DISCUSSION POST
Generousforthebest
discussion_posts.docxIn every Discussion Post you have TWO tasks to complete:
1-) Please answer all of the questions in TWO paragraph no less than 200 words.
2-) Please Pick TWO of the Student answers and comments them in ONE paragraph EACH.
-PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHICH STUDENTS ANSWER YOU HAVE COMMENTED!
Every discussion post has a specific reading assign to it; you have to answer the question according to do readings. You don’t really have to read ALL of the readings, just skim through it until you have some idea to answer the question. You can always look at the other people’s answers to get the answer. There are no right or wrong answers; these are just discussion posts. I posted 4 different student’s answer to make it easy to choose for you.
1st Discussion Post = Feb 2, 4 Ancient Near East
Questions:
1. Why are the gods fighting in the Epic of Creation and the Poem of Erra? To what extent does this provide a model for human behavior in the texts that depict human violence - the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Mesha Stele?
2. What does "peace" mean for the Poem of Erra and the Song of Release? Think about how this compares with modern notions of peace and non-violence.
1st Student Answer: Tatiana N Youpa
1. The gods are originally start fighting in the Epic of Creation when Apsu, the freshwater god, and Tiamat, the ocean waters god, become annoyed with how much noise the new gods are making. Apsu decides to get rid of them or else he will never get any rest. The young gods find out about Apsu’s plan to do away with them and they call on the god Ea for help. Ea uses a magic spell to put Apsu to sleep and then kills him. Not long after, Ea and his wife Damkina have a son, Marduk. Marduk is a powerful and mighty god. He is given control of the four winds by Anu, the sky god. He creates dust storms and tornadoes and hurricanes that disrupt Tiamat and prevent the other gods from sleeping. They become annoyed with Marduk and persuade Tiamat to take action against him. Tiamat decides to battle Marduk. In preparation for battle, she has eleven monsters created. The gods are scared and unsure of how to deal with the threat that Tiamat presents. Marduk offers to confront Tiamat if he is appointed to the king of the gods in return. The gods agree, and Marduk destroys Tiamat.
In the Poem of Erra, Erra, the god of mayhem and famine, is convinced to go to Babylon and cause chaos by the Sibitti. The Sibitti are seven gods created by Anu, the king of the gods, to bring death and terror wherever they go. Erra’s advisor, Ishum, tries to convince to not proceed with violence but Erra thinks humankind needs to be punished so that they will respect the gods. He even goes as far as to convince Marduk to give him the throne as the king of the universe for a short while. The universe is then thrown in to chaos. Ishum keeps trying to convince Erra to stop his actions, but he doesn’t listen. Even after Marduk retakes his throne, Erra continues in his blind rage. Finally, satisfied that his power is recognized, Erra stops his violence. He praises Ishum for intervening before he caused any more damage to the world.
The violence depicted in the Epic of Creation and the Poem of Erra provide some examples for cases when violence may be justified. In the Epic of Creation, violence was necessary to prevent the death of many gods. In the Poem of Erra, humanity’s lack of respect for the gods is what caused violence to be inflicted upon them. In comparison, the violence in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Mesha Stele is described as punishment or a necessary evil. The Poem of Erra and Mesha Stele are similar in that they both justify violence as necessary to get people to respect higher powers. The Epic of Creation and the Epic of Gilgamesh are similar in that violence was needed to prevent further violence from occurring.
2. In the Poem of Erra and Song of Release, peace came only after violence. Modern notions of peace and non-violence tend to avoid any kind of violence altogether. Instead, violence is usually avoided by promoting diplomatic relations between opposing groups. In modern times, it is often believed that any dispute can be solved peacefully and non-violently. In contrast, in the Poem of Erra, peace is not achieved until much of the world is destroyed at the hands of Erra’s wrath. In the Song of Release, there is no peace until the city of Ebla is already destroyed. It seems as though the Poem of Erra and the Song of Release are promoting the idea that violence may be necessary to achieve peace.
2nd Student Answer: Grace Yoon
1. In the Epic of Creation, the descendant gods of Apsu and Tiamat are too boisterous and noisy, which troubles and causes Apsu to decide to kill the younger gods, ultimately being the cause for the gods to fight. Tiamat is, however, against Apsu’s decision and warns the son, Ea. Ea put Apsu to sleep and kills him, which angers Tiamat, causing her to bring war upon the younger gods, with advisement from the god, Quingu. Marduk, child of Ea, emerges saying that he will defeat Tiamat, if he is named ruler, which the other gods agree upon. Marduk fights and kills Tiamat. The god Marduk fights, in this Epic, to gain power, become ruler, and receive praise.
In the Poem of Erra, the god Erra brings upon war because he awakes one night restless and anxious to fight. He is supported by the Seven, who speak of the honor, prestige, and gratification the fighting will bring. When Marduk forsakes his dwelling for repairs and Erra is in reign in Marduk’s place, and no fighting occurs, Erra wants to bring war and kill mankind to gain respect. Erra strikes disaster and war onto the humans, until Ishum convinces Erra that he has done enough to gain respsect and honor, which is the reason for Erra’s fighting in the Poem of Erra.
The Epic of Creation and the Poem of Erra provide models of behavior toward gaining power, respect, honor and rule. This is then modeled in the Epic of Gilgamesh, because Gilgamesh steals things and kills people, for his own desires and needs. He also wants to invade the dangerous and treacherous Humbaba’s forbidden forest. These actions of Gilgamesh are all done and perceived from feelings of pride and desires of honor. In the Mesha Stele, Mesha fights and conquers people and cities for power and rule and the desire to achieve that.
2. Peace in the Poem of Erra appears to mean when war is over and the pugnacious desires of the god Erra are appeased. Peace also occurs when Erra receives respect and honor. In the Song of Release, peace appears to mean when honor is given to parents/elders, one is honest, one fulfills his/her duties, and debts and slaves are released. Compared to these notions of peace, the modern notions can be seen as when everyone is equally respected and when war or disputes in general do not occur. The meanings of peace that are related to giving honor to parents, being honest, and fulfilling one’s duties can, however, still be relevant today.
