UN Declaration of Human Rights

To me, the United Nations Declaration of Human Right has a mix of many other codes and laws that we have read about this year. When making this declaration of rights, they basically looked at what worked in the past and modernized it and put it into their own declaration of human rights. When they would see something that didn't work in the past, they would make changed accordingly or just ignore it altogether. A lot of the codes that were put into place a while back tended to give very specific laws based on very specific crimes. I think that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is much more broad covering a much wider spectrum of laws and crimes. The only thing about anything being on the broad side is that it can also leave room for interpretation. Some people might take it the wrong way but I think that the UN Declaration of Human Rights (is there an abbreviation for this?) does a good job in being clear and to the point without being overly specific.


It is good that this declaration is more broad because it also can be used in most time periods to come. Unless people's view of the world changes drastically in the next few centuries, then we will probably need a knew declaration of Human Rights. I think that it is important for the declaration of human rights to always be open for adding things because chances are that there are going to be things that are going to need to be added. But overall, the declaration leaves less room for loop holes and is much more concise then something like Mosaic's Code. 

Bill of Rights: Who needs it

So, who should have the a bill of human rights? 

In class, we talked read two readings, on was the French bill of rights for man, and the other was the female bill of rights. So when I first read the reading, I thought that there didn't need to be two bills of rights, one for people and one for just females. I thought that that seemed unnecessary because females are people as well. The two bill of rights talked about pretty much the same rights so there was really no need to have two bills. But then in class I learned that when they talked about the rights of all man in the first reading, they were actually talking about men, not all people. So, by saying man, it leaves room for people think what they want. 

So, finally I would say that when writing a bill of rights, you have to be very specific so there is no room for people to think something different. So there either needs to be two bill of rights, one for mean and one for women but the even better option would be for there to only one bill or rights that is clear in including women and men. 

Bill of Right: Agree or Disagree

So, after reading the article by Hamilton about how the Bill fo Rights is unnecessary, I would have to say that I agree and disagree at the same time. Some of his points make sense to me and I agree with them but other points I disagree with. But I will also say that I am not completely positive that I have processed this document correctly because some parts were kind of hard for me to understand so I apologize if my facts are incorrect. 

So, what I agree with is that having a bill of rights can be dangerous. I think that it can be dangerous because people can interpret the rights incorrectly and in a way that was not intended. Then when they are confronted about it (what ever it is that they felt they were entitled to do), they can say that it is in the bill of rights and that is something people would be scared to argue. 

But I disagree with the general argument. I definitely think that we need a bill of rights. The founding fathers originally wanted no bill of rights because that goes along with "its a free country yay" but everyone else wanted the bill or rights so they know specifically what they are entitled to. I don't think it is too much to ask to be told what your rights are. It just makes it clearer for everyone. If someone tells someone they can't do something when it is stated in the bill of rights that they can, they have proof and a defense. I think it is fair and I say why not to the bill or rights. 

Law and Religion

So, do I think that law and religion should ever come in contact with each other? Nope, never. They should never ever be intertwined. We talked about Islam and the laws of Islam yesterday in a class discussion. One question that came up was do we think that law and religion are the same. And I feel very strongly that law is not religion because in a society like today's where one place may have many different types races and religions, having the state follow the law of only one religion is really unfair to the rest of the society who doesn't not follow that religion.

Also, some laws that where created in the name of religion where actually made because of very specific religious things/rituals. Why should that law apply to everyone when to them it is actually a really pointless law. Like in Judaism, if you keep kosher, you can't eat pork or dairy and meat together. That is a law for them but for anyone who follows another religion, it would be pointless for them to follow that law. Especially when not all jewish people keep kosher, so it would be unfair to those people too.

