Declaration of Human Rights Comparison

Based on what I read on the Declaration of Human Rights, it is able to compare to the Mosaic Code and Hammurabi's code. Based on what we learned on Hammurabi's Code and Mosaic, they both compare because of the fact that the laws for Hammurabi's code, whenever a crime was committed, there would only be one punishment. Additionally, these laws that were established are more about punishments for each crime. They are more specific about payments that should be made for each crime. The language found from this law was that they were strict, harsh, and concise. The punishment most often given for the crimes, was death, even though there were often payments for crimes. For Mosaic code, when a law is broken, a judge would determine the punishment. It was more about the law and what to do or not to do. The major difference I found between two set of laws was that it was less extreme than Hammurabi's code. A phrase that was repeated when I read the document was they set these laws in order to "purge the evil." They wanted each punishment to be equal for the person that committed the crime. Eye for eye. Foot for foot. After reading about both sets of laws, what I found similar between these two sets of laws was the fact that both made an emphasis on adultery, robbery, assault, and respect for your parents and elders. When I compare this to the Declaration of Human Rights, I see how the Declaration is created in order to give people equal rights, and prevent from there being any discrimination and inequality. Also, to help ensure that there won't be any thing happening that will harm people. One relationship I see is how they are all established to establish equality, whether the way they seek equality is distinct. Mosaic Code and Hammurabi's code emphasize equality through setting up punishments for many crimes that would be committed in the world. The Declaration emphasizes equality through saying how each individual is equal and how they get the opportunity to anything such as security, education, happiness, and good living conditions. Even though these three documents are apart from many years, the same topics are still used and carried on to try and benefit the people of the community.

Declaration of Rights for Men and Women

Based on what I read from these two articles, I was able to find out of the rights intended to be made and how they have been not followed by sex. The connection I was able to find between these two different set of rights is how they are intended to create and preserve rights of people. What this was implying was life, equality, security, and liberty. However, most of these rights have been violated over time not only to different ethnic groups, but to women as well. As time passed, people have made the law unequal, and women weren't gaining the liberty and security they should have deserved. On the contrary, they were not receiving the right to vote, and they weren't even considered a full human being. just three fifths. But on the other hand, because of what was being done to the women, it acted as an unintentional push for them to fight for what they believed in and create their own Declaration of Rights. Even though the United States have established a Declaration of Rights for Men and Women, I believe the United States are the ones who need it more than any other country. Not only have they violated the rights of both sexes, but they have done it to people of different ethnic backgrounds. I think this country being a diverse country, they must show how people that have been oppressed should be considered human beings, since they were the one's who worked hard in order to help the country benefit. I think this country will do a lot better accepting other people equally, since they don't know the struggle of being treated unfairly. Women have faced the same thing, and others should battle just as women did just to make sure they can be treated equally, and truly appreciated for what they do.

Due Process

After reading the article, I was able to find out about how Magna Carta and the Constitution are able to relate to due process. "Due Process" signifies a fundamental guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and an individual will have the opportunity to be heard by the government before their life and liberty are to be violated. Based on reading Magna Carta, some of the examples I found were connected to Due Process was how the law enforces that you have laws made to be unbiased. Also, they give the explanation of how you can't be stripped from your rights, which includes a fair hearing and fixed court systems. This creates a solution for what times were like before this document was created because of the fact that before, any individual had to pay for a trial. The significant thing about how this was created was that Nobel's made it because of hatred for the king, but in the end they didn't use it. However, 500 years later it was applied in law and it was also used to build the constitution of the United States. After reading the article of Hamilton and the Constitution, this relates to Due Process since in Article 1 Section 3, Clause 7, it states that for any crime or impeachment from office, that individual is subject to trial, and a fair judgment, based on what has been committed. Lastly, based on reading the Constitution of the Bill of Rights, I feel  that the bill of rights should be emphasized with the privacy one may have as well as the rights and privilege's one as an individual may have. This cannot be stressed enough because of the fact that even though the US believes in equality and freedom, there are many times in which they have discriminated on lower class groups as well as people of color. In order to have the support of their laws, then they have to abide by it no matter what.

5/11 Discussion Comments

Based on the discussion we had today, one of the things I feel that should've been improved was participation. I know myself and others needed to. I feel that based on the discussion we had last time, there were more variety of people communicating based on the different ideas we were able to come up with and the questions that were posed. One of the other things that could've been done in order to help get the conversation more interesting was more questions being asked. I feel that with questions we may be able to think more of the topic being discussed and share our ideas more effectively in way that we may help one another when there is something one person won't understand. One of the reasons I think some people may not have participated was how the people that discussed more frequently often shared their ideas quicker without giving people the opportunity to share an idea. Another thing I feel was a cause for the lack of participation was the effort of trying to avoid repetition. This is a good thing, but I feel the people who didn't participate had the same ideas to share like the person who constantly talked, but never got the chance to share. Even though during this discussion we may have needed improvement in some areas, I feel that the conversation actually ended up going in the right direction by how people came up with different ideas and questions that related what we had learned from Sharia to modern day religion and how people are distinct by the way they follow it. Overall having conversations like this is the way we'll fully understand the concept since we work together as a whole in order to determine what we think similarly and what we think differently. It can be recommended that we continue to do is for other readings later on.