3rd Student Answer: Arif Khalil
Sleep deprivation – an indisputable annoyance to mankind serves as a force of violence for gods in these historic tales. At the beginning of Epic of Creation, Apsu decides to kill his offspring of younger gods since “[t]heir behavior is noisome to” him during his sleeps (37). In Poem of Erra, “[t]he Anunna-gods cannot fall asleep for the clamor of humankind” disturbs them, so they instigate Erra into unleashing havoc and chaos (83-84). The gods resort to solving their individual struggles through a means of physical force and nonverbal power. What may originally seem to be an attempt to find peace in sleep is actually a blindfold for justifying personal objectives centered on pride and glory, evidently seen when Erra enrages at humanity “since they do not fear my name” (121). Erra desires acknowledgement and reverence for his mighty power and only ceases his destruction once Ishum clearly pinpoints all that he has powerfully accomplished. In Epic of Creation, Marduk parallels this desire for recognition and respect by courageously becoming the war hero who brings peace and stability.
Nonetheless, the gods’ resort to violence as a method of achieving goals is not mutually exclusive from the rest of the world. Humans are ideally images of gods, and thus the violent interactions among the deities directly serve as a model for human behavior. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, King Gilgamesh of Uruk prides in his establishment of huge temples and city monuments, but such power and authority also blinds him into believing he has the absolute freedom to mistreat his labor force and rape women. Gilgamesh’s violent colors take true form when he first encounters Enkidu, where a battle breaks out for no other reason other than the desire for asserting dominance and proving ultimate supremacy. Likewise, in the Mesha Stele violence is the medium through which King Mesha of Moab determines to assert his authority and superiority over Israel. Retrieving the lands of Moab blindfolds Mesha to the extent where he goes on a cruel massacre and kills its “whole polulation, seven thousand male citizens and aliens, and female citizens and aliens, and servants” (14-18). What originally begins as a quest to "restoring glory" ends in utter bloodshed. It is such a fascination to witness the measures man (or in these cases gods as well) will take to achieve something they firmly believe may be righteous or glorifying when it clearly comes with the cost of numerous lives.
At a first glance at Poem of Erra, peace cannot seem to divorce itself from the status quo of the gods. Pain and war seem to only occur when one (or more) god becomes discontent with something. As long as the gods were pleased, everything seemed at peace. This ideology is very different from modern ideas of peace because today we envision peace as nonviolence between nations and people. We’ve created many labels through nationalism, and as long as these countries which we’ve labeled and chosen to identify with were not in war with one another, there was then peace on earth. Our macro perspective of peace also differs greatly with the teachings from the Song of Release, where peace is illustrated as personal contentment and gratification. The parables teach lessons of finding inner peace by being appreciative of what one already has. Selfish ingratitude can cause a man’s “heart” to become “sick within him” (9-16). The Song of Release’s moral lessons reflect a more spiritual aspect of finding peace, an ideology that is found in many practicing religious faiths today. Although it may not highlight a worldwide perspective on peace based off of violence, it still represents the belief system of many spiritual and introspective communities today in which true peace is achieved from within one’s self.
When an individual sincerely finds inner peace within himself, no amount of "sleep deprivation" or blindfolds can mislead him to immoral violent behavior. Many times personal desires dictate a man's actions into justifying violence while in fact he is, for the most part, under an illusion of doing something righteous.
4th Student Answer: Petra Szepesi
1.)
There is a specific source of grievance in both the Epic of Creation and the Poem of Erra that begins a conflict between the gods. In both stories the fighting primarily breaks out because of the annoyance of the “older” gods who cannot rest and sleep because of the noise of either the young gods or the clamors of humankind. In the Epic of Creation, this conflict is sparked by Apsu and Taimat’s (the main gods of the freshwater and ocean water) frustration with the younger generation of gods who are creating too much disturbance. So Apsu devises a plan to get rid of the younger gods, however Ea (another “young” god) learns of his plan and casts a sleeping spell on Apsu, thus hinders him from carrying out his plan. Then all is well, until Marduk the son of Ea is born and given control of the four winds. Marduk creates great disturbance, which angers the other gods who call on Tiamat to take revenge. The other gods (not on Tiamat’s side) are scared of Tiamat’s power, but Marduk offers to battle Tiamat (and Qingu) on the condition that he gets appointed king. The gods test Marduk’s power, and then agree to his proposal; so Marduk goes against Tiamat, kills her, and is victorious. On the other hand, in the Poem of Erra the god, Erra, is irritated by humans who have caused too much noise and clamor. Erra also admits that he is bored and he doesn’t feel respected enough by mankind, thus has a desire to retaliate and punish them. Erra cunningly advises Marduk to leave his home, Babylon, and offers to reign until his absence. Marduk agrees and Erra seizes the opportunity and calls on the deadly “Seven” to aid him in the destruction of the earth. Everything is in a chaotic and desolate state, until Erra finally listens to Ishum his advisor who convinces him that he has done enough damage already and has intimidated and gained the respect of everyone. Erra is thankful for Ishum’s intervention and confesses that he would have not stopped if Ishum hasn’t spoken up again.
The Epic of Creation and the Poem of Erra portray themes of anger, grievance, and hatred and their resulting forms of violence. The same themes are reflected across the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Mesha Stele but are manifested through the lives of humans rather than through the actions of the gods. Gilgamesh, who was two-thirds divine and one-third human, was often seen to act out of selfishness and he lived for his own pure enjoyment. He raped women, killed sons, and at times devastated the people of Uruk solely for his own enjoyment. Later in the story, Gilgamesh and Enkidu resolve to fight and kill Humbaba against the warnings of the other gods. This is an instance that illustrates humans’ thirst for violence and their desire to prove their strength through the employment of violence. Furthermore, in the Mesha Stele, Mesha’s enthusiasm for violence is reflected through his actions. Mesha claims to act in the name of a higher power, in obedience to Kamosh. He uses this pretext of obedience and sacrifice to his god, to then devastate other nations and oppress their people. In both texts the characters use different mechanisms and motives to perpetrate violence. These texts reflect the depravity of mankind and their great power to do either good or evil.
2.)
