Making Sense of the Violence

There is a serious problem with the way in which biblical societies functioned. Two perfect examples of when their unregulated lifestyles led directly to crime an questionable punishments that revealed an underdeveloped judicial system.

Getting acquainted with the stories: The first example takes place in the generation of Abraham when God saw that, "the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah [had] become great, and because their sin [had] become very grave" (Bereshit 18:20). This problem of unrighteous, wicked behavior arises again in the story of Judges when the men of Gibeah, when given the Levite's concubine,"raped her and abused her all night long until morning" (Judges 19:25). Both these situations involve societies who, for different reasons, have adapted and foster horrendous, inhumane practices that were then considered cultural norms. The problem here is less so the fact that crime exists, because without a doubt every society faces it's own degrees of criminal activity, the issue however lies in the manner in which the crime was dealt with. Neither the societies have a judicial system, when Lot tries to compromise with the Sodomites, they exclaim, "This fellow came to sojourn and would act as a judge?" (Bereshit 19:9). The angry Sodomites are further upset by the seemingly unprecedented role Lot had tried to take on. They were simply not accustomed to "judge type" roles which was precisely what they needed, which is reflected by how they react to Lot's attempt. In the other situation, which coincidentally called Judges, it is stated plainly that, "In those days...there was no king in Israel" (Judges, 19:1). They too lacked a judicial system, a unifying higher power that would force individuals to hold themselves accountable. In fact, the similarities in the state of both societies is further emphasized through echo phrases or actions. In both societies, there is the custom of feet washing before entering someone's home (Genesis, 19:2) (Judges 19:21). These identical customs show how closely linked these two societies were even though they did not exist in the same time. Another echo phrase that is does not just reveal the similarities in the societal norms, but also the similarities in the manners of the people. Both the concubine's father and Lot willing offer up their daughter or concubine as sacrifices (Genesis 19:8) (Judges  19:24-25). Volunteering another person without their consent sparks lots of controversy- volunteering a voiceless woman who is then to be sexually assaulted, is without a doubt criminal. These men however, are not acting out of malice, but rather because it is simply the manner in which they respond to conflict. They are not trying to cause more harm, but create a solution. This leads us to the problem.  





The problem: Because there is no judicial system, and the cultural norms of those societies are quite problematic, as the civilians take "justice" into their own hands or react to difficult situations, they end up causing more harm than is intended. These societies, have in essence become the biblical, lawless, "Wild Wests" where the people roam free and do as they please, crimes and punishments are always personal and never consistent.

The difference: The Judges situation however does subvert Sodom. This is because after the rape and death of the concubine, "all the Israelites- from Dan to Beer-sheba and [from] the land Gibeah marched forth, and the community assembled..." (Judges 20:1). The tribes all gather and are united by this common goal, to avenge the wrongdoings, the crime committed. Perhaps the people are taking the judicial power into their own hands, but in a more democratic and unified manner. As a society and a nation they group and decide how to respond. In the story of Sodom, on the other hand, God "caused sulfur and fire to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah" (19:24). With this situation God acts as the judge and the punisher, God finds Sodom guilty of wickedness and takes it upon God's self to destroy them. The generation of Abraham and Sodom can not rely on God's Divine intervention to maintain social morality. In Judges however, God does play a role in judgment and aids the avengers, giving them battle advice such as telling Judah to attack first (Judges, 20:18). The people however are the ones physically dealing out the punishments. There is still an issue with this, because though they all unite to react as a community against this injustice, what will they do when the next crime happens? It is inefficient and unrealistic to expect such dramatic events such as the battle that saw over 100,000 casualties to become a cultural-norm-aftermath of crimes. This relationship between a higher authority and the people however, is a prototype for the solution.

