Hammurabi's Code Versus The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: How Attaining Justice Has Changed

Both Hammurabi’s code and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are sets of laws written with the purpose of protecting individuals and maintaining order. They share common intentions, yet differ in the values they address.  Hammurabi’s code was a set of laws written in the 1700’s BCE my Hammurabi, the king of Babylon, and was influential in developing later systems of laws including the Mosaic Code. The basic tenets directed individuals on how to protect their possessions, keep safe, and how the judicial system should punish wrongdoers.  More than 3,000 years later, on December 10^th, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly. It represented a global promise to ensure the rights of all individuals, as a vow to never again allow atrocities like the Holocaust to occur.  The Declaration of Human Rights consists of a preamble and thirty articles that describe the fundamental and judicial rights of all human beings. 

            Hammurabi’s Code and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights share the overarching goal of obtaining fairness, justice, and protection for the people the laws pertained to.  While Hammurabi’s code focused largely on outlining a system of justice to victims of crimes, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights laid out rules to prevent future violations rights within countries and between countries. Numerous laws throughout Hammurabi’s Code focused on delivering rightful punishment to wrongdoers.  For example, a common trend that reappears in the laws is the value “an eye for an eye. ” For every transgression one commits, one is to be punished in the same way. One law states that “if a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken” (laws 196 – 197). This law demonstrates the value of order in society, and that justice is defined in part by the reciprocation of deeds. I believe it also proves that Hammurabi understood the importance of protecting his citizens.  His strict system of law and order was meant to frighten individuals from committing crimes, which in turn would protect his citizens from being victimized.

            Similarly, the purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to protect human lives.  The laws written in this document tend to focus on basic rights that all humans have and that cannot be abused.  For instance, Article 19 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” This law is not based mainly on maintaining order in society, as in Hammurabi’s code, but rather on recognizing a fundamental dignity that humans are thought to deserve. This shows that the purpose of the Declaration of Human Rights is to acknowledge that people have a certain dignity as human beings that needs to be respected.  

            Even though these two documents share the common goal of defining basic rights and laws, they differ in the respect of the values they describe as being crucial to maintaining order and morality. In Hammurabi’s code, the overarching value has to do with the importance of attainting justice through fair punishments to wrong-doers, and resolving smaller-scale social conflicts fairly.  The first goal of Hammurabi’s code, to achieve justice by dealing out fair penalty, is a reoccurring theme throughout his laws.  For example, the 3^rd law states “if a man has borne false witness in a trial, or has not established the statement that he has made, if that case be a capital trial, that man shall be put to death.” 
The law made clear to how the justice and court system was supposed to work, but also how wrong-doers were supposed to be punished. Hammurabi’s code also instructed citizens on more mundane conflicts such as marriage disputes.  For example, law 138 states that “if a man has divorced his wife, who has not borne him children, he shall pay over to her as much money as was given for her bride-price and the marriage-portion…and so shall divorce her.”  In other words, a man could not simply leave his wife if she did not get pregnant, but had to pay back the money that was given to him when they married.  All in all, Hammurabi’s code, consisted of instructions on how to resolve judicial, criminal, and social conflict, and emphasized the value of justice in order to live in a fair and orderly society.

The values embedded in the Declaration of Human Rights have to do with attaining a sense of global morality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes rights and privileges that all individuals are entitled to and that should not be violated. These include protection against torture and inhumane punishment (Article 5), the freedom to practice religion (Article 18), and the right to education (Article 26). The Declaration of Human Rights does not focus on how to resolve specific conflicts, but rather on how to avoid conflict.  In other words, the laws and rights described are for the purpose of averting possible clashes by insisting on a level of respect for all citizens of the world.  The Declaration of Human Rights does not specify how to punish individuals who violate the rights described, but rather makes the case that these rights are morally correct and therefore should never be broken. The reason why they shouldn’t be broken is because it would degrade humanity and undermine respect for the human race.

