Rights

I think that the groups that really need declaration of rights in the world is massive.  But in America, the people I think need it the most is the immigrants and the Homosexual people.  In America, the woman rights have improved a ton because woman can get educations, they can vote, and they can dress the way they want, but in many other countries they do not aloud woman to get education.  Also to add that the Arab woman who are in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Its good that woman rights were improved in America 70ish years ago, that many other countries need and should go through today.  It reminds me that when blacks were called 3/5th of an man and that they had to use math to count people like that people shouldn't be fractions, and in many of these other countries woman do not get the same rights.  And those woman can the the right of own property, and freedom.  Also we are so lucky that in the Constitution is says that everyone is equal, but I would have to disagree on some levels due to Homosexuals, straight people can get marriages and only in some states homosexuals can get married.  To me I do not believe that every one is equal, the Constitution did not refer to the gays and lesbians to be as equal as straight people.  For immigrants, they think that America is so special because everyone is equal and they want to live the American Dream.  The sad thing is that immigrants have to wait for their green card if do not get and found they are sent back making families split apart.  There needs to be more of an awareness to equal treatment around the world even including America.

Alexander Hamilton and Due Process

Due Process means- A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable,arbitrary, or capricious.


Alexander Hamilton's argument: He thought that United States did not need a Bill of Rights. First ten Amendments.  Do you agree with him or not?


Alexander Hamilton brings up a solid point that he believes that we do not need a bill of rights. Hamilton thinks that because we have due process, we do not need the bill of rights.  First off, I agree with Hamilton that the bill of rights looks like set in stone laws, but these laws are moral and have a good purpose for the rights of all America citizens. Many years ago men gathered around to make the Constitution to give the rights all Americans. And second,  I could have to disagree with him too, because the bill of rights is like an re- enforcer to what rights Americans have that the due process do not include.  As I was reading what due process means it means that every one has an equal chance, but is it a good way to lead a whole country.  I think that we do not need the bill of rights in some reasons or levels but the bill of rights also covers it more telling people what they have the right too.  I think we need it also to establish just in cause because two people can read the same document and view it two different ways.  But overall I agree with Alexander Hamilton.

Student Center Conversations

In class today we had another conversation without the teacher getting involved.  We talked about the Sharia Islamic Law and the reading from last night.  These conversations were done in the style were the students are the center of the core where we come up with questions, looking through the test, and commenting on what we thought of the two readings from last night and today.  The teacher does not talk in this exercise, in history our teacher had a piece of paper and drew arrows at the people talking.  The teacher could not give us any approval on what we said, correction, or advice.  Do I think these conversations are productive?  I do see these conservations being productive, but for me in general its difficult for me to jump into the conversation.  When its moving so fast and people are not supposed to raise their hands for me that I learn slower than most people these conversations aren't the idell things I want to do in history class.  In the reading we did in class a questions I would have liked to appose whats the difference between technically a Muslim and Legalally a Muslim?  I didn't have a chance to ask it but hopefully next time when we do this i will have a chance to speak up.  I found it interesting that less people talked this time than last, I think because some of the classmates are very dominate and very speedy and like to get all there points across and not sharing the 20 minutes we had with 18 people when others spoke 2 or more times.  Over all I think that this was a good why to have class today.

3 laws

In class a few days ago we read and talked about the different types of laws, Common, Natural and Civil laws.  I learned a lot on what other people based their thoughts on.  At Parker i have never studied laws like we did this year, I learned that you can not defy gravity is one of the many bases that I learned from my fellow class mates.  

The difference between civil and common laws

Civil Law was inspired by the Roman law, on the other hand common law made its rules by judges on a case basis.  Like how we make our rules now, it goes through a huge process by powerful people, unlike a civil law it is not inspired from others.  Judges have to follow the written word. This code of civil laws key point touch on person, forms of ownership, and whys of acquiring ownership.  The man difference between Civil law and Common law is that where as civil law is written and used in courts.  Common law varies from case to case depending on society where civil law has written codes for reference.  And also Judgement is common law and civil law is that the judges have to strictly follow the stuff written down.    I also learned that societies which use the civil law is based on the principles and codes from the roots when they started in the Roman Empire.  And in 8th grade we learned that the updates have to go through different processes before the president has the final say.  When a country used the common law is a legal system is based on opinions.  This year I have a way better understanding the different types of laws.  