Sharia

Based on what I read, I was able to find the significance of Sharia and how it plays in society. Sharia is another way to say "The Right Path." It originated from the Quran and is considered the actual word of god by the muslims. The significance of Sharia is how over time, it managed to reinterpreted and adapted to new issues in the world. One of the things that caught my attention is how today, for many religions, there is conflict to whether or not you're part of a religion if you follow only some of the laws. This is because the significance of reinterpreting the Sharia is that it gave people the opportunity to follow the laws they found most suitable for themselves. Based on the question "Are you a part of a religion if you don't follow all of it's rules." I think the answer may vary since for many people, a person can go as far as they think they have to be in order to be a part of religion, which can explain how today there distinct groups of people for each religion. I feel that following or not following all of the laws imposed does show whether or not you're a part of a religion. If people continue to reinterpret sets of laws, it'll come to the point where they will change laws, and ultimately create new religions because of how a person's belief varies in every aspect. If they are going to follow a religion, why not follow it entirely, or else just make a religion to where you feel you're following it 100 percent?  One of the questions asked was "How can law relate to religion." I feel the answer to this can be that both are meant to lead people to the right direction in life and helping them benefit and advance towards life, not only receiving rewards in your human life, but in your afterlife.

Justinian's Code

Based on this article, I was able to find out the significance of Rome becoming a republican style government with their new leader Justinian. What changed history for the Roman empire was when he established Justinian's Code. It wasn't just a regular set of laws, yet major decisions that were meant to govern the Roman society. One of the things that made it unique from other laws is the fact that it was divided into two different types. They were Public laws, laws for government officials, and Private Laws, laws to govern private citizens. What really made me think as distinct and important was how they divided private laws into three sections, Natural Laws, Civil Laws, and Law of Nations. Natural Laws apply to ever thing in the world. Civil Laws applied to people who lived in a single state. Law of Nations are international laws applying to interactions between countries. Even though they are three different set of laws, they can all relate to modern laws today because of the fact that Every country can have Natural Laws, which can be shown by how countries are governed by local, state, and federal laws. But one difference I note is how International Laws can be violated over time, which can make them seem as not being laws. I say this because of the fact that for example, one country may be torturing people, but another country may not tolerate that. I think that because of the different laws a country may have, it can lead into disagreement, which may lead up to war. One of the examples I think this applies to is the relationship the United States might have with Russia and Cuba. The thing that makes them enemies is the fact that the US is against the communist and socialist government from these countries since they feel it poses as a threat to them. On the other hand, Cuba or Russia may feel the same way of the US government. Because of this, I feel that Law can not only help people govern themselves and find a way to follow their beliefs, but also cause conflict among other countries.

History Comparison

Based on what I learned, something I learned that compares to what we have learned in history is how in health class Socrates' theory on knowledge was mentioned. Based on the movie, it was explaining the origin of Aid's and how important and deadly it began to get. Basically, it was used because of the fact that the people working in the lab had exactly no idea what the disease killing millions of people was. He used how people have no true knowledge. Even though they had many leads on what it could've been, they were getting farther each time from where they wanted to be in order to progress.  This can also compare to how Socrates' used the Socratic method, which was a method of teaching by question and answer in order to elicit truths from people. This not only stimulated ideas but illuminates ideas. Through this method was he able to bring many followers, which were mostly young people, and many people opposed to his ideas as a philosopher. Based on watching the movie, I know they weren't being wise enough in order to figure what was killing people worldwide. They would've not been able to get through most of the questions that would've been put upon them had they been in the time of Socrates. After watching most of the movie, I'm able to see how most of the things that go on through the process of trying to solve the problem relates to part of Socrates' method. They use his socratic method, as well as most of his theories on knowledge. Based on what they used, it managed to help in them finally being able to resolve the problem they had no knowledge for a solution. So not only did I learn partial information on Socrates in history, but in health and the example used was a common problem faced in the earth.

Socrates and Law

Based on reading this article, I wanted to reflect upon how the conservation between Socrates and Critos before Socrates was an important conversation on human rights. Socrates was a philosopher who believed in how true knowledge is the understanding that we don't know anything. In order to prove this, he went around many places, where he found people, and proved his point using the socratic method. This method is basically asking questions to find out if they know what they're talking about. Because of this the government accused him of corrupting the children, which is why he was sent to prison and death. I feel that they did this wrongly because of the fact that they not only violated his human rights, but also the fact that they aren't following their own code, which mainly relies on having philosophers in their community, and by going against that they are also violating one's rights by the fact that they aren't allowing him to express what he feels, it's a reason for what Critos came and asked him to escape from the prison. With respect to his human rights, it gives him more of a reason to escape. Additionally, with respect to fairness, it would be fair for him to escape since they owe him for putting him in jail and condemning him to death for the ability to teach. He on the other hand, teaches people of his philosophy, which helps the community. Lastly, with respect for the law, even though it's against him to escape, he should be able to show the law what they are doing wrong in the community in order to show that he wasn't doing anything to harm the community.

