Death and the Maiden

In the movie Death and the Maiden there are three victims and three victimizers. Although the movie does not show the torture and rape that Paulina experienced earlier in her life, she was certainly still a victim of those crimes which were exposed in the movie. What she endured and how the countless others like her suffered is a disgrace to humanity—a crime against humanity. Therefore I argue that the second victim was me, you, all of us. We bear the scars of the crimes committed during Pinochet’s rule. Since the doctor committed a crime against humanity, I take no pity on him and what was done to him. However, he was also a victim. Not just because he is a human—and thus a victim to his own actions as a member of humanity, but because he was beaten and tortured.

To be honest, I wanted the doctor to die for what he had done. However, we must not deny any man his human rights—especially with the basis being emotions. How tempting it is! Oh how sweet is revenge—particularly in the pursuit of justice. On this basis, we must find the doctor and Paulina both victims and victimizers. In addition, Paulina’s husband was also a victimizer for his participation in the beatings of the doctor. Although much of what he had done was coerced by his wife, he still had the choice to walk away and did not. However, to a noticeably different degree the doctor suffered. The impunity of the doctor and those who committed similar acts so shocking is sickening. The fact that the victims must endure the company of their perpetrators is intolerable. The movie well captured the reality that many victims of crimes against humanity or genocide face in their lives even today.

Pamela and Treatise on Tolerance

Samuel Richardson’s Pamela and Voltaire’s Treatise on Tolerance both try to grab their readers in several ways. The character of Pamela is very appealing. Her personality jumps off of the page and grabs your attention. As I was reading Pamela, I felt that I was reading a letter from my own sister. Pamela was so personal; so real to me. Finding a connection with the character allowed me to experience the emotions and the feelings that Pamela experienced herself. Her independent spirit and loyalty to virtue made me want to aspire to be as strong as she. Pamela transcends all classes; her character is so versatile and her quest so common that it is no wonder why, at the time, it was so popular and ultimately impactful. In Voltaire’s Treatise on Tolerance, I was captivated by his logic and his pure heart that truly seeks justice. His outrage over what had happened is clearly visible in his writings. What captivated me was that I could feel that he was writing from the depths of his troubled heart; I could not help but lend an open mind to what he was saying. In both works, it was the purity and passion of what was said and how it was said that resonated with me and, in my belief, was able to grab the attention of its readers.

The two authors, Voltaire and Richardson, seem to have similar goals. They both aim to pull you toward the direction intended, to sympathize with Pamela for what was done to her or to sympathize with the mother whose home, children, and husband had been unjustly robbed. The authors created the emotional connection necessary for the reader to be able to alter some deep rooted prejudices or ideas in favor of what the author had in mind; perhaps, what the authors had in mind was to ultimately encourage the readership to put the prejudices aside, and to submit them to a higher standard of justice and virtue. As Lynn Hunt points out, the ability of novels or works to transcend our mental blocks towards ideas and prejudices provided an incredible tool to help move the populous towards the realization of Human Rights. Voltaire spoke directly at the idea of Human Rights, as if it was abundantly clear—and had been so for a very long time, when he speaks about treating one another as brothers and sisters. In sum, both works are closely associated with, and provide deep insights to, the development of Human Rights.

Spartacus and Human Rights

Every human right included in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was shown as abused in the movie Spartacus. Being slaves, they were forced to work without a good amount of pay in very difficult conditions. The slaves had no rights before the law. Slaves had to work while they were weak and starving. The slaves didn’t have freedom of expression, right to education, right of movement, and association. Women slaves were used mainly for their sexual abilities. The list goes on and on. Though the movie is fictional, it does shed light upon what life might have been like as a slave in around 80 BC and the human rights abuses during that time. With the Romans breaking nearly all that which is defined as human rights, one might wonder if they, or anyone at that time, believed in human rights—and if they did not believe, then did they actually have human rights?

