Well the end of the year is just about here. This will be my last blog post. Oh my...

SIKE! Not even fazed. I think I'm more excited for what's to come than sad for what has passed. I'm ready to put high school behind me and start afresh!

Anyhoo, better get to the point of this blog before I start rambling irrationally about my college plans. So here was an interesting reflection question: will you take a philosophy class in college? My mom minored in philosophy, and while she's no Buddha or Confucius, I'd have to say the wisdom she attempts to impart upon me (not just as a mother, but as a thinker!) is different than what most mothers advise their daughters to do. ("You need to meditate more often, it will center you spiritually!") I think being raised by such open-minded parents who enjoy and respect philosophy has made me a much more open person, willing to try anything new. I'll admit, I enjoyed the emhasis on philosophy and ethics much more than our talks on religion--ethics should be its own class!

So I hope I can fit in a philosophy class somewhere amongst my general education credits at UMBC next year (haha). Philosophy kind of offers us a tentative list of life rules: you can pick and choose which philosophy you like, and for those beliefs you don't personally agree with it, it's still interesting to learn about it or talk to people who do agree with it. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Absolutely!

I mean, if you haven't noticed, religion has really seeped into politics and government, maybe even moreso lately.

Abortion? Evolution? Contraceptives? Separation of church and state seems to be a big problem, regardless what country you live in. This is why we don't have an official religion--religious ideals become mixed up in politics until religion threatens to become law. And when that happens, things get bad: hello Spanish Inquisition! 

So yes, of course religious stories are newsworthy. Religious conflict should be equally as concerning to us as political conflict, even if we don't want to hear it. People have told me that they don't like watching real news because it's "depressing". Well you know what? I find Access Hollywood just as depressing! For me, watching someone's star-studded career being blown to shreds as they fall apart in some rehab facility or prison is depressing, maybe even moreso with the way it's glorified as though the paparrazzi can be justified. Turning on the tv to hear about a radical religious extremist strapping himself to a bomb and blowing himself up to promote his ideals should be more important, more significant to us than which actor got pregnant or married or divorced. Religious stories matter, even if they don't seem to affect us directly. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Can torture be a legitimate tool for law enforcement?

*Sigh* Like so many topics in this class, I'm forced to say yes, but with moderation.

To be frank, if someone has been involved in a situation so dangerous that it warrants immediate torture, I don't really think there are scenarios in which they are completely innocent. And while we do have non-invasive techniques like lie detector tests, they can be easily faked or misread. 

I'm definitely NOT saying torture is good though!! Wouldn't it be a great world if we didn't have to use it? And it's not just the victims who suffer long-term. I'm sure law enforcement officers never sleep soundly after a brutal interrogation. 

The only time I would choose and absolute NO for torture is when it approaches sadism. I mean, there are certain physical limitations that should be respected in the interrogation room. Torture should never be used to satisfy an individual's anger or to "avenge." There needs to be an ultimate goal in mind, one that outwieghs the suffering of the individual. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The biology of ethics!!

Should we fight our biology or accept it when it comes to morality?

What a difficult question. The scenario used in class--having to smother one's own child to prevent being discovered by soldiers and killed--particularly bothers me. I mean, why have we even evolved to develop rationalization and logic to compete with our instinctive, emotional decision making skills? As a parent, you WILL be biologically inclined to keep your child alive, no matter the consequence. It's part of how we evolved, and why we survived. 

So we can't fight our biology. While we've evolved to develop logic (SPOCK!) (or Sherlock, for that matter), I don't think we'll ever be able to completely destroy our primal instincts. Emotion is a biological response, too. We can only hope that we make the right decisions, whether based on rationality or emotion.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I have mixed feelings about this shrine. Apparently it commemorates Japanese soldiers who died serving the emperor, and it enshrines their souls--but many of them have been considered war criminals. And to place them up on a pedestal granting them divinity in death? I mean obviously there's some cultural significance that I'm missing, but it almost seems arrogant? cocky? "Unapologetic" was the word Wikipedia used. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Oh no! Blogging about blogging! Or "meta" blogging. I really like blogging because it's something I've done for a long time previously to this class--since I basically figured out what a blog was in middle school, I've had a string of personal blogs, finders-keepers blogs, and funky websites. I've also kept journals since elementary school.