So what does this difference mean?  I believe that the distinct values described in Hammurabi’s code versus those explained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights demonstrates how our world has evolved since the times of Hammurabi and ancient Babylon.  Hammurabi’s code reflects the mindset that individuals needed guidance on how to live in every aspect of their lives.  From judicial to social conflicts, the laws explained how to resolve very specific problems.  In contrast, the Declaration of Human Rights, which is a code to the world, focuses not on conflicts or resolutions for specific cases, but rather on creating a common moral mindset. This shift in focus reflects the idea that in addition to laws and rules, morality is also an important part of a just society. Today, the world needs to be reminded on how to treat others respectfully and morally because the most serious conflicts that face humanity are not small problems between citizens that have to do with an unfair business deal or a dead ox that was stolen by a neighbor, but wars, genocides, and persecutions. The laws described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights illustrate the causes for the most pressing conflicts that face our world today. 

The differences in values between Hammurabi’s code and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflect the development of the concepts of justice and morality.  It is now not enough to base fairness solely on following rules, but also upon morality.  

The Declaration of the Right to High-Quality Education For All

The Statement of Human Rights in the Declaration of Independence claims that all citizens of the United States deserve equal human rights and treatment.  It states that humans are “endowed by their creator with….unalienable rights….[such as] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The ideal that the United States was established upon was a nation where all citizens had equal human rights that would allow them to accomplish their goals and live happily.   

Despite these values that our government is supposed so support, I strongly believe that citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are violated daily, as many student are denied access to high-quality education. In other words, individuals who do not have access to a good education are put at a disadvantage in terms of their opportunities later in life to pursue happiness.  

In our country, it is common that the least strong schools are located in the lowest-income neighborhoods, despite the particular need for a good education when people require a way to overcome poverty. Many families often times do not have the ability to send their children to good quality schools.  Why is this? Does our society discriminate against those without wealth? Does our country not believe that children from all socio-economic backgrounds should be able to capitalize on a great education if they have access to one?

I am not attempting to make the generalization that without a great education, no one can make money or be happy. Instead, I am making the point that the lack of a good quality education can make it more difficult for one to find a job, earn a living, dwell in a safe environment, and stay healthy. The benefits of a first-rate education are not by any means the only ways to acquire happiness. But I believe that they have the ability to make life a lot more enjoyable.

So what can be done? I believe that our country should ratify a “Declaration of the Right to High-Quality Education For All.” This declaration of rights would ensure that rigorous and well-funded schools would be established in all neighborhoods and give families access to good teachers, adequate educational materials, and a safe environment to learn in. This declaration would ensure that all kids in America would have the opportunity to attend a school that could supply them with the tools they need to graduate and succeed in college and later in life.  This declaration would give Americans from all socio-economic backgrounds an opportunity to get better jobs and earn higher salaries. Ideally, this declaration would give more Americans the ability to take advantage of their natural right to pursue happiness. 

Hamilton's Short-Sighted Argument

Congress proposed the Bill of Rights in 1789 to convince the States to abide by the federal Constitution.  The States had been reluctant to give up power to the federal government because they had traditionally functioned with under the leadership and laws of their own governments.  In order to gain support from each individual State, the founding fathers (such as Benjamin Franklin and James Madison) wrote a list of protections that included specific acknowledgements of citizens’ and States’ rights, rather than leaving all power to the federal government.  The proposed compromise was the creation of a federalist government, a structure where power was shared between States and a national government.

            When the Congress proposed writing the Bill of Rights, Alexander Hamilton argued harshly against it. He complained that the entitlements that the Bill of Rights described were already given in the Constitution.  For example, Article IV of the Constitution said that “each State must honor the laws and authority of other States, as well as the rights of their citizens.” This section explains the rights of States concerning the treatment of their citizens.  

I believe that Alexander Hamilton’s argument that there was no need for an additional Bill of Rights was made with good intentions, but may not have been best for the country in the long run. He did not want to establish a code of laws that promised States and citizens very specific rights that the government could not violate (not necessarily that Hamilton had the intention of violating natural rights) because it was important to provide the federal government with power and flexibility in order to make decisions.  He most likely believed that the Bill of Rights impinged on the federal government’s ability to make appropriate decisions for the good of the country because of the additional constraints that it posed.

