically, to religion! Who would have thought that a river would have anything to do with religion? This was my first attempt in bridging that gap that I had mentioned before. The river, it said, was the terrestrial home of Ganga, I highly regarded and powerful goddess in India’s religion. It has been the prided home of that religious figure ever since, and because of that, logically, the river would be established as a sacred, religious place. Therefore, it is favorable and “promising” to use it for such purposes as agriculture, drinking, bathing, and even use it as a deathbed for some, being a popular place to dump one’s ashes in (for a sense of goodness and prosperity). Bathing in particular is a big deal in this region (in the river itself) as it serves as a purifying ritual, symbolizing the washing away of one’s sins and evil within them as the goddess which inhabits the river interacts with the bather. And upon death, the spreading of one’s ashes in the water may improve ones lifestyle, afterlife, or humanity. So, clearly this is not anything comparable to the Chicago River, as the Ganges River is so much more than just a river. As it is a primary source for many aspects of their life, the fact that religion is incorporated with it and makes it that much more unique, special, and valuable clearly alters the way someone in that society views the world, nature in particular, than someone not in that culture. Like I said before, millions of people in Chicago neglect and discard the Chicago River, even though it has a historical importance (not so sure about religion...). Although, in India’s culture, one will view the (somewhat same!) river completely different as religion plays a part in it, therefore altering the way that one perceives their reality and aspects of their life. One more example. 

In the science and medicine section, it explains how India is characterized by its extensive scientific contributions. Although, the continuation of the sentence completely changes the meaning of the sentence! It says that in addition to the scientific contributions, its rich philosophical tradition integrates science and religion together so they coincide with one another. This basically says that science is a direct result of religion. It even goes on to describe how people in India began to practice ancient systems of science (astronomy and mathematics to be specific) and that the modern systems of science are merely advancements off of what was before. Isn’t that what religion is, too? The individual application of something greater that changes over time? So, religion changed the way people in India view science because their religion (or general upbringing) altered the way they view scientific reasoning, applications, and methods! Their religious history involves science and math, and therefore, the religious aspects play a significant part in the scientific and mathematic doings throughout their culture. So here is another example, of science an religion--two completely different aspects of life on opposite sides of the scale--which come together and create something different as a result of one another to change the way people view something. So, the River and science both support how religion is integrated into all (many more examples) aspects of life, and has a major cultural and traditional influence. Now that this is proved in India, I wonder how it could be proved and examined in my own life.

The Question of Constantine

In class today we talked about Constantine, his reign, and his importance in the Roman Empire/influence on Christianity. Although we did not elaborate on one of the many questions Mr. Moran proposed, I wanted to talk about one of them and try to answer it as best as possible. The question was: to what extent was Constantine a Christian? Was he a believer of the religion? As many historians and studiers of Constantine may try to delve into his history, religious backgrounds, and influences/influence in order to determine his actual participation and involvement with the religious force and efforts. As this may be a valid way to solve the unknown, there are two defects which must be strongly considered. First, it might be incredibly inefficient, time consuming, and almost impossible to figure out what is sought to be, as one must examine almost every angle of Constantine’s life, before, during, and after, as well as all of his surroundings, etc. Secondly, it can rationally be said (through previous knowledge and research done by many) that blatantly, we can never know for sure. Unless Constantine miraculously comes back and tells us exactly what he was thinking and what he did behind the scenes and in general history, there is no “possible” way to understand Constantine’s Christian involvement throughout his lifetime. Regardless, my argument/answer to this question is that--it doesn’t matter! and the question is somewhat valueless and will not lead anywhere. I think a better question to ask would be: What was Constantine’s effect on Christianity? Why did he have this effect? (that second part getting into the individual history stuff again but does not focus on his individual but rather his surroundings, his past, and his present histories/times). I say it does not matter (to the original question) not in the sense that I don’t care about Constantine, but more in the terms of through studying general patterns and themes of history we know why he would have done something, and that he did in fact have a profound effect on the religion. That’s exactly why it doesn’t matter! We know that Constantine had an enormous, vast effect on the religion of Christianity because he brought the religion to everyday-people’s terms and popularized it, “legalized” it in a sense, introduced it to go in accord with government and politics, and overall just allowed the religion to reach new heights through making the general population accept and practice/widespread the religion. Whether or not he was a Christian is beside the point! As he only officially converted on his deathbed itself, it may never be known if Constantine was an official Christian during his actual reign, and the extent to which he believed and practiced the religion is up in the air. But through history, we understand that Constantine had an extensive impact on the religion and even though he may not have been one, he opened up the door for and set million of other people throughout history on the path towards practicing, believing, and participating in the religion of Christianity. He marketed Christianity and created the investment opportunity for people to take during his time and onto the rest of time up until now; Constantine was a great Christian figure who set the movement of the religion that would play such a significant role throughout history to come. Now, the question comes out to be: does a religious figure need to be religious? What are the qualifications of a religious figure? 