Twelve Tables

After reading this article, what I want to say is how these tables make property a substantial topic, which is similar to what Hammurabi's code does. Additionally, another similarity I found between these two is that they inherit the same three punishments: death, fine, or imprisonment. One of the themes I found within this reading was about the organization of society. What I found this relates to Mosaic code is that it talks about what you can and can't do. Something new that is used when I read these tables were that the laws are made in a way that doesn't affect the safety and organization of society, just to try to be in control. Also, something significant I found was how slaves are always used as property in these early codes of law. Also, all free men have the same level in society. There is no differentiation of the punishments or fines like there was in the other two code of laws. Something else I noted was that the only class levels there were at that time were the slaves and free men, which isn't the best way to classify all of the groups, since they should all be treated equal and also the fact that there was not only discrimination with the slaves, but with the women that lived at that time period. What I thought these laws did was to give people the power to do what they want. Lastly, what I wanted to put an emphasis on was how as discussed in class, one of the most significant things learned was how every law takes away one piece of your freedom. This was nothing I ever considered, but this is true and is what makes life for everyone a good thing and a bad thing. What I feel these set of laws do is write and give what the people what they deserve, unlike what Hammurabi's code does.

Hammurabi's Code vs. Mosaic Code

Based on what we learned this week from the article comparing both the laws and rights between these two set of laws, there are a lot of differences as well as similarities even though the time period for these two governments are different. After reading the laws for Hammurabi's code, three themes I was able to come up with were that whenever a crime was committed, there would only be one punishment. Additionally, these laws that were established are more about punishments for each crime. Another theme I managed to come up with was that they are more specific about payments that should be made for each crime. The language found from this document was that they were strict, harsh, and concise. The punishment most often given for the crimes, which considered Hammurabi's code to be extreme was death, even though there were often payments for crimes. For Mosaic code, the three themes I managed to find were how when a law is broken, a judge would determine the punishment. Another theme that I came up with was how it was more about the law and what to do or not to do. The last theme was based only on purity. After reading the document, the major difference I found between two set of laws was that it was less extreme than Hammurabi's code. Despite the fact that it was less harsh it didn't lack the fact that it was direct and serious. For a crime that would be committed, the punishment was death at little times, but most likely was repaying or paying a fine. A phrase that was repeated when I read this document was they set these laws in order to "purge the evil." They wanted each punishment to be equal for the person that committed the crime. Eye for eye. Foot for foot. After reading both articles, what I found similar between these two readings was the fact that both made an emphasis on adultery, robbery, assault, and respect for your parents and elders.

Hammurabi's Code

Based on reading the article of Hammurabi, what I wanted to reflect was how important the three laws he made first were. Firstly, today, they are similarly used except for the fact that we don't use the death penalty. One of the important things that should be noted is that these first set of laws were significant because of how even though they thought they were bringing justice for the community, they are bringing fear to the people. But what I think they were thinking when they created the laws is to prevent people to commit the actual crimes, in order to create a safe environment for the whole community. What I also feel Hammurabi is is very specific on what the crimes are and how they'll be treated. I was surprised on how he made these laws equally upon all other classes in the society. I feel that this is another thing present day government and laws differed from that time. Today, punishments wouldn't go out equally. There will always be a discrimination by class, where higher class groups won't receive as harsh punishments than the lower class. It makes sense since for most governments they care of having power and the most money. So they know the higher class pay, while lower class struggle on surviving. This doesn't demonstrate the equality we supposedly knew, yet the discrimination we're still willing to make.

The Need of Human Rights

Based on reading the article of the different people over whether human rights are necessary, even though the majority may feel that they aren't necessary and agree with the person contradicting this, I feel that they are wrong, since to me I feel that they are necessary and do exist in a community. During the conversation, I noticed on how they question the fact that if there were such things as human rights, there wouldn't have been as much damage to the world as there is now because of how how no one follows them. But I for a fact know that people follow them, but as we learned early in the year, there are corrupt governments, and they in turn are the people responsible for not following these rights, as well as being responsible for causing others to do it. Today, we have human rights such as Freedom of speech, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to life, etc. These rights are what are needed in a community for it to be better. But we are robbed these rights by the government, that as corrupt as it is, doesn't want anyone to tell them. This in turn doesn't give us the right to freedom of speech, the right to be happy in the world, and the right to life since anyone opposed with the government is just condemned. People in the world don't have the chance to bring justice and equality to the places that are needed, to the places where people deserve a better life. Most importantly, What the government seems to be taking away from people is the right to education. Education is the most important thing needed for a person for them to succeed. In many places the government takes that away from them and brings misery into their lives. For example, one thing is how in many countries they are using kids as soldiers. Without education, they're the ones taking away a life and bringing negative things into their lives.