Something we learned in History and another class

            This year in history one of the themes that we coved was environment and how it impacts our society, and how people impart the environment.  We also studied similar ideas in science and connected them to chemistry and biology.  Even though there were many similarities in topics, the approaches in the two classes were very different.   In history, we took a broad look at how populations spread across the world, and examined how agriculture and technology affected the natural world.  In some ways, the impact was good, but there were some cons as well.  Because of people, there are now problems of food and water shortages.  Deforestation has also been caused by population spread and adds to the problem of sustainability. 

            In science, we took a even closer look at sustainability and studied the impact of what humans have done to the environment at a cellular and chemical level.  Humans do not realize it, but they even impact the smallest biological creatures on earth-plankton and phytoplankton. This impact causes a ripple effect through the animal kingdom and back up to humans.   Due to pollution by products from humans, food sources and drinking water are becoming scarce. 

            Although the ways the ways we have learned about sustainability were very different, learning about the issue in one class helped us to better understanding in the other.  It was good to hear to different views on getting on similar topics this year. 

            

Twelve Tables

One of our readings this week was about the Twelve Tables, which was written by the Romans when they wrote their laws on big bronze tables about rights and human rights.  A lot of the rights written were still kind of modern because some of them lasted over 2000 years.  Like woman do not have human rights that changed around 1850 ish.  These tables of laws were a lot different then the laws of Hammurabi's Code, that code of law was a lot more strict and said "shall be put on death" these laws written by the Romans were not a strict they were like a middle ground it was more of a balance.  Like one of the laws were about if owing people money if did not pay had to go to court if then still cant pay go to jail and then increasing got worse unlike Hammurabi’s Code it was if cant pay then that person just gets put on death without a second chance.   I also noticed that the tone of the Twelve Tables were softer and would not really scare people.  There were some laws I did not care for in the Twelve Tables like the woman have no rights and that the father has to right by the law to own his children and can do whatever he wants to do to them.  Like beating them, making them work and also killing them it is legal for the father to do that.  And I just do not think that is right.  This reminds me of abuse but now its illegal. 

Why do the Twelve Tables signify a concept of "rights?" What makes this an important historical moment?

This was a major jump-start to the history of laws; people knew what their punishment would be.  Also the tables showed the citizens the life of property and what their property was including woman.  Unlike Hammurabi's code its more a nicer tone.  This is an important historical document because it had included human rights towards the people.  Unlike Hammurabi's code it was filled with punishments towards the people.  

Socrates

In class a few days ago we were put into groups and side A had he would leave and side B had he should stay we had to think of an account for respect for the law, human rights, respect for justice and fairness.   He was put in jail for just speaking of what his views were on justice and asking what does justice mean to them.  He had many young followers and when he was in jail one came and told him to escape he said no because he would be breaking the rule. I believe that justice must be flexible enough to allow its self to be adapted to changing within the flaws.   I also truly believe that the government put him in jail was because they felt threatened by him.  He wasn't killing any one, the government had bigger fish to fry but they felt threatened and needed to put him in jail.  
He should leave because:

• He should have the right of speaking. 
• He didn't think he did anything wrong he thought he was just educating people
• human rights: its his point of view he should be able to leave 
• Law: he doesn't have the right he was put in jail and he should not break it

After we just put into new groups with some one that had he should stay and compared and talked about the two.  In the group we came to include that we think that they had no real reason to put him in jail except that he was more educated then everyone else around him.  The government felt very threatened by him.  He as no right to be in jail and there was so many more people out in that community that deserved to be put in jail and put on death roe.  Socrates was just educating people he was not causing trouble by any mean.  He has no reason in the first place to be put to death we think he had all the rights to leave.  What the government is doing should be illegal they shouldn't be putting an educated innocent man to die.  

Mosaic Laws and Hammurabi's Code

1) How does the Mosaic Law compare to Hammurabi's Code? Cite some specific examples of similarities between the two. What are some possible explanations for any similarities between the documents?