I don't think its bad, though when the state takes ideas for laws from religion. As long as the laws aren't specifically catering to one religion and can apply to anyone. But in general, if laws are made from specific laws in religion, it is really unfair and I don't think that they should exist,

Natural, Common and Civil Laws

Today in class we read and discussed some readings about natural, common and civil laws. We took notes on the reading and we then talked about each type if law separately for a little bit. After that we all discussed all three of the types comparatively. Here are my some thoughts after reading the article.

So natural law is is basically a law that is infused in you when you are born. It is kind of like common knowledge but even before that. These are laws that cannot really be enforced at all but they also cannot be broken in anyway. They actually physically can't. Like the law of gravity, you can't make gravity go away and you can't really tell people to listen to gravity. It is just there and people look over it because they don't even consider it a law because it can't be broken or enforced.

A common law is a law that is known through common knowledge. This law is the most confusing to me because it is rather unclear, in my opinion at least. I think that it would be things like don't kill people and don't steal. Things that don't need to be said but are still enforced and known by most people. It is a law known to all mankind therefor it is "common". These laws don't have to be written while civil laws do.

A civil law is a law that is fully enforced and written down for documentation. They do not go unsaid because if they did people would not know about them necessarily. These are laws of the state and are specifically made to be enforced.

I think it is kind of interesting that for each description of the three laws, the actual writing gets shorter and shorter. I think it is because as you go through each law things get more and more straight forward. There is less to say about civil laws then natural laws because it is very clear exactly what they are where natural laws are more open for interpretation. Just an observation.

So what is my idea of a law? I don't actually think that natural laws are really laws. Laws by definition is "the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties" So they actually have to be something that can be enforced. Since natural laws cannot be enforced then they are not actually laws.

Relating History to Other Classes

As an assignment for this/last week, we were told to find relations between what we are learning in history class and things that we have learned in other classes. One connections that I thought of right away is the connection between human rights and something that we are doing in english. In English class we are in the middle of writing a paper about anything we want regarding the internet.

My topic is about how people behave and interact differently on the internet then offline. There are things that people just simply do not do when interacting face to face with people. Things that they just wouldn't say to someone else. But when interacting on the internet through things like Facebook and Twitter people have a barrier between themselves and the person they are interacting with. Going a step further, there are things like formspring, a website where you can anonymously ask people questions. This allows you to a.) have a barrier between you and the other person and b.) you can do it without the other person knowing who you are. (I personally think that formspring is the dumbest thing ever and if anyone actually gets one, they will not have it for long. You are basically asking people say all the bad things about you).

This relates to history class because right now we are focusing on a unit about human rights. Human rights plays a large role in my topic for english because when people say and do whatever they want on the internet, it is almost as though they lose their humanity a little. It is as if because you can't see the person that you are talking to then you might think that they don't actually have human rights, like they aren't real or something. So basically the effect is mostly negative if people's rights are being taken away. It isn't really "historical" but it still has to do with human rights.

Socrates: Should He Stay or Should He Go

In class, we recently learned about the philosophy of Socrates. I think that is it really interesting that Socrates thought that true knowledge was the understanding that you really don't know anything. So basically he is saying that you need to accept the fact that nobody can know everything because thinking that you know everything is actually quite arrogant.
Also, I thought that it was interesting that he went around talking to different people to see who was smart and who was pretend smart. He would ask people different questions and see if they end up contradicting themselves or if they can actually articulate their thoughts and know what they really mean. Because isn't that the most important thing when answering a question? To know what you mean? I think that it is pretty important when explaining something. Apparently, Socrates thought so too. He found that a lot of people actually could not properly answer his questions so in the end he was knew more than them. This, I think, is just part of his pursuit of power because what philosopher doesn't want power?