Class Discussion

Based on the class discussion held where the question was "Why did the people write these laws?" I believe they wrote these laws because of how they needed to set order to the crimes that may be committed. Additionally, I think that these laws were established in order to prevent the crimes from happening. What I mean by this is that as people commit crimes and then are sentenced to death, it will influence people to not do it anymore since they don't want to be killed. As much as we may think of the crimes as being harsh, since currently states have banned the death penalty, I thought that at the time it wouldn't be considered harsh since it was a way of bringing respect and justice to the community. Additionally I feel that now, human rights are more developed than they were back then, so if we're violating someone's right to live by death, which an example would be Steve Biko's case when the he faced injustice from the South African government and died, we're taking away an individuals human rights. But if that were to happen in the time of Hammurabi, I assume that no rights would've been violated since if someone commits a crime, the person's punishment is death, and if for example Steve Biko would do that, the government doesn't want anyone to go against them, so they would punish him in any way. Even though these two events may differ because of how people would react, I would find them alike in doing the same thing to whoever would oppose them, which is violate their rights. Even in countries like US, I still feel they do the same to people that believe and stand for what they think is right. For example, if someone were to wear a Che Guevara shirt out in the streets, the government wouldn't want the person to pass out ideas to the community of actually supporting him, since the US consider him a murderer. But there are two view points. The point of view coming from the Guevara follower is that he is a hero for all of Latin America for trying to bringing equality and end the injustice faced from the government from all those countries that don't care for the benefit of the people. But either way that person would be hurt for showing it. The government will just they want to prevent anything form happening, when in reality they are the people provoking it.

Cry Freedom (3 Blogs in 1)

After watching this movie, my reaction was sympathy for what the South Africans were facing, as well as shock and infuriation at what the white South Africans were capable of doing because of the hate and segregation they wanted to demonstrate upon this group of innocent people. After watching this movie, I feel that it's my favorite one that we watched so far in class. To me, human rights are more important than most topics talked about because of the fact that every human deserves to be treated equally. My interest has been learning about justice and human rights not only for the South Africans, but for other races such as Latino/ Hispanic. Even though there may not be segregation anywhere, inequality is still in the world, with the belief that there can be only one dominant race in the world. As many activists have inspired me to stand up for what's right, I have the urge in standing up and bringing equality where it is lacking, and change the way many people think, just like Steve Biko and other influential people did. But most importantly, I think that change should be brought to avoid the suffering of children. The children of any race shouldn't suffer, just as the children attempting to end apartheid suffered, by brutally being shot at. Those children are significant later on in life, since they will represent their race and their culture, and should feel proud about it. They, just as the adults stand up for their human rights, so will the children in bringing freedom and equality no only for themselves, but for an entire minority group, just as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Oscar Romero did. Based on watching this movie, what I found most significant in order to help give South Africans a voice was the friendship that shook South Africa and awakened the world. The friendship between Steve Biko and Donald Woods was great, since for one I knew that people in the world that aren't black actually are willing to take a stand, despite the fact that they themselves face the danger of being killed, and also share the same ideas. The fact that there can be people of the opposite race that support one's idea serves as hope that change can happen. I respect Donald Woods because I saw what he had to go through, jeopardizing not only his life, but of his family, but this cause was something that shook him harder than an earthquake, this apartheid was going to be the future, for all black South Africans, and this would've meant many more deaths of innocent people. During the end of the film, when they showed the black activists that died in police custody, I was mad that as much as the deaths were repetitive and dumb, nobody managed to question it and take action for it, since clearly not everyone would've died in such a unintelligent way, knowing that all off these people taking a stand, like Biko were smart by the way they would express themselves and the way they would form ideas in order to protest against what the government was doing. From what I saw, I know the people didn't deserve death by the fact that they used non-violence, causing harm to no one. Today, I still feel that if the people responsible for the deaths of the South African activists are still alive, they should receive punishment for what they deserved. Based on how corrupt the system in the government was, they managed to be innocent, which I didn't think was fair, and also that they have the right to do whatever they please. I would've wanted to know how those white South Africans would feel if at one point all their homes would be destroyed, and if they wanted to protest, they would be shot to death. Everyone is equal. The type of living conditions the black people lived in at the time proved that there wasn't equality in a country that was made up of lies and hate. Based on human rights, there is a difference between that and justice, and I feel the world would be better if people would take that into account, and bring justice to people that need it and deserve it.