In the Poem of Erra peace doesn’t seem to be achieved until the very end of the work. There is an ongoing conflict between the gods throughout the story, which seems to be resolved only after Erra has destroyed half the planet and has realized that he has done enough damage to humanity. Ultimately this peace is attained after the evil forces (Apsu and Tiamat) have been destroyed and Erra’s anger has been quenched. Similarly in the Song of Release, peace is only secured after the “discontent” (and evil) character is destroyed or cursed by the gods. Both these works have a unique twist on the definition of peace. They reveal that peace cannot exist apart from violence, which is also reflected in modern notions of peace and non-violence. We wouldn’t understand the meaning of peace if there were no violence to compare that peace with. Peace is a state that is unsullied by violence and turmoil, but it is also a state that wouldn’t exist if there was no turmoil or chaos to compare it to.
2nd Discussion Post=Feb 23, 25
Questions:
1. In these texts, how is the God of Israel depicted? The English terms you will encounter in your Bible are Yahweh, Lord, or God.
2. How are the "rules of war" in the texts you are reading? Think about modern ethics of warfare. Why does one go to war? How are civilians to be treated? What happens to the spoils of war? What role does the Israelite God play in the biblical rules of war?
1st Student Answer: Hira Tanvir
Yahweh is a complicated superior being, who is possessive and he had expectations that he required people followed. His expectations came in the form of instructions. For example, he was intolerant of those who did not believe and those who were started to worship other gods. He allowed for those people who were worshipping other gods to be killed. He wanted to ensure that everyone knew he was the only one in power. Those who did not accept him as the only God he had no tolerance for them.
Also, in these texts it is a belief that god will be present on your side throughout war, if war commences. In order for war to start peace must be offered to the opposing party and if it is declined then war can begin. Also the fighting is done in the name of religion. This is the different between the South Asian religion's use of violence and violence in this context. Violence and war in the South Asian religions is only okay if it is self-defense or the last resort. In most scenarios in South Asian religions fighting and violence are looked down upon.
2nd Student Answer: Allison Anne Huang
1. In these texts, the God of Israel is viewed as a savior because he rescued the Israelites from Egypt. He is also seen as a provider as he provides his people with territory and safety when he kills the Egyptians in the sea. This God is also depicted as a condoner of violence. For example in Deuteronomy 13 He says that you should execute all those who suggest worshiping other gods.
2. In Joshua, the people go to war because God commands him to. He tells Joshua that no one will be able to defeat them as long as He is with them. The civilians are treated differently depending on the situation. If the civilians surrender, “all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor” (286). If they make war, they have to “put the males to the sword” and can “take as their booty the women, the children, livestock” (286). If they conquer people from places that God is giving to his people, they have to kill everyone so that they don't teach them about their gods and how to sin. God seems to always promise victory and loyalty in warfare: “ you shall not be afraid of them for the Lord your God is with you” (286).
3rd Student Answer: Alyssa Jean
The God of Israel is presented to be a very demanding and harsh God. However, He is seen to be kind as he is very kind to people who obey his demands and abide by what he says. He ensures that He guides these people through tough times and that he stays with them in spirit. On the other hand, people who do not respect his laws and worship other gods do not get such great treatment from Him. He makes sure that if people do not at some point start obeying his laws, they are punished. For Him, it is quite simple: If the Israelites follow his commandments, they will flourish. If they sin, the reprucussion might be as drastic as getting killed. However, He is shown to be a merciful God, as he comes back to those who decide to change their ways. I cannot go without saying that he is depicted to be all-powerful. He can do any task, no matter whether is seems possible or not. I think this is an important factor to the faith that people have in him. Many followers believe that if He can do all things, why wouldn’t they trust him?
The rules of war in the texts are all from the God. He basically says that the Israelites are supposed to offer peace to the non-believers and if they accept and surrender, then they will be their slaves. If they reject, a merciless war against them is allowed. It doesn’t matter to Him if the victims that die are soldiers or civilians. This is unlike warfare today because a war is supposed to be used a more of a last resort or for self-defense. Hurting people that aren’t soldiers is to be taken very seriously and avoided as much as possible
4th Student Answer: Edward Low
1. In these texts, the God of Israel is depicted as authoritative and domineering, but also generous and kind. Indeed, to earn the loyalty of mankind, the God of Israel arguably employed the ‘carrot and the stick’ technique. He instills fear in his followers through his actions, primarily the lack of mercy for his followers’ adversaries. An example would be the destruction of the Egyptians: “The waters returned and covered the chariots and the chariot drivers; the entire army of the Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not one of them remained” (108). Another example would be where the God of Israel declares “and when the Lord of God gives it to your hand, you shall put all males to the sword” (286). On the opposite spectrum, the Lord of God also shows compassion, such as where “Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, Joshua spared” (319), upon instruction from the God of Israel.
2. In the texts, “the rules of war” seem fairly straightforward – it is whatever the God of Israel dictates. The God of Israel declares that his followers have a right to the Holy Land. His word is the law, and thus, war is justified. This is perfectly illustrated in Deuteronomy where it states “when the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you… seven nations mightier and more numerous than you… then you must utterly destroy them” (269). Violence is necessary to obey the God of Israel’s commands.
As Deuteronomy discusses, there are customs that must be followed (some of which resonate even in modern ethics of warfare). For example, “when you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace” (286). This is very similar to how warfare is conducted today. Additionally, the civilians are not to be harmed, but the Israelites are allowed enjoy privileges like to “take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, as its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you (286). Interestingly, this concept of the conqueror enjoying the spoils of war is still prevalent in modern ethics of war. The Israelite God plays a very active role in the war, with many specific instructions for the Israelites, such as “you must not destroy its trees by wielding an ax to them (286).
3rd Discussion Post-Mar 8, 10
Questions:
1. As you read through the Quran texts, think about how the author divides up humanity. How does this division of people factor into the expectations of violence
2. The Quran is often described as a violent text, mostly in the context of modern discussion of terrorism in the name of Islam. You are only reading selections of the text. But consider whether this general statement has truth to it. How does the Quran compare with the Hebrew Bible or New Testament?
1st Student Answer: Afraz A Khan
Almost all of the verses that discuss violence consist of Allah describing the type of people upon whom violence should be committed. In 2:190, Allah says “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you.” This verse indicates that the violence being prescribed is specifically against the people who are actively seeking to inflict harm upon the “believers.” “Fighting in the way of Allah” also involves supporting the correct group of people. In 4:75, Allah questions the audience, asking them why they are not fighting for Allah “and in support of the helpless – men, women and children.” In this context, violence becomes a multi-faceted commitment to opposing certain groups of people while still supporting others as well.