I dunno, it's just easy and fun to look back at how differently you felt about things, even just a few months ago. I'm surprised how much high school in particular has changed the way I look at things. Blogging is just really an extension of my journals, I guess. And considering it's at the center of this class, it's hard not to love world religions.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

No, really. What is the big deal?

Yeah so I have grown up in Columbia to two very, very liberal parents (the term "hippies" is not an insult, it's a definition of our family) so I guess it means that I do have quite a bit of bias. But, with that aside, I have to point out several things about the gay marriage debate that simply don't make sense to me.

Firstly, people don't want gays to be recognized by the government as married couples...what? This fact acutally has little to do with religion if it's not a religious marriage--"marriage" to the government is a process and a resulting status, not a ceremony. So to say it's against what God taught us or whatever is ridiculous--he didn't say anything about who could be dual homeowners or get tax cuts or get wedding certificates. If people want to get married by the courts, how does religion even come into it?

And then then there's people who use their religion as an excuse to call gay marriage "evil". From my experience, I don't recall there ever being a clause in the Bible stating that the unification of two people who love each other is bad if they happen to be the same gender. 

And why do we even take the Bible literally? It's centuries old. OLD. As in out-dated. As in people need to consider that society is much, much different than the time it was written in. Silly soapbox Bible preachers.

And finally--marriage is about love. Wouldn't it be more evil of us to prevent two happy, loving people from being bound to each other and to have them be loyal to one another? Why prevent love? You can't help who you love, and if religion is getting in the way of love, I think religious leaders need to rethink their priorities. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

You'd be surprised how often people ask me that when they learn I'm vegetarian.

No, I don't worship Mother Nature, hug trees, or release lab rats from their "prisons." But as for a soul--? People ask me if I don't eat animals because I think "they're people" like all the time. I can't deny that I love animals, but maybe the idea of a "soul" isn't what we're looking at here.

Okay so I'm not fully a vegetarian--I have eaten fish and, quite frankly, I don't see anything wrong with eating wildcaught fish that haven't been raised on hormone-ridden meal in tiny pens of their own feces. But more importantly, they don't raise their young.

Weird requirement, right? But I mean, compared to a cow that makes milk for its babies (yes, we give our cows hormones simulating post-pregnancy to get our milk & cookies, eww) and then raises it with care and something bordering on love, fish just pop out eggs and leave 'em to fend for themselves. So maybe the "soul" we're talking about is more made up of the qualities comparitive to love, protection, and hope, which a lot of animals seem to have. Dogs have always been described as "loyal" or man's best friend, and growing up with them, I've always seen that there's something more to sit, stay, and beg. I feel like it's wrong to treat an animal or its offspring with indecency when they're obviously nurturing, caring, and protective, much like our own mothers and families.

So I guess what I'm saying is that having a "soul" is having characteristics similar to human love. I think some animals may have a hint of this, but I can't say which are which. So maybe we should just be nicer to all animals and save ourselves the guessing game!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Name: Guru Nanak

Date: 1469-1539

Major Actions: Founder of Sikhism. Challenged conventional practices of Hinduism and Islam like outward worship and emphasized internal faith. Claimed there is one God and that he can be accessed without a priest or special rituals. He had a family, and felt it didn't interfere with spiritual pursuits.

Interesting story: One morning after he was married he went to take a bath in the river Bain. After plunging into the water and not re-emerging, everyone assumed he had drowned. Actually, God was revealing himself to Nanak, and englightened him. Three days after his disappearance, Guru Nanak appeared at the river in a trance, and gave his job away to the poor. The words God had revealed to him are written at the beginning of the Guru Granth Sahib.

Significance: Founded a new religion splitting away from the physical rituals of Islam and the many representations of God in Hinduism; stressed personal worship and the ability to worship with few requirements.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Sorry, just got a little carried away there with the title. Okay so it's not a cult, but it might as well be. Nerdfighteria--if you're not familiar with it, NO, we are not fighting nerds, we are fighting world suck. I'm still ecstatic from watching the latest CrashCourse video on YouTube, produced by my heroes, the leaders of Nerdfighteria. Backstory: my favorite author John Green and his brother Hank have entertained me for years with their nerdy/interesting/philosophical/musical vlogging rants, but just recently they began a separate series of videos entitled CrashCourse, in which they "teach" John's avid readers  about history and science. And "teach" isn't exactly the right word--because through cute animations, Harry Potter references, and a tight-knit community, this barely resembles the classroom.

The latest one is on Hinduism, Buddhism, and Ashoka--just what we happen to be learning!

