Ideas for next year's course

Next year, we will indeed get to the global conflicts earlier in the semester. We will stick to the Israeli/Palestinian issue to begin with, but we will look at British involvement in the area more closely through an examination of T.E. Lawrence, both in the Arab revolt and at the Paris Peace Conference, then go on to look at the Zionist movement and the creation of the state of Israel, ending with the big peace summit assignment.
Please post comments and suggestions!

Excellent video on Lebanon

Anthony Bourdain is a chef and travel writer who was filming a show on the recovery of Beirut's food scene when he and his crew get trapped in the outbreak of fighting with Israel. Worth a look for the sense of loss and tragedy he captures.
No Reservations: Beirut

Israel/Palestine

President Bush's speech to the Knesset in honor of Israel's 60th anniversary. Full text of the speech is available here.

Saudi social restrictions

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/world/middleeast/12saudi.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

- Neat article from today's Times

Isreali/ Palestine

Before the Great War the Middle East was ruled under one empire, the Ottoman Empire. But when conflict started it opened up doors to separation, unwilling to close. The Ottoman Empire was up against some of the world’s most powerful countries: Britain, France, Italy, Russia and eventually United states. Winning the war, the Allied forces, consisted of both a powerful military force and powerful ideas/compromises. The Allied powers were determined to win the war, which lead to go to the highest of the highs to accomplish there goals and keep their promises to the Jew and Arabs. The consequences of their actions lead to a continuation of conflict between nations in the Middle East.
Before the war was over the British and the French came to an agreement about what would take place with the Empire when the war was over. This secret agreement is known as the Sykes-Picot Accord. The contents of this concord said that the Ottoman Empire would be split between the British and the French once the war came to a complete stop. Looking beyond this settlement, in 1917 the British promised a home for the Jews, the Balfour Declaration, in order to win over their support in the war. At the same time the British gained support from Arabs in Mecca under the leadership of Sharif Hussein, in return the British would grant them
Palestine and they could be independently ruled. Along with this split of nations, both having their own piece of land, at the end of the war, Saudi Arabia decided not to join the League of Nations and Turkey established a republic in order to stay out of the international conflicts. The large Middle East formally ruled under one empire then broke up into many pieces that within time began to have much conflict with one another. Along with the devastation of separation there was also a large amount of wasteland because of the many battles fought in the area. Not only were the people separated but the war resulted in a lot of economic trouble for everyone.
The terms of the agreements were not deliberated thoroughly before any action was taken. Because today we can see that each agreement has many careless errors that didn’t affect the British and French but it profoundly affects the people that live in the Middle East today. The decision to split Palestine into three, in order to return the favor to the Jews and Arabs, was one of the worst decisions made. The conflict over land continues today because of the issue of ownership of Jerusalem and complete control of Palestine. The effect of WWI and the peace agreements that were made shaped the Middle East to lag behind in technology and modern thoughts about how a society should be ran. This Area is very much separated by religion and conflict which in the end does not allow room for modernization. Due to the many conflicts with in the Middle East and its resentment towards the west, this area will always be many steps behind the other parts of the world.

Israel/Palestine

#2

Zionism is, at its core, a belief in the need for a homeland for the Jewish people. The movement, which was formally begun by Theodor Herzl, was originally a response to strong anti-Semitism across Europe and quickly gained support following the Holocaust and became the dominant Jewish political movement.

In 1917, however, this movement became much more significant with the Balfour Declaration, which supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This declaration was formulated by the British government and was formally agreed upon by the League of Nations (what would become the U.N.)

Meanwhile, Arabs in Arab Palestinians resisted this declaration from the very beginning. Before World War I, Arab nationalism was relatively moderate and the generally only called for increased autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. However, During World War I, the Arab leader Hussein bin Ali corresponded with the British High Commissioner in Egypt during what is known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. Although this correspondence did not result in a written treaty and the territorial boundaries laid out by the letters were ambiguous, McMahon's promises were seen by the Arabs as a formal agreement between them and Great Britain. At the same time, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was formed between Britain and France which agreed upon the division of the Arab lands between the two powerful countries. This agreement was followed through with, and in the following years, Arab nationalism became focused around anti-British rule sentiments.

Imperialism, Nationalism, and Terrorism

Imperialism and nationalism are in stark contradiction of each other. Imperialism seeks to dominate and control a nation, essentially eliminate national identity through submission, while nationalism serves to empower national identity and inspire unity therein.  Powerful cultures have established rule over the weak throughout history, always asserting authority and control over their subjects.  Even if the ruling power does not force assimilation on its subjects, there are always laws that command submission and privileges for the dominant culture that elevate their people.  In the Islamic Empire, Muslims did not have to pay taxes, but instead had the honor of serving in the very successful Muslim army.  During the British Empire, the English made a valuable global market of slave trade and slave labor.  In a more abstract sense of “empire,” the U.S. has established control over weaker countries in its history.  It has controlled the Philippines as a colony and Puerto Rico as a territory, and has covertly controlled power changes to work in its favor in many countries.

It is almost impossible to promote nationalism with the control and submission inherent to imperialism.  A submissive government works beneath a superior control, and therefore cannot control its interests and agenda.  If the government does not work toward the advancement of its own culture, it squashes nationalism. Beyond inspiring pride, nationalism inspires revolution and fights for political power.  Throughout history, nationalism is constantly seen to be a cause for overthrow, independence, and domineering militancy.  The U.S., the Palestinians, and the Nazis are clear examples of this. 

This is where terrorism comes into play.  If nationalism can cause violent revolution and mass genocide, it can cause terrorism.  It is widely accepted in the world today that every culture has the right to its own state and government.  Conflict over this issue can be seen with Tibet, the Balkans, and Israel/Palestine.  In weakness and desperation, terrorism is sometimes seen as the only way for a group to gain the upper hand in a conflict.

The Middle East is the product of a broken empire, facing the struggle of forging independent national identities and acting upon these identities.  While territorial warfare was common and accepted in ancient times, it is presently unacceptable.  Those who have not yet forged nations face more than simple territorial warfare.  On top of warfare, they must navigate through global politics, economics, diplomacy, and morality.  In conflicts like that of Israel and Palestine, parties resort openly to terrorism because it has become an inherent part of the battle.

Nationalism, Imperialism, Terrorism

It seems as if throughout history Imperialism leads to Nationalism which leads to Terrorism. An imperialist state begins conquering other areas and while people from all different social, political and religious backgrounds mix together, the need for social distinctions arise and people being to identify themselves with a certain land or area. Then these nations either aggressively fight for their own state (if they don’t have one) or aggressively defend it (if they can already claim a state as their own). This aggression has often been magnified to the extent that extremists take their nationalist action a couple steps too far, committing acts of terrorism in the name of their nation/state.
The Middle East has been shaped significantly by Nationalism and Imperialism and is being greatly impacted by Terrorism now. Outside nations (The US, for example) exert control over the Middle East because they have what we need the most, oil. When extremist groups committed acts of Terrorism the rest of the world responded in such a way that the Middle Eastern nations, rather than solely the extremist groups, looked like ones at fault. The nationalist ideas currently present in the Middle East have created enough conflict that it has become an international conflict.

Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/world/middleeast/22mideast.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=syria+israel&st=nyt&oref=slogin

here's the link.

Palestine and Israel: How Zionism and Nationalism Influenced the Conflict

Although the Zionist movement occurred in response to growing antagonism towards Jews in Europe, the movement also contributed to modern day conflicts between Israel and Palestine and the conflicts between Israel and the Middle East. The Zionist movement was founded by Theodore Herzl in the 1890s, and the primary goal was to establish a Jewish nation, born of nationalism, not religion. For Jews experiencing anti-Semitism in Europe, the development of a Jewish state was necessary; however, the location of the state, which was determined by the British during and after World War II, posed significant problems for the Middle East.
The Middle East, which was developing at the time of the creation of Israel, was also influenced by the British government. The British government, which promised the geographic region of Palestine/Israel to both the Arab Muslims and the Jews, based their actions on the Zionist movement and the ideas put forth by Theodore Herzl. By placing a Jewish state in the then developing Middle East which so politically, socially and religiously contrasted the surrounding counties, the Middle East came into its own identity to withstand significant differences with the Jewish state. Because the Jewish state was created on the basis of nationalism, it was fought with nationalism. The need for nationalism arises, such as it did in Europe for the Jew, when one self-proclaimed nationality becomes a strong presence in a specific area, thus recreating the demographics on a large scale.
By placing two developing groups in one area of the world, the British were essentially setting the stage for conflict. The Zionist movement, which began the move of Jews to the Middle East, is paralleled in the growth of nationalism throughout the Arab-Muslim Middle East. The rise of nationalism within any group comes from oppression, example or conflict.

