Ruth's Religious Identity

**I chose to take a more personal route on writing this blog, focusing in on an individual's story and religious experience**

Religion has played a large part in my family’s life, but coming from me, the most religious/religiously influenced character in my life in my grandmother Ruth. Being born in Israel, she had a large religious upbringing and background. Attending synagogue weekly, being exposed to the several different religious aspects of life throughout the state, nationality, and her parents, Ruth had a very sizable background in religion; she had a concrete understanding of her belief system, religious concepts, and individualized her religion to suit her. She continued this religious upbringing, but the climax of her experience with religion was her drafting into the Israeli army: the IDF. This military stronghold was the epitome of the Jewish religion and faith. Fighting and protecting the Jewish homeland with/and everything it stands for and believes in was Ruth’s defining characteristic of the Jewish religion. With everything that she had developed throughout her past years growing up in the heart of Judaism, and participating in an incredible religious act, Ruth’s sight of the world had altered significantly from when he was in her younger years, not as exposed to religious aspects of life in such large proportions and intensities. Nevertheless, religion had taken its toll on her life and redefined the way the Ruth experienced and took in the world she lived in.

Evidently, her Jewish identity effected the way that she continued to live her life outside of the state of Israel. Immigrating to America, Ruth discovered much more about  the reality of the world, all through her unique perspective as a result of her intense religious exposure and character. Her religion allowed her to see things from a view that was unmistakable, and apparently unknown to the most, if not all people. She thought the eating of a hamburger was vulgar and inhumane, let alone knowing how to eat it. She thought that the excess of American culture reflected the disgust she held for the way America operated in contrast to the way things went in Israel. She thought the heavy presence of an assortment of other religions undermined the importance and value of Judaism. The list goes on and on. Although, it remains clear that because of the stringent and narrow religious views which she held in Israel for so many years, the way she sees other cultures, culturally (and religiously) diffuses, and the way she feels about her surroundings were all concepts that were drastically impacted by her religion. Whether or not her religion enabled or disabled her to see things throughout her surroundings is a different story, but it is clear that her religion changed the way she viewed the world.

Despite a rough start, Ruth’s new culture and lifestyle allowed her previous 

one(s) to wither down, playing a less and less role in her current life. While getting accustomed to a new culture is a challenge for sure, Ruth soon discovered that religion does in fact have a significant role in her life, and the position which her religion from Israel used to fulfill was vacant, and needed to be filled. So, she diffused into American culture even more by combining the Jewish religion and American culture as one. Ruth became an active participant in a local Jewish synagogue, Jewish seminars, conferences, works, etc. The new form of religion which she followed allowed her to see the world in a more open, all-embracing fashion. Unlimited by Israeli religious lifestyle, Ruth established her own, independent religious ground which she would base a great portion of her life in America on. This allowed her to appreciate her religious, Jewish element in addition to her cultural, American element. This combination went to create the distinct and unrepeatable personality and overview which makes Ruth’s character such an interesting, broad, and engaging one. Religion had altered the ways by which she experienced life; whether one way or another, she always had a unique and individual perspective as a result of her participation, faith, and appreciation for religion.

Religion is a Tool: News Article Relfection

When asked to find an article concerning how religion shapes an individual’s perspective on the world/how they view things, the first thing that came to my mind was my religion: Judaism. Being as objective as I could be, I went to the primary news source of Israel, Judaism’s origin of its people, history, and foundation of the religious beliefs and principles. Although, I did not type anything into the search box; I scrolled to the politics and business sections in hopes that I would find an example of how religion contributes to a nation’s/religion’s perspective on a non-religious affiliated (for the most part) subject. I was in luck. I found an article that was written three hours before on this day, detailing in non-middle eastern affairs but rather provided a (somewhat) religious view on American culture, politics, and beliefs. It was titled “Why American religion isn’t refining American values”. Interestingly, it is profiling the American culture and way of life as a religion, which, in a way I agree with because I see it fit that American culture has most, if not all of the the aspects which encompasses a religion. But, it is not something that is spiritually connected, being my disagreement with the profiling. 