Do Versus Do-Not

Based on reading this article, I found interesting the actual change that is still taking place in many different religions. I also learned how Gandhi changed the religion system, from it being a set of rules showing how an individual should live their lives to him emphasising the use of good behavior and social justice in the world. Additionally, I think it's called "Do versus Do Not" because of the fact that people still believe religion as a set of rules as compared to  those who see religion as demonstrated through good actions. Based on the reading I analyzed, it shows how Religion sets as an example for ethics. It supports the fact that religion also serves as the basis for good and bad morale. The example that is used is how a plant needs roots in order to grow.

Religion as an agent of the Powerful and Powerless

Based on doing this activity, the thesis is "As time progressed, religion has gone from being used by the powerful to keep their power to being used by the powerless to fight for equality for minorities."Examples of how this is true is how All four agents of the powerless used non-violence to spread their message but violence ended up creeping into their lives. Martin Luther King said in his speech, quoting his daughter, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?" This is an example of violence being used against non-violent groups. The Dalai Lama wanted peace for his country and used non-violent ideas to show his message, “As you know, my own country - Tibet - is undergoing a very difficult period.  The Tibetans -particularly those who live under Chinese occupation - yearn for freedom and justice and a self-determined future, so that they are able to fully preserve their unique identity and live in peace with their neighbours.” Additionally, Oscar Romero used religion to push for for social and political change. He says “Each week I go about the country listening to the cries of the people, their pain from so much crime, and the ignominy of so much violence.” Gandhi used religion in order to bring equality for minorities. He states “Non-violence is the first article of my faith.  It is the last article of my faith”. On the other hand, Pope Urban used his significant power in the religious community to manipulate and persuade his followers to fight for something that would increase his power. He states “And when this speech had already begun to be noised abroad, little by little, through all the regions and countries of Gaul, the Franks, upon hearing such reports, forthwith caused crosses to be sewed on their right shoulders, saying that they followed with one accord the footsteps of Christ, by which they had been redeemed from the hand of hell.” The themes that can be made are "Equality for All vs. Segregation: The powerful used religion as the platform of the Caste System, making the system holy, and preventing rebellion." Also, "Expanding and Gaining Power. The powerful used religion to expand and maintain their power, while the powerless used religion as a tool to gain power in order to ultimately achieve justice for all." The last theme is Violence and nonviolence: The powerful used violence to gain more power and to be feared by the powerless. The powerless did not use violence and mainly used peace as their way of advertising.

Gandhi As An Agent Of The Powerless

• Based on the articles on Gandhi, I found out how it's mainly about how h

is nonviolent ethics as evidenced in the biography show his usage of religion as an agent of the powerless, because he both believed in nonviolence and also needed to use it because the authority was not on his side and he could not have protested if he was violent. The social activism of Mohandas Gandhi is important because it helped to fight racial discrimination against Indians and anybody who was discriminated. It gave a voice to the ones who did not have one, the minority, and used religion to promote the flaws of the world. The important facts I found out about Gandhi was how he came from a vending background, and as he grew older he tried to be a lawyer but failed since he was shy. Something that foreshadowed his interest in being an activist of religion was his desire of wanting to represent something larger than him. Later on he became a spokesman for a minority of Indian laborers and the Indian indentured servants, who suffered from discrimination based on their race. This was where he started to develop his skills as a leader, as an advocate who supported minorities, and how to argue with a group more powerful than his. Additionally, it shows how in 1919, he organized a protest against the Rowlatt Act, which proposed to use wartime legislation during peacetime, and add other laws that Gandhi didn't approve of. And the way they protested wasn't through violence, but through not working. Gandhi became a theoretical leader of the Indian National congress, which aimed to achieve independence for India through nonviolent means. Because he had various experiences with the action regarding spreading ideas upon something bigger, he had a good understanding of how to lead and a good idea on when to continue or abandon something. He was imprisoned in 1930 and 1933 for his campaign of civil disobedience, in which during this he performed a hunger strike. He wasn't actively doing anything with a real misdemeanor, yet he was put in prison multiple times during this campaign. Lastly, it shows how he was murdered by a Hindu fanatic, who feared Gandhi's radical ideas. But to conclude, the intent I found by the author was to show that Gandhi made a big influence in the world and how people think of non violence, even though he didn't have money or political power. He demonstrated this by inspiring others to protest with him, in a non violent way.

Exercising Religious Power

• This article basically explains about a judge who had been torturing people to the point of their confession of being a witch learned many things about witchcraft.  He discusses it with a man named Peter of Gruyeres, who had much experience in persecuting witches.  They converse about the severity of a witch’s death. Once you are accused of being a witch, you are stuck as a witch. You’re going to be murdered, but there are ways to make your death less cruel. If you admit to your sins and being a witch, you’ll be murdered, but in the least severe way possible. However, if you don’t admit to being a witch, you’re death will be as cruel as can be imagined. Additionally, from what we learned about the other article, t
  he event is that the priests are creating a system of interrogating citizens who were thought to be participating in other beliefs that could pose as a threat to the church. What I was able to find similar between these two events is the fact that the targets are the civilians believed to have distinct beliefs from their religion. Whoever is against them are considered their enemy, since they pose a threat to their religion and the only way to solve this problem is through death, so the other citizens won't choose to do what the other's did, in order to have a faith like that.