The opponents of the violence inflicted by the “believers” typically appear to be people who have rejected the Prophet and Allah. In 4:76, Allah says “those who disbelieve fight in the way of taghut (Satan).” Beyond the physical wrong that the opponents of the “believers” may have committed, Allah is also declaring that internally, their souls are seeking a different path away from Him.
Violence is also forbidden is several cases, one major instance being against children, especially out of fear of becoming impoverished. In 17:31, Allah says “do not kill your children for fear of poverty” and in 81:8, Allah says “and when the girl [who was] buried alive is asked.” Both examples demonstrate that in some cases, Allah chooses to be specific in ensuring certain acts of violence are not committed.
As the introduction to the Qur’aanic verses said in our text book, less than 2% of the texts relate to warfare. That being said, it is interesting to see how both the Torah and the New Testament have similar verses of violence warfare, but that Islam appears to get the most attention for the violence depicted in its religious scripture. The three Abrahamic faiths each possess a religious text in which “God” commands the “believers” to inflict some sort of damage to other forces, be they opposing nations or people who “disbelieve.” With such a commonality existing amongst all three traditions (and each of them having specific contexts for when violence was prescribed), it is unfortunate to see that people today tend to be more tolerant and understanding of violence in the Bible than they may be of violence in the Qur’an.
2nd Student Answer: Joshua Reichek
The author of the Qur'an divides up humanity in a way similar to an "us vs. them" or "friend vs. foe" mentality. The "us" or "friend" represents those who are loyal to Allah and the teachings of the Qur'an; these people are treated kindly and are praised. The "them" or "foe" refers to those who do not believe in Allah and commit sins; these people are looked upon with scorn. The way this factors into expectations of violence depends on one's interpretation of the Qur'an. While many may look at this division of humanity as a way of reinforcing their commitment to Islam, the reactions to the "them" or "foe" side can largely determine the level of violence engendered towards the nonbeliever.
In my opinion, the Qur'an appears to be less violent than either of the Testaments. Very little of the Qur'an (2%) actually refers to violence or warfare, and these instances justify war in the rarest of circumstances (Princeton Readings 35-36). Out of the parts we read, it is quite shocking for me to see that so many people believe that Islam is a violent religion, when in reality, or emphasizes the contrary.
3rd Student Answer: Petra Szepesi
1.) Similarly to the Old and New Testament, the Quran divides up humanity between believers and non-believers. However, even more specifically, the Quran emphasizes a distinction between those believers who do good and those who do evil. According to the Quran, Allah is just and he will judge everyone at the end times based on their faith. Those who believe in Allah and obey his commandments will go to Heaven while the rest of humanity will be sent to Hell.
2.) Parts of the Quran describe justifications for committing violence against unbelievers. However, the Quran also reflects on the merciful character of Allah who is willing to forgive those who repent. Similarly to the Old and New Testament the Quran also advocates for violence in a few places; however it’s always important to decipher the context in which it’s written. Even if the religion itself doesn’t promote violence people can misinterpret the text to justify their own violent (and selfish) actions. In my opinion, the character of Allah resembles the God of the New Testament. They are both portrayed as a a holy God, who is both just and merciful. In both texts it’s written that at the end times God will only save those who were his followers and the rest of humanity will be doomed to Hell. However, one key difference between the two religions is that in Islam, Allah also requires his people to do good works in order to attain Heaven, while in Christianity it is through faith and God’s grace that one is saved. Furthermore, in Islam a person has to continually prove himself to God while in Christianity Christ was the ultimate sacrifice that had to be laid down before God.
4th Student Answer: Yonghwi Kim
1. The Quran divides people into two groups: believers of Allah and non-believers. Allah tells his believers to fight for his cause and thus justifies the use of violence on non-believers. At the same time, however, Allah limits the use of violence to a certain extent; by saying “fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,” he implies that violence should be the means of self-defense rather than attack.
2. The Quran does provide some justifications for violence, but I don’t think it’s a particularly violent text; the use of violence is not only limited to self-defense when their belief in Allah is under attack, but also prohibited in certain unethical situations such as killing children. I actually thought that the Quran aligns better with modern ethics and is less accepting of violence than the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, in which (not just from assigned readings but the text as a whole), for example, God himself massacres the enemies of his believers rather than “allowing” the believers to kill them and tests Abraham’s belief in God by telling him to kill his son. Personally, I think the perception that Quran is a violent text partly derives from its believers who interpret and carry out its words in a wrong way without considering its social context, and partly from the Western media that emphasizes only those wrong interpretations and violent side of the Islam religion.
4th Discussion PostMarch 29, 31
NO READING
Questions:
1. Search on news reports for instances of recent violence that could potentially have a connection to religion (and religion). How is the role of religion reported? Provide one or two examples of what you found with the link to the news website.
2. As you read about Christian religious violence in the textbook and the other readings, consider the role of fundamentalism and millennialism as motivating factors.
1st Student Answer: Maximilian Lord Schmitt
1. Inspired by many of this week’s readings, I looked into the November 27, 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, a five-hour firefight left three people dead, and nine injured. Robert Lewis Dear, charged for these crimes, is currently undergoing mental evaluations, before any further judicial proceedings are set to occur. Initially, it seems as if many media sources that covered the attack neglect to draw any parallel between Dear’s religion and his violent outburst, even though his actions are almost certainly religiously motivated. Instead, his intentions are characterized as “anti-abortion sentiments,” a term that may fail to adequately represent Dear’s beliefs. In fact, it may even be the case that Dear had an affiliation with the Army of God, which, if true, would certainly cast a religious slant to his actions, rather than having them viewed as some sort of quasi-political actions.