Though this question might have some wondering about, I have been enlightened to see the answer profoundly clear: of course they had human rights! To say otherwise would to be to either claim that they were not human or to say that human rights are nothing more than a creative illusion. I think I can safely assume that the majority of wonderers would choose the latter. If the concept of human rights is a creative illusion, than we have no business compelling others to accept it. Yet by definition, human rights was endowed to us a species. It does not matter when or where the human was/is or what the human believes—or what I believe for that matter, all humans at all times have rights simply because of their humanity. It is upon this robust foundation, that we are empowered to claim such rights and to empower others to do the same. Those who say that the concept of human rights is created by our belief in it being true are wondering in the darkness of a cave.

Judgement at Nuremburg

In the movie Judgment at Nuremburg, German judges were put on trial for their participation in committing human rights abuses in World War II. First I want to point out that as judges, they were political figures and held positions of power. With this power they choose to do injustices and work compliantly with the Nazi regime. They were not just “citizens,” they were part of the government. Citizens should be responsible to the extent that they participated or contributed to the human rights abuses committed by their government. In the movie, the presiding judge said that accessories to a murder are still responsible for their participation in the act. If you help a criminal you are one. This sets an important president for citizens all over the world—that the government is not the only responsible parties. Humans are responsible for upholding human rights before their own laws and pressures. It is important that justice is served and no impunity given to any contributor.

My opinion may seem harsh, but I find it morally imperative to make it. To be silent while human rights abuses are taking place before your eyes, like many Germans were, is not right. It is not right to sacrifice innocent minority populations to save the whole. It is not right to commit heinous acts to an innocent human being because of pressure from the government. Granted we can do crazy things in times of crisis out of survival—these excuses do not justify human rights abuses. It is still 100% wrong. In the movie it was said, “Just because it is logical doesn’t make it right.” Citizens must be held responsible to the extent that they participated either by omission, or in contributing to the human rights abuses like the judges in the movie. This movie demonstrated the difficulty in deciding such a judgment. It also opened my eyes to the impact decisions in international tribunals have on international relations.

Strangling Jamaica

This is my journal about the situation in Jamaica based off of the Life and Debt movie. I was excited to learn more about Jamaica. I went there on a cruise for my honeymoon. The movie was able to explain what I witnessed first hand. Fortunately I do not consider myself part of the regular “tourist,” because I noticed the poverty and was extremely saddened by it. I noticed what tourism did to the people and the community. I saw the slums. I saw the depravity. Yes, it was a low point of the vacation. I was terribly sad. The people fought for our money, and it tore the community apart. I saw the way people were interacting with each other--to people who should be unified in defiance. People were always competing, shouting, and cussing. The movie reminded me of the depravity of Jamaica, and explained what I had witnessed on my trip. I was upset with the US as I watch the film, and especially by the way we are contributing to their tragic living circumstances. I asked our driver if she had friends with any of those she worked with. She said no. They all told lies about each other. The lady convinced us that the men will take our money and leave us behind. So we decided to trust her. I cannot believe in the movie they brought “more skilled workers from China” to Jamaica in the "Free zones"! What a crime. They are all itching for work, and companies transport Chinese to their homeland!!! The companies would not pay the Jamaicans a dignified price. It doesn’t matter that the free zones were not really “part” of Jamaica! Those people need work. They are all stuck carving wood and making artwork. It is so sad that they are not given the opportunity to make a difference in their world. It is really sad how the farmers are all out of work! They don’t have any hope really. I want to do something to change this. I want to change the US treatment of Latin America and the Caribbean! Ironically, I think it is only the very rich who can avoid seeing the poverty. We did not have money for the cruise tours or to go to the secluded spot on the beach. We walked around a lot. I tried walking to the post office to send a postcard. We were running in the rain, and a man came up and covered us with an umbrella. He said “I do a favor for you, you do a favor for me and come look at my shop.” In the pouring rain we agreed. At the post office we had to wait in line. The stamps were ridiculously priced! Even in US dollars. We wished we had sent our mail back in the Cayman Islands—that’s the place to live. No tax! How can they expect the locals to pay such a price to send mail! It is so very sad.