Israel/Palestine

Q1 how the world war I and the peace conference that followed shaped today's middle east
World War I, occurred in 1914 as the result of European nationalist tension, was the primary starter of the actual territorial tension between Arabs and the Jews within Middle East. The peace conference (Versailles Treaty) that followed and the Britain’s role in both war and the treaty directly shaped what became of today’s conflict and territorial outline of the Middle East.
World War I was the conflict between the Allied force (France, Britain, and Russia) and the Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Ottoman Empire. In fact, the prevalent nationalistic idea seems to have given the nations some justification to occupy the opponent’s land. During the war, anticipating an obvious victory, the Britain and France had a secret agreement, Sykes-Picot Agreement(1916), to take Ottoman and divide its land into pieces under their controls after the war. To accomplish this agreement, Britain made promises to Arabic tribes their independent nations for helping Allied Forces occupy Ottoman Empire. This was the first actual involvement of European power into Arabian territories, which later eventually caused the prolonged territorial conflicts in the Middle East. In addition to Sykes-Picot Agreement, in 1917, the British made another promise to Jews to give them Palestine, their biblical “homeland,” through Balfour Declaration: which contradicted their first promise to the Arabs. Such dual, contradictory promises were the direct cause of the later huge confusion in the Middle East.
After the World War I, the Treaty of Versailles resulted in the League of Nations and carved up Middle East into the nations that had not existed before. Palestine became British protectorate along with many other Arab nations, while Saudi, Iraq, and Egypt became independent. On the other hand, the League of Nations recognized Zionism and the Jews’ right to occupy Palestine. With this trend, more than 40 thousand Jews immigrated into Palestine before World War II and caused a great confusion in Palestinian land in which a number of Arabs had settled for centuries. The increasing tension between Arabs and Jews in Palestine made the serious territorial conflict inevitable.
In fact, after World War II, as the Europeans give up colonies including Arabic nations, the Palestinian Arabs’ situation got even worse. As Britain gave up Palestine as its protectorate, British supported establishing Israel nation of Jews in Palestinian land. Furthermore, Zionism—the need of Jewish nation—met an enormous boost as the result of holocaust, and thus Palestine became more likely to be occupied by Jews. The tension did not get resolved despite UN’s suggestion of dual countries(Israel AND Palestine), and it resulted in Arab-Israeli war in 1948.
In fact, the Arabic conflict in the post-World War II is only the continuation of the tension formed during and after the WWI. The direct cause of today’s situation in the Middle East would be Britain’s dual promises to 1) win the war and occupy lands in Ottoman Empire and 2)recognize biblical order & Zionism for the Jews, during and after the WWI. Britain’s such lapse directly resulted in such a prolonged territorial conflict in the Middle East.

Nationalistic terrorism: imperialism’s Middle Eastern legacy

An article from the Economist's recent special report on Israel, describing instability in its military institution. http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10909916&CFID=4457665&CFTOKEN=95384609


Imperialism and nationalism are highly related, occurring as separate manifestations of the same impulse in the same group. Nationalism is a particularly vehement and exclusive way of identifying (or identifying with) a cohesive group and asserting that group’s right to rule itself. Nationalistic identity formation may arise in reaction to imperialism, when one nation exerts political, military, or economic control over another group, such as colonization. Circularly, imperialism is rooted in nationalism, in the belief that as one’s own group rules itself, so it should rule inferior nations and reap their economic bounty. However, nationalism is not necessarily imperialistic, and often is not, because not every nationalistic group commands sufficient power to control others. Terrorism, unsanctioned political violence, can be a response to imperialism, or an outgrowth of nationalism. In the latter case, it could be a way of expressing a particular group’s presence and encouraging (or threatening) action on its behalf.

The modern Middle East, though free of imperial colonization, still bears its traces, in its borders, languages, and cuisine. In response to occupation, initially by European imperialists, then by immigrant Jews, diverse Arab ethnic groups have coalesced into more cohesive nationalist ones. Within the modern state of Israel, imperialism and nationalism feed off one another and the promise of Zionism. The conflict to determine Israel’s borders erupts into both official wars and nongovernmental terrorism. Conflict and distinct enemies only sow further nationalistic cohesion, and greater commitment to imperialism. The often violent interaction of nationalist, imperialist, and terrorist groups creates the Middle East’s explosive and uncertain mixture of identity politics.

Israel/Palestine

2. Why did the Zionist movement set the stage for the long-term conflict in the Middle East and contribute to the rise of Arab Nationalism and the creation of Palestinian identity?

Theodor Herzl’s Zionism states the necessity of an independent Jewish state, an argument that rose to popularity after WWII, a time of great sympathy for Jews. Although Herzl never specifically cites a Jewish right to Israel, and Jews hadn’t had control for Israel for hundreds of years, Israel was partitioned by the UN after WWII into the Jewish state Israel and the Arab state of Palestine.

Arabs living in Israel essentially had no choice but to let a league of Western nations partition Arab land for the Jews, a people whom the Westerners didn’t even treat well themselves, on the claim that the Jewish race has a birth-right to the land that Arabs, Romans and Ottomans had been in control of for previous centuries. However, not all Isreali Arabs were against partition, as almost a third of Arabs living in Israel at the time were Jewish. However, Israeli Arabs and most other Arab leaders opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Israel as the majority of Israeli Arabs who were not Jewish would be trapped in a Jewish state.

But as the UN partitioned Israel in 1947, other Arab nations besides Palestine became angered at the impertinence of the UN and of the new state of Israel. Non-Jewish Israeli Arabs found themselves pushed out of Israel to make way for floods of Jewish immigrants, and pushed back across UN-decreed borders into the comparatively small state of Palestine. Surrounding Arab nations like Jordan and Syria were faced with Israeli Arab refugees seeking to avoid the tension rising between Jewish Israel and Palestine as Israel declared its full independence in 1948.
Arabs forced into Palestine began to identify Israel as the enemy during the Israeli-Arab war of 1948, and began to call themselves Palestinians to differentiate themselves from the Jewish people. Pan-Arab nationalists fed on the fire of the problematic Jewish state of Israel to argue the cause of a Pan-Arab state; a state that would include the lands of Palestine, an area that chose to maintain culturally Arab in the face of potential Jewish influence. Arab nations including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt all backed Palestine in its fight against the Jews who had pushed fellow Arabs out of Arabian territory of pre-partition Israel.

Although Herzl never claimed Jews to have a right to Israel as his “Jewish state”, the UN’s partition of Israel and subsequent displacement of the majority of Arabs living in Israel set, sparked and fed a dispute that would involve all Arab nations. During a time of heightened nationalism all around the world, the dispute between Israel and Palestine logically follows the general political trend of the 1940’s, as well as the age-old arguments over these culturally-rich territories.

article

This is an article written last week about how the Middle East (in this article, Iran) is trying to limit Western influences on their culture. A top Iranian judiciary official stated that Western toys were putting "the personality and identity of the new generation and our children at risk" and causing "irreparable damages."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/29/iran.barbie.ap/index.html

Israel/Palestine

Historically, what is the relationship between Imperialism, Nationalism and Terrorism and how have these ideas/movements shaped the modern Middle East?

Nationalism is a reaction against Imperialism, and Terrorism is sometimes used as a means to a Nationalist end. When many different peoples are controlled by one dominant power through an empire, they often feel like they aren't being culturally or religiously represented in government. They therefore begin thinking about having their own state, and Nationalism becomes the answer to their opression. However, empires are not usually willing to give up territory for the creation of new states, and when a group of people are filled with Nationalist fervor they may use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals, even Terrorism.

The Middle East was bound to have a strong Nationalist reaction, because it has been a part of various large empires for over 2000 years. It was bounced between the Romans, the Muslims, the Ottomans, and finally the British, before having the chance to establish independent countries in the 20th century. When that opportunity finally came, an influx of foreign Jews upset the process, and united an otherwise loosely identified "Arab people." The Jews themselves were driven into the region because of nationalism, and were unwilling to leave because they felt entitled to their own nation.

The current situation in the Middle East is bleak: Jews and Muslims employ violence and Terrorism driven by excessive Nationalism to control the same small plot of land. The issue wouldn't be so difficult to settle if their Nationalism didn't also have a religious motivation, but unfortunately religion ties both groups the region, making them unwilling to compromise territory. Israel/Palestine is destabalized further by the Terrorism that is fueled by Nationalism, which was set up by the Imperialism that defined the region for so long.