The solution: The problem of individuals taking justice into their own hands can not simply be solved by leaving justice up to God. In all reality that would not work, we need a leader, an authority (that is not Divine), to mandate, decree and punish. But not just any leader, they need an impartial, righteous judge much like our judicial system in America. In fact, the ideal solution would be to instill the three branches, the Judicial, Legislative and Executive. One to create laws (legislative), which would reduce instances where gatherings of men attempt to overpower travelers (Judges 19:22) or where entire societies are evil (Genesis 18:20); one to enforce and judge the compliance of the law (judicial), which would enforce a consistency in the way specific criminals were punished and one to maintain daily harmonies (executive), that would hold the "cultural norms" accountable and to a minimum degree of decency.

The Three Branches Further Explained:

10. How has this caused problems in the history of Islam?

The Tribe has always been an important concept in Arabian and Islamic history, creating divisions among its dwellers and followers. This has caused problems in the history of Islam because the beliefs that Islam teaches goes almost directly against those of tribes. Originally people who had lived in tribes lived abiding the socail casts inwhich merchants, warriors and teachers made up the hihgher and middle classes while servants and peseants made up the lower, then of course there were the untouchables. Islam on the other hand was quite different. one of the man characteristics of Islam is ethics. Islam believed in, as individuals, each should be ethical towards both the unity of God AND their community. This meant that each person did have its own role in community, but each had their equal amounts of work they needed to put into their community. In this way it is different from the expectations of  "normal" tribe lower tribe had more work that was expected of them. Islam is also egalitarian which means they believed each human spirit was equal to every other human spirit, in the eyes of God. This also is a difference or new idea that Islam in brought to tribes. Another difference was the the rules and expectations of Islam were the same for each person, whereas in caste each person had their own. These differences caused the tribes and islamic followers to conflict with each other because their beliefs of people's rights and places in society, or rather in life, were very different.

9. How has the religious history of India influenced India’s tradition of non-violence?

   India's religious history has greatly influenced India's traditions of nonviolence, specifically movements and ideas such as Satyagraha. Mohandas Gandhi was a spiritual and political leader of India and he helped to lead the Indian independence movement. He was also the founder of the Satyagraha. The Satyagraha was a philosophy and the practice of nonviolence. Growing up, Mohandas was greatly influenced by Jainism. Jainism, which was one of the oldest religions that originated in India, believed also in karma. Jainism enforced peace and nonviolence to bring good karma. This religion influenced Mohandas, who began Satyagraha. Satyagraha also enforced peace and nonviolence as the method for overcoming conflicts. The religion thus influenced its followers, who then created their own philosophies that also enforce non violence and the pattern continues. Through this, the tradition of peace and non violence. Even from the beginning, with Buddha and Buddhism taught to live live harmoniously through meditation and achieving enlightenment. Buddha believed and taught with the concept of karma, just as Jainism had. By performing selfless deed's good fortune in the future would head your way. Though this does not specifically mention the pursuit of peace and non violence, in sending out good karma, a person would not want to take part in violence. Though i believe this later did develop into specifically non violence religions such as Jainism and non violent philosophies such as Satyagraha.

8. Can migrations have a positive impact on the people and/or land receiving the immigrants?

Migrations have a positive impact on the people and/or land receiving the immigrants because of many things. First of all, a civilizations that welcomes immigrants means many different cultures or ethnics of people living together. Each culture or ethnic group has something special to offer, or introduce. A civilization located in Afroerasia for example would be a many mixed group with traditions, foods, resources, etc from all over Africa, Europe, and Asia. With more resources available the people welcoming the immigrants would be able to excel in innovations. This thus would have a positive affect on the people receiving these immigrants. Land wise as well, the new people would come baring new ideas regarding harvesting and irrigation techniques that could benefit the lifestyle of the receivers. An example of this can be seen in Rome with the aqueducts, other civilizations such as India and Persia also adopted these watering techniques that proved quite useful.