In the movie I hated to learn about the IMF in such a bad light. I cannot believe the IMF would treat the poor in the way. It like the IMF is asking people with broken backs to carry water pales. This is modern day slavery. I thought I would appreciate the fact that they offer the poor a lifesaver as they were drowning in the sea. Instead, I learn that they offer a lifesaver and charge them for each pull to bring them back to safety. They expect them to work as they are drowning in the sea…they are just trying to survive. Who does the IMF think they are?? How is it dignified to offer to save someone’s life, but charge them for it… with a price that tosses them back to sea? They told us how their biggest tourist attraction was the Dunn’s River Falls that tourists pay $15 to climb up. Guess who owned that? Half or more was owned by a US company. I was so upset to hear that that money was not going to the people of Jamaica. Does not the US consider Jamaica part of its “Sphere of Influence”? Does not the US feel some compassion for their plight… or at least some guilt for its contribution! How could we fight for the WTO, and place hurdles in the way of their progression? I know the people (us) make up the US, but we are not informed! Those who are informed should be tried with oppression and crimes against humanity! I am disgusted by the way we have treated nations in the Caribbean and Latin America. Those nations have so much to offer. They have so much potential! How can we allow for this? We must not. Things need to change. We need to see all of this in a new light. In the light of Cosmopolitanism. We are all equal and full of the same potential, and have the right to live a dignified life. The US must not only treat its own citizens with such respect, but this respect must be supplanted in the way we interact with nations. At the domestic level we understand, but there is a disconnect at the international level. Perhaps it is because the US is shielded from the truth of what is happening to other nations and our role in shaping their future. I believe US citizens know the difference between right and wrong. I believe that US citizens have a heart, and would change the way we treat other nations if we were educated about the truth. Some people see the poverty in our own nation, and believe that we should take care of the poor in our own land first. I understand this argument. But our poorest are not nearly as poor as the poor in these deprived nations. In addition, our poorest has sooooo many more opportunities to get out. The number of organizations are endless in the US designed to help the poor get out. There must be something different underlying the cause of the poor in our own nation. But, the fact that we have people in poverty in the US is no excuse for our treatment and lack of care for those in places like Jamaica.

Learning about the farming subsidies is such a hard topic for me. I can hardly see the problem with cheaper food prices. I can hardly see the problem with sharing food surpluses instead of dumping it into the ocean or on land. How can that be better? How can throwing out food be better while there are people starving and cannot afford the prices that the farmers are asking. There must be some other way, instead of stopping farm subsidies altogether. Sharing technology so that the farmers can compete with the low prices is a possibility. We do not want the prices to go up. In some ways I believe that capitalism works in favor of the poor, and other ways it doesn't. But to have never shopped at WALMART is to have never known what it is to have tasted poverty. I live below the poverty line. I am in low income housing. I know that if I did n0t have cheap places to shop, I wouldn't be able to have basic essentials. I'm sure I would feel the same way if I lived in Jamaica. I would appreciate the cheap powdered milk. The movie only interview farmers and intellectuals. Why not ask one of the mothers who feeds her children powdered milk? Ask her if we should stop selling it to Jamaica and force her to buy the expensive fresh milk. She might have better milk, but she will have less milk. What else does fresh milk require? It requires refrigerators! Do you think the people in the slums can afford refrigerators or even electricity to plug in the refrigerators to keep the milk from spoiling? No. They need powdered milk because they can mix it in water, and it will not spoil. In the West we think up solutions and feed them to those who would be most likely to agree with us; without considering the ramifications... without taking a moment to really understand what the people want and need.

Colonialsim in Africa

This is my journal about the Magnificent African Cake movie. Europe had a huge role in shaping African development; especially France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. It is amazing how the actions of a few can affect billions of people's livelihoods present and future. 13 European countries met at the Berlin conference to divide Africa for themselves in 1884. There was not even one African present at the meeting. They had no concern for the African rulers already in power, and set up arbitrary boundaries that did not take into consideration the many different cultures, religions, languages, and ethnicities that already divided Africa. In some cases their boundaries kept two enemy-nations inside the same boundaries. The impact of European influence in Africa is shocking. The way European nations competed for the opportunity to exploit African’s gold, copper, and diamonds is disturbing. It makes me think that these colonizers should pay the African states back for what they took. I wonder at what point grievances expire. Would it be possible for African nations to bring to the ICC or ICJ or a court of their own against the crimes that Europe committed against Africans? It is not still relevant since people are still suffering from the effects of colonialism? European replaced notions of traditional communal land sharing and flexible boundaries with privately owned plots of land. Europeans replaced the traditional African way of life and transplanted European traditions, cultures, and languages. How can Africans ever get their culture back? They cannot. They have had their most intimate and valuable treasures permanently stolen. How did the colonizers not see what they were doing was wrong? Competition is no justification for their actions. Maybe they did know, but they decided to hide their guilt because the profits were too big to voluntarily stop. It is sad how they made nations specialize in one thing so that they had to import so much and depend so much on international trades. They had no concern for the people who lived in those nations and needed food to survive. They specialized in chocolate and things that many African people had no use for.