So, should Socrates stay or should he go? This is the question we were asked to answer about wether he should stay in jail even though he had the opportunity to escape, or should he go by taking that opportunity. I was put into a group that had to argue why Socrates should stay in jail. My group said that Socrates should stay out of respect for the law because if he leaves then basically he is saying that he is above the law and that would not be right. He also probably did not want others to follow in his example and break the law too. It would also be unfair for him to take his opportunity to escape because not everyone is given that opportunity. Personally, if I wasn't assigned anything, I would say that he should leave jail. I am pretty sure that, when given the opportunity, most people would try to escape from jail and potential (in his case, certain) death. Also, all he was doing was spreading teachings so, if you believe in human rights, arresting him would be taking away his human right to freedom of speech. I just personally believe that people can't be arrested for talking, not because it is a human right, but because people don't ahem the right to arrest you for that reason.

Comparing Hammurabi and Mosaic Codes

Now, comparing Hammurabi's Code and Mosaic's Code:

Something that is, however, similar between the two set of laws is the overarching message. Hammurabi's Code takes on a more strict sense of law while Mosaic's code is not nearly as strict and allows you to actually live when you do something bad. It think that that facts tell you something about the culture of Mosaic's Code. The code seems to be a more religion oriented set of laws so maybe that is where the mercy plays a role. That tells you that the culture was more religious and tolerant. The culture of Hammurabi's code was probably not as religion oriented because religious is barely (if not, not at all) incorporated into the laws. Moral justice (or their view of it) was more important then gods word (if they all even believed in god very much) or the teaching of god. 

Like I said before, despite all of the minor differences in these two set of laws, there are actually some huge similarities. Mainly, the overall theme. Aside from the obvious, they are both a set of laws, but they also address mainly the same things. Or that was how it was with the laws that we read. If something does not fly in one of the Codes, then is probably won't for the other set of laws. 

So, what was the author of each trying to get across? Well, for Hammurabi's Code, it almost felt like a threat. Well actually, it was a threat telling people that is they did this or didn't do this then they are going to be killed. It was more straight forward and strict then harsh though. But I still do think that some of the punishments were rather harsh. And with the simple language, it was making it easier for everyone to understand and to follow. Almost like there could be no excuses for misunderstanding a law because with simple language like that, you couldn't use that excuse. For Mosaic's Code, it almost seemed like the laws were being written just so that there could be laws. Not saying that they are stupid laws or anything, but they do tend to be semi-repetetive but very planned out. The tone was less controlling and more just to maintain order. Hammurabi's code seemed to want control more then just order among people. 

Contrasting Hammurabi and Mosaic Codes

In class, we discussed the Hammurabi's Code and Mosaic's Code and compared and contrasted the two. We were asked to look and think about the tone, the punishment, theme, topics and language for each code of laws. We made a Venn diagram to make our comparisons, here are some of the things that we came up with.

For Mosaic's code, when a law is broken there isn't always a specific punishment for each situation. The punishment is determined by a judge, which is more similar to the modern day judicial system. For Hammurabi's code, the punishment is all basically set in stone no matter what you have to say. You can't defend yourself at all. So, in short, the judicial system and how punishments are determined are different between these two law systems.

Another difference is between just the overall tone. Hammurabi's Code is much more concise and even though, when we first read this document, I thought that it was actually really too specific. But after reading some of the Mosaic's code, I realized that it wasn't nearly as specific as things can get. Mosaic's code was extremely specific and every law that was written used so many more words then any average Hammurabi's Code law. It just seemed like it took a lot longer to describe what the law was actually for, for Mosaic's Code laws. It is kind of interesting that for Hammurabi's code, the punishment is much more specific and the law is not as specific, while for Mosaic's Code, the law is extremely specific but the punishment is not specific at all.