It poses a contradiction which proves a large issue with the American religion. Americans (92% to be exact) are religious believers, 80% being churchgoers; the same faithful, religious individuals materialize themselves and their religions with things like shopping (Black Friday) and being violent when doing so; joking of Tim Tebow, a devoted and religious Christian--someone who has had their religion used against them; people with a high exposure to and a large demand for pornography; etc. All of these things are examples of American culture that go much against some religious beliefs. Nevertheless, from the point of view from this Israeli (a Jew) who is recording this, the strict and faithful principles of his religion allowed him to view American culture or religion in an entirely alternate form as it would be viewed as by an Americans themselves, or perhaps from another religion. The writer’s religion forced him to see the negativities which arise out of this religion that are in great contrast to the aspects of his own religion. He has used his religious background and knowledge to shape the world he faces differently than (almost) any other individual. 

In response to some other the abnormalities and defects of the American religion, the author points out an additional key component to the religion that he feels is essential in all religions. Now controlled heavily by politics, gay and lesbian marriage as well as abortions have little relation to religion in the modern world. He states that some aspects of life, including these concepts, should be dictated by religion in opposition to politics; regardless, politicians are excluding all other values (religious or not) and making decisions/controlling the people devoted to this American religion in the wrong direction. Clarifying why this article was found in the political section in the first place, the author feels that religion should not be undermined and should continue to play a significant role in all of its values and practices in the daily lives of all. He posses an interesting thought, that American religion is so distracted and off balanced as a result of its advancements throughout the past few decades, and its governing bodies are loosing sight of what is truly the government of man: religion. The author is saying this because his religion personally changed the way he sees the world and operates, and the difference he notices between what is occurring in his nation and land, between what is occurring in America’s nation and land dictates the reasons for why he is saying what he is. His religion believes in something else that is more rational and ‘correct’, in a sense, so he wants to see a change in the opposing religion as well. 

The last lines of the article are particularly striking, as it states a “...cruel failure of leadership on the part of our religious, political, and cultural icons”. To me, this captures the subjectivity of religion perfectly. His religion has transformed the way he sees the world, as to say when something disagrees with, contradicts, or threats the religion he follows, the world beyond must be changed to match/suit the religious concepts and practices. Religion is a tool which people use to base their perspectives and judgements  on as it supports the individual’s (subjective) reason. Therefore, that tool is taken to use throughout all scenarios, as it changes the way people see, judge, absorb, and appreciate their surroundings.

The Divine Right of Kings and the French Revolution

When first reading this passage from King James I, I immediately thought of the Divine Right of Kings, and what he explained about it, in the context of the French Revolution. One of the main causes of the French Revolution was the people’s limited amount of power and equality held between the monarch and the rest of society. France was an absolute monarchy which ran in accordance to the Divine Right of Kings. Ironically, one of the major shifts which occurred during and after the French Revolution was the transition from a primary belief in religion to beliefs of science and rationality. Before the Revolution, however, society operated completely off of the structure of the Church, and religious status indicated and controlled everything about an individual’s life. That is why France functioned governmentally by an absolute monarchy; the Divine Right of Kings identifies a king as a god, representing divine powers and attributes, making the King the closest individual to god. The king was the highest religious official, therefore had the most, and all of the power to control France entirely. Logically, society would not rebel, as they too believed that religion defined every aspect of life. Therefore, they respected, obeyed, and followed the king as he was the closest one to god. He had the power to create or destroy, give life, send death, etc., which are all attributes of god which everyone throughout society attempted to obtain. But, they could not as the king’s power, authority, and life came from god himself, allowing him to have all the potential power at his hands, just like god does. Interestingly, in the second paragraph, King James I makes a profound distinguishing point as he draws the line between the two different types of kings. One king is elected by the people as their character and effectiveness serves for the law. The other king is appointed (assumedly by god) and set out on conquest to achieve civility and policy (law). King James I defines himself as the second type of king, as he is self-determined to obtain the reputation of a king who was careful to have his law observed by his governed people, and to hand over his governed and government to the king which will follow him in the order which he found and manipulated it. This is exactly what the people of France detested of regarding their governing structure, as the kings were merely a line of generations of the same family, because supposedly, their ancestor(s) were placed in such a position by god himself. The Divine Right of Kings hands over the right to govern to an individual whose ancestors were on a holier level than all others, therefore making them as holy, giving them the right to power. But, as France shifted from religion to rationality, the Divine Right of Kings did not apply to society or the government itself anymore, as it spoke of things considered incorrect, or irrelevant; the overthrowing of the absolute monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings was a foreshadowing, in a way, of the way governments would be designed to function as today: for the people and of the people. Regardless, King James I states that kings have the power of god beside them, but to use such power without good reason, rationality, or unlawfully, they are betraying the very force which provides them with their power position. King James I, in a way, foresaw the French Revolution, and set an example for kings to follow him that even though the Divine Right of Kings appointed them as divine and godlike individuals, it does not give them the power to deprive their governed of their rights and humanity; kings should use their power and enlightenment with reason, rationality, good will, and lawfully. Clearly, Louis XVI didn’t get the message.