It is detestable how they took Africans' resources and often sold it back to them! What they did was a crime. How they taxed the people so that they became slaves to the oppressor is outrageous. Although European countries helped African nations have a more active role in international trade and investments in technology, the ills they brought outweigh any of those advantages. It was interesting to learn about the differences between the influence of the French and the British on their colonies. I was upset the way the British and Dutch thought of themselves as superior. I guess the world only realized the danger of that kind of thinking after World War 2 when 6 million Jews were killed simply because of their lack of superiority. I was equally upset by the way the French thought that their culture was superior and that Africans needed to transform themselves into French men and pledge their allegiance to France. From a western perspective, I think that some good probably came out of some of the colonization. Greater opportunities for education, global travel, improved medical treatment, transportation routes, and international trade were hurriedly spurred to growth with colonization. In addition the British outlawed slavery, and made the Boers stop selling slaves. However, I do not think much good came out of the Belgian and Portuguese modes of colonialism, because they were very harsh and mean to the Africans. They took control and the model of their leadership left an awful impression of what leaders should be like. Perhaps the Belgian and Portuguese were harsher because they felt like they had less land than the British and French. They also felt like they had to compete with Britian and France who were much stronger powers, so they felt that they had to suck dry and control everything they could get their hands on. As previously mentioned, however, it is very sad the impression Portuguese and Belgians gave to Africans about the ways leaders should perform—which affects them to this day. It is very interesting and saddening to learn about how those influences still impact the nations today. The lack of concern for African peoples sadly marks the legacies of colonialism in Africa. I am so glad that formal colonialism lasted only 80 years and not much longer. Time does not seem to heal all wounds since many Africans still have to deal with the ills of colonialism.

The Congo River

This is my journal about what I learned from the Congo River series. The 3,000 mile long Congo river plays an important role for many people's lives. The river traces around the boundaries of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Making it very important for trade and travel to far away parts of the country. People call it a floating market and the backbone of the nation, because it brings the nation food, water, a place to wash themselves and their clothes, the ability to travel and trade opportunities, and most of all it brings the nation inspiration and unification. It is funny how many people bathe in the river privately behind the barge, but many are curious and a lot of rubbernecking goes on especially when there are foreigners on board. I could not imagine a life so public! I need my space and privacy. Some days I prefer to stay home and be alone. I now realize that being alone and having privacy are luxuries that some people in the world cannot enjoy like I do. Life on the river sounds interesting. It is really interesting to learn about how people carry on with their day aboard a ship and do not get tired as much as I would expect them to. People are up at even 3:30 in the morning to get to work, I'd want to go back to sleep! Many myths and stories are about the river because it is so special and crucial to their survival. Men catch fish with baskets and some can even catch fish with their teeth "a style born of experience"! Even if people do not have jobs, they still can catch fish and feed themselves! They can still gather fruit and try to sell the food to their neighbors or foreigners. I imagine that the river relieves some of the poverty that they experience. Without the river, their lives would look very different.

It is interesting to contrast the way in which we treat our rivers in California in comparison to those in Africa. We do not depend on our rivers in the same way that people in the Congo do. Hungry people in the US can get food stamps, they do not have to rely on rivers for their food like those in the Congo. We do not praise our rivers, or use them for trade as much as they do. The only time I have been on a river was for recreational purposes. I hardly think of a river maybe once a month, but for people who live in the Republic of the Congo think of it all day long and make use of it. I could not imagine being on a river for days let alone weeks! I would be just as impatient as many of the people who travel the Congo River--maybe more so. To live on a cramped boat with live animals and so many noises of people and children would drive me crazy. I would probably get into many fights if I had to depend on a single river and the captain to get me to where I wanted to go. We have the luxury of driving in cars --all alone-- with relaxing music and perhaps air conditioning for when it gets hot or heating when it gets cold. The most we have to spend traveling is several hours--and that is considered a very long trip!