Israel-Palestine #1


Right before World War I, nationalism and Zionism were sweeping through Europe. With this desire of freedom for occupied nations, World War I erupted in 1914 and flung the world into turmoil. Britain, France and Russia were against Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire (which contained the Middle East). The outcome of WWI, the peace conference in Paris, and Britain’s role in these events formed the outlines of the Middle East of today.

While physical battles were occurring throughout Europe, secret scheming was taking place between Britain and France. Foreseeing their victory in WWI, France and Britain signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. Under this treaty the Ottoman Empire was broken into “Zones of Influence” to be ruled by the Allied Powers, with Britain controlling the land called Palestine. A year later in the Balfour Declaration the British promised Palestine to the Jews to contribute to the establishment of a Jewish homeland. In addition to promising the Jews Palestine, the British also gave their word that they would help create an independent Arab state if the Arabs would, in turn, help the British by rebelling against the Ottoman Turks in Arabia. Thus Palestine, later to become Israel, has been called the "Thrice Promised Land". With the end of the war in 1918, it was time for Britain to uphold its promises: to give the Jews the protectorate of Palestine and to help create an independent Arab state.

The Paris Peace Conference in 1919 after the end of WWI resulted in the creation of the League of Nations and the division of the Middle East. Britain now controlled Palestine, most of the Arabian Peninsula and Transjordan, and France controlled present-day Syria and Lebanon. In addition, nations such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia proclaimed independence. The League of Nations recognized Jews' right to settle in Palestine, while the people already settle there (of various Arab-Muslim decent) became increasingly angry with this massive migration of Jews into their land. After WWII, the UN suggested creating one state for the Jews and one for the Palestinians, but the Arabs already living there rejected this plan. Thus, because Britain promised Palestine to the Jews, while also promising to help create a free Arab state during WWI, territorial conflict over Palestine was to be expected. Eventually, Palestine was given to the Jews by Britain officially around 1949, forcing many Palestinians into refugee camps. Now, one topic of controversy is what territory Israel includes. Some believe the Jews have a right to own the land according to Biblical borders, while others go by what Britain's protectorate consisted of. The rest of the Middle East, however, does not even recognize Israel as a state, let alone think of what its borders are.


Since I will not be in class tomorrow, here is the link to my article:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/02/africa/israel.php

Israel/Palestine

The outline of today’s Middle East is largely a factor of World War I, the destruction of the long-standing Ottoman Empire, and the Paris Peace Conference held in 1919 by the Allied Powers. In 1914, the Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austro-Hungary against the Allied Powers due to increasing German pressure and the Turkish nationalist desire to expand the Turkish Empire. Instead, by 1918, the entire Ottoman Empire was destroyed as a result of the Allied Powers’ victory and the vast body of land was to be divided and distributed in accordance with British desire. However, by the time of the Paris Peace Conference, the British had already promised the land to three different recipients on three different occasions. The Sykes-Picot Accord (1916) was a small side meeting in which the British promised to divide up the conquered land between themselves and the French. In 1917, the British then turned around and promised the Jews a national homeland in the area now known as Palestine. The third and final negotiation the British made, called the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, was with Arab leader Sharif Hussein in which the British pledged their help and support in the creation of an Arab state once the war came to an end. These three promises inevitably came back to haunt the British when it came time to actually divide the land and all three groups (French, Jews, and Arabs) waited expectantly for their promises to be fulfilled.
Syria and Lebanon were given to the French, and the British had control over Palestine and Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq and Kuwait). Originally the plan between the British and newly formed League of Nations was to enact the Palestine Mandate which would allow a homeland for the Jews, but this plan went poorly because it caused a massive uproar from already existent Arabs in the land of Palestine. Eventually, despite a proposal of a possible two-state nation in Palestine, the Jews claimed Israel and have held their claim on it ever since. Despite the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Middle East’s general refusal to recognize Israel as its own state, the outline and borders of the Middle East created by the British have remained largely intact.

Here is an article written today about Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7384223.stm

Imperialism, Nationalism and Terrorism

Historically, imperialism has fueled nationalism, which has fueled terrorism. Powerful countries begin to enforce the politics and even control other countries, which eventually causes friction between the citizens of that country or area. The inhabitants of the country feel that they deserve to govern themselves, especially if the imperialist country over-steps it's reign over it's country and benefits from the country's success under their new stability. Natives of the country want to rule the country themselves, so they begin to focus their identities into a cohesive whole. The controlers of the territory usually don't support these nationalist sentiments, and sometimes decide to stifle nationalist agression by putting pressure on nationalists and sometimes using force against them. The revolutionaries then respond with equal force and agression, which often occurs in the form of terrorism.

After World War II there was an end to old European imperialism, which left artificial boarders around territory where nationalist sentiments had been growing. Arbituary allocation of territiry previously controlled directly or influenced by industrial European powers left certain domestic groups in control of new territories. Groups that identified themselves by ethnicity, religion, or geographcal location began to fight over territory such as the Suez canal and Palestine, which had formerly been under the control of other countries. Some communities (Palestine, for example) found themselves under the control of others who were given control of their territory as an attempt towards reconciliation and stability in the region. Great numbers of people found themselves isolated in their previous homes, without jobs or the amount of livelhood they had had, even under the control of imperialist countries. This caused the people in regions under Israeli control to turn to terrorism to get their attention and be heard. In the end, the terrorist problem in Israel is the result of friction caused in the middle east after the second world war as countries poorly delegated old imperalist territory and underestimated the unity and identity if it's peoples.

Israeli- Palestinian Conflict

Question 2
The Israeli – Palestinian conflict in the Middle East can be traced back to the Zionist movement which began in 1897. The leader of the movement Theodor Herzl became convinced during the Dreyfus affair that Jews needed a state of their own in order to survive in the modern world. Herzl states that “I consider the issue of the Jews neither in social nor religious terms… It is a national issue.” Nationalism was sweeping Europe and many Jews began to support Herzl’s desire for a Jewish nation.

At the end of World War I the Allies began to split up the old territories of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. The British promised Jews Israel in the Balfour Declaration, but also promised Israel to Arab tribes who helped fight the Ottomans in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. The French also felt that they had claim to the territory due to the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Thus Israel was nicknamed the “Thrice Promised Land” foreshadowing the later conflict.

The land which would become Israel was previously named Palestine. The Arabs who lived in these territories did not call themselves Palestinians but instead associated themselves with other Arab nations. As more Jews immigrated to Israel during the years between World War I and World War II the native Arabs began to unite around an anti-Jewish movement. At the end of World War II the British gave up the providence of Israel to complete Jewish control. Jews finally had a home land that was recognized as a nation by the Allied forces. To avoid conflict the UN decided to split Palestine into two nations, Israel and a Palestinian nation. But the Arabs did not agree to this agreement made by the UN. Instead war broke out between the Israeli’s and the neighboring Arab nations, who were harboring many Palestinian refugees. Israel ended up winning these wars due to their advanced military funded by the United States.

Thus the end of World War II and the establishment of Israel led to the rise of Arab nationalism. Palestinian identity formed, rather than because of regional similarities, but as a way to unite against a common enemy, the Israelis. In the 70’s the Palestinian Liberation Organization, was founded. The PLO led many terrorist actions against Israel. The conflict is still unsolved. Now the Palestinians have been put in a position much like that of the early Zionist Jews, desperately fighting for a homeland.

Israel/Palestine Response Paper

Choose one of the questions below and respond in a brief, well-constructed, concisely argued essay. Please post with an "Israel/Palestine" label.

1. How did World War I and the peace conference that followed shape the outlines of today's Middle East?

2. Why did the Zionist movement set the stage for the long-term conflict in the Middle East and contribute to the rise of Arab Nationalism and the creation of Palestinian identity?

3. Historically, what is the relationship between Imperialism, Nationalism and Terrorism and how have these ideas/movements shaped the modern Middle East?

Discrimination against Muslims in a NYC school

Be sure to read this fascinating article about a school in NYC intended to promote cultural awareness and sensitivity between Arab and non-Arab children that has faced so much anti-Islamic activism that its principal has been forced to step down. Excellent glimpse into the subtlety of American attitudes towards Islam.

Oh hai! Can haz Revelashunz!

Here is the Bible, translated into lolcat. http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

"At start, no has lite. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz."