The Caste System: Constructing Religious-Social Realities

The notion of religion being a mean by which people increase or decrease the amount of/use of power in society is a very prominent throughout history, and even in modern history. Although, (one of) the first religious-social societies which heavily combined the two aspects of life into one powerful and eminent force was the origins of Hinduism in the Indus Valley Region between 3500 and 1800 BCE. There were rankings of groups of people who were all involved in society, but in different, unique ways. The highest ranking that one could be in was the “Brahmins”. This level of society included priests, teachers, scholars, and other highly educated and exposed individuals. I believe that they were the highest ranked because they had the most to offer throughout society as they were the ones to educate others which would eventually follow them; naturally, those in the highest rankings tend to also have the highest priority and significance, so it makes sense that the teachers would preside first. Second, there are the “Kshatriyas”. This rank consisted of warriors, fighters, and royalty. Interestingly enough, royalty in this case was not the highest priority (as history plays out it becomes clear that royalty, sometimes as a result of religion, is the number one), and I think it is because in the time period back then, religion was their government, and once that governing need was fulfilled the royalty really had nothing to do except carry out family name and tradition--and control/maintain the region, somewhat. Next there was the “Vaishyas”, mostly traders and economic workers. This makes sense because an economy as a very functioning and somewhat essential part of life throughout history, and there is a pattern that when an economy disfunctions, the surrounding society(s) disfunction as well--so the ones who controlled and participated in the economy were definitely above the lower ranks of society. Lastly there was the “Shudras”, which were made up of farmers, servicemen, artists, laborers, and the working class in general terms. This sort of set the foundation for societal classes throughout history, as almost always until very modern history, the working class/the ones who provided the living essentials and add ons (like art, etc.) were at the lowest ranks of society since they were the ones that allowed everyone else in society to prosper and fulfill their roles in their respective ranks. They were the basis of society--literally. Surprisingly though, that is not all! There was an even lower class of people which were labeled as “Untouchables”. The name speaks for itself, as they were so low in ranking that even the people in the “Shudras” would consider them as inferior, and could not comprehend to even touch them--a little extreme, much? Regardless, this was the Caste system which ruled India and Hindus life for a while, and it was all based off of religion, indirectly though. 

The whole system of the Caste was hereditary, which meant that the people in each ranking didn’t have to do anything to be classified that way except being born--and once they were in, they could not get out for as long as they lived. The higher the rank, the higher the wealth and importance. As a result of the high influence of Hinduism (a religion), the Caste system implied that the ranks determined the religious rankings and significance of each individual. This makes sense as the priest, religious figure, made the cut off for the top priority. Anyways, the religious classifications also instituted a social, economic, and power system by which society operated, but the power classes were heavier than all the others, outweighing them. The Caste system is a perfect example of religion being used as a mean to gain or in this case, maintain power. The people in the higher rankings of the system used religion as an excuse to be powerful and used religion as their way to distribute and effectually use their power to their intention. Here, we see that religion itself becomes the institution in history by which social status (and thus economic, political, etc. statuses) were gained and maintained. Religion had begun to classify people and control how they live their lives. For our purposes, it perfectly exemplifies a way that would make someone in history think a certain way or do a certain thing. We’ve been asking what makes someone do something...this is a potential answer: in the case of a person living in this period in history, their religion would classify them in a specific ranking, therefore dictating to them how they should live their lives--and what ever they do, their incentive is based off of their religious-social placement. Their ranking and means by which they live their life would make people do or think a certain way, thus answering our overarching, historiographical question. Someone’s religion would transform their reality into something unique from any other’s because their religion would place them in such a classification/ranking (in this case, the Caste system), and whichever placement they are in, the way they see the world, act, and form realities are all an outcome of their religious-social organization and placement, thus answering the question of how religion contributes to constructing one’s reality in history.