I noticed both in Hammurabi's Code and Mosaic Law that they both agree on some one acts of doing wrong.  But I also noticed that Hammurabi's Code is more of a punishment and is more extreme and Mosaic Law is more fair more in the middle.  I also noticed that in both Hammurabi Code and Mosaic both of the number 8 is about stealing the only difference is that one is more extreme than the other.  

2)The laws of Manu codified many pre-existing traditions in Ancient India. In your opinion, why is it important for the law to act as a "codifier" of tradition?

I think that it is important and is needed to have a "codifier" in order to have a good lead community.  And that this goes into other important areas in the community like traditions and beliefs that makes it more clear in which their morals should be based upon.  But it doesn't really help every one in that community it only really favors the ones in power.  Like in the Law of Manu there is a caste system.  The system only benfited a few people when the other are left as not as powerful or even worse as un-touchable. 

3)What makes the relationship between religion and law significant in the ancient world? What do you believe is the relationship between religion and law today?

Many years ago people lives and society was driven by religion.  They did not have anything else, it drove there communities into secuss.  And that religions mixed but with law, I believe in this society right now is the authentic way of living its the right balance between the too.  Law being more legal way of living but thatsimportant because humans need rules in order to strive.  And most people need religion that a moral thing to do of living.  Church and state were not really clearly stated in ancient civilizations of religious and political powers.  

The difference of the Laws

The difference of the laws, are that the change of cultural diffusion has changed the ways of how every one in society has been shaped or as shaped others.  Hammurabi's Code has changed the way that people live there life.   Who knows where we would be today if Hammurabi's Code did not exist in written.  If not written over many years and through cultural diffusion the thoughts and rules wouldn't be saved and would disappear.  Why was it written on a big stone, did that want it to appear strict, or just the center of what people can do or cant do.  What would have happened if there wasn't a government to rule over people.  For example now for the USA, president Obama rules over us and makes the rules that congress makes and tries to pass.  Then why do people call it the power of the nation?  We don't set the rules we have to follow them so we don't end up in jail, or on death sentence.  Another example is in school we don't like to do our homework but we just have to do it and get it done.  Rules are extremely important even if you don't like them, what would society be without them?    I believe that it would be insane and crazy.  For example if you give a 10 year old to much freedom its crazy same thing if you have as much a freedom as you want with no rules the community and society people live in would not be productive over time.  

Hammurabi's Code and Human Rights

Why was Hammurabi's code written and what is the importance of it?

It was remarkable because it was the oldest set of laws that are known to be in exists and the record of this stone it is a progress in human society because it makes people aware.   Hammurabi was an important contribute to the Babylonia empire.  He created his code to protect the citizens of Babylonians society which also included woman and slaves.  It is a carving on a stone which were written by Hammurabi.  All together there are 282 laws on that stone, and describes the rights of people, personal injury and accusations.  This was important because it showed the meaning of laws and the strict laws that people didn't want to break.  

1) If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

To day we had a group dissuasion in class about why were these rules written.  A lot of people said it was to make the Babylonians society and community safer. A lot of these rules have taken the extreme and their wasn't alot of middle grounds to the 282 laws on the stone.  In most of the rules we read before the dissuasion, I noticed that most of them ended with "he shall be put to death" like stealing, and a fire and fore slaves.  It was all in the extreme, but one of them in really agreed was with the stealing, if someone takes your money are precise object they should pay you back but i don't agree on the part on being put to death if can not pay.  That to me sounds to extreme.  Now a days if your friend steals money from you or if you get your wallet stolen doesn't mean if they cant pay you back they have to die.  I believe that these rules were written to make people more aware of their actions, now people can go to jail not as extreme. 

Human Rights

I do believe with J Bentham's document, he said that there is no thing as of human rights but at the same time i kind of disagree too.  Now that the society has grown and that peoples options are very different but I believe it depends on treating others to human kind.  Every one is born with human rights but people choose the way that they want to use them.  For that the rights of an individual being.  Human beings now refer to this as a basic human need.  Like in the movie that we watched a few weeks ago called Cry Freedom, it showed me that even after WWII human rights weren't allowed to many people or the way that they wanted to use them.  I thought after WWII wont people just get their act together?  The government could do anything they wanted, but watching that movie it didn't seem that they even had a good real government to protect the people.  But some how everything they did like banning people was legal, but blacks had to wait to get a card to get out of the slyms.  Many of the brave people that tried to speak out often got beaten and killed at the end of the movie was the list of what the government claimed about how those people died.  But now we know almost all of those were lies.  J Bentham makes a good point of why they aren't real but in many causes they are real its difficult to just a agree with one side.  J Bentham said that in the animal setting that humans rights dont exist and that he didnt think they existed either.  But going back to the movie Cry Freedom the South African government that was under a apartheid they were taking away the human rights of blacks in Africa. But also disagreeing with his argument because when human rights are used well to benefit every one it really works with out an disagreement. 