Oh how people on the Congo River are different than us! They partake in a completely different world than we do and a completely different history. It is so sad that their history is characterized by poverty, colonization, conflict, and pain. Millions of natives died in King Leopold's ruthless pursuit of rubber and ivory. Many people had their hands cut off if they did not perform to certain expectations. It is so sad that people in the West would take the little people in the rest of the world had and oppress them. With technology in the Democratic Republic of the Congo so much behind ours, the world to them must seem so much larger. Many people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are very poor, and jobless. Maybe one day things will be better for them and we could play a crucial part in helping them have a better way of life as they define it. At the end of the journey, taken by people who travel on the river, everyone has to share their things with the others. Everyone on board gets very excited to see the land that they are approaching. Everyone shares their leftovers. What a community and a nice tradition! It is interesting to learn about how common hardships can bring people together.

Reaction to the Somali Pirates

This is my journal about the Somali Pirates who kidnapped two individuals.
As I read about the experiences of Rachel and Paul, I felt very sad about what they had to go through at their age. They were old and just wanted to be with each other. They had done no harm to the Pirates. Why should they be treated with such disrespect? I couldn’t imagine being a hostage for 6 months. I would go crazy. I don’t know what I would do with all my time. To be taken away from my husband, and beaten would make me so angry and sad. I would have lost hope much easier than Rachel and Paul. I admire their strength. I was somewhat outraged by the fact that kidnapping was a business for the entire community. I find it hard to believe that people would be willing to make money off such inhuman behavior. However, I know that many people make money off of oppressing others. Businesses often pay people undignified amounts to their workers. Prostitution and trafficking is rampant even in the US. The victims are often silenced. Many people never even here of the oppression that is occurring in their neighbor’s homes. I wonder if the behavior of the Pirates was out of the good desire to survive and provide for their community—which made me think that maybe some oppression can be stopped by giving people opportunities to provide for themselves by using good means to fulfill the good desire. I also thought it was interesting that the British government has a policy of not paying ransoms. At first I thought that was a bad policy, because Paul and Rachel were citizens and should be protected. But, I realized that if the government started to pay ransoms with the situation of Rachel and Paul, they would feel responsible to pay for all future kidnappings. Not only might this action encourage more kidnappings to occur, but also might allow the kidnappers to raise their prices. In addition, choosing the limit for how much to pay for the life of a person is would be much more difficult for a government than an individual who has much smaller limits. This is partly why the Pirates settled for much less of a ransom than regularly, because they recognized that Paul and Rachel were not very rich. If the government were responsible for paying the ransom, then perhaps Paul and Rachel would have remained in captivity for much longer so the British Government could lower the ransom enough from its gigantic government. It is just an unreasonable responsibility to ask of the state, and would create worse problems for everyone.

I was very pleased to hear that Rachel and Paul were welcomed back to London and they arrived safely. I was also pleased to hear that the couple was able to regain most of the money they had lost and repay their debt. I wasn’t expecting a happy ending. I thought that Paul and Rachel were going to die because of their age and the conditions that they had to face. I also was surprised to hear that the couple wanted to go back to sea. I thought that Paul and Rachel would be afraid of going back on the ocean in their boat, but they didn’t give up on what they enjoyed and their dreams to travel and explore the world. There ending was happy, and that made me happy! I was sad to hear about how another woman was kidnapped. It reminded me that the solution to save Paul and Rachel was not the real solution to end the Pirate’s business. A real solution might have been to help Somalia rebuild and invest more in businesses, so that the people could have better opportunities to provide for themselves and their families instead of having to resort to such evil things. With their recent famine and rampant poverty, it is really sad that other nations are not helping them restructure their nations to work around those ills and invest in sustainable development for those who live in Somalia. Although the British government could not pay a ransom, they could work to the real solution—healing Somalia. It is also sad that the situation is getting worse, and more pirates are kidnapping and treating people like Paul and Rachel inhumanly. Somalia is an example of how a nation suffers from lack of rule of order, and lack of proper governance combined with natural disasters. Many Somalis are refugees because of the conflict and natural disasters that have impoverished Somalia. Rachel and Paul are examples of how the conditions of far off nations affect the rest of the world. We are all interconnected and should help each other.