[For further illustration of lolcat, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcats. ]

The Pope's Visit

For anyone interested in religion in the modern world, you have the opportunity at the moment to explore a ton of media coverage in response to Pope Benedict's upcoming visit to the United States, the first of his papacy. I'm pretty sure Jesus and his followers would have had a hard time envisioning the Pope saying mass in Yankee Stadium (though I suppose the Roman Colosseum and Yankee Stadium really aren't that different), and I thought I would also post an image of the new Pope-mobile (a bullet-proof Mercedes in honor of the Pope's German heritage), which I'm really sure the first Christians wouldn't have been able to imagine. Here's a NYTimes article on Benedict's most recent comments about the sex abuse scandal in the US church

Christianity

If someone with the equivalent of Jesus' social status, from a region of the world equivalent to Galilee, were to begin teaching a social and political message similar to Jesus' in the modern world (stick with Europe, the US or Latin America), how would that person be received by others? What does your response tell you about the influence of Jesus' ideas?

 

 

It is hard to say how a message like Jesus’ would be received by the western world today.  First, someone preaching a message similar to that of Jesus would have certain advantages—i.e. global communication, laws of religious tolerance.  It would be easy to spread his message, and I’m guessing he would not have to worry much about crucifixion.

However, religion is not the major force and focus that it was in Jesus’ time.  Serious religious devotion and practice in America is scarce relative to other countries, and it is not focused to one religion.  With significantly less religious attentiveness, it would be hard for a religious message to grow the way Jesus’ did.  It would also be difficult to pull people from their many different faiths and unite them under a common teaching.  Furthermore, religion has an increasingly negative connotation in America, what with political correctness.  The youth especially is struggling with and diverging from their inherited beliefs, and religion altogether.  Social revolutions generally take root in society’s youth, but I think a rising religious leader would be met with hostility.

            America’s secularism could, however, be used as an advantage.  Given that Christian morality is an underlying foundation of western culture, a message of charity and forgiveness is easily applicable to western society.  With a message as compatible to western culture as that of Jesus, it would be easy to inspire the godless masses of the US.  It is human nature to look to a higher authority for guidance, especially when in a lowly state.  America has an ever-growing lower class that would easily be predisposed to a utopian message of forgiveness and charity.

            Jesus’ message grew so influential partly by chance, making it hard to speculate what would happen today.  Though it is certain that Jesus preached to the poor and gained followers in his time, his exact message has been lost to the scripture written after his time. Christianity as a religion was not created by Jesus, but established by his followers from his teachings.  It is mostly thanks to Paul and the Jerusalem Church, which interpreted and structured the teachings of Jesus, that Christianity is a functioning religion.  Ultimately, its widespread popularity was dependent on political acceptance as well.  With such a circumstantial rise to success, who can say what could have been, or what could be now?

Christianity take 2

There are many themes in Jesus’ teachings, but the most prominent theme and perhaps the core of his teachings is forgiveness. He says, “…Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also…Do to others as you would have them do to you...Forgive, and you will be forgiven…for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.” (Luke 6: 27-38) This passage from the Gospel of Luke shows the forgiveness that is at the heart of Jesus’ teachings.

Jesus taught that forgiveness is important in this current life, for it will allow us to be rewarded in heaven by God. He stresses, however, that these acts of forgiveness must be true and made with good, pure intentions, for God’s judgment will be based upon what is in our hearts. Further, Jesus teaches that we should forgive “the ungrateful and the wicked” for they have not found the glory of God. Elaborating on this point, he teaches that we must recognize that those who don’t behave righteously are the people that need more help turning to God. This idea is the reason why he eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners; they need more guidance than the righteous do.

Another theme of Jesus’ teachings that relates to forgiveness is the concept of renouncement. Jesus teaches that we should not ask for what has been taken from us, that we should accept that we must sacrifice sometimes, and that we should give up even more to those who are in need. This surrender of material goods, or sacrifice, connects to forgiveness; we must absolve those who take from us (to whom we sacrifice) in order to be closer to God. This concept of surrender later expands into a practice of self-denial during Monastic periods.

Jesus performed many acts of kindness and taught much about forgiveness. Christians believe that Jesus’ final act of forgiveness was dying for the sins of all mankind. It is interesting that Christian crusaders, who so strongly fought for their belief in Jesus (and thus his teachings of forgiveness), seemed to have forgotten that the core of their own religion was, and remains to be, mercy and clemency.

Christianity

The bible clearly states that Jesus’ work was to cure the sick. The sick are the majority of people living long ago and today, these people include the prostitutes, substance abusers, thieves, and sinners in general. The groups described need some sort of inspiration and or guide onto a better path through life; a path that would both please God and themselves. Christianity seems to be a religion for the oppressed and depressed, a religion for people who have needs and are willing to abide by a divine law in order to live a life accepted by society.
If you read between the lines and analyze Jesus’ teaching in Luke, you can see that all fingers are pointed at the people in control (the leadership). According to the New Testament, the cause of poverty is because the leadership fails to attend to the needs of the poor and make them feel welcome. The lack of compassion and brotherliness causes the poor to turn to other methods in order to survive. The majority doesn’t have anyone or place to run to; usually “worldly things” are common sources of comfort; such as secular music, drugs/alcohol, etc. The purpose of Jesus teaching was to give comfort and also a solution to their problem. “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). To the empty stomachs and dry throats, “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled” (Luke 6:21). Those with the empty bowls don’t need to worry, the food will come to them, for they don’t have to turn from God’s will, and sin, but instead have faith and they will be blessed.
The small percentage of the population, the extremely wealthy, doesn’t encounter the same situations that the poor seem to face. Many wealthy people don’t feel the need to call on a higher power for divine intervention, because many of their problems can be solved with the material things that they already posses. Christianity speaks to those who don’t have; this religions says that it doesn’t matter what you have in your hand but what you have in your heart because that’s what truly matters for “Your reward will be great, and you will be the children of the Most high” (Luke 6:35).
Although Jesus’ teachings correspond to the problems that the poor face, it also can relate to the everyday life of the world as a whole. He talks about charity and the simple fact that giving is only good for the soul if one only gives without an expectation for something in return. Giving to charity for recognition looses the meaning of ‘charity’. The laws of Christianity and Judaism are morals that many cultures/ societies with hold today. For example, in Bible it says to not judge people, give unto others, love thy neighbor, and pray for those who abuse you. The manner that God wants his people to behave by is of peace and equality. Christianity is not solely giving praise unto God and he will show one favor, but it also helps him/her find a safe path through life. By following the path of righteousness, it would not only look good in the eyes of God but also society because the foundation of the Modern world is built on the major religions, including Christianity.

Christianity

Christianity began as a religion for the minority that was suited for oppressed outsiders. But over the years it has become a religion for the majority that is theologically suited for both the oppressed and the dominant insiders. Christianity began as a small sect of Judaism that through the acts of Paul became the dominant religion of the world. In the early days of Christianity Jesus’ teachings appealed to the commoners of Galilee. He preached “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God… Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you… for surely your reward is great in heaven (Luke 6:22-24).” Jesus obviously appealed to the poor and oppressed, while his teachings were threatening to the wealthy elite of the Jewish community. Yet again later in the Gospel of Luke Jesus emphasizes his belief that the poor are closer to the kingdom of heaven than the wealthy. Jesus says, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God (Luke 6:25-26).” At this early stage of Judaism it is hard to believe that any person of wealth would feel inclined toward this small sect of Judaism.

Today people from many different social classes are Christians. In the modern world the oppressed find comfort in Christian teachings. People of higher social status also find comfort in the moral implications of Christianity. Wealthy Christians, to follow the teachings of Jesus, must donate to charity and give away much of their wealth to help the less fortunate. But do many modern-day wealthy Christians give away most of their money to help the poor? If they don’t can they consider themselves devout Christians? If not then maybe Christianity is only suited for the oppressed and poor.

Christianity: Modern Day Jesus?

In the modern world, I believe it would be almost impossible for someone to recreate Jesus’ teaching in a way that attracts such a substantial following that Christianity is now. First of all, I don’t think such a message would be taken well in the United States, which is, at least in theory, a secular country. Specifically in the US, we have the freedom to choose whether or not to practice religion, what religion to practice, and to what extent to practice this religion. Since people have this choice, I think that most people are content with what they've chosen, and I don't think that the general population would take too kindly to a middle-class nobody proclaiming any one of these religions as incorrect or immoral.
Also, I think it's important to recognize that although Jesus undoubtedly presented a message with great appeal, I believe many external circumstances controlled the popularity with which this message was spread. For example, with his messages saying “blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”, he appealed to the suffering majority of the population of 1st century CE Israel (Luke 6:20). People who are unhappy with their present circumstances are in general, more susceptible and more open to hear messages or suggestions on how to improve their lot. Also, the popularity of Christianity after Jesus’ death was highly influenced by his followers, such as Paul, and other external factors, such as the expulsions of Jews from Israel in 70 CE.