Code of Hammurabi: Response Class Discussion

Today in class we read, annotated and discussed a set of rules or laws. These laws were created by Hammurabi and he made a ton extremely specific laws but we read 24 of them. Something that I thought was kind of strange about them was how specific they were. It almost made it easier for people to find loop holes between different laws because maybe the law talked about something specifically and the incident wasn't exactly like the law. When we had our discussion in class, a common point was brought up time and time again. The point was basically just relating this to modern laws and talking about the differences and similarities. Obviously laws now would be more accurately written and made so that there are no loop hole type things because we have had more practice with making laws. But something that I was thinking about during the discussion was that these set of laws are more different then they are alike to modern laws. I know we only read 24 laws but the consequence for every single law was you are either put to death or you have to pay. Just two set things, no trial to determine your years or you punishment. And no in-between. If someone stole something from a store, they would probably be put in jail or fined. The consequence would be determined by a trial and the outcome would be based on how much you stole. In Hammurabi's laws, there is not jail, no "in between" which leads me to say it is a more extreme way. They probably made it that extreme because they wanted to keep control over people. Thats what it is always about anyway.

Also (side note), because this wasn't written in modern day, it helps my point from an earlier blog about Human Rights. Because it was so extreme to put people to death for rather minor (compared to some things) crimes. This just shows that people idea's of human right may have shifted since the time that Hammurabi's Code was written and now.

But back to the main topic at hand, Hammurabi's code put a lot of emphasis on slaves. In laws 15, 16, 17,18 and 19 they all talk about slaves giving specific examples of different situation. Back then, it must have been very important for slaves to be kept in order and in control. Again, another example of how people need to have control. Maybe I am just too cynical of a person, or maybe I am the only one seeing things clearly.

The Ever Changing Concept of Justice

My View on Human Right

I my opinion, human rights aren't an actual thing, the don't exist. I just don't think that they are a valid thing and then you think about it, they don't make sense. Because unless you are really religion (because that is a whole other thing), your idea of human rights might be different then someone else's ideas of human rights. They contradict themselves to much with the positive and negative rights. For example, you can say that you have the right to buy a cat but people have the right to tell you that you can't buy a cat. So you either end up a with a cat or you don't in which case one of the rights is no honored.

Yet again, religion is used as an excuse. In this case religion is used as an excuse because people say the god said that people should not kill or should not steal or any of that kind of stuff. All they are really doing is saying that god said that in order to defend themselves. I am not saying that not killing people is a bad thing but it is just a way that religion is used as an excuse for the well being of people. Again, not that the cause is a bad thing.

After we finished the movie and had a week break, we came back and were asked, what are some examples of human rights being violated in the movie. And even though now I am convinced human right don't exist, I was able to give several examples. Like confining people in certain areas, or lying about the way people died, or killing people for publicly protesting. The list goes on and on but really, those aren't human rights, they are just examples of people doing really cruel things. Like, I would never go and shoot someone, but not because it is a violation of human rights, because it is just not a morally right thing to do.

Also, another reason why human right are illegitament, is that peoples' idea of human rights have changed over the years. This is only assuming that people think human rights are just embedded in yourself when you are born. In the prehistoric era, people then were much more barbaric then people are now. So wouldn't that mean that that way or action follows human rights the most. And that not killing people is not humane? It is kind of confusing what I am saying but it makes sense if you think about it. Because people are changing and their ideas of human rights are changing. So if human rights are real then they are not a specific thing, just notion that people can develop for themselves.

Cruelty In the Movie

Today in class, we finished the movie, "Cry Freedom". We have been watching this movie all week in class and it is about the struggles from the Apartheid in South Africa. I think the movie is was really interesting because i knew very little about what was happening in South Africa (see previous post titled apartheid).

This movie was filled with different things that were kind of shocking. The scene that got to me the most was a scene where the black africans are protesting because they don't want to learn Afrikaans instead of English, that is what the South African government is trying to make then do. They are having a pretty peaceful protest, there was never any violence involved on their side. When they reached the place where the police where, the main police officer told all of the other police officers to shoot. They were relentless and brutal, shooting everyone from grown men to little babies. It was really sad to watch and I almost couldn't believe that people could be so heartless, especially toward children. It is said that 400- 600 school age children were killed that day. That is just unfathomable.  It is worse then segregation was here and almost as bad as the Holocaust. Some could say that is was just as bad as the Holocaust because just like the Holocaust, people were being outcasted because of something that the could not control. And then they were contained and terminated because of it.