Cry freedom 3

Now that we finished cry freedom it was amazing and that it is a true story. The ending of the movie called Cry Freedom it was really sad, I really liked that you didnt know if they made it to England or if they were pulled down my the government. The saddest part in the movie for me was the list of black people that were banned and were held my the government and how the government lied about the way they died. Like how do people run into a chair and die and then they lied about it, it really shows how corrupt the government was run. I am really looking Forward to this unit in history even how upsetting and distruptimg it is to understand the series of events that take place, but it is important to understand what the government did.  It is unthinkable of what the white government did the the Africans i think the worst part for me was when the flash back happened and the killing of kids and ruins of their sliam type area.  And that the law of Africa was fine with it, also I find it shocking that the blacks were prominent and the whites were not but the government was runned by whites.  So that the whites were minority in South Africa but at the same time runned the land.
I think that the white government was scared and threaten by Steve Biko because he was fighting for what he believed in. and probably thought he was a threat as a political activist from the white government in South Africa.  And that he became "banned'' and not able to experience the rights of what the basics are for humans.  Biko is a victim and does not blacks to became superior but he believes and was fighting till he died that they should be equal.  But because Biko was a leader, he had to take one for the team, and their was many consequences.  I could clearly see the message that the director was trying to show the polictial agenda in South Africa.  I do not believe that the law in this case is right, and I am glad that this apartheid ended.

Cry Freedom 2

Now that we are almost done with Cry Freedom the movie based on a true story.  I first did not like this movie because I had no idea what was going on, but now that I know whats going on its really good because you have know idea what the terrible government was going to do next.  Donald Woods is banned and has to go to point to point to get it a town out side of South Africa and then fly to England to publish is book about the truth about the government and personal stories.  He leaves without his family to another country and then gets there.  He had to pretend to be a priest to get rides from strangers.  And he needs to call his family to tell them he is safe and that they should come if he doesnt call that means he shouldnt come because he doesnt want them to hurt his family.  We didnt get to finish the movie so its really suspenseful because we had to stop it.  I hope that he made it and that he was able to join his family.  When the government sent the "Steve Biko" shirt on it and had to have poison on it, and it made me mad because its one thing to do to Donald but a whole another thing to do it his family.
Watching this was difficult for me because one of my uncles lived in South Africa during the apartheid and had to stay because they couldn't get out.  Now he tells us stories about his experience living in South Africa during it.  And he only had a chance to get out for education in the Unite States but had to leave his family and friends behind.  Because the government was so corrupt he wasnt able to take that much money so he spent all his money and bought a diamond ring and was the only thing he brought to America and proposed it to my aunt.  I found it difficult to watch it because the black people thought all the white people were bad even though the white people wanted change too.  And was able to compare stories of which he tells me when I see him.

Cry Freedom

Cry Freedom is a story about the apartheid in South Africa.  I found it tough to watch this upsetting movie sometimes, like when the shirts came with bad stuff on it addressed to Woods children sent from the government.  Stephen Biko is a African who doesnt believe that the government in Africa isnt good, he was on house arrest  know as "banned" and later in to the movie Stephen Biko dies from being beat to death but the government said he was on a hunger strike.  A newspaper editor tries to flee the South African police to publish his book to tell the truth, about the terrible government and terrible events that the government did to his family and blacks.
But after Stephen Bike dies the plot of the movie is centered around Donald Woods who was the newspaper editor that was one house arrest.  The brace newspaper editor during the movie was trying to get out of South Africa.  Donald Woods before meeting with Biko said "black racist" and changes his views on the government after having a personal meeting with the leader of the movement.  Donald Woods while being banned by the South African police threats to Prision him on the death that he wanted to publish about the story of Stephen Biko was beat to death.
While watching all the terrible thing that happened in South Africa, about the injustices things that the government did to the people.  I found it terrible that the government was killing other people for what they belief in, its like the Holocaust the Nazis killed the Jews for their religion.  I dont think thats ok because they should believe in what they believe in because there is no point to do something you dont believe in.