6. Unit 3 : Greece

1."There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." How is this so? If that is then the case, then why do we see in color, yet not in black and white? It is impossible for there to be only god and only evil, all humans are both good and evil. With some, the balance between the two may be more good than evil, and more evil than good. Nevertheless one can not be simply good nor simply evil. Example, an elderly woman while walking home gets mugged and knocked over by a man. YOU might say that this was an act of pure evil and thus the man WAS pure evil; but i say something different. Do the intentions of a man not count for anything? Say the robber needed money because his son was in terrible condition and his family needed the money for medical purposes... Yes what he did was most certainly wrong, but his motivation was to help someone in need, a loved one; or vice versa. If you do the wrong thong for the right reason are you evil? What about if you do the right thing for the wrong reason, does that make that person any better?

2. Plato believes that justice is determined by the four greta virtues; courage, wisdom, temperance and justice. He uses these characteristics to identify what justice in a state is. He gives examples how certain professions attract certain types of people. One example would be that brave, strong and courageous people are fit for defensive and political professions.

3. Plato believed that the perfect government would be run by the best, acsentially an aristocracy; "run by the best". I would agree to the aspect of being run by the best, but i would ask him, does higher rankings and more money mean you are the more superior in the race? Does Plato believe in self made man? I feel that government simply controlled by aristocrats, the most educated (we must keep in mind the types of intelligence, innate wisdom vs. educated stupidity) and richest would eventually become a monarchy. This is because eventually the richest family(ies) would be able to afford the best education and it would then be quite possible that they could then declare themselves the best of the race and (according to Plato's ideal) they then would have the right to rule the utopia.

4. My ideal republic/ lifestyle would be a democracy where the people were overseen by an elected few, and that there was no paper money, but instead each person with a trade would help each other. I believe this is a simpler approach. THis is how it would work, some people would be lawyers, others shoe makers, clothing sellers, farmers, ranchers, in short, each person would have something to bring to the the table and something to take back with them. "A pair of shoes for a week's meal" things like that. Without the complication of money. THis system (as long as people aren't corrupted with their own greed) would last for a long time, you take what you need and give what you don't. This would not only encourage the population to interact and get to know each other, but also encourage and stress the importance of education, discovering yourself, and being able to share your love of... (profession) with everyone else.

5. "The only thing standing in the way of knowledge is our insistence that the visual universe is reality." This follows up on the line that everything is not as it seems. If one only believed in things they could see then there would be no such thing as love, physics, imagination, history and more. To only believe in what you see means that first of all, your knowledge is very very limited and second, that you have no trust. To have faith and believe you'd nee physical evidence and some things just existence that can't be seen. Feelings can't be seen (though emotions can)but you can feel them and they are most certainly in existence. Important things like that would then not exist to that person.

5. Sparta vs. Athens

1. if i was a teenage girl i would rather live in a Spartan society because not only do women play a more important role in the Spartan daily life than they do in that of a but they also has the opportunity to learn more. Though in both societies women are to have no part in the government; the difference is in Sparta, because the men are busy training and fighting in the military, the "normal" professions that a man of that time was expected to perform was left to the women. Of course to be able to successfully fulfill those positions, the woman began her education at the age of seven and learned how to read, write as well as gymnastics, athletics and survival skills. In Athen's women were given no access to an education. Though in Sparta women's primary use was to produce healthy boys for the military, to do so, it was necessary for them to stay in shape, aka they were healthy and intelligent. The life of a Spartan women compared to that of an Athenian women seems much wealthier. 

2. If i were to be a slave i would rather live in Athen's because in both Athen's and Sparta slaves/serfs were the lowest of all the classes, in Athen's they were treated less harsh then most other city-states in Greece. Some could even take part in important roles such as policemen. Though this probably doesn't apply to every slave, i would have a greater chance of being given that opportunity.