The Effects of Feudalism

How does government effect society? In what ways does it do so?

Government and forms of leadership is the defining factor of a society in history. All components which make up a society depend upon and operate according to the governmental structure which it functions under. Consequently, if the government is influenced, changed, or effected in any way, an equal effect would be felt on all components of the governed, as well as the governed institutions which makeup the societal foundation. But, if the government makes an improvement or success, that triumph is sure to be felt throughout the foundations of society, including aspects such as the economy and instated laws. It can be said that history is generally made when change happens, and one of the biggest changes which can occur happens in government and the way a society is ran and functions. In Europe, Feudalism is an ideal demonstration of how the government effects the very foundations of society with every change it undergoes. Feudalism, the new principle of law and governing structure of Europe between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, vastly influenced the entire population of the continent, as well as how it operated and abided by aspects of life. Firstly, the way by which the government, or positions in society (rankings) were taken was drastically changed as a result of the shift in governing structures. Under Feudalism, no one was “crowned head” or “sovereign”. Instead, the King, lords, vassals, and people (serfs) were joined by a contract, all part of a symbiotic lifestyle; Feudalism worked as a mere relationship and mutual responsibility, so to speak. Although there was still a notion of supremacy, it was a much more involving and inclusive structure than it was before. Thus, we see the first change which Feudalism imposed on society, as it was an encompassing governing effort, opposed to a monarchial system. Additionally, because of the serf-lord contract, there was everything but a shortage of work, surplus of production, and a great amount of food! Feudalism redefined the way a peasant lived their life, as the lord provided them with everything they strived to attain themselves: protection, food, work, occasionally money, and a home. The “manor” of the lord became the village, which included housing of the lord and peasantry, vast farmlands, and more. Rarely would a serf abandon the lord and their estate, as they would loose everything the lord provided. The people also received the administration of justice, something which was quite challenging to obtain before Feudalism was instated in society. Part of the justice was the right to food, as the peasants received a portion of the produce which they worked for. Essentially, Feudalism reestablished the way common people lived their lives, making them a much more participatory and influential role in society. Not only effecting social class, Feudalism also influenced the economy. With the lord and serf relationship, and all the giving (lords) and working/receiving (peasants), money was not very much needed as no currency was being exchanged! Virtually (in Europe), no money was being circulated since the new currency was forms of work and loyalty. This, of course, had an immense effect on the economy as Europe was pretty much removed from the economic edge of things for a good while; they might have sold produced materials and goods, but had little intake as they sustained themselves from what was being made/had locally. The government dictated the economic flow and status throughout the society which it governed. Lastly, Feudalism was in great support of and greatly impacted the religious role of leaders and beliefs in society. As the manorial system was based agriculturally (land-wise), it makes sense to say that the clergy and religious officials were incredibly supported during the reign of Feudalism and they were the ones who owned such lands, and therefore, good and workers. The church in Europe held much of the land in form of manors, as the lords were primarily (if not all) religious officials and members of the higher clergy. Therefore, an increased importance of the church was imposed throughout Europe as the governing structure was based off of religiously related leaders. Feudalism illustrates how a governmental structure of a society completely redefines the way it functions and the principles which its population operates by, as Feudal standards made an enormous impact on how European society functioned lawfully, agriculturally, socially, economically, and religiously. Governments develop standards by which societies regulate upon, making the governing structure of a society one of the key components which defines such a society and the way which it is managed; this also makes a profound effect on history itself. Feudalism totally redefined Europe, as well as the history of government and leadership as we know it.