Christianity and the Majority

Although Christianity, at the time of Jesus, only accounted for a small minority of the population in that Jesus only had a few hundred followers, it has since grown to incorporate a literal majority of the modern world’s religious individuals. During the time of Jesus, Jesus’ teachings grew from traditional Jewish beliefs, yet Jesus’ interpretation and presentation of God’s law and led the followers of Jesus to be of a particular social and economic majority. Only a small fraction of this majority in actuality associated with Jesus’ teachings, but the teachings themselves were oriented towards impoverished and poorly educated citizens; one of the most probable causes for the Temple’s dissent of Jesus and his beliefs was that Jesus was unifying a group of people who were dissatisfied with the treatment they were receiving from the leaders, who withheld that lower people were not able to mix with the upper classes. Thus, in a manner of speaking, early Christianity was not only a religion for the oppressed majority, but also a potential threat to the minority, the elite Jewish leaders.
Modern Christianity, as the religion with the largest followers, grew from early Christianity because of the work of Paul. Historically, Paul’s contribution to the growth of Christianity determined the faction between Judaism and the Church as Paul distinguished the two sects as different religions. The reaction to this was the defining moment in making Christianity the largest religion and the religion for the majority of the population, changing the identity of Christianity from the religion of the opposed to a religion of a much more stable people.

Faith vs power

Christianity’s immediate appeal is to the dispossessed, which is why it was able to take root and spread so successfully. Jesus’ message (of asceticism, humility, redemption from sin, faith’s primacy over power, acceptance of the downtrodden, equality in the eyes of God, reversal of the power structure and the meek inheriting the earth) is one that speaks most directly to sinners and the powerless, in celebrating the reverse of the materialistic assignation of status. Status on earth, associated with riches and power, does not correlate to status in heaven, which is defined by spiritual purity and godliness.

However, once Christianity reached a critical mass of followers, and ceased to become a minority sect, other aspects of its theology appealing to the powerful must have become equally, if not more, prevalent. For example, in the 4th century, when the Roman emperor Constantine converted, it probably wasn’t because he was attracted to the idea of God raising poor folk and a-casting down the proud. Likewise, how would the Church have developed such a powerful hierarchy and attained such heights of authority if the religion were unsuited to such an arrangement?

It seems that Christianity has often faced this conflict between Jesus’ teaching and ecclesiastical or political structure. The Reformation was spurred by a reaction against the church’s excesses and abuses of power. More recently, I think liberation theology has something of the same flavor, while some Protestant strains reconcile faith and prosperity with the idea of God’s favor showing itself through earthly success. While mutable enough to be appealing to those from both ends of the status spectrum, Christianity’s original message may get diluted or forgotten when its followers encounter power.

Christianity

Christianity is the largest religion in the world today; however it began as a sect of Judaism in the first century C.E. when the Roman Empire was at its peak. Christianity started as a small group of Jews who believed that Jesus was the messiah. Although it started, as a small group of followers, Christianity soon became a religion for the majority; a theology better suited for the people who were oppressed. Jesus was a teacher and was known as a worker of miracles. He healed the sick, the blind and fed the hungry. He was a man who taught all, regardless of social status. He emphasized that people should be judged by their actions rather than their status. He told all oppressed that they would be forgiven for their sins and would be rewarded if they repented. This made the religion of Christianity appeal to the oppressed outsiders that were contained within the Roman Empire.

Paul, the best-known early Christian, began as a strong minded Pharisee actively persecuting Christians. Realizing that Jesus was in fact real, he became a spokesperson for the Christians. Paul is a helpful reason that Christianity stayed alive. He helped to make the religion more appealing for the majority by traveling across the Roman Empire preaching to gentile audiences. Circumcision and the conversion to the Jewish faith seemed to be the biggest challenge in his missionary work. This is when Paul led the movement to allow gentiles to convert without first becoming Jews and following the laws of Judaism. This allowed converts to come very easily into the church. The theology that was well matched for the oppressed soon became a religion that also was a good fit for the majority, including the dominant, in the centuries to come.

Christianity

Is Christianity a religion for the minority or for the majority? Is the theology better suited to people who are oppressed outsiders, or dominant insiders?

Christianity’s themes of forgiveness and salvation lend themselves best to those in the minority. Final judgment in front of an omniscient God allows struggling groups to face the hardships of Earth. Knowing that ultimately all men will be judged in front of God (the only judge who truly matters), followers of Christianity can have the peace of mind that their suffering on Earth will not go unnoticed. Minorities can find the strength to endure injustices with the knowledge that the bountiful Christian Heaven that awaits them after life on Earth will be earned through their suffering and true faith in God’s love. Salvation is an achievement that does not come from any kind of material gain; in fact it comes from a detachment from material wealth and worldly concerns. These are attachments that minorities do not usually have, making this very philosophy of salvation easily accessible to minorities. Salvation is perhaps the central theme of Christian theology, and therefore the goal of Christian life that minorities can control for themselves. Although they may not be able to control much on Earth, minorities have complete control of their life and afterlife with God.

Jesus’ struggle as the voice of a minority in his lifetime can also be an inspiration to minority groups today. The relatability of Jesus’ life and his teachings to the struggles of minorities exists mainly because the creation of Christianity arose from another minority’s struggle. Seeing Jesus, arguably the main figure of Christianity, endure persecution and hardship makes Jesus and his teachings relatable to minorities hoping for justice within their own societies. As minorities strive to find their own voice in their respective societies, Jesus’ teachings of patience can allow minorities to take hardships as part of God’s plan, or part of their journey to Heaven. Jesus’ famous ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy can be a source of strength to minority groups facing persecution or oppression. Some sects of Christianity also emphasize the importance of the Holy Family, and familiar networks often serve as main support systems within minority groups.

1st question- christian for the oppressed or the dominant?

Jesus’ teachings in Gospel of Luke, when directly interpreted, is definitely for the oppressed people in Rome. As in the gospel of Luke, Jesus says, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now..who weep now….But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep”(Luke 6:22-24). Simply, being rich and famous is bad but the poor ones will have hope and positive future. Indeed, such claims were convincible to the oppressed class. In addition, at his time (around 4-30 CE) his teachings were considered radical because they definitely targeted at (against) the ruling, rich class of the Rome who were corrupted and not merciful to poor Jewish. (By the way, here I’m not taking into account his view of Jewish Laws) Therefore, it was obvious that Roman dominant class was not suitable to its principle.
However, after it became more widespread to Gentiles through Paul’s help, I think Christianity could become a major religion because of its appeal to the poor people, the actual majority. Even though the principles themselves wouldn’t directly fit the dominant insiders, since it denounces them, they could at least take advantage of its suitability to the majority poor people that they govern. I think Christianity must have been very useful for the governing power to rule or control the majority who think they are oppressed—philosophically most people think they are oppressed and poor. Furthermore, since the meaning of the teachings in the Bible –whether it’s Christian or not—always depends on the interpreter, so the later dominant-insiders could also twist its meaning to support their governing/rich position.

Christianity

I think if someone today were to start preaching a message like Jesus', there could be several results. My first reaction was that he would be scorned or, most likely, ignored, like the "crazy" people on street corners mentioned by a few others. However, giving it further thought, I decided that a "modern-day Jesus" could potentially be successful. First, he would have many advantages that Jesus didn't have, and if he were smart (which I think most could agree Jesus was), they could really work for him. For instance, he would have access to a much wider audience, thanks to modern technology, as well as the increased population. Even if most people thought he was crazy, he could still get a fairly large following. Take for example Jim Jones and the People's Temple -- here's a person who is recognized internationally as being psychotic, and is in fact from a place just as notorious as Galilee (California, of course), and he was able to found a town just for his followers, not to mention convincing them all to kill themselves (something Jesus never tried, incidentally).

Personally, I think Jones' message was a lot harder to swallow than Jesus', yet he still amassed a huge following. Essentially, I think that in the modern world it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to preach a theological message that is well received by a large majority. Jesus had the advantage of preaching to exclusively Jews, and still most of them were unenthusiastic. I can't imagine a religious message that would appeal to people of all faiths.

If a modern Jesus were to appear, it is likely that he would be dismissed as just another crazy. However, someone with the determination and charisma of Jesus has the potential to become really popular. The one thing I think would make it difficult is if he claimed to be the messiah. That could still work, but the word "messiah" makes a lot of people want to turn around and walk away. It seems, though, that Jesus himself tried to avoid referring to himself as the messiah. Then, as now, it was a dangerous word to use.