2. It is very clear that religious fundamentalism plays a very significant and consequential role in these instances of violence; it is not mere traditionalism that allows these individuals to depict themselves as “under attack” or warriors fighting a cosmic war. Fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts allow these individuals to “pick and choose,” thereby forming a misguided perspective that justifies their intentions. I was particularly struck by “I Shot an Abortionist” by Paul Hill, which provided certain moments of clarity that served as windows into Hill’s rationale. “I defended the shooting on the basis of the Sixth Commandment (which not only forbids murder, but also requires the means necessary to prevent murder).” I find this passage truly captivating, and representative of Hill’s ability to (mis)interpret. The Sixth Commandment, as found in Exodus 20, is simply stated as “thou shalt not murder.” Hill, however, has taken this phrasing to not only condemn murder, but to also mean that murder should be prevented by any means. This passage exemplifies Hill’s propensity to interpret these biblical passages, thereby exemplifying the propensity of fundamentalism to allow for such interpretations as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting.html
2nd Student Answer: Grace Yoon
The New York Times article, “Turkey Says Istanbul Suicide Bomber was Member of Islamic State”, describes the events of a Turkish member of the Islamic State militant group who was responsible for a suicide bombing in Istanbul that killed three Israelis and an Iranian. The article references the Islamist militants as the cause of the bombing and other past acts of violence that have happened in Turkey. President Tayyip Erdogan has said that Turkey would not give in to the militants: “We will never surrender to the agenda of terror. We will defeat the terrorist organizations and the power behind them by looking after the unity of our nation.” A more direct response to religion is present in the article, when Ahmet Merkit, one of many at a makeshift memorial at the bombing site, who said, “Those who did this cannot call themselves Muslims. They have no religion.”
In “A Time For Revolution” A Time to Kill, Bray appears to be expressing fundamentalism in his justifications for killing and violence on the abortion clinic and abortionists. He seems to pick and choose the verses in the Bible that are violent to justify his violence, and ultimately saying that Jesus/God was violent so it is justifiable. Bray specifically appears to do this at the bottom of page 59. He selects the verses from the Bible from different books, while disregarding the context of those verses. Another example is when Bray writes, “This Jesus—the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8)—is the ‘Man of War’ of the Scriptures.” He picks this specific part of the verse to explain that this Jesus of “yesterday”, “who wrought calamity upon Israel” in the past, is the same today who wants violence and war as well, with disregard of what the context of that verse says and means.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/03/20/world/europe/20reuters-turkey-blast.html?_r=0
3rd Student Answer: Pooja A Upadhyay
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/asad-shah-police-send-letter-7642414#2EW461gZ0ROiyrAA.97
As discussed in this article, a 40-year old Muslim shopkeeper was “found with horrifying [fatal] injuries outside his [shop]”, and police suspect the murderer to be a 32-year old man in connection with the death. The report mentions that police forces working on the case are treating his murder as “religiously aggravated”, thus acknowledging the fact that the crime was committed out of hate towards a religion. The role of religion is directly indicated in the report, as police chief Ruaraidh Nicolson issued a commentary to locals saying “any sectarian conflict, hatred or extremism will be dealt with swiftly and strongly” (Ferguson, 1). Another example of the role of religion in the report is when Nicolson continues to say “having engaged with many denominations within the Muslim communities is that they all resolutely condemn any form of hatred, extremism and violence” (Ferguson, 1).
In Anti-Abortionist Extremists, a common theme of fundamentalism is present. The term fundamentalism is defined as a “form of religion that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of the scripture” (dictionary.com). The anti-abortionists mentioned in the article justify their acts of violence in the name of God. For example, the manual that the Army of God follows consists of a declaration in the introduction that states “beginning officially with the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act—we the remnant of God-fearing men and women of the United States of Amerika (sic.), do officially declare war on the entire child killing industry…you mocked God and continue the Holocaust. No longer! Our Most Dread Sovereign Lord God requires that whatsoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Not out of hatred of you, but out of love for the persons you exterminate, we are forced to take arms against you” (National Abortion Federation, 3). So, here we see a blatant use of “God’s will” as an excuse to kill abortion doctors and clinic workers as a means of following strictly God’s rule that whoever kills man deserves to be killed by man.
The concept of millennialism only further serves to encourage extremists to take on the burden of creating peace (in their view) on Earth. By whatever means necessary.
4th Student Answer: Jhanina A Arias
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/03/22/world/asia/22reuters-bangladesh-attacks.html
In Bangladesh, there have been several close attacks on minority groups that have escalated from large attacks on whole groups, to small encounter attacks, targeting individuals of different religions. On one occasion, a recent Christian convert was stabbed to death. These recent attacks are only a small example of the larger amounts of acts of religion based violence, but the authorities are unable to tell who perpetuated such attacks, even though their focus is on the Islamic State, who have claimed responsibilities for “attacks on members of minority Muslim sects and other religious groups.” Considering the fact that the attack was extremely personal, attacking a newly converted Christian and other individuals of different religions, one can claim that the attacks were focused on injuring other religions and attacking them for following their religion.
Interpretation of a religious text is what revolves around the idea of justifiable violence. For weeks now, we have read primary religious texts that discuss religious based violence, and examples of when violence has been used throughout different religions. Now, in this week’s Christianity reading, we encounter real life violence that have occurred, specifically targeting a certain group of people, not for their religious beliefs, but instead for contradicting the perpetrators religious beliefs. Interestingly enough, we now see an extreme interpretation of the Lord’s word in the New Testament. Recounting his thought process during the murders of abortionist, Paul Hill emphasizes his interpretation of the Bible, concerning murder. He states “ I defended the shooting on the basis of the Sixth Commandment (which not only forbids murder, but also requires the means necessary to prevent murder.” In Hill’s mindset, he interprets the Sixth Commandment, which says “ thou shall not commit murder,” as a literal interpretation, showing an example of fundamentalism in Christianity, but, we must realize, that Hill also takes the interpretation one step further, with adding “but also requires the means necessary to prevent murder.” Hill’s interpretation of the sixth commandment, takes a literal approach, but also combines his interpretation of the text as a justification for his actions. Fundamentalism only gets you so far, every individual who reads a text will always interpret it in a way that will ultimately support and defend their individual belief, whether they are aware of this or not, we will never know.
5th Discussion PostApr 5, 7
NO READING
Questions:
As you read through the descriptions of terrorism in the name of Islam, consider a few intersecting issues that often come up in public discourse:
Is there something about Islam that makes these examples of religiously motivated violence different than the examples we have seen regarding Christianity or Judaism. How can we explain the difference in scale of violence perpetuated in the name of Islam? Is there something different in the way that some Muslims turn violent? Does the evidence that we have examined this semester support or refute the common perception that Islam is a violent religion?