Pericles Funeral Oration and Leadership Qualities

In class today, we defined the two required qualities by which a leader must possess in order to be considered successful, or a good leader (according to Plato’s cave, generally). These were wisdom and the ability to gain followers and convince people via using one’s wisdom for good. While reading Pericles celebrated funeral orations, I interwove these to characteristics into the picture. For the first quality, Pericles applied his evidently massive amount of knowledge and wisdom to conjure up one of the most influential and impressive orations which made a clear effect on the outcome he was looking for in addition to the influence which the speaker had on approaches to leadership throughout history. Clearly wise, Pericles put aside all other disputes and disagreements and simply made an extreme effort to force upon the notion of a united city state. He then used Sparta, the enemy, as a base of contrasting and conflicting points from which Athenians support; in other words, he contrasted everything negative of Sparta to the positives of Athens. Naturally, this fostered a sense of superiority and confidence in all of Athens, and began to force citizens to view Pericles as a worthy and beneficial leader for the city state; people began thinking in terms of nationalism rather and individualism. This powerful transition from these two states of mind ideally portrayed Pericles’ qualified characteristics and passions, showing off his wise perspective and approach to the threatening situation at hand. Through versatile tactics, he developed the thought that Athens, its beliefs, its values, and its people are worth saving, and in order to do so, the city state must follow its proclaimed leader: Pericles. Standing for something bigger than himself, Pericles proved his wisdom beneficial and positive, qualifying as a leader for Athens. Concerning the second characteristic of a leader (the ability to use the wisdom for good and attract/convince followers), Pericles basically provided a sense of community and supremacy throughout his speech which further produced a large crowd which agreed and were soon to become his followers, establishing his governmental structure. “Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit.” This is specifically interesting and applicable as by the means of amplifying Athens's institutions and foundations to a point where it directly effects the entire population, Pericles provoked a sense that this was everyone’s worthy fight with an awaiting deserved and triumphant victory; the way to get there was by following and abiding by Pericles. I found it interesting how he put the city state in front of himself, which compares to the assumption of a leader: the leader of c country--not the leader of the people. I have come to the conclusion that a leader must assume a position bigger than himself in order to completely direct the country in the right direction, and Pericles does exactly that, as he disregards himself and assumes a position which is bigger than himself, only to benefit the ones he is leading. This process allowed Pericles to gain such a vast amount of followers; along with his wisdom and ability to do god/convince, Pericles proved to be a worthy and good leader for the city state of Athens, as the Funeral Orations perfectly encompass his leadership qualities and successes in his reign.

Plato's Cave Analysis

In what ways can you connect Plato's cave to our study of government and leadership?

Plato’s cave has two groups: the ones who have shadows cast over their heads and the ones which (prisoners) and the puppeteers. These groups have distinct differences which establish the separation between the potential leaders and history-changers to the followers. The first group stares at their shadows against a wall via reflections from a  large burning fire above head. The fire imitates the sun, providing a mock source of enlightenment and clarity of reality. To the ones casting shadows on the wall, the cave and only what consists within it is their reality, as their source of enlightenment is simply the shadows themselves. The second group are the puppeteers, who are more advanced than the prisoners below considering they know the shadow are not “real”, but are still constrained to the same fire and the same confinement in the cave as the ones below in the chains. Both groups represent the make up of society; society (the cave and everyone within it) is not reality, but rather a false one. When connecting Plato’s cave allegory to principles of government and leadership, one can find an easy connection: leaders are the ones who begin their journey at the lowest point in the cave and through an extensive process, end up emerging from the cave into reality, redefining everything that they knew about life. Then, such an accomplishment will allow them to return in and out of the cave using their leadership qualities to attract and obtain others to follow them--this establishing a leader-based society, or in other words, a government. The leader must first understand that the shadows are a result of the fire as they are merely projections of the bigger selves which the prisoners can become; it is a foreshadowing, as all leaders must start at the bottom level, the shadows forecast a view of the bold and towering individuals which will sprout out of that level in the time to come. After understanding the concepts of the shadows, the individual must then comprehend the means by which those shadows are made and effected: the puppets via the ones on the “higher” level in the cave. The puppets are a metaphor for the notion that people can help create and blossom a leader’s qualities and animation, and are used in order to allow the leader to gain eminence as well as develop his knowledge of reality even more. This is done through the process of observing and understanding the fire. The fire is the source of all light. The light is the source of life, learning, and holds the capacity by which the leaders will soon uphold and surpass. The enlightened leader (with assistance from the fire, puppets, and shadows) will then discover that this reality is not the reality that they want to see, as the culmination of their leadership skills are put to the test when the individual ascends out of the cave, transforming the fake (cave) reality into the reality which exists as the outcome of the leader’s transformation; realities are created and destroyed as leaders emerge, dictating reality’s presence and composition. Once a leader understands what reality is (their reality to be exact), they are able to reenter the cave and enlighten the imprisoned--the leader acts as the new fire. They inform the prisoners in the cave about what is in store for them beyond it, and passing his leadership qualities along, the leader becomes the key to the new reality for the prisoners. The act of taking the people and allowing them the opportunity to delve into a new reality via convincing, creating, and a lengthy process, illustrates the establishment of followers to a leader. Followers are essential in a leader’s success, and in addition to followers, the cave allegory and leadership process is similar to the establishment of a government; governments are made up of a leader(s) and followers which are drawn in and abide by the leader since they confide in him as much as he confides in himself (leader-like quality). Thus, the foundation of leadership and governments come from the emersion of a group of people into an entirely redefined reality, so to speak, as an individual or group of individuals provide them a convinced and self-assured better reality. The cave is the starting point which the leader is to base his to-be-developed new reality as it defines crucial components which make up or break down a structure of society--components which are to be determined by the leader himself. He receives this power from the inhabitants of the cave, who believe that this leader is something special and to believe in because he did precisely what they could not. The cave is the assessment of a leader, which provides the qualities and materials which a leader needs in order to successfully establish what will become the new cave. Successful leaders throughout history are the ones who take what was before them and redefine it to establish a new reality, and gain popularity as they convince others that their new reality is improved from the previous one; the old cave to the outside. 