Christianity

There are many themes in Jesus’ teachings, but the most prominent theme and perhaps the core of his teachings is forgiveness. He says, “…Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also…Do to others as you would have them do to you...Forgive, and you will be forgiven…for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.” (Luke 6: 27-38) This passage from the Gospel of Luke shows the forgiveness that is at the heart of Jesus’ teachings.

Jesus taught that forgiveness is important in this current life, for it will allow us to be rewarded in heaven by God. Sometimes, however, people mistake this concept of forgiveness as an easy way into heaven, rather than a way to better the world around us and become closer to God. Some assume that if they don’t hit someone back when they are hit, they will be favored in the eyes of God. But I don’t think that this is what Jesus meant. From this passage it seems that Jesus taught people to forgive and “do to others as you would have them do to you” with good, pure, true intentions. He teaches that God will reward only those who truly forgive and “turn the other cheek” because God knows what we are really thinking and is, essentially, a part of us (the Kingdom of God is inside of everyone). This passage further reveals the core of Jesus’ teachings, for he says to “pray for those who abuse you.” By this he means to forgive and pray for those who mistreat us because they will not be rewarded by God and have not accepted what Jesus thought was God’s way.

Christianity

“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you… your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High…” (Luke 6)

Jesus taught and preached his and God’s views on a great deal of subjects; however, the core of his teaching takes root in the above passage. According to Luke, forgiveness and compassion are the most dominant and prevailing lessons that Jesus taught to his audiences through parables and other manners of preaching. Forgiveness is so important in Jesus’ teachings that it should come as no surprise that God used Jesus as his prime example to the people that the validity and importance of forgiveness is vast. God’s supposed intent of sending Jesus to earth was in order to redeem the people of their sins and show his unconditional love and forgiveness through the sacrifice of his one and only “begotten son”. Jesus died for the forgiveness of our sins and to redeem us in the eyes of God.
The passage from Luke outlines the small things a person can do on earth that will inevitably be deemed by God as deserving of a great reward. By practicing forgiveness in all situations whether it be small or great (like Jesus’ death), all these acts shall be rewarded. The line, “do to others as you would have them do to you” is a statement of reciprocity that is commonly used when describing Jesus’ basic message and actions. He teaches to his audience that reacting vilely or hating others will only hurt you in the long run; instead one should pray or pity those who have yet to learn God’s teaching for they shall be punished appropriately until they find the right way. Sacrifice is also an act that ties hand in hand with forgiveness. The quote “from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt,” teaches to sacrifice everything and immediately forgive the person who caused you to sacrifice. This ideal is very similar to what Christians believe to be the reason Jesus died on the cross; to sacrifice himself for the forgiveness of everyone’s sins.

Christianity

Christianity began as a religion for the minority that was suited for oppressed outsiders. But over the years it has become a religion for the majority that is theologically suited for both the oppressed and the dominant insiders. Christianity began as a small sect of Judaism that through the acts of Paul became the dominant religion of the world. In the early days of Christianity Jesus’ teachings appealed to the commoners of Galilee. He preached “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God… Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you… for surely your reward is great in heaven (Luke 6:22-24).” Jesus obviously appealed to the poor and oppressed, while his teachings were threatening to the wealthy elite of the Jewish community. Yet again later in the Gospel of Luke Jesus emphasizes his belief that the poor are closer to the kingdom of heaven than the wealthy. Jesus says, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God (Luke 6:25-26).” At this early stage of Judaism it is hard to believe that any person of wealth would feel inclined toward this small sect of Judaism.

Today people from many different social classes are Christians. In the modern world the oppressed find comfort in Christian teachings. People of higher social status also find comfort in the moral implications of Christianity. Wealthy Christians, to follow the teachings of Jesus, must donate to charity and give away much of their wealth to help the less fortunate. But do many modern-day wealthy Christians give away most of their money to help the poor? If they don’t can they consider themselves devout Christians? If not then maybe Christianity is only suited for the oppressed and poor.

Christianity: for the Majority or the Minority?

Because Jesus’ teachings appealed to the poor oppressed people of the ancient world it easily evolved to appeal mainstream society, despite the fact that Christianity started as a small sect of Judaism. In the time of the Roman Empire, the majority of people were poor and oppressed by the Romans. Therefore, because Jesus’ said “blessed are you who are poor…who are hungry now,” his ideals appealed to the majority of people in the Roman Empire (Luke 6:20-21.) When Paul allowed gentiles to convert to Christianity without upholding the Law and traditional practices of the Jews, many people converted to what became “Christianity”, because they agreed with Jesus’ social teachings and attitude of favor in heaven for following those teachings, even in oppression and poverty.
Although most of the people who converted to Christianity initially were poor and probably oppressed, as Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, it became a religion of the elite classes along with the lower ones. Christianity was able to translate so well into the lives of people of all social classes because of the morality of Jesus’ teachings. The Gospels speak of equality for all “Children of God.” The moral foundations of Christianity seem so universal that they can apply to a vast number of people despite social class. It think that the appeal of Jesus’ teachings to the poor and oppressed (a majority back then) caused it to sustain itself early on, but the strong moral foundation of Christianity helped it achieve popularity throughout social classes.

Christianity

In the past religion has been a driving force of society, guiding social development and reform. But in today’s society, it seems as if, for the most part, religion in general, Christianity specifically, has become a second priority for many people of faith. Because our modern society is not a theocracy or based strictly upon the teachings of the Christian church, religion doesn’t affect our society as a whole.
Since religion/Christianity is not usually viewed as the main influence on a person’s life, I don’t think that it really appeals to a specific social class. At certain times throughout history, Christianity has definitely been more appealing to different social classes based on significant political events of the time, as is the case with many religions, but currently Christianity doesn’t seem to be directed towards or prevalent in a specific class such as the oppressed or dominant.
However, Christianity is certainly a religion for the majority in that it is far less exclusive, strict and focused than certain other religions. There are multiple branches of Christianity, allowing for a range of beliefs, still falling under the same general category, and there are fewer limiting and life impacting rules and guidelines that might deter those who, like many, view religion as a second priority.

Jesus today

I think it’s safe to say that if a person similar to the person we know to be Jesus began teaching a social and political message like Jesus’, he or she would not be warmly welcomed. The first examples that come to mind (that I think are somewhat relatable) are the people who preach on the sidewalks of major cities proclaiming dramatic messages instructing passer-bys to repent now because the end of the world is near, or something along similar lines. Generally, these people are ignored by most and mocked by some. They are rarely taken too seriously, which is why it’s interesting that Jesus’ message was able to spread as much as it did, being so similar.

I tried to find out if any people had claimed to be the Messiah relatively recently, and I actually found an article about an Islamic man who claimed to be the Mahdi, or redeemer of Islam, and who was shot in the feet by Hamas after demanding to an imam that Muslims begin following his instructions. Although this man isn’t Christian, I think it’s interesting because I think he’s a good example of how people would react today to someone similar to Jesus – marking him as crazy and punishing him. I also think it’s interesting because this reaction is similar to how Jesus was received in the ancient world.

I think that Jesus’ preachings were so influential because of a confluence of factors including the time period, the location, and external events that allowed his followers to become so devoted and his teachings to spread.

PS -- I found the article at http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14305

Jewish Identity

Check out this NYTimes article on having to prove that you are Jewish in order to get married in Israel: Another layer to the complexity of modern Jewish identity.

Preview of Islam

Check out this NYTimes article, highlighting the complexity of what we tend to think of as "The Islamic World."

Response Paper #2

Now that you have a sense of the historical context of Jesus' life and teachings, as well as a sense of how the Church progresses, choose one of the following questions:

Is Christianity a religion for the minority or for the majority? Is the theology better suited to people who are oppressed outsiders, or dominant insiders?

If someone with the equivalent of Jesus' social status, from a region of the world equivalent to Galilee, were to begin teaching a social and political message similar to Jesus' in the modern world (stick with Europe, the US or Latin America), how would that person be received by others? What does your response tell you about the influence of Jesus' ideas?

Choose a passage/event from the Gospel of Luke and explain why it can be considered the heart/core of Jesus' teaching.

Stick to the 2-3 paragraph format, and please label your post 'Christianity.'

A reminder about why you're taking this course

Take a look at the NYTimes article about religious diversity in the US. And I quote:
Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University, echoed that view. “Religion is the single most important factor that drives American belief attitudes and behaviors,” said Mr. Lindsay, who had read the Pew report. “It is a powerful indicator of where America will end up on politics, culture, family life. If you want to understand America, you have to understand religion in America.”
See? It's not just me. Maybe now is the time to get into a debate about the importance of teaching about religion in public schools.

Judaism!