1st Student Answer: Grace Yoon
The religiously motivated violence of all three religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, seem to have a method of specifying parts of their sacred texts to justify violent actions. Some differences I see is that, in Islam, the religiously violent people/groups have certain methods of violence such as the suicide bombing or, what Dr. Rantisi preferred, ishtishhadi, meaning “self-chosen martyrdom”. The difference in the scale of violence is shown through Faraj’s writing in “The Neglected Duty”, in which he mentions both the “near enemy” and the “far enemy”. The violence can then spread farther and wider if the enemy is so large. The evidence through the texts we have read show similarity to the ways people of Christianity and Judaism have turned to violence, because they all appear to focus on sections and areas of the texts and interpret them in certain ways as to justify violence or have violence promoted by their gods. An example is when Faraj claims that the concept of Jihad should be interpreted “literally, not allegorically”. The evidence/texts we have read also explain that most Muslims believe that Islam preaches peace and regard Faraj’s view as “deviant from true Islam”, ultimately refuting the common perception that Islam is a violent religion.
2nd Student Answer: Salman Hashim
I believe that there is not much of a difference between examples of violence we have seen in Islam and those we have seen in Christianity or Judaism. In both cases, violence is usually carried out due to the belief that one is following the word of god or fulfilling their religious duty by either protecting their religion, or helping to spread their faith. The difference in scale of violence perpetuated in Islam can be attributed to a variety of reasons, ranging from political reasons to misinterpretation of various Islamic texts. Many extremists often turn to violence to stand up against what they believe is oppression from the government or any authoritative figure. Additionally, misinterpreting portions of the Quran that address violence are also often the cause of violence in the name of the religion. The evidence that we have examined leads us to believe that Islam is not as violent of a religion as commonly depicted in the media and the world around us. Evidence in Islamic texts show a that violence is denounced, and that violence is rarely ever even mentioned in Quran.
3rd Student Answer: Zihao Mi
Religiously motivated violence in Islam have similar roots to violence in Christianity and Judaism in the idea that secular government and liberalism have not only gained influence, but is perceived as an attack on their respective religions. Yet, where violence from Islam slightly differs is the idea that violence can also be perceived as a way to send a message, rather than to initiate change. In Christianity, fundamentalists such as Paul Hill believed that by assassinating the abortionists, hundreds of unborn babies will be saved. In many attacks masterminded by radical Muslims, the attacks are not targeted towards a singular person or group, but rather society as a whole, often in retaliation for an act committed by the government; as the United States government has constantly been involved and interfered in Middle Eastern politics, the message is sent to the government and its millions of citizens. Thus, the damage from the attacks by radical Muslims has the potential to be of a greater magnitude, as Bin Laden states that the general American population directly funds warplanes and bombs and is not considered innocent (“To the Americans” 166). Yet, differences are minimal in the way some Muslims become violent as opposed to how some Christians and Jews turn violent, as they all selectively choose and interpret texts to support their beliefs. Through their own interpretations, many times outside the context of the passage, they believe that the violence committed is in defense of their religion and thus is justified.
The evidence examined thus far this semester seems to indicate that violence within religions stems from the numerous, customized interpretations of the text as opposed to the religions themselves. For Bin Laden, the concept of Jihad is the physical struggle against the oppressors and the idea of retaliation against enemies of faith, whereas for other individuals Jihad is an internal struggle against oneself. This course has indicated that it is the various degrees of interpretation of selected texts that results in violence in every religion, but the religions themselves are not inherently violent. Thus, it is often due to the ignorance of this basic fact, along with ignorance of the mechanics of the religion itself, that Islam may be perceived as a violent religion in recent times; Islam is no more and no less violent than the other religions.
4th Student Answer: Xiying Huangfu
I do not think that Islam-motivated violence is any different from other religiously motivated violence. Islamic extremists, like Bin Laden, in my point of view are fundamentalists who interpret the Quran selectively and literally. They have interpreted the Quran’s “defensive violence” broadly. They think they should actively use violence against any enemies of Islam. The greatness in scale of Islamic violence can be interpreted this way: Muslims feel strongly against the secular world. Other religion followers like Christians and Jews do not have such strong oppositions against secular way of living. Besides, Muslims and Jews also have been disputing over the land of Israel for a long period of time. Muslims feel like their holy land is taken away and occupied by the Jews with the help of Americans. The evidence we have examined this semester does not support the evidence that Quran is a violent religion. It can only demonstrate that the extremists are fundamentalists who interpret the Quran in a violent way.
6th Discussion Post-APR 12-14\
DON’T WRITE ANSWER FOR THIS QUESTION ONLY TWO STUDENT COMMENTS
Questions:
1st Student Answer: Muksha Luxmi Jingree
It is disturbing on how people justify their acts through religion. Hinduism and Sikhism are both non-violent religions but we can find such atrocious acts being carried in the name of religion. The whole conflict between the Hindus and the Sikhs can be summarized in the Sikhs feeling oppressed by the rise of the Hindu Culture and their desire for Punjab state. It is surprising to see how the militant Sikh movement resolves to violent actions when their spiritual master Guru Nanak advocated for non-violence. The militants Sikh movement do acknowledge that fact that “for a Sikh, it is a great sin to keep weapons and kill anyone” but “it is an even greater sin to have weapons and not seek justice.” These people feel that they are being oppressed by the secular Hindu movement. However, these justifications do not hold to the greater beliefs of non-violence which is mainly underlined in the spiritual texts and I feel that the war is more politically involved rather than religiously.
2nd Student Answer: Nasrat Nezia
Although these religions are so heavily steeped in traditions of non-violence, they have strong beliefs that if their rights and religion is being threatened, then it is justifiable to use violence to make a point. Unlike some of the Abrahamic religions that we have studied, the violence in these religions seem primarily focused on trying to make changes within the government. For example, Simranjit Singh Mann states that the purpose of the Sikh movement was to protect the Sikh community from the repression of the Indian government. The perpetuators of the violence also believe that their violence will protect the Sikh community from secular influence. Furthermore, there is a teaching in Hinduism that states that violence can be used to maintain social order. Something that is noteworthy is that while in some of the other religions we studied, violence was justified as being used in the name of God, there is less of such claims in these religions. I think the disconnect between the non-violent teachings of these religions and the practice of violence comes from people trying to change social order, and using religion as a means to justify their actions.