3. If i was a boy in the citizen class i would prefer to be live with the Athen's. In Sparta, all boys were sent at the age of seven to prepare for military and fight for Sparta until the age of thirty, in which they were allowed to marry but had to be "on call" until the age of sixty. Though the boys/men of Sparta were also educated, the men on Athen's i feel led a far richer life. As a citizen class i would attend school from the age of seven to fifteen, when i would learn how to read, write, poetry, math, gymnastics, and music. Then each would serve in the army for two years. This life style put's more emphasis on education, skills and success in life as an individual versa [in Sparta] the success of the city-state as a whole; while still staying healthy and spending some time serving in the military. (instead of one's whole life)

4. If i was a young solider i would want to live with the Spartan's simply because i would have a stronger chance of surviving. When a Spartan boy was born, if he did not look tough, or capable of serving his life in the military, standing through the harsh preparation, then he was killed at birth (which contributed to their smaller population). As a young solider i would have to be strong having been able to pass that assessment. The Sparta military was the most feared in all of Greece, fighting with them would not only insure strong comrades, but meant i myself was a good fighter. Also, because the training for a Spartan boy was much more intense, as a young solider i would be physically very healthy and on my way to being a skilled fighter. Instead of the Athen's who trained their men for a mere two years.

5. If i was a very wealthy person of the citizen class i would rather live in Athen's becuase i would want to use the benefits of wealth to exceed in my education as the wealthy had the opportunity to do in that time. For wealthy Spartans though the life was the same as that of a regular citizen class; training for the military. I would use my wealth for extra education which could then lead me to a high government position. Such as a Council of 500 whom were responsible for administering decisions made by the Assembly, or taking part in the Assembly, which all citizens were eligible for.

6. Though Sparta's lifestyle focuses mainly around preparing for war and breeding fierce soldier's while Athen's spent more time focusing on education and government instead; the life for a woman/girl in Sparta was much better then in Athen's. I think Sparta's lifestyle was very advanced for their time because the women w1ere treated almost as equal as men, which was not universal as it seems in present day US. The life and role of a women strongly dictates which lifestyle i would prefer. (though in both city-states women did not have a right to vote or take part in the government.) As i pointed out in the first question; women in Sparta needed to be able to do the jobs that "normally" men would preform (due to military focus they did not). This then required them to have a fair education, something that Athen's does not offer. Furthermore, because women were needed to give birth to strong and healthy sons, they too had to be healthy and strong, insuring that women were treated right.In terms of government i would say that Athen's had a more advanced form of government ie Democracy while Sparta had a twisted form of monarchy, two kings to check each other. (a more traditional approach). Still, the aspect of "equality" between he genders stands out, and i feel is one of the most important.) I think Sparta i s the better to place to live. 

4. New ideas in politics and government emerge from stress

New ideas in politics and government tend to emerge in times of social, economic and political stress. I don't think the type of stress itself is the key reason to explaining why this is, but rather stress itself. When things in general aren't working right or when the "work" out weighs the "pay"; then people try to fix them. Thus in reassessing those aspects/ objects, people are able to learn from their mistakes and create new theories, which then lead to new ideas in politics, government etc.

There are many examples of this in history. One good one is nine eleven, when terrorists snuck weapons on board planes and successfully crashed into the World trade center and the Pentagon, not only destroying the buildings but killing thousands of people in the process. Aside from the obvious tragedies and anger this provoked, it also proved that the US security was not good enough. That a terrorist could sneak past all the metal detectors and scanners with a weapon on him/her. After this tragedy, Airport security went up 200%. Metal detectors are more sensitive to metal and baggage is being checked. Carry on items are checked and scanned. Also many new items were being banned such as water bottles, plastic knifes and more. (yet these items are more due to recent threats but still fall under the same category as airport security) Also a social impact that this incident had on the public was that people were being discriminated on by there race (more than just stereotypes) Because the terrorist were believed to have been people from Al Qaeda. People began jumping to conclusions, many Islamic people were being treated poorly and thought of as terrorists as well. The affect of the stress caused from 9/11 was responsible for not only the improvement of air port security (governmental) and in some ways encouraged racism (politics). As I said before, invents like this, are responsible for changes in government and politics, and new inventions/ideas.