I think Judaism can be classified primarily as a religion, however the distinctions between its roots as a religion, culture, and ethnicity have been blurred, making it difficult to label Judaism under any one category. Factors in defining who is a Jew include both adherence to specific religious practices and ancestral identification through mothers.

The traditional definition of a Jew is someone born to a Jewish mother. However, controversy arises regarding whether people with mixed parentage should be considered Jewish, whether conversion should be considered valid, and whether those who convert to other religions or do not practice actively should still be considered Jews.

Although Judaism cannot be defined solely in terms of religion, I think that today, religion is the easiest and most typical way to distinguish Jews from non-Jews. The religion of Judaism is broadly characterized by its monotheistic belief in one God, its belief in a special covenant with God with Jews being his ‘chosen people’, the specific laws and practices that must be followed dictated by the Torah, and a sense of territorial identity with the promised land of Canaan or Jerusalem. By defining Jews as those who trust in these beliefs, converted Jews are considered valid, and people with Jewish mothers are not necessarily considered Jews.

Daniel Deronda

George Eliot's novel Daniel Deronda is the story of Daniel who has been adopted by Mr. Deronda, a wealthy man of London society in the 1800's. Throughout the story, Daniel essentially strives to understand other people and ideas, finding the social rules of London restrictive. Daniel's travels and acquaintances lead him into the Jewish ghetto of London, where he learns much about family and philosophy from friends he makes there. Ultimately, Daniel discovers the origin of his birth parents, and figures out how to balance what he has learned from the Jewish community within his own life.

I brought it up in class because it's a really interesting story, and corresponds with our discussion of Judaism, especially the disparity between European majority groups and Jewish minorities.

The BBC and PBS have made a miniseries of Daniel Deronda starring Hugh Dancy (The Jane Austen Book Club and Ella Enchanted) and Romola Garai (Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights). I actually own the DVD, so if anyone would like to borrow it and watch (it's really good!), just let me know!

Link to the PBS/Masterpiece Theater site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/deronda/

Judaism: Religion, Culture, or Race?

In my opinion, Judaism can be defined as both a religion and a culture. It has a blatant connection to religion because the essence of Judaism is the belief in a god and the practice of worship. Perhaps less apparent is Judaism’s connection to culture. The practice of Judaism, as in most religions (e.g. Christianity, Islam), extends far beyond having faith and attending temple. Not only is there the bar and bat mitzvah, Jews also celebrate countless religious holidays with practices that are deeply rooted in tradition—practices that greatly effect their everyday lives. They also learn to read and speak Hebrew. Through circumcision, Judaism even goes as far as to effect intimacy and reproduction. Along with worship, to be Jewish implies tradition, language, education, foods, etc.
On the other hand, Judaism cannot be defined as a race. Though it has historic roots in a specific region and race, it presently encompasses a diverse racial group on a global scale. It is spread across the world, from the USA to Israel to China. Anyone can convert to Judaism, and thus become a part of both the religion and the culture.

Judaism

I think that Judaism is a mix between the three, although it is primarily thought of as a religion above anything else. Interactions between the Jews and God (including the multiple covenants), the Torah as a holy testament governing the way practicing Jews should live, and God's choice of the Israelites as the "chosen people" show the mixture of religion, culture, and race within Judaism. Yes, Judaism is one of the three monotheistic religions, with a holy book and traditions such as Passover and Shabbat (sp?) at the center of this religion. However, the holy book that governs the religious aspect of Judaism also dictates how Jews should live. For example, the Ten Commandments demands that no one should kill, covet the property of wife of his neighbor, nor should he practice idolatry. Religion is often a central part of culture (think of Israel or Muslim countries, for example), so the effect on Jews' life does not seem out of the ordinary. However, race is also an important part of Judaism. Excerpts from Genesis show that God has deigned the Israelites as his "chosen people", and these people and their descendants are destined to enjoy a land "flowing with milk and honey". Abraham is also seen as the father of all monotheistic religions, implying that all three religions, not just Judaism, have a hereditary aspect. Finally, a person's Jewish heritage is decided by if the mother is Jewish. A non-practicing Jew with a Jewish mother is considered more Jewish than a person who holds Jewish beliefs but does not have a Jewish mother.

Judaism (response 1)

I'm going to say that Judaism is a little bit of all three. The term can be used to mean a religion, a culture, or a race, or any combination thereof, so it must be inferred from the context what someone means.Yes, it is a religion, and it is implied therefore that in order to be Jewish one must practice, or at least believe in the religious tenets of Judaism. However, in God's covenant with Abraham, He said "I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you." That was really long and redundant, but the point is clear: God's covenant is hereditary. Whether or not they believe it, according to this story, all the descendants of Isaac are JEWISH. Regardless of their beliefs, the people who are descended from Isaac are racially Jewish. I think Judaism is definitely a culture too, though not as easily defined. If someone chooses to identify as being Jewish because he was raised in a culturally Jewish household, that makes perfect sense to me. If someone is adopted into an Italian family, is he not culturally Italian? Jews have customs and traditions and language like any other ethnic group, so I don't see any reason why they should be considered different. Religion is implied but not necessary, as Hispanic families are often Catholic, and Afghan families are often Muslim. If you're bothered by the religious implications of the word "Jewish," then call them Israelites.

Judaism (response 1)

Judaism can be classified at first as a religion but not entirely. It is rather in between religion and ethnicity. Since Judaism is based on the belief in God, it is indeed a religion. From Patriarch and Exodus, Judaism starts with the interaction with YHWH. However, Judaism is unique because in the first place it specifies the group of people involved in this "religion." Usually, religion includes general human, and God of course does not really mention about different races. Or it is assumed that God does not discriminate because He is above all; it is easier to accept a Dutch Buddhist, an Asian Christian, or a Russian converted into Muslim: but not a German Jewish. This Judaism basically believes that the God only saves the Jewish race. So it is essentially impossible for other race to "believe" in it unless they want to be abandoned. Therefore, Judaism not only is a religion but also represents ethnicity.

But Judaism doesn't entirely define a race either, because the race itself is quite vague now. Also, not all Jewish heritages believe in Judaism either. There definitely are "atheist Jewish" --of which I never knew the existence until I took this course-- who can't be said to be involved in Judaism. Technically, since the heritage started thousands of years ago and has experienced a number of nomadic life and exiles, no one is sure how exactly much portion of a Jewish now is actually Isaac’s posterity. Therefore, it would be the most appropriate to say Judaism is defined as intermediate between a religion/belief and an ethnicity/race.

Judaism: Religion v. Culture

Although Judaism can be defined in many ways, it seems appropriate that it should be primarily defined as a religion; or, I should say, as primarily a non-Jew but also as an atheist, I see Judaism as mostly a religion because firstly, in the historical context, people first identified with Judaism when God spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai—this focus on God, and the fact the primary source for this history is the Bible, suggests to me that Judaism is based on religion. Secondly, although according to Jewish law, one is not Jewish unless descended from Jewish parents (mothers), historical Jews, who were first the Israelites, came from a multitude of nations and empires of different peoples. Similarly, today religion, culture and race are all aspects of determining nationality—yet modern Jews are part of many different nations as are individuals who identify with other religions. Practices in Judaism are all elements of religious expression, and although one can be born Jewish—according to Jewish law primarily recoded in the Torah—the fact that this is based on religious law should not be overlooked by the fact that Judaism can be inherited.

Judaism

In general, I believe that Judaism is a religion. Though Judaism has aspects of it that make it partially a culture and a race, it began as an interaction with God. Further, its holy scriptures, such as the Torah, consist of stories involving God and God's contact with the Israelites. What make up a large part of Judaism are the laws and rules that God commands the Jews to follow. Usually, religions have rules and guidelines that the followers must practice and observe, thus Judaism can be considered a religion. There are other aspects of Judaism, however, that allow it to be called a culture and a race as well.The customs that have evolved around Judaism help to classify it as a culture. Cultures consist of various food customs, the language used, dances performed, and many other customs. Because Judaism has food traditions (that are related to religion), uses the Hebrew language, and has dances and songs specific to Israel and Judaism, it can be grouped as a culture. In addition, the idea, mentioned in the Pentateuch, that Judaism is hereditary through the mother says that it is somewhat like a race. Because one can only be Jewish if one's mother is Jewish (or if one converts), Judaism is passed down through generations like an ethnicity.Overall, I think that Judaism is a religion, around which a culture has been formed. I think that the customs associated with Judaism are a part of the culture that Jews have created to celebrate and keep their religion alive. Though many Jews do not believe in the religious rules and principles of Judaism, they still consider themselves Jewish, and identify with the Jewish culture. At the foundation of Judaism is religion, a belief in one God, and a belief that Jews must obey and worship this God.