John Green is basically the reason why I'm a high schooler who still reads. No, seriously. He caters to adolescents perfectly: he doesn't assume we're stupid, or overly-obsessed with MTV and sex and drugs. No, he helps us understand Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass or ancient Mesopotamia. Plus, his brother writes songs and explains science. Sweet. Go read Paper Towns or The Fault in Our Stars. And especially Looking For Alaska. 

Oh, and as we like to say--DFTBA, Don't Forget to Be Awesome.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

"Are atheists suffering from civil rights violations?"

I actually find this question pretty ironic considering that usually those attempting to achieve religious freedom are those who practice religion!  (Oh geez, Hilary Duff in my ears again...)

I find it also pretty surprising that there are so few atheists in politics. Not to insult heavily religious people or anything, but I feel like people who's morals come from religion tend to have more extreme views about politics as well. Politics and religions overlap a lot even though we pretend they don't. The best politician would have no bias, not just from religion but from other beliefs. So you'd think people without religion in their lives would not have to consider the effect of certain laws on their beliefs, and would therefore get more involved *without bias* from religion.

^^That's all hypothetical though. I wouldn't say that's based on any fact but just my experience. It's so messed up that atheists growing up in the "Bible Belt" feel oppressed by their lack of belief. (But then again, why would you choose to live there knowing fully well that atheism is socially unacceptable?) 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

So on Monday we talked about government intervention in several religious issues--whether contraception should be insured, even for patients of Catholic organizations, and whether a business has a right to discriminate based on sexual preference. I feel pretty strongly about both these issues.

Pardon the rambling--with Hilary Duff blasting in my right ear I think my IQ was lowered a few points. This song reminds me so much of my childhood--!!! Augh! Okay sidetracking over.

Anyway I mostly don't understand why anyone would have an issue with subsidized contraception. If you don't want it, don't buy it! Just because one group of conservative Christians doesn't believe in it doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to benefit from it. Ultimately, contraception prevents people getting themselves into difficult situations, and why would we lose the chance to prevent pain and suffering? Silly people in suits! Sometimes I wonder if politicians just wear the suit and then watch Celebrity Apprentice all day instead of actually thinking. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Okay I've been meaning to blog about this issue for a while! Although I have been known to shake my head at any mention of the end of the world occurring this year in December, I actually don't really think it's a bad thing to consider the apocolypse.

I think we all need some kind of reason to reorganize our priorities. And if not out of fear of the end of the world, then maybe out of fear of death. People have always been scared to death (haha) of what comes after we die--it's nothing new. Poets consider it, writers consider it, even our parents consider it because they write wills! And in considering the end we think about what really matters. 

So maybe the end of the world isn't such a bad thing. In theory. I mean, I wouldn't want the world ending, but maybe I want people to think it's ending...?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/world/middleeast/israel-faces-crisis-over-role-of-ultra-orthodox-in-society.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Can religious groups be a threat to a community? To a country? Maybe.

I really do have difficulty deciding who's in the right here, especially with the above article discussing the extreme measures some ultra-Orthodox Jews are taking to assert female subjugation. Blacking out billboards with women on them? Spitting on young girls dressed too immodestly for Jewish men's ideals? Yeah that's a bit crazy.  We've seen violence inspired by extreme interpretations of religion, and here we're seeing unfair treatment of women based on the same thing. Segregating women from men within their community is harsh enough--but in the modern world, ultra-Orthodox Jews can't expect everyone to conform to their ideals too! Sheesh. People get so worked up by religion.

So basically, women OBVIOUSLY deserve equal rights as men. Religions like Orthodox Judaism just complicates that. And different women probably feel differently about the issue, too--like in Islam, Jewish women dress to different degrees of modesty, following different "codes" of behavior. And no one can tell them what's right or wrong in religion. What can we do? Nothing really, except expect them to figure it out.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Is Islam a "religion of peace"? To be honest I think that's a stupid question.

You look at any media source--a newspaper, the tv, the internet--and radicals from almost any religion pop up here and there, blowing up this or shooting that or protesting something. To question Islam as a peaceful religion doesn't make sense unless you question other ancient religions. In the Acts of the Apostles, God condones violence by smiting people left and right! Violence everywhere.

Surely Islam has some violent roots, but don't many religions? Christianity stems from violence, as does Judaism because they share the Old Testament/Torah. But a book doesn't make a religion. A group of people do. Belief systems cannot be held responsible for violent acts committed by religious people because it is merely an extreme interpretation of their sacred book that creates reason for violence. It's not the religion, or the book--it's the interpretation. 