Donald Woods: Cry Freedom

A person that I would like to bring up is Donald Woods. He was the editor of South Africa's Daily Dispatch news paper and he had a lot of impact on the turn out of Modern South Africa. What I find kind of interesting is that the reason that he even got involved with the civil rights movement of South Africa was because he published something in his news paper about Steve Biko that was incorrect. Steve Biko was another major contributor to helping black africans get their rights. But anyway, Woods said something negative about Biko and a woman that is friends with Biko came and confronted him about it. She said that the only way to actually know Biko and be able to publish truth about him is if you actually meet him. So that is what Donald Woods did and that is how me became involved with racial equality in South Africa. But Donald Wood went to great lengths to help the black africans. He got banned and basically was put on house arrest for five years. He could only talk with family members or one person that is not a family member at a time. And he could not leave his house without guards. How was he supposed to support his family if he doesn't have a job? The reason that he got banned was because he took photos of the dead Steve Biko so that he could publish them and show the world that the police killed him. The police were saying that Biko went on a hunger strike in jail and that is how he died but the photos proved otherwise. But another thing that he did was escape South Africa so that he could publish a book about what really happened to Biko and what was happening in South Africa. The Apartheid and South Africa wasn't getting very much international attention and this book helped to bring awareness. I can't imagine leaving my house and country to go to England just to publish  a book. It just shows that Donald Woods was a very dedicated person and had a very good sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Apartheid

 Before talking the movie and talking about it in class, I didn't know very much about Apartheid and what was going on in South Africa. I feel like the issue in South Africa with the Apartheid and all is not really taught  in school as much as american civil rights and that sort of thing. Maybe it is because the civil rights movement actually happened in america so it has more relevancy to us then something that happened in South Africa would. But really, what was going on in South Africa was a much bigger issue then Jim Crowe Laws and racial injustice here were. And that fact that it lasted for so long is kind of astounding to me. I am pretty sure the civil rights movement in America did not last for nearly as long as the Apartheid did. It's funny (not really though) that people here made and are making such a huge deal of racial inequality here when what was going on in South Africa was ten times worse and lasted much longer. Watching the movie about this has been really eye opening because, like I said, I knew very little about the Apartheid. But, to be honest, I was not really surprised by what I saw because I have learned about pretty much the same thing, with different levels of severity, time and time again. I really hate to say that, and i am not saying it isn't bad I am just saying it is semi-common. Civil Rights Movement, Holocaust, Women during the Witch trials in Europe, and many more that was just to name a few. So all of this leads me to wonder, is it a matter of human nature? Or coincidence, I think not. I am not saying the history repeats it's self, because actually it doesn't (and I technically can't really say that in this blog) so that is why it is human nature. I hate to say that it is because I am human so maybe it should be called only-some-humans-nature. But seriously, when people have power they tend to want more power and want to stay in power. And by controlling a major group of people, like the blacks in South Africa, it allows the white people to stay in power and even gain more power. They can basically do whatever they want, it's as if rules don't apply to them, because they kind of don't. It is kind of like that mean girl in seventh grade that had the whole group of followers and then the people that she made fun of. Its because she was insecure with herself so she puts other people down so she can feel better about herself. The Apartheid is kind of like that except blown up times a billion with so many more dimensions.

Do vs. Do Not

So how did "Do Not" become "Do" over the course of history and what does that even mean. When I hear it, I think of the parenting tactic my dad always used on my brother and I. It's like when a child is say kicking the wall and you would really like for this child to stop. Instead of saying to the child "Do not do that, stop it right now," you would instead say "Hey, you should come over here and color." Instead of telling them they can't do something, give them an alternative thing to do. This does two things and helps you in two ways. First, it distracts them from what they are doing and second, it prevents them from getting angry with you fro telling them to stop what they are doing. The only down side to this is, it would only work about half of the time because when you are not strict with the child they won't be afraid to say that they would rather kick the wall then color in a coloring book. This leaves you in a rather difficult situation where you have to decide whether or not you are going to get mad at the child and tell them they need to stop or if you are just going to let them keep kicking the wall. 