Missionaries

Based on reading this, what was significant about this article was the fact of how missionaries that arrived into other countries and had a great impact in other people's lives. To start of, Missionaries set off on journeys in order to recruit new followers for their religion, and in some cases, they were accompanied with government officials. By converting other people, in which were indigenous people of either Africa, the Americas, or Asia, their religion would become more superior and other's will follow them. Later on, they weren't considered any good by the indigenous due to the fact that along with their journeys, they were involved with slave trading, which became more frequent each time. But whatever happened, missionaries should be considered important because of the thousands of individuals they converted to their religion. I guess the world would be distinct if they didn't ever convert these people. Missionaries of Buddhism and Christianity have had their differences. For example, they are different with the fact that Buddhist missionaries used non-violence, unlike the Christians, who caused violence in order to get people to convert based on the reality they lived in. Additionally, Christians felt as if it was their duty to create a better world by converting Christians, while Buddhism taught those willing to listen. The difference is that Christianity has advanced farther than Buddhism has.

The Crusades

Based on reading this article, What I found most significant is how this event was able to affect both Islam and Christianity. To begin with, Islam was created in the 600's B.C., by Mohammad. There were similar things that Islam had with Christianity. For example, both of these religions are monotheistic, or believe in one god. This being the fact, they both needed to work in order to bring as much people to their religion as possible to make it stronger, and the way they accomplished this was through missionary work. The significant places where Christianity managed to spread were east of Europe, while Islam spread through the middle east, Africa, and parts of Spain. Being Monotheistic, they had disagreements, and each religion attempted to be more successful than the other. Christianity was able to be an agent of the powerful, due to the fact that in 1095, Pope Urban, the pope of the Christian church at that time, gave a speech to all the Christians, motivating them to join a Crusade to end the growth of Islam, since it's harming their church and holy land. Additionally, he stated that for all the people that joined this, they would earn a free ticket to heaven, in which many people desired, because of the image of Heaven being the most beautiful place in the world. People would also believe him since they're assuming whatever the pope says comes directly from God. As stated in the text, this would also relate to the speech Osama Bin Laden gave, since they each had the same motives for people to join them. Then, there were many wars fought between the Muslims and the Christians, where not only did each religion fight, but had an opportunity to get to share each other's religion, so cultural diffusion was established, where each religion took part of the other, through trade and brought it back with them. However, they didn't achieve their goal, since Islam continues to grow.

South Asia Project

Islam:

1) Islam was revealed in the year 570 CE when the prophet Muhammad was born, it’s a monotheistic religion worshipping Allah (Muslim word for God) by praying 5 times a day and other main beliefs or pillars which all have to do with worship and social justice. Similar beliefs about interactions with God to Sikhism. Muhammad, the final Muslim prophet, is highly praised, much of Islam is based on his migration from Medina to the holiest city of Mecca. Centered in Mecca, where Muslims must make a pilgramige to every year. Early growth of Islam is the result of violent, militaristic conquests. Created a distinct political reputation for Muslims, that they fought for religion but were motivated by greed.

2) Sunni and Shi’a are two main groups in Islam, they both agree on the fundamental beliefs and practices of Islam, but have mostly political, social, or ethnic differences. These differences started when Muslims needed to figure out who would lead Islam after Muhammad died in 632 CE. Sunnis believe that Muhammad chose Abu Bakr, a close friend of his, to lead the Islamic state and community. Shi’as believe that he chose Ali, his son-in-law and cousin to succeed him. Abu Bakr ended up succeeding him. They both have evidential claims to why they think their respective leaders should have been the successor.

3) Sufism is a section of Islam. Sufis are not actually mentioned by Muhammad, but they practice currently. They can be found in Sunni and Shi’a groups, but they are the highest order of Islam. They are the people that dedicate all of their time to worshipping Allah. They are formed into Tariqas, or orders. Some Tariqas say that they can trace their roots back to the teachers of Muhammad. Sufis have contributed a lot to Islam, many of their teachings come from Sufis.

4) Akbar was the third ruler of the Indian Mughal Empire from 1558 to 1603. He was a Muslim as were his predesessors, however the majority of their subjects were Hindus. He was strongly influenced and interested by Sufism. He had experienced the true oneness of God or in his case Allah, as referenced in all monotheistic faiths, including Sufism. He had debates with Hindu, Christian, and other religious scholars, he was very tolerant of all religious. He insitituted a number of policies to make his subjects completely allowed and encouraged to practice their faith, this also encouraged them to be more loyal to him. He even showed an example by letting his Hindu wives continually practice their religion. He also repealed various taxes on non-Muslims. Eventually, he declared himself a new religion he created which was a blend between Islam, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism. His religion never grew, because some Muslim official were never very tolerant of different religions.