Is Religion Necessary for Ethics

What "God is Dead" mean?

Neitzche was a philosopher in the 19th century.  He worked on a piece called "The Madman and the Death of God".  In the Madman and the Death of God, a man runs into a market area and begins to talk about how God is dead.   And the people their start to laugh at the Madman of what he was saying people thought was crazy.  Also saying that it was us who killed God.  I think that Nietzche used this as an option  as for not a need for God in our daily busy lives.  Many years ago, people didn't have what we have now and their society was based on war shipping god.  Now those who do that are very religious, doesn't it seem like there wasting there lives in a book.  Then exploring the world of what their God created?  But today we humans because its so modern we don't pray the diseases and other stuff.  Neitzche is saying that we have not really killed God, but that instead we are closing the touch of what the significance of God was.  Now theres a bigger gap from really religious and between not that religious.  But now people have different options and just need to find a middle ground like a balance.  I think that Nietzche is just stating that what is the significance to God to those people in the market place.

Do you find Rachel's argument to be solid?  Why or why not? do you agree or disagree with it?

I do not agree with Rachel's argument, a few reasons why I do not agree is because religion means different way to many different people.  One thing we talked about in our group was that, is it right to be born into a religion?  Shouldn't people choose, Rachel's states that the ones that follow their faith with no rationalising.  Also in our group we talked about how we didn't really know about other religions that well if it wasn't for history class.  Gaby said she wished that she got to see other religions and pick one her self.  We also talked about how people who have religious view points are stubborn and don't want to say that they shouldn't decate their lives in the way people did it many years ago.  I disagree with the idea that religion morals idea would not have nay morals and ethics with out religion.   But overall as a group, Rachel's lack of ideas on the topics that she covered we do not agree with is argument.

About the reading

I think that the reading I read about religion is irrelevant to ethics is mostly accurate all though I and my group disagreed to a few parts.  Religion also could hold against moral development.  I believe that it would be a a good idea for people to grow up and have their parents explain different religions in which then choose one if they wanted to be religious.  I would have a better balance in their lives because they believe in it.  I am Jewish but I don't believe in much about the stories that were told or stuff in the Torah.  And would give kids an wrong and whats right for them.

Dalai Lama, Oscar Romero and MLK

• MLK
• Pastor, began to speak out for African Americans
• Created Southern Christian Leadership Conference giving voice to people who didn’t have any
• As a legacy in the Civil Rights Movement as he closed many gaps between the two racial groups
• Fought against majorities and fundamentals of society
• Involved politics and religion together as they were intertwined to govern society
• Helped people who didn’t have a voice and looked out for what they believed in
• Used Christianity as part of his doctrine to further implement his ideas and beliefs of what society should be
• Romero
• Liberation from Argentina government to support industrial development to give voice to the workers who supported the movement
• Had to do with relationship between Christians majorities
• Movements towards black unity and civil rights that attempted liberation succeeded and establish equal rights for races
• Wanted to revive and sustain Christianity to such advancements in the industrial world and used it as a motive cause for movements; equal rights movements would help support Christian life
• Dalai Lama
• Worked for democratic government and elected officials to start off governmental position
• Spends his life working towards liberation in Tibet and equality in the world
• Trying to have Tibet and China be allies, or have peace
• Trying to convince majority that what the government was doing was wrong and was punished for that; spoke out from a smaller voice
• Religion and religious beliefs were used as motivations to enlighten the people about their government and what they were doing under rule was wrong
• He gained a religious characteristic as he gained popularity and success from his work; regarded as religious official

What all these three man have in common is that they all tried to benefit the community. All of these men were killed or regeted. All these men were trying to show other people that their thoughts and opinions were wrong in most of the cases it was the government.