The reading assigned a couple of days ago talks a lot about Gandhi and his teachings. Ahimsa, the concept meaning non-violence, is something that I actually hear a lot about in yoga. But I never actually knew what it came from so it was interesting to learn that the belief came from Gandhi. Because Gandhi is also someone that I hear a lot about. So Gandhi used non-violence to protest against the British imperialists, which is very similar to what Martin Luther King did to gain civil rights for the African Americans. The idea of "Do" instead of "Do Not" came into play when Gandhi developed his new beliefs. ""Do" instead of "Do Not" in religion is the difference between following a set of given laws and taking action to make things right. It is really interesting to learn about how that shift was made because it makes you realize that this society is "Do Not" society instead a "Do" society. And I say that meaning the laws. But I guess our government does take action about certain things, but only if our national security is at risk. But with that, not everything is peaceful so our society is a very non-teaching-of-Gandhi type of society. 

Religion Enhances Your Morality?

Religion Enhances Your Morality?


The class was split up into groups and each group read a different reading about ethic and religion. One was about how religion has everything to do with morality and ethics, another argued that ethics and morality have nothing to do with religion. My reading, argued that religion can "enrich" morality. It says that you can be a good person and still be atheist or agnostic but you just don't have the added bonus of being religiously moral. it says pretty much that one can not fully understand how to have morality unless they are religious in which case they can do moral things in the name of religion. In most religions, there lives the idea of "you will get everything you deserve based on the things you have done." In Hinduism it is Karma, in Christianity, it is heaven and hell. That kind of goes with the whole moral thing and in the reading it says that if you are a person of good will then god will be good to us and give you what you deserve. It also doesn't really state whether or not the author believes in god. "If God Exists,...." and "If God Created Us...." The author isn't really helping his cause saying that god might not actually be real.  Question that is brought up in the reading is "Why should I be moral, when I can get away with being immoral?" I think to answer this in the terms of the reading goes back to the idea of everyone will get what they deserve, they will be punished for the immoral things they do and rewarded for the moral things they do. Even though this reading is supposed to be about how religion can help you with being moral, I do not really think that it talks very much about people being immoral. The author kind of already assumes that everyone who would be reading this is religious.


 Now, do I agree with this argument? Not really. By not being a really religious person, it does not really apply to me, even though it is semi-directed at people like me. But if you do not believe in god then when someone tells you god will be mad at you, it means nothing because to you there is no god. I am not saying that I do not believe in god, I am just saying that for people who don't. I don't really know if I believe in god, so I guess I would have to figure that out before I say whether or not I believe this. But if there is a god, then isn't god supposed to love all people? I mean, the reading talked about that  but if god loved all people then all people would be rewarded no matter what. I feel like people just like to make up their own rules and beliefs about religion. They believe some things but do not believe other things, Kind of like selective hearing but not actual hearing more like selective learning. Is that a thing? But back to religion. People just do what they want and what fits in their religious agenda. And they believe what they want to believe in religion but yet they still call themselves religious. I don't really get that. That is why I don't consider myself religious, I don't believe everything that religion tells me I should believe. 