*5) The Ottoman empire was based on the practices of Islam, and it was one of the largest empires throughout all of history. It took rule in 1301 and fell in 1922, but was at first very instable. It grew substantially because there were fighters who forced Christians to convert to Islam. The Ottoman empire replaced the Byzantine empire, so the former Byzantine capital, Constantinople, became the Ottoman capital. The success of this empire is due to many factors including centralized government, unity under one religion, and the same family ruling for generations and generations.

Buddhism:

1) Buddhism is based on Siddhartha Gautama’s journey to spritual enlightenment. Siddhartha Gautama was a Hindu in Lumbini, present day Nepal. He lived in India when he was older, where Hinduism comes from. He was born in 490 BCE to an upper class home and was sheltered from the sufferings in life. He was strongly affected by seeing suffering old men on the streets, he saw a religious elderly man who was not in pain like the rest. From this, he was inspired to search for the path to enlightenment or understanding. He traveled and tested out different philosohpies, but was most satisfied when he pursued, “The Middle Way”, the middle way does not involve strict self-restriction of goods, nor does it require a person to be ignorant and gluttonous. One day meditating under a tree, Siddhartha Gautama achieved enlightenment and became the Buddha.

2) Critical aspect of Indian philosophy is attaining enlightment or liberation, also known as nirvana.

there is no self. One self is an illusion created by the interactions of the five aggregates or elements.

Buddha emphasized that nirvana is neither eternal life or annihilation because of the idea that there isn't a self to be destroyed or given eternal life. Illusion is seen as knowledge of the mode of existence. There is no god in Buddhism. Buddhism is based on teachings or dharma, not about deities. Buddha is another meaning for the awakened one. Buddhism is established in present day Cambodia in 100 b.c and in Vietnam in 150 b.c. in the 3rd century Buddhism spreads through Persia through trade.

*3) Shakya Muni is a Hindu god but was a Buddhist, similar to Jesus Christ being Jewish. Shakya Muni preached Buddhist sayings, not new things but things that the Buddha already taught. There is the ceremonial and the spiritual part of Hinduism, in the spiritual part there is no caste system so everybody is equal which very much emmulates Buddhist philosophy. Hinduism and Buddhism are very similar in both their locations and part of their beliefs.

4) During 250 B.C and forward, people of southeast Asia knew about Buddhism due to the fact that they had increased contact with Indian merchants who came to the region for trade. They had established trading centers in that region, bringing their culture and religion with them. Through cultural diffusion, people began to have a mixture of Buddhism and Hinduism. But during the 11th century, the significant way that Buddhism expanded was through rulers and monks. When the Chines moved to Northern Thailand for trade, there was a ruler named Khmer King, and he ruled the northern Thai. However, there came the time that another ruler, named Rama Kamheng, who freed the kingdom from Khmer’s power. After taking control, Rama encouraged people to practice Buddhism. After that, in the 8th century, another ruler named Saliendra adopted Buddhism in the Java Island, building monuments, and temples. However, after 5 years, Islam came to the Island, soon after being the predominant religion, although there are still few Buddhists living there.

5) Today, China is governing Tibet. This had become possible since in 1949, the Chinese government captured Tibet. The major affect that this had was that there were many riots and uproars occurring. As this continued to occur, the government officials of Tibet fled to Dharamsala,India. For those that weren’t able to flee, they were killed. Tibet’s leader today, Dalai Lama, is also in India, and because of this, the Chinese want to kill him. From the riots, a total of 1.2 million civilians of Tibet were killed and 6,200 monasteries were demolished.

Sikhism:

1) Founded in the Punjab by Guru Nanak (born 1469 death 1539) in the 15th Century CE and is a monotheistic religion.  Sikhs think religion should be practiced by living in the world and coping with life's everyday problems, which is a similar concept to Buddhism.  Some major beliefs are that: everyone has a direct connection to god, there is one god, everyone is equal before god, god is neutral in appearance and gender, being part of a community and being helpful to others is important, no religious ceremonies or rituals. Sikhists believe in karma and reincarnation.  Guru Nanak grow up in a Hindu household and had Islamic friends. When he was an adult he had a revelation and learned that there wasn’t Hinduism and Islam for they were worshiping the same god.  He tried to blend the cultures to appeal to those of the other faiths and allow his massage to be heard.

2.  Diwali, the festival of lights also a hindu holiday late october or early november

symbolises the release of Guru Hargobind and 52 princes from prison in 1619

It goes that when asked the emporer said he would release Guru, but when he was asked to also release the 52 princes he said he would only allow them to leave if they held up his cape made up of exactly 52 strings so each prince held exactly one.  In celebration the lights of the Golden Temple were lit in celebration and are lit in celebration of this every year.  The holiday is a time to light lanterns and lights along with exchanging gifts and cleaning up your house.  (Mostly it’s almost exactly like Christmas)

*3.  Amritsar Massacre in April 1919 General E H Dyer ordered troops to fire at 10,000 Indians killing 400 and injuring 1000.  The British promoted him, but forced him to immediately forced him to retire added to Indian independence movement.  Some historians regard this as the start of the British rule’s decline.