In Him We Live, Part 2

There are so many verses that claim that as a Christian you live IN Christ, Christ also lives IN you, we live IN Him.
Jesus said to the audience, "I told you these things so you can have peace IN me" (John 16:33).
Jesus prays to the Lord, "Father, I pray that they can be one. As you are IN me and I am IN you, I pray that they can also be ONE IN US. (John 17:21)
Jesus continues praying, "I showed them what you are like, and I will show them again. Then they will have the same love that you have for me, and I will live IN them." (John 17:26)

Its hard to say what these verse mean. It seems that as Christians, we are desired to become part of God, to be ONE with God just as Jesus is ONE with God!! Many people, including Jews and Muslims would never be able to fathom this. However... something tells me that not only is this true but it is a remarkable and humble gift.

In Him We Live

'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Acts 17:28

This is an interesting bible verse, from which flows a lot more foundational concepts about humanity. Read this commentary and we will later discuss its possible implication on humanity.

This info is found: http://bible.cc/acts/17-28.htm
Wesley's notes:
17:28 In him - Not in ourselves, we live, and move, and have our being - This denotes his necessary, intimate, and most efficacious presence. No words can better express the continual and necessary dependence of all created beings, in their existence and all their operations, on the first and almighty cause, which the truest philosophy as well as divinity teaches. As certain also of your own poets have said - Aratus, whose words these are, was an Athenian, who lived almost three hundred years before this time. They are likewise to be found, with the alteration of one letter only, in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the supreme being, one of the purest and finest pieces of natural religion in the whole world of Pagan antiquity.

Jamieson-fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
28. For in him we live, and move, and have our being-(or, more briefly, "exist").-This means, not merely, "Without Him we have no life, nor that motion which every inanimate nature displays, nor even existence itself" [Meyer], but that God is the living, immanent Principle of all these in men.
as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring-the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose-to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism. (Probably during his quiet retreat at Tarsus. Ac 9:30, revolving his special vocation to the Gentiles he gave himself to the study of so much Greek literature as might be turned to Christian account in his future work. Hence this and his other quotations from the Greek poets, 1Co 15:33; Tit 1:12).

White Privilege and the Grass

In Peggy McIntosh's essay "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack", she tries to persuade the fact that white people are privileged because of their color. She lists over forty ways she is more privileged than any other race. Then she argues that all other races are oppressed because they don’t share her privileges.

There are several things wrong with her assumptions, however there is one main problem with it that I'd like to dwell on today. It’s the idea that someone is oppressed when someone else has it better.The first thing that is wrong with this notion is that someone else always seems to have it better! The hill is just greener on the other side. This makes the problem impossible for us to solve; especially for massive groups of people. Differences are inherent in our nature; this is what makes an individual an individual!

Second, what makes oppression wrong is not the fact that there are others that are not oppressed! Oppression is wrong all on its own. If only women are oppressed it’s wrong. If all women and all men are oppressed it is still wrong. Saying that oppression is wrong because others aren’t being oppressed, is to sell the argument short of any real weight. Oppression is a real issue; it’s not the result of a comparison!

I think this idea is the main problem with most feminists today. They believe that men are privileged, and thus women are oppressed. But the first half of the sentence undermines the message! If we want any real feminist progress, if we want to help the woman that are actually oppressed let’s talk about those women and let’s talk about how to help them!

Only when we stop looking into our neighbor's yard will we be able to focus on our own; and only then, will we be able to grow the bright green grass that we envy.

Diversity is Suicide

In class, diversity is taught to be the greatest characteristic a country can have. In fact, this seems to be one of the only characteristics of the U.S. that is not criticized within our class rooms.
However, this admiration is counter to the way other countries see diversity. They often don't want the western culture or any other cultures to infiltrate their lands. As I have studied why they oppose diversity, it makes a great deal of sense.
Diversity is like a nonrenewable resource. If we like it, we will eventually run dry. Diversity brings a variety of people together. Which seems great, however, threw globalization we see that the more we are around each other the more we influence each other, and the less diverse we ultimately become.
If every country was as diverse as ours, the offspring of those countries would forget about the cultures that their parents once lived in. Eventually, everyone would be the same, and diversity would never be recovered. This result is already displayed within the U.S., many people here feel as if they have no culture to identify with. We owe this to our pursuit for a more diverse world.
It seems as if the diverse world that we seek, if attained, would be a short lived one. Diversity is its own killer.