Oscar Romero and Liberation Theology Notes

Notes on the Biography

• between 1950-1960, the government in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico supported industrial development, benefiting the working class, but threw into deeper poverty
• many military dictatorships arose from populist governments
• all the nations of the West were rapidly developing while some countries suffered greatly
• there was a connection between faith and poverty in many areas
• 1975: Liberation theology text written by Gustavo Gutierrez
• the objective of liberation theology was to have Christianl groups come together to achieve “integral liberation”
• liberation theology has to do with the relationship between the Christians (mainly in Latin America) and political activism (using religion to push for social and economic equality)
• First step: present liberation theology as a fundamental theology
• in Brazil, there have been movements towards black unity, civil rights, and overall seeking liberation for the poorest of the poor
• Romero died while in  mass 10  days after giving his final sernon
• Liberation theology

• went to Latin America in the 1960’s to challenge the Catholic Church
• Chruch has to identify as a help  to the poor
• Paulo Freire his of the Catholic hierarchy with the differences of rich and poor
• In 1968 Latin American Episocpal conference of the Liberation of theology
• Church involvent in all humans rights
• 1975: Liberation theology text written by Gustavo Gutierrez

Notes on Primary Source
Last Sermon
-Romero is the Archbishop of El Salvador
-he feels the world is forgetting about religion and bypassing the laws of God
-text is trying to make us aware of this
-he wants to revive Christianity
-his audience is those who push away religion
-today, laws of God seemed to be ignored, based on societal values today
-religion seems to be secondary to morals of society
-believes citizens are living in a struggle

-Preaches about Christianty

-Sheds light on social, political, and economical situation of the people
-the mission of Christianity:
-carry on the name of Christianity
-sustain it
-you can take part in other popular groups
-including government
-but you must not forget Christianity
-Romero describes many deaths in El Salvador
-he says the military is murdering their own kind of
-and the law of God says, “Thou shalt not kill”
-no one is to go against a law decreed by God-Romero is afraid that world is moving away from religion, and towards something new

Inquisitions and witch crafts compared

The inquisition and witch craft are not good they kill people who dont fit in.  People with higher ranking titles make mostly woman feel guilty.  Mainly woman were convicted of witchcraft in europe.   We all know now that witch's arent real, so they werent even guilty but they tortured and punished them anyway.  Most feminist would make us believe that all woman who were persecuted and killed but I do understand that inquisition is much broader, for killing all who believed differently.  If you were not a strong religious Christian it wasnt a good time to live around there.  Inquisitions and witch-crafts are all just an attempt to spread Christianity, the Christan's didnt want any body else not being Christan's.  This reminds me of the Holocaust, the Nazis had a huge attempt to kill every Jew alive.  All though they did not kill allot the Jews, they tortured and punished them for their religious beliefs and killed 6 million Jews.  Although the inquisitions and the witch crafts did not punish every one they did effect people who didnt believe in their religious thoughts.  The Inquisition and witch-craft was just a say of showing the agent of power and changed those who thought they were doing the thing that was right.  Witch craft had been declared by the Pope named John XXII around the early 13th century.  The people in power specifically singled out people that werent in the beliefs as theirs and showed the "agents of power" thought out the middle ages.

Missionaries

Motives: The motives of Missionaries was to go around and spread the word of their religion and try to convert people to this religion. They wanted to get as many people to convert as they could using a non-violent system of spreading the word (except Islam).
Christianity: Believed that if people were not Christian, then they would go to hell so they thought that they were helping everyone.
Islam: They pretty much forced people to convert and they wanted more followers for political reasons.
Buddhist: Just want the world to be peaceful and for everyone to accept everyone. They want diversity and this is more of a polytheistic notion.

Methods: The methods of Missionaries was going to different places, such as Africa, Asia and America to help spread the word of their religion. The government also played a role in the missionary’s work to get people to convert. Even though they were not always violent, they tried to get people to think that the religion they are promoting is the only religion that god will approve of.

Differences: Buddhist missionaries promote the diversity of different people; a polytheistic ideal. They just wanted peace between all people. The Christian and Islam missionaries wanted people to convert for reasons that had nothing to do with actual religion. They wanted people to convert because of political reasons.