The Balance of Leadership and Citizenship

What was the connection between leadership and citizenship in Ancient Greece?

In Athens, a direct democracy was instituted in society and controlled the foundation of government. This dictates that every single citizen in Greece was consulted and had a strong voice on each decision and actions that was being carried out by the governmental structure. However, there were a large number of qualifications needed in order to have such a strong say in the government of the region. These include financial, age, and gender guidelines which must be met and have minimal leniency by which an individual can become a considered “active” part of the government. This means that all participants in the government had to be considered and declared a citizen. In addition to the guidelines listed above, state qualifications also had a role in determining who would become a part of the leadership organizations and make decisions which would have prominence and effectivity throughout the region. Citizens needed to participate in the military practices and pay certain taxes, as well as abide by a specific set of laws which governed the greater society, in order to be recognized as a citizen. Once granted and earned citizenship, individuals were allowed to and did play a significant role in governing and leading Ancient Greece through history. This meant that realistically, merely free and independent men were allowed to have a say in government and their ultimate lives! This brings up the concept of the struggle to find a balance between leadership and citizenship. Leaders are “supposed” to account for everyone in the region and direct, choose, and live according to the best and recognized interests and benefits; therefore, shouldn’t the governing system have taken everyone, free or not, qualified or unqualified, into account and rule and govern them? If a direct democracy truly calls for an accepted and wide range of citizenships, why was the governmental structure and properties to selective and executive? I believe that it is because of the solid and positive leadership structure instituted in Athens; that the leaders in the region and government used their power and availability to options in order to make a leader-like decision regarding the population as a whole! The leaders and governments thought it was (and it probably was) the best thing for everyone to be ruled and governed by people who were the most experienced, exposed, involved, and overall qualified. As leaders, they were looking out for the population’s best interests, and it was in their favor that they did not have a random and unreasonable individual ruling their lives, therefore making the governmental acceptance process a strenuous and selective one, but only because it was in the interest of the people. The leaders of Ancient Greece proposed and installed a method in society by which they could most effectively and surely direct and develop society into the best possible future and to make their history a good, effectual one. As leaders, it is their job to make decisions like this based solely off of what they believe will allow their governed society to reach their full potential in development and existence, the question is when is it taken a step to far. Citizenship is merely a method utilized by leaders to select the ones best fit for the power position which the government holds; its a valuable tactic, but as the process gets too selective and overwhelmed, societies tend to develop into the opposite form of government where citizenship isn’t even taken into consideration: monarchy/oligarchy, etc. Citizenship is vital in sustaining a balance between the leaders of the people and the people themselves.