3rd Student Answer: Grace Yoon
Although both religions are deeply founded in non-violence, some movements of these religions have taken certain concepts to justify actions of violence. In the Sikhist movement, the Sikhist militants appear to have had this sense of protecting their movement from secular influences and from Hindu cultural domination, as Simranjit Singh Mann explains. Harjap Singh also provided justifications for the young men in battle, which appeared to be referencing the mythic stories of gods and warriors, great epics, and texts like the Bhagavad Gita. The disconnect of this non-violent religion seems to come from this description of how the Sikh’s founder was “portrayed in literature as a gentle soul, one of India’s great medieval saints”, but his successors became engaged in military confrontation with invading Mughal forces. Ultimately, violence is sanctioned in Sikhim but typically as a defensive act, yet the readings explain that the militants seemed unconcerned with moral authority and, according to Sikh traditions, “a council of five leaders is sufficient to give the community guidance.”
In the Aum Shinrikyo movement, Shoku Asahara had attacked large numbers of people as a demonstration of “the veracity of the leader’s prophecies about an imminent apocalyptic war.” Asahara took concepts and ideas of certain religions, including Buddhism, in which armed defense was broadened and the rules that explain, “armed defense has been justified on the grounds that such violence has been in the nature of response, not intent.” Asahara and believers additionally used the law of karma and moral retribution, in the Buddhist religion, as justifications for violence as well
4th Student Answer: Scott Richard Malley
As with many of the religions we have seen, the disconnect between teachings of non-violence and justifications for acts of violence we see this week in Buddhism and Sikhism stems from fundamentally societal factors. In the attacks committed by Sikh nationalists in India's Punjab region, much of the justifications for violence came from what was perceived as necessary in the current political climate. Bhindranwale is quoted as stating, "for a Sikh it is a great sin to keep weapons and kill anyone. It is an even greater sin to have weapons and not seek justice." This reflects what we saw in other religions when it came to speaking about a 'time for war.' The basic ideas are justified by claiming that violence is sometimes necessary, and here as before it is also framed as something that will prevent even worse injustices.
In the case of the Japanese religious organization Aum Shinrikyo, Juergensmeyer points out that many of their ideas also came with a dissatisfaction about the current state of Japanese society. In addition, the violence spoken about by the religion was presented strongly as part of a larger cosmic war, of which the believers were protected. The doctrine, although borrowing primarily from Buddhism and Hinduism, echoes of the Book of Revelation when it talks about Armageddon and the separation of believers from non-believers.
7th Discussion Post-Apr 19, 21
Questions:
As you read through this diverse set of texts for Tuesday, consider the role that religion has played in maintaining a male dominated society and in some cases in justifying violence against women - and in some cases striving for equality and non-violence. Think of all the societies in which violence against women is common; what other factors exist other than religion?
1st Student Answer: Joshua Gilon Burshtein
Violence against women is not a new problem in society; it has been evident throughout history. Certain religions have a stronger sense of performing violence against women, and analyzing the source behind these actions may be used to put an end to it. Within these readings, it is clear that Islam is the most severe religion when it comes to past and present violence toward women. This stems from direct lines within the Qur’an that state that women are subordinate to men. The main aspect about this is that it is heavily implemented in Muslim societies. Within Christian and Jewish texts, there are also lines that talk about violence against women, but in present day Christianity and Judaism denounce these actions. Islam explicitly states that men are rewarded, and are ordered to, rape and attack women who are not of the Muslim faith. Within the past few years, although the media has not reported it clearly, there has been an extraordinary amount of violence against women in Muslim countries, far more than in any other societies, providing evidence that religion has a large influence on these actions.
The male dominated society stems from a history of societies where armies have been the protective forces. When someone protects another, they are looked at as being stronger and more powerful. In religious societies, men and women have separate roles. The men are generally seen as the head of the household, and women as the ones who mainly take care of the children. This has perpetuated a male dominated society in non-religious societies as well.
2nd Student Answer: Rifath Kazi
Religion plays a pivotal role in condoning the act of submission for the female species. The cultural spheres also enable men to overcome women in order to create a patriarchal society. The way men perceive this rule of thumb in accordance with religion is however affected by their morals. In Islam, the extremists groups kidnapped young girls and women but the jurists clarify that these female slaves are susceptible to heinous actions if it is in accordance with God’s will. Subordination is permitted if all the guidelines are followed and not violated as seen in fatwa; the gist of the fatwa imply women are objectified as sex slaves if treated well and they have no control because they’re glorified as a burden financially.
Genesis 34 tells a story of how two brothers avenge their sister’s disgrace because they didn’t like how she was treated as a “whore”. The other sons of Jacob joined in and plundered the city because their sister had been “defiled”. In this scenario, men are using violence to counteract other men who put their sister down, but in the end the men have full control of society.
Whether it’s violence for women or equality against women, the outcome predicts that males are the predominant species and the way they harness religion, has a big impact on the outcome of certain scenarios regarding violence.
3rd Student Answer: Afraz A Khan
How a person defines what they stand for in regards to their religion is often defined not solely by what they believe individually but also by what external circumstances they experience. In the PBS News Hour reading, David Jacobson writes how groups like ISIS “see the West under the force of globalization as being a very corrupting force.” Although there are political and economic implications for the expansion of Western influence, a “believer” could utilize it as a means to strengthen his authority within the construct of religion, thus utilizing violence to justify their anger against others.
Politics can often overlap with religion when it comes to establishing laws as well. In the “No Justice in Justifications” reading, Indonesian Criminal Code does not consider marital rape a crime. Through the usage of fatwas, “a woman’s sexual refusal” is viewed as a sin. I believe such an interpretation of Islamic principles regarding women is heartless and it demonstrates how a society’s ruling elite’s desire to maintain a patriarchal society then utilizes “fatrwas” and other religious-based means in order to establish authority that goes beyond religion.
Ultimately, violence against women can be boiled down to individuals pursuing certain frames of thinking to establish their authority and impose their beliefs upon others. In “Violence Against Women and the Role of Religion”, the writer discusses how a “history of mistrust” has developed between a religious leaders and secular advocates on matters like a secular shelter. Although the religious leader may see it as “breaking up families”, the secular advocate may view the leader as “sexist.” Thus, we have to acknowledge that part of how violence becomes apparent through the lens of religion is just based off of people having personal ideas that conflict with others and prevent a level of influence across the board.