Judaism: Religion? Culture? Race?

I think that Judaism is first and foremost a religion. Religion is a large part of culture, and the Jewish identity is strongly based on cultural aspects and common themes among people of the Jewish faith. In the most biblical sense Jewish people are all supposed to be descended from the same group of people, which could also classify themselves as a race or ethnicity. All three aspects, religious beliefs, culture, and race seem to come into play here. Religion informs culture, and birth sets religious precedent for most people. Therefore, people who practice a certain religion because they were born into it and raised around it tend to be of similar origin. These similarities may give rise to a secular culture, which may or may not have its roots in the religion such people practice.

Of course, the line here is not black and white. People can convert to the Jewish faith without being “ethnically” from “Jewish” origin. Many born Jews reject the religious aspects of their lives, but still identify with Jewish culture or the characteristics of many people of similar descent. Practicing Jews could also reject the cultural elements surrounding their religion. Because the origins of Judaism stretch back thousands of years, it is virtually impossible tell if modern Jews are really descendents of Isaac, or even what parts of the Old testament are accurate, but the fact that the religion has survived so long shows that viability of Judaism purely from a religious perspective.

Judaism is difficult to classify. Is it a culture, a race, or a religion? Judaism has elements of all three designations. Judaism began as a culture, thus the first Jews were of a specific race. But Judaism is no longer a culture or a race; due to Diaspora Jews are part of many different cultures and races around the world. The single element that unites all Jews is their religion.

Because of the fact that Judaism is first and foremost a religion many conflicts arise as to who is Jewish. Since Judaism is not specifically a culture or a race the common stereotypes of dark hair and large noses are not necessarily correct. There are many eastern European Jews who may not look stereotypically Jewish but worship Judaism in the same ways that a Jew living in Israel might. The belief in Judaism that Judaism is hereditarily passed through a mother furthers the question of who is really Jewish. This tradition also suggests that Judaism is much like a race in which a common identity is passed from mother to child. There are many different levels of worship, but all qualify someone to call themselves Jewish. Jews can have vastly different cultures and racial backgrounds but worship in the basic traditions of Judaism qualifies anyone to call themselves Jewish.

Judaism

Personally, I feel that Judaism is a religion, but merely by default. I don’t think that it can be categorized as either a race or a culture because if someone converts to Judaism, and is formally and religiously recognized as Jewish, their race and historical culture don’t instantly change. The difficult thing with Judaism is that it means something different for so many people. Some people follow it as a way of life, as a belief or practice, whereas some people merely say they're Jewish, without practicing or believing the religion. I think as long as people fit the historical religious requirements for being Jewish (mother was Jewish) then it’s fair to call oneself Jewish, even if the person doesn’t believe in the ideas of Judaism because while they may hold little religious significance for a person, perhaps there is another type of significance that ties a person to that faith.
I find it difficult to classify any belief. Religion, Judaism included, is such a personal thing, that I feel people have the right to chose whatever faith they want to be, and they can classify that belief in any way they want, with the knowledge that anyone can dispute them about it. The classification of beliefs as religions and races and cultures is just another way to divide the population, but as long as religion remains a personal belief and not something that influences the lives of all others around a person, it doesn’t really matter what a certain faith is classified as.

Judaism

I can understand why the teachings of the Old Testament encourage racial distinction in Judaism. The origins of Judaism derive from the covenant between God and His chosen “people”, which seems to set up Judaism with a disputable definition from the very start. I personally identify Judaism as a system of religious and cultural beliefs, not a racial privilege. I find it difficult to identify Judaism as a racial category since conversion is allowed; I don’t think you can convert yourself into another race. Although there are stereotypes of genetically Jewish features, stereotypes only include the perceived majority of a type of person. I also don’t think that anyone has the power to deny someone from following a religion, or to denounce someone from a religion.

I think it is ultimately a decision that must be agreed upon by members of the Jewish community and followers of the Jewish faith to decide who is Jewish, and what constitutes Jewish-ness. However, that decision will be difficult to reach, since nobody can agree who is Jewish, and who has a say. I recognize Judaism as having customs and traditions associated with Jewish culture, and a set of religious beliefs, but denying an individual as a Jew because of their race is not a practice I agree with, but also not one I am in a place to judge.

What is Judaism?

Although Judaism might be categorized as a type of ethnicity or race, Judaism is a religion. Religion is commonly defined as a community of people who believe in the same laws and traditions. These beliefs sprang from Abraham’s concept of monotheism. Through generations, this devotion to one god culminated in the Ten Commandments being communicated through Moses on Mt. Sinai, following the Jews escape from Egypt. These commandments stressed the “obedience and loyalty to YHWH,” the one and only god (237). Over time, social and cultural lifestyles have developed around Judaism as a core religion.


Although Judaism contains many different levels of commitment and belief (reformed, conservative, orthodox, hectic, reconstrutionist, kabala), “generally the unifying feature among all Jews is a belief in the oneness of God…” (233). Judaism is all about following gods covenant; it is not distinguished by skin color or how a person looks; a person can even convert. God never communicates ideas of certain ethnicity or race in the Talmud or Torah. Jews have displayed the physical characteristics of nearly every race. There are African Jews, European Jews, Asian Jews and they have all spoken many different languages. Hebrew has seemed to be the central language that has been another factor of unification between the Jews. This has been a language that has communicated the dictums and beliefs of the Jewish religion.

Not your Bubbe's Jew?

Judaism now is quite a different beast than at its origin. Historically, it is a religion, but over time aspects of it have successively become a race, a culture and finally almost a state of mind.

At its inception, Judaism was determined by participation in the covenants with God and absolute monotheistic belief in Him, in exchange for exclusive protection. Among the peoples of the Sinai peninsula, the “Chosen People” were a small, distinct group, making Judaism an ethnic group as well as a religious one.

However, through Diaspora, Jews migrated far and wide. While retaining core religious practices, their separated cultures absorbed key features of their surroundings. Ethnically Jewish foods, languages, and style of religious observances divided Jews both from their host societies and from one another.

Jewishness in the modern world is no longer defined by religious observance. Instead, subsidiary aspects such as its scholastic tradition, particular strain of wry humor, and sense of common oppression may characterize Judaism as much as its faith and practices.

Is Judaism a religion, culture, race or something else?

Judaism is the name to call a certain group of people who come together and worship the same god, El Shaddai, following his rule, and living by his word. Judaism was thought as a way of life; helping form a culture, adding new traditions generation after generation. It’s was a way of life but the Jewish people have heritage beyond what they believe. For example although a Jewish person may practice Judaism, he/she may be an Israelite, black or white. It’s perfectly understandable for one to believe that they may be Jewish because their great grandparents went to temple on the Sabbath, and followed the Jewish stereotype. But generations go one and some move away from the temple. Does that still make them Jewish, their children don’t share some of the physical characteristics as typical Jew, are the children still Jewish? Jewish is not an ethnicity because many Jewish people share the same traits. But to be Jewish I think that one must practice the faith. Modern day has questioned Judaism as race because of the Holocaust and because these people carry similar traits. But when Judaism first came about, to be a Jew you have to follow the word of God, and his appointed leaders. Being Jewish wasn’t labeled by that one looked like or what religion his/her grandparents followed. But Judaism was a way a life, a sacrifice, and a desire for guidance.
Many people say that they are something that they are not in order to make them look better or to fit in. Being Jewish may be an honor because many “Jewish people” suffered during the Holocaust. But many people don’t understand what it truly means to be a Jew, he/she only thinks about the label and what privileges/honor comes with being a Jew.

Judaism

Overall, I believe that Judaism is a religion. Although it could be constituted as a culture, Judaism’s roots come from a religious interaction with God. Religion is defined as “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects”.[1] This definition correlates with the traditional definition of a culture, stating that religion has a large role in many Jewish people’s culture and beliefs. Judaism is a religion because it was formed when God spoke and made a covenant with Abraham; preaching that Abraham and his people shall worship God as the one and only God.
Fundamentally, Judaism is a religion and should not be called a race because the Jews as their own specific race are never mentioned in the Torah, and has nothing to do with the covenant between God and Abraham. People are able to convert to Judaism without being born a Jew, which furthers the support of Judaism being a religion. The confusing aspect of Judaism though is the fact that some born Jews do not address the religious practices or cultural activities but are still considered of essence, Jewish. I personally believe that there should be no precedent and that if a person practices Judaism then they should be called Jewish, but if they are clearly atheist then they shouldn’t be labeled as Jewish. Judaism should be categorized as strictly a religion because originally, that is how it came into existence.
[1] www.dictionary.com