Islam is not any more "violent" or "peaceful" than any other religion. Radical Islamists who interpret their religion as motive for violence do not represent the majority or the religion.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Despite the contrasting ideas found in the Qur'an, I find that the stereotype of Islam woman strongly overwhelms the actual facts. When we first had the discussion of the hijab with Ms. Malik earlier in the year, I raised the notion that many women probably wear the veil out of choice, not obligation (despite the strong cultural influence to do so!). Some of the Islam "fashions" that we looked at were pretty startling, the burka in particular. So maybe we're justified for feeling "offended" that these women are wearing something we view as suppressive.

And yet, Islam women like Khadija and Tamanna brought to light my question--what about women who choose to wear traditional Islam garb, not as a symbol of suppression, but of reform?

Walking through these halls, I admit, I shake my head a little to myself when I see what some of the girls my age are wearing (or aren't wearing, for that matter!). So maybe it would make sense if we took a tip or two from Islam women and cared more about comfort over style, more about expression than conformity.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Do religious people handle suffering more effectively than non-religious?

You know this conversation really struck me as one with two very different sides to it. Firstly, that suffering acts as a reminder to people that they're human, acting as a penance dealt by whatever god they believe in. This kind of suffering helps "build character" and helps religious people find hope for deliverance from pain.

And then there's the other side, that suffering is, in essence, bad, and that all the suffering in the world doesn't make you a better person.

Religious people who handle suffering find a silver lining amongst all the bad, and I feel like a religious community is more intimate and supportive than a secular one, their common bond being faith. And it's this faith they hold on to when they suffer. And even if they are misguided in viewing their pain as a punishment, at least it gives a reason for it. When something bad happens, don't we always ask why? Maybe religious poeple can handle and thus overcome suffering more effectively because they have an explanation supported by a group of like-minded people.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I love having class interns. Generally they're actually a breath of fresh air. Last year when I took history (with a certain teacher I will not name...) I didn't learn ANYTHING until the student teacher came and taught us. I mean no offense to our AWESOME oakland mills teachers, but often I find the student teachers are just more cheerful and excited about teaching. Ms. Malik was always upbeat on Monday mornings when we were all pretty much dead...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

From the warm up question: is love the solution to end hate?

Often, we like to think it is. If hate is returned to hate, isn't it only reciprocated? We tell ourselves then that we must treat hate with its opposite to cancel it out--love. But love is very rarely the opposite of hate. More often, it's the source of it. Because people love their religion, they choose to hate others'; because people love money and power, they hate people in their way or who have the things they think they want.

And in this unhate campaign, it's the love of certain beliefs that  instigate hate between parties: the belief that homosexuality is bad, the belief that one religion is better than another, or the belief that one nation can invade another freely. The campaign was criticizing the hate that happens between world leaders; but what did they prove, or solve, by angering those leaders and their supporters? In this scenario, this company is acting merely as a rabble-rouser, not proposing a solution. I think they tried to make a dramatic statement about overcoming prejudice, drawing parallels of love as the solution or opposite of hate. The opposite, or solution to hate is not a kiss on the cheek, but understanding and tolerance--something much harder to achieve than an emotion as fleeting and extreme as love.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Yes. I'm doing it. A second song post.

Today I chose "Roll Away Your Stone" by Mumford and Sons.

Roll away your stone, I’ll roll away mine
Together we can see what we will find
Don’t leave me alone at this time,
For I'm afraid of what I will discover inside

Cause you told me that I would find a hole,
Within the fragile substance of my soul
And I have filled this void with things unreal,
And all the while my character it steals

Darkness is a harsh term don’t you think?
And yet it dominates the things I see

It seems that all my bridges have been burned,
But you say that’s exactly how this grace thing works
It’s not the long walk home that will change this heart,
But the welcome I receive with the restart

Darkness is a harsh term don’t you think?
And yet it dominates the things I see
Darkness is a harsh term don’t you think?
And yet it dominates the things I've seen

Stars hide your fires,
These here are my desires
And I won't give them up to you this time around
And so, I’ll be found with my stake stuck in this ground
Marking the territory of this newly impassioned soul

But you, you’ve gone too far this time
You have neither reason nor rhyme
With which to take this soul that is so rightfully mine

Permalink | Leave a comment  »