4. 1947 Indian Independence Sikhs too few for own state between India and Pakistan.  Sikhs joined with India to keep part of Punjab their home area but were badly treated. Islamics broke off to create Pakistan and go off from India. They lost land and rights as a result of all this.

1966 After a lot of push from the Sikhs India divided Punjab into 3 and gave Sikhs a majority and made it a state.  Although the Sikhs found the state lines unfairly drawn and although happy for the state they still demanded more from the government.

5.  The fifth guru, Guru Arjan (1563-1606), built the Golden Temple and Adi Ganth (“original collection”).  The Golden Temple became the religious monument for Sikhism and was surrounded by a pond for protection.  The Adi Ganth became the major book for Sikhism and was created from the writings of holy saints, himself and other gurus he collected the hymns for the book.  After which the Islam emperor demanded he convert, and resisting he eventually died from torture. The Adi Ganth is divided into two sections, first the Japji, a decently long poem by Guru Nanak describing the religion and how god is indescribable. The second is 39 rags (“tunes”) by Guru Nanak and later gurus. The third piece is a collection of works, including hymns and poems from Hindu, Muslim and Sikh gurus and saints.

Hinduism:

1) Hinduism: Hinduism is known as the worlds oldest religion. It is traced from 5000-10000 b.c. It originated in India and is based on teachings from the Veda. Hindus believe in one god named Braham, however, they view other gods as manifestations from him. their main goal in this religion is seeking salvation. Buddhism plays an important role in influencing Hinduism due to the way the parables and stories were used as religious instruction, Indian art, sculpture, and education. Additionally, when Aryans began to travel southward towards India in 1500 B.C., they conquested the land. Since their nature is warlike, this is still preserved in the Vedic religion, the foundation of Hinduism. The mode of worship that is still preserved in Hinduism is marriage, prayer for abundance of children, rain, cattle, and long life.

2) In 1320, french missionaries began to arrive in India. One significant missionary, named Jordanus Catalania arrived in Surat in 1323. He changed religion in India since he revived Christianity and brought thousands of Christians with him. Not only that, but when Portugese missionaries, which were mainly Roman catholic, arrived, they expanded their bases on the west coast. They had the determination of converting all Indians to their religion. They succeeded, since they converted most of them. Additionally, in Bombay, High class Hindus were converted by the Portugese in the 16th century. Most of the Hindus were descendants of the Christian community formed by St. Barthmolew and are considered as Portugese Christians.However, the changes that occured was that beginning in the 18th century, Protestant missionaries were in India, building different Christian communities.

3) In 1984 Hindus and Sikhs became at war with one another.  Discontent on each side went into politics and came to violence.  In June Preacher Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale became a leader of the most angry Sikhs.  He was commonly falsely thought of as a representative of all Sikhs.  Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his followers took refuge in the Golden Temple Complex. The Hindus then had operation “Blue Star” sending in troops killing Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale’s Sikhs and severely damaging the temple, the most holy Sikh location.  When the Sikhs heard this they found that the Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi had order this and found it completely against their religion and community, so in October 1984 she was killed by two Sikh bodyguards.  The next four days was anti India rioting and the government said 2,700 people died primarily Sikhs even though the newspapers and human rights groups said 10-17 thousand died.

4.) In 1947, during the post Indian independence, thousands of people were attending mass ceremonies where Hindu Dalits were converting to Buddhism and Christianity. The events occurring in Nagpur were part of a protest against the injustice of the Caste system. The dalits, who were once known as untouchables, wanted to escape the prejudice and discrimination they were facing at the time. Most laws that were created in order to protect the Dalit’s rights were ineffective. Although the Caste system was outlawed after India gained it’s independence in 1947, Dalit’s say that people’s attitude towards them are still the same. Many of the ways they are still treated based on the Caste system is that they are often expected to do many menial jobs. Additionally, in many villages they aren’t allowed to drink water from the wells used by the high caste Hindus.

5.) In 2002, there was Gujarat violence or riots between Hindu and Muslim communities in Gujarat. According to official figures, 1044 people were killed during the riots. Of those people, 497 were Muslim and 790 were Muslim. All of this violence erupted after the Godhra train burning, where a train carrying Hindu fundamentalists was burned near the train station of Godhra by a Muslim mob. The riots began the very next day after that and continued for several months. These riots had been controversial due to the fact that there were a number of human rights groups accusing the Hindu government of active complicity in the violence, and failing to bring justice upon the state of Guajarat. However, in 2004, it was found that the fire was actually accidental.