The Success and Expansion of Christianity

Christianity rose to become one of the primary religions in the world. It proposed a change in society that allowed for people to perceive the way they live their general lives in and outside of religious boundaries differently. This change in how people viewed the world was received very positively, openly, and thoroughly, allowing the religion to rise up in terms of popularity/numbers and expand its boundaries. Specifically, what was unique about Christianity which appealed to so many people throughout early history was that its philosophies and principles redirected religious organization as well as social organizations which improved individual behavior and relationships, ultimately helping Christianity to rise up in popularity. This change in the ways of looking at relationships with other humans, not just about one’s relation with their deity, brought a new understanding of humanity to the table, altering the world which was overflowing with cruelties and negative action against humanity; in other words, Christianity proposed a change to the way people live their daily lives, and that change was widely yearned for and accepted. 

Christianity also posed dramatic change on the virtues which people observe and reflect upon in their daily lives. Christian principles were viewed as somewhat of a handbook by which people used to understand how they should act and participate in society. This was a significant difference between Christianity and most other religions at the time (e.g Judaism, Islam, etc). The contrast really promoted the new religion to a new level, as the main difference included that most other religions expressed requirements that needed to be fulfilled in order to be a participant in the religion. Judaism required the ethnic classification to have a Jewish ethnicity, for example. Christianity merely formed something more than a religion, and everything which encompassed the religion was just a guideline by which believers would follow and adapt for--it established a social format. This is the essential reason why Christianity became such a dominant world religion: it created an organizational framework about social relationships on a basis of religion. A Christian would then have the freedom to live the Christian philosophies and beliefs to the extent desired, which changed the world around humans, socially speaking. It was a unifying force which cancelled out all concepts of division, whether that be ethnically, socially, economically, sexually, etc. There were no requirements, therefore Christianity was much more open, and consequently more expansive and sizable, soon to be growing exponentially throughout history. The religion prompted liberating social relationships between people and united them through their differences; all barriers were broken as far as Christianity was concerned. Differences or requirements didn’t matter, religiously. That’s what made Christianity so special, prominent, and expansive: it was more than a religion--it introduced a new way of life which people sought for.

Prophet versus Missionary Analysis

A missionary is someone who dedicates their life to convincing others about something, in this case, a religion. Missionaries spread the word around and attempt to draw in as many people as they can to convert them into a new belief, broadening the acceptance and tolerance of such beliefs. Essentially, a missionary is a religious activist. In Paul’s case, his interpretation and perceiving of Jesus was spread through his individual views and experiences. This relates to the overarching concept of how history is created and why we study it, as the core foundational history of Christianity of based off of what we know was there and what was told to us; in religious, missionaries played an almost essential role in the “what was told to us” part. Also when considering missionaries, historical diffusion comes into play and very much so assisted the missionaries in achieving their goals of spreading the good word of a new religion or belief. Once spread to one area or group of people, or let alone an influential individual, history would do its part in establishing a great historical significance of the growth/expansions of ideas and beliefs throughout history. It was hard enough to reach someone and convince them of a radical idea, but once done, their job was pretty much over, as that individual would inhabit their beliefs and new ideas, spread them to others, only to be continually passed down through generations to initiate a new historically religious presence. Regardless, missionaries lead to more converts which lead to more believers, ultimately exaggerating, expanding, and popularizing religion throughout history (no believers = no religion!). This whole cycle of believers trying to seek others to also become believers provoked religious significance throughout time. 