The Agent of the Powerless

After we have been learning, for a few weeks now, about how religion can be used to aid the powerful, we have transitioned into learning about how it helps the powerless. An example of how it helped the powerful were how Pope Urban said that everyone had to fight in order to be accepted in the religious community and to go to heaven. He basically said that is people fight in the Crusade then all of there sins will be canceled out and they will have an automatic ticket to heaven. He used his power to get the word out about this and he used religion as the platform for a political issue. People such as Martin Luther King Jr., people who were not very powerful, used religion to help them, hence "religion as an agent to the powerless." He used religion as his platform as well but he was also a pastor at a baptist church so that helped to get the word out about his intentions on civil rights. 
Now, how did religion shift from being an agent to the powerful to being an agent to the powerless? Well, it all started with Martin Luther, the man who started the protestant church. They were the rebels against the Catholic Church. 
"In your opinion, does religion have an inherent “goodness” or “badness” or is it simply a medium that can be manipulated in every way?"
To answer this question in short, badness. I am Christian but kind of not. I celebrate Christmas but that is because Jesus was a good person who did pretty amazing things and also I like getting presents. But really, like I have said maybe ten thousand times before, religion is used as an excuse to do things. Like terrorists, who don't like Americans, bombed New York and said that they were doing it for religious reasons, or even just saying you can't attend something because of "religious purposes" I have heard that one plenty of times. Put plainly, religion is just used to keep and/or gain power. I don't want to go into an entire rant about this because I could write for hours but seriously, back to the question at hand. I could see religion as a medium that can be manipulated because not all people use religion to gain power or as an excuse for certain things. Some people use it to give themselves hope and reason to live life with a positive attitude and I would never want to argue that that is not true. I just think that if religion is "put into the wrong hands" then it can be used for bad. So I guess that is just religion being manipulated.

Inquisition

Today we talked about Inquisition and what inquisition is. Last night we were split up into groups and each group read two different readings. We were all put into our groups and we talked about the reading about Inquisition and we came up with a few main points. The system of Inquisition was basically a way to identify heresy or other things that could pose as a threat to their religion or, more importantly their judicial system. They used religion as an excuse (yet again) to question people and get them back on the same page as the government. Inquisitors, we found, were rather similar to missionaries except instead of trying to get people to convert they were, essentially,  trying to get people to agree with them. They were like more specialized missionaries, in a way. Inquisition seems like it was a lot like interrogation and actually another comparison that we found was between the Inquisitors and the Stasi. Like the Stasi, inquisitors chose who they were going to interrogate based on superstition about this person and their beliefs, and that was what the Stasi did. People who were suspected of not following the primary religious fold and found guilty were then apprehended and changed if not killed. Sometimes these people were tortured in order to either get them to confess to believing differently them the main religious fold or to force the main ideas of the religious fold upon them. Either way this gave the government and the inquisitors power because they are forcing people to believe in what they want them to believe in.

Missionaries

Last night we read a reading about missionaries and how for different religions, missionaries' tactics were different. Then later in class we discussed the motive, method and difference for each of the different religions' missionaries. Even the basic motive for Christianity, Islam and Buddhism was to recruit and get people to convert to there religion. But the way each of these religions did this is what varied.
Christianity: The Christian missionaries truly thought that they were doing something good for the world and for the people they are having convert. They believed that if people were not Christian, then they would die and go to hell. So basically they were saying convert or die.
Islam: They pretty much used force to get people to convert to Islam. They wanted more followers to get stung and forcing people was the only way.
Buddhism: They just wanted everyone and everything to be peaceful and live in tandem with each other. They used peaceful, non-violent methods to teach people about Buddhism and try to get them to convert. They believed in diversity which is a more polytheistic notion and this helped to attract people to this religion.
Some of the main methods that all missionaries used were to go to different places, such as Africa and Asia to help spread the word about their religion. The government also sometimes played a role in getting people to convert. The government often times played such a large role in this process because they sometimes wanted people to convert to their religion because of political reasons and to gain political power.  Even though missionaries weren't all violent, they led the people that are trying to convert to think that their religion that they are promoting is the only religion that god will approve of. So basically to sum things up, all three of these religions used different tactics to gain followers and to get people to convert to their religion. Islam used a more violent and forceful way to get people to convert. Christianity wasn't always forceful but would threat the people they are trying to get to convert and use scare tactics. Buddhists were the most peaceful of all missionaries and they just wanted people to know about Buddhism so they could then convert if they so choose.