4th Student Answer: Pooja A Upadhyay
The prominence of a male-dominated society has a close relationship with religion. In particular, in “Violence Against Women and the Role of Religion”, Enger confirms “male dominance over women: “Wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands” (Ephesians 5.22-24)” (2). In this Christian text, there is little room for a counter-argument that suggests incorrect interpretation—it is pretty clear what is being imposed. Here, a hierarchy/ladder of power is being made of Christ being on top, men below Christ and women at the bottom. In another case, a concept of Judaism known as “Shalom bayit” (2) serves to pressure abused women to return to their abuser in order to “maintain peace in the home”. Here male dominance is further imposed due to the submission that women must deal with. Regardless of their reason for leaving a home, a woman must go back to her home to keep order. In another instance, Islamic text mentions that “men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah gave more to the one than the other” which serves to again impose a hierarchy that places men above women (2). Later the text says “concerning women whose rebellious disloyalty you fear, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, then hit them” (pp. 54-55) (3). This text establishes male dominance yet again because it gives men the upper-hand in terms of control and power. It can be said that this text even justifies violence against women because the men are granted permission to “hit [the women]” if they are disobedient. However there have been scholars that object to the translation of the text and call attention to the fact that “it is incorrect to translate the word ‘hit’ at all based on the Prophet’s abhorrence of hitting” (3). The entire reading of “ISIL Committee of research and Fatwahs” serves to maintain a male-dominated society that utilizes women as currency or property for the sole purpose of the desires of men. Out of the entire fatwah, which establishes a set of rules to how to manage their properties (women), there was one line devoted to justifying their acts as those of compassion—“show compassion towards her, be kind to her, do not humiliate her…” (1).
As Manal Omar alludes to in How Islamic State uses systematic sexual violence against women, the strategic targeting of women is a way of “forcing communities into submission to religious conversion” (3). But at the same time, she mentions that religion is just a justification for all the crimes they commit towards women through sexual violence. As Shaina Grieff mentions, violence against women is committed due to other factors like cultural suppression, shaming the woman because of pregnancy, or even in the form of honor killings, which involve “the murder often of a woman on the grounds of preserving or regaining family or communal honor” (13). She even mentions ‘FGM’ (female genital mutilation) as a “traditional and cultural practice” (15). So there are external factors that also implicate violence towards women.
8th Discussion Post-
Questions:
The readings for this week include selections from individuals arguing for or against slavery in the name of the Bible and religion. Identify at least two specific examples of how this strategy is employed by the various authors.
1st Student Answer: Cayley L Boyd
The bible presents conflicting views on the legitimacy slavery and how enslaved individuals should act in response to slavery. In both Ephesians 6:5-8 and Peter 2:18-25, the Bible asserts that individuals should obey and defer to their earthly masters. They should endure their lives as slaves and try to face life with positivity, knowing that doing what is right will receive God’s approval and that God does not treat slaves and free people differently. Yet Corinthians 7:21-24 explicitly states for humans to “not become slaves of human masters.” While the message is still clear that God does not discriminate based on one’s status of freedom, there is a clear distinction between being a servant to another human and being a servant to God. Slavery is a clear representation of the forces of good vs. evil, while a human master has determined that they have a greater right to a free life than their slave.
In the “Appeal to Christian Women of the South,” Grimke asserts that the Bible both supports and condemns slavery in the same passage from Genesis. While acknowledging that God placed humans above “irrational beings”(3), it does not support that man can have “this dominion over his fellow man”(3). However, Grimke makes the point that the bible is sometimes unclear in differentiating what actually takes place and what should take place (4). Yet at the same time, the sacrifices by Jesus and others made for enduring suffering have been the salvation to others. These events of occurrence, although not explicitly condoned in the bible, demonstrate how handling the reality of human tendencies and responding in accordance to religious values is paramount.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in the piece “Nonviolence and Racial Justice,” asserts that non-violence is the most effective means to ending slavery, as “the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces”(120). Similar to the Bible’s affirmation of the importance of loving all people, King likewise argues that love is the only way to end hate. The fight to end racism and create peace is not based on the destruction of hate, but instead on the creation of love through “the presence of some positive force—justice, good will, and brotherhood”(119). He also emphasizes how while “evil may so shape events”(121), ultimately the “truth and justice”(121) from Christian tradition will triumph. Christianity’s central importance in the South is all the more reason why non-violence and using the peaceful interpretations of the Bible can shed light on the issue of racism and allow for the common values of Christianity (justice, good will, and brotherhood) to shine through in the treatment of all races in society.
2nd Student Answer: Scott Richard Malley
I think the main difference between the use of Christian doctrine to either justify slavery, or to promote racial equality, is in the way that the authors contextualize the religious texts, and in the scope of what they choose to consider.
For example, in "The Christian Doctrine of Slavery," the author argues for the morality of owning slaves by noting that there are no explicit declarations that slave holding is immoral or wrong, stating. "Slave-holding does not appear in any Catalogue Of Sins or Disciplinable Offences given us in THE NEW Testament." This argument fundamentally relies on the assumption that the cultural context in which the bible was written does not merit an evaluation from external perspectives. In other words, the specific view of slavery in parts the Bible is not superseded by the overall teachings that promote equality amongst peoples.
On the other hand, those who argue against slavery, or for racial justice, choose to view the Bible as a holistic text, and attempt to invoke the overall meaning of the Bible rather than selecting certain details that contradict that message. For example, Martin Luther King states in one of his arguments for non-violence, "This belief that God is on the side of truth and justice comes down to us from the long tradition of our Christian faith." This argument is inherently trying to view Christian values in totality, rather than attempting to isolate specific instances or passages in the Bible.
3rd Student Answer: Tatiana N Youpa
In Mata Amritanandamayi's remarks at the Ceremony for the Signing of the Joint Declaration of Religious Leaders Against Slavery, she says that life is a blessing and thus should be spent performing good deeds. She describes slavery as "a misuse of God's gift." She also mentions the importance of following Dharma, and that human trafficking goes against this. To counteract this, religious leaders should guide the perpetrators as well as the victims to the path of righteousness. She emphasizes the importance of establishing a "foundation" to help people become "self-sufficient" so they do not need to depend on slavery.
In Pope Francis' address as the same ceremony, says that all humans are free because every human "is the image of God, and God is "love and freedom." He therefore concludes that human trafficking is a rime because it strips people of their freedom and dignity.
4th Student Answer: Grace Yoon