5 Rules

1)aggressive and forceful
2)Convert or die
3)Take advantage of your power
4)Dont limit your boundaries
5)No men left behind

Crusades

During class a few days ago we talked about the Crusades.  The Pope at the time was named Urban, would feed them all their information because the only people that were literate were the Popes.  Imagine only trusting one person that gave the followers their only way of finding out what God wanted them to do.  During the Crusades the Pope told his followers that Muslims were just killing ramdm people for no good reason at all and making woman become prostitutes.  Whether or not that information was true, the Christains didnt second guess any one because they do not have the Internet or TV feeding them information.  So they had to talk the information spoken by the Pope who had received it by God.  In which made the Muslims look like bad people.  But this does not happen now because of the Internet, if one friends says something that isn't true you dont need to trust them, because of other friends.  Back then they had no way of knowing if the Pope was lieing, they had to listen from the words from the mouth because they didnt have other sources nor was accessable to them.  In class we talked about how the Pope remained us all to Hitler and Osama Bin Laden.  Hitler persuaded his followers to do the things that they did for him and Osama Bin Laden had his followers believe him as if he was their God.  They both were really good at persuading the believers in doing what they thought was right. In our reading what makes it that Christians in the earlier times of that religion makes it seems to be disconnected and restrained by other religions.  Also that the Christian people were motivated to declare a Crusade (a holy war) on Muslims which were neighbors to them who at the time owned the Holy lands.  The Pope Urban one of the leaders of the Christian religion during that time period was the believers only way to hear the messages from God.  The Pope had to convince the followers be apart of the war.  Through the Pope he said that God told him that, everyone that fought in the war would have major benefits.  Which included going straight to heaven, in which heaven is a major part of the Christan's religion.  And also promised that it would wipe away all the bad sins in their life time.  In class we also talked about how Osama bin Laden remained us of Pope Urban.  They are similar because Pope Urban was the  "direct line to God" and Osama bin Laden was kind of like that too, but not the direct line from God.  And that the people that followed Osama bin Laden did not have access to the Internet and TV.  But they are also not similar because Osama bin Laden was never a prominent religious figure.  

Britiain connected to Sikhism, Islam and Hinduism

Sikhism
In 1839, when the leader of the Sikh state, named Ranjit Singh, there was leadership instability. Around five years later, the British Empire defeated the Sikh, and took over as much of the Sikh territory as possible.  The Sikhs tried to fight back in 1849 but they were defeated again.  Then after that the Sikhs admitted the defeat to the British but they then both realized that both of them had so much in common and started to get along.  Sikhs started serving in the British Army.  The Sikhs were on the same side as the British.  But British still had some control of the Sikhs temerity.  But in 1919 their good relationships didn't hold, because of the Amritar massacre.  The British Geneal, E.H. Dyer told his troops to shoot 10,000 people.  The troops ended up killing 400 and wound 1000 people.  But Britain didn't feel that same way and got rid of him.  In 1997 Queen Elizabeth II put down a wreath of where the massacre took place showing the Sikhs know that the British supported them.
Islam

Islam and Britain have had many interactions in history.  Around the Crusades, Britain and some Islamic countries formed good friends.  Queen Elizabeth I asked the Ottoman Empire for some help against the Spanish Armada.  Slowly after that, British men started to Convert into Islam religion around the 16th century and left their families behind.  The first British man to convert into Islam was a man named John Nelson.  In 1649, the first English version of the Qur'an came out, by Alexander Ross.  In 18th and 19th century Islam was becoming more popular in Britain, mostly in upper classes.  Trade between these two countries started and immigration started to follow further expanding this into the late 18 century.  Muslims mostly Yemen, came in boats to port cities of Liverpool, Cardiff, South Shields, Hull, and London.  Around that same time there was the first mosque in Britain in Cardiff in 1860.  

Hinduism
Through the time of 1957 to 1947 Hinduism and Britain came into connection.  There was a battle led by Robert Clives (now known as the Battle of Plassey) which was around the same time as the end of the Mughul Empire.  In the beginning, the British didnt get in the way of Hinduism's practices, but shortly after the British came to the shore and wanted the western part of the population.  Around that same time the partition of India to become independent took place in 1947 to present time now  This became a problem with Hindus as was brought up that there was a lot of violence that included in 1992 Hindus were terrified by the demolishing of the Babri mosque in Ayodhva, which was built over where Rama's birth was.  The tensions were caused by negative feelings to covert Hindus to different religions which became the Hindutva movement.