The Irony in Atheism

As I continue to read Bakunin's writings, I find a man who prides himself in logic and in his extensive knowledge on the existence of all things. In this way, I feel like I somewhat relate.
However he seems to be an Atheist, like many of my friends are, and every time I come across someone who believes that way, the same question nags me to the point of insomnia (like right now).
But before I expose the question, let me expose my foundational premises of why science and evolution has such difficulty answering it.

1. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (From Dictionary.com -my fastest online resource)
Thus science cannot use metaphysical components to answer its questions.
If a scientific question is asked it must be answered with scientific components. If the answer turns out to be a metaphysical one, than the question was always metaphysical.

2.In science everything has to have a beginning, because it is systematic.

3. Anything eternal is metaphysical.

Here is what I mean: If the scientific question is "How did the universe (every physical matter that we incorporate in science) begin?", then science has to prove it using non-metaphysical components. If science says that it was created by God, it would break the main premise because God is metaphysical. So I concede that through science, nothing metaphysical can be proved or disproved, according to today's definition of science.

However the question "How did the universe begin?" seems to be answered, even in science, with a metaphysical answer. Because anything eternal is metaphysical, if time and/or space were deemed eternal than it is out of science's realm.
So the only way for science to be given the opportunity to answer the above question, is to show how time/space could of come about by itself.
But, even before that, can one even imagine a point in time where time didn't exist? Even imagining that, seems to be an impossible task.

Try imagining a point in time space didn't exist? When I imagine the Big Bang theory, I always imagined that before the universe was birthed, space was present... it was just empty black space, like inside an empty jar in the dark.
It seems as if we all concede that time/space is eternal. Even if the earth were to disappear like it appeared, space and time to do the same doesn't seem reasonable or imaginable.
If in fact time and space are believed to be eternal, than the red flag goes up stating that, the answer to our existence has to be of metaphysical kind. Because what seemed to be a core truth of our physical world, is actually found to be of metaphysical origin.

If a man were to just appear, not ever having a mother or a father, not ever being a baby.... but just one day appear, science would not come close to explaining it. But, some religious people might have a field day saying things like "It is a miracle" or "Our new prophet has come". And rightfully so, because the question "how did the man come into existence?" would have to be answered with a metaphysical answer, because it denies our scientific laws.
If scientist would never attempt to explain how a man out of no where, from nothing, just appeared as a human, why then does science try to explain how time/space/inorganic/and organic matter come into existence?

It seems as if Atheism allows for the metaphysical world that it so adamantly rejects.

God and the State, by Michael Bakunin

I bought the books for my classes. A set of twelve non-intriguing books. All of which will become my best friends, worst enemies, and most dreadful companions for the next four months.
God and the State by Michael Bakunin is a required read for Foundation fo Political Thought class. I opened it up and quickly realized why he died before it got published, and why the ending of his writing was never read by another eye. The religious leaders would of had him killed. Is that how he died?
His writing is a rant on religion and God. He is so bitter that it makes me more interested in his biography than his writing. Bakunin's famous quote "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him." really makes me wonder why he thinks the way he does. Maybe he makes a good point. Maybe he's just a sad little man.

Let me know what you think.

Introduction

I am taking four classes this semester. Foundation of Political Thought, Global Governance, Tech + Social Change, and Class/Gender/Race in Contemporary Society. Everyday I will try to post my experience in these classes. Exposing the true relationship between student, professor, and class.

The controversial topics discussed in my classes will also be discussed on this blog. I hope to engage all of my readers. As such, I welcome all thoughts and ideas that are relevant to the topics posted. Infact, the main reason for this blog is not for your entertainment alone, but for the sharing of diverse ideas and thoughts, which ultimately leads to greater knowledge for all who take part.