Prophets, on the other hand, are people who advocate or speak in a visionary way about a new belief, cause, or theory. They are the ones throughout history who have established a personal connection with their religion and see it in a different way that nobody else can; but it is their job to enlighten and allow such enlightenment and achievement to continue throughout generations so that their religion and religious practices and all that it encompasses is not lost, but is passed on and further expanded to newer heights that cannot be reached alone, or without such insight, knowledge, and visionaries as prophets were. Cultural diffusion played a role, but a much smaller, indefinite role in the history of prophets. Think about it; missionaries spread the word but prophets gave, or initiated/introduced the word. Historical diffusion would not expand on and continue/greaten the visionary beliefs but would rather impede it from moving on; things which historically diffuse tend to have a history or previous significance, which is why missionaries were so successful and powerful. Prophets, on the other hand, were a  much more diminished, not powerful force as they must have individually preached their beliefs to one, and try to gain historical significance as an individual rather than a group or religion as a whole. It was a much slower, tenuous process, and therefore, prophet’s ideas were not that well spread and were not as successful as missionaries. Not to say that none were (there were some very influential and immensely significant prophets in religious history), it was just less common and more challenging.

When comparing a missionary and a prophet, one can establish yet another middle ground. Prophet qualities can easily fit those of a missionary, as both are there to spread ideas, gain significance, and advocates for something greater. Although, they are not interchangeable because missionary characteristics do not necessarily fit those of a prophet. A missionary does not make predictions, or have individual, visionary insight to the religion/beliefs of a prophet; they merely advocate and popularize while prophets create a new belief or concept and advocate on behalf of their individual practice/belief. Therefore, these two terms are not exactly interchangeably usable, but do share some notable characteristics which are greatly accounted for when observing religious history. 

Cult Versus Religion Analysis

Religion can be defined as the belief in and worship of a controlling, divine power, especially of a god or multiple gods. A cult can be defined with three main qualities: the first being a less amount of practitioners or participants than there are in the prevailing religion, the second being the concepts and beliefs of a cult must be outside of the mainstream of religion, and the third being that there is an iconic figure or thing to which admiration is shown and proved to. In other words, the practices of a cult has to be radical of the prevailing concepts (disregarding the admiration of a figure or thing). The differences are proved instantly by observations the definitions of the contrasting religious practices and practicers. To start off, in this case, the size off the practitioners and believers matter. Rationally, if more people are doing something, (more) people will regard it as a valid, credible practice. But, if there are less participants of a smaller group on the sidelines of the prevailing force (being religion in this case), (more) people will view it as an invalid, irrational, and a non-authoritative practice. A cult is much smaller in size of followers and practicers than there are in religion. Stemming off from size, the validity of the philosophies, beliefs, and actions of the group consisting of a smaller amount of people would be considered as less significant, rational, and credible to society. If less people are doing it, the cult would be deemed as a minority of society and something that is outlandish to the standards and philosophies of religion, therefore classifying it as it is. Oppositely, religion has many, almost an uncountable amount of participants and practicers which are engaged in religion daily, societally, and popularly; it much more widespread, accepted, and mainstream than that of a cult. Another defining quality of a cult is a the factor of admiration in the direction towards a figure, object, or other “thing”. This is where the two terms come into leveled playing field, and somewhat of similarities begin to emerge. A middle ground exists between cults and religions. It all begins with the similarity between the definitions of cults and religion which proved to be the starting point of the crossovers which will be explained shortly. Both religions and cults have a principle which holds core to the foundations: the admiration, worship, and following/attending to a higher (divine) figure, thing, or theory. From this, as time progresses, changes occur as cults can transform to religions, and religions can transform to cults. Let’s use Christianity (Paul) for an example. Paul began as a cult, with a small number of practitioners (only himself), a radical idea of Jesus being a direct descendant of god, and looked up to Jesus, worshiping and admiring him. The stage of a cult’s existence is set; but Paul went around and picked up a surprisingly large amount of followers which, through the process of historical diffusion, turned into an exponentially large amount of practitioners who participated and agreed with Paul’s theories and beliefs. Also, with the popularizing of his ideas and a large percent of society practicing those beliefs, the ideas of Christianity transitioned from those sitting on the sideline of society to those which had a large role in religious life, becoming mainstream. All along, they kept on admiring the overarching figure which guided the religion, Jesus. Now, everything that began as a cult turned into something that is the exact opposite of a cult--a mainstream, greatly practiced religion. The cult’s status transitioned into a religious status, which proves how a cult and a religion have similarities and a middle ground between the two exists, one that allow one to transition into the other interchangeably.