            Hamilton’s argument was logical at the time.  Following the War of Independence, the government was attempting to establish a national identity among the States and prove its ability to govern the country. However, I believe that Hamilton’s argument was made without taking into account the possible negative consequences of a government with too much power.  Even though the founding fathers were highly focused on guaranteeing liberty, and would not have imagined violating citizens’ rights, they could not be held accountable for the actions of future leaders.  Not ratifying the Bill of Rights, as Hamilton wanted, may have led to a system of leadership similar to the one colonists had fought to disassociate themselves from.  The colonists fought the revolution in the first place because they felt that their government was impinging on their rights as citizens to have representation in government.  So wouldn’t giving power to a federal government without strict limits on how to treat citizens have the potential to undo everything that the colonists dreamed of?

            Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was vital in bringing together the historically separate States under a national government. Besides promising each citizen certain specific rights, the Bill of Rights explicitly said that States had the right to make laws concerning anything that the federal government was not in charge of. For example, the tenth amendment explained that any “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.” This ensured that States still had power and the ability to govern their citizens even though there was a federal government. It is possible that without the creation of the Bill of Rights, there would be no federal government with the power to govern the whole country.

            Alexander Hamilton did not want the Constitution to be ratified because he felt that in order for the federal government to be most effective, it needed to have fewer constraints.  To him, the Constitution sufficiently described the guidelines that the government had to follow and therefore there was no need for an additional Bill of Rights. Though Hamilton may have had positive intentions for arguing against the ratification of the Bill of Rights, I believe that he did not realize the possible repercussions of a government with too much power. I believe that it was the right decision to ratify the Bill of Rights because it helped create national unity and ensured the protection of citizens’ rights. The Bill of Rights went into affect in 1791 and has been the basis for protecting the rights of citizens and States ever since.

The Pursuit of Happiness: An Empty Promise

Over the past few weeks, our class has examined documents that describe fundamental human rights to which all individuals are entitled. An example of a document that acknowledges human rights is the United States’ Declaration of Independence. In the Statement of Human Rights in the Declaration of Independence, it affirms that all humans deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As I analyze the meaning of these human rights, I realize that the third of these rights, the right to pursue happiness, seems extremely difficult to enforce. Isn’t what constitutes happiness different for all humans?

I have identified three main reasons to support my position:

1) There is no way for the government to enforce that every citizen will have opportunities to be happy.

2) In a capitalist society where we are competing and working for the best lifestyle we can live, and it is not the government’s role to create an equal socio-economic playing field.

3) The world-wide problems that have affected past generations, and continue to affect our generation, make it difficult to prioritize the pursuit of happiness.

The first point described above means that defending everyone’s right to pursue happiness is essentially an empty promise. In my opinion, it does not seem possible that a legal system can monitor citizens’ opportunities to pursue happiness. In a country with over 300 million citizens, it is impossible for the government to make sure that every individual person has an opportunity to be happy.  To make matters more complicated, there is no way to tell what makes someone happy (without personally knowing them). What may make one happy might not make another happy.  For this reason, the government has no way of knowing if one’s right to pursue happiness is being violated or not.

My second problem with the “pursuit of happiness” is that our society thrives and progresses based on a competitive mindset.  For good or for bad, the government is not set up to makes sure that everyone has the same opportunities and choices. By the same token, citizens don’t work to make everyone equally happy. We work to make ourselves happy.  I do not mean to say that Americans are selfish and live only for their own pleasure, but the motivation behind making money is usually for personal gain.  It is not to give everyone the same set of opportunities. In our capitalist society, most people work to live the most comfortable lives they can, not to create a society where every single citizen is content. 

My third reason for why this “human right” is not enforceable is that the problems in our world often demand our government’s more immediate attention than citizens’ happiness. For example, how could the government promise citizens the right to pursue happiness while drafting men to the battlefields of Vietnam of Afghanistan? My generation is experiencing a problem that I fear may impinge on our pursuit of happiness as well. Generations before us have been exploiting the world’s natural resources, ruining ecosystems, producing harmful greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change, and ultimately endangering the future of human existence.  Now it is my generation’s responsibility to clean up the mess that previous generations created.  The need to confront these problems seems to impede my right to pursue happiness.  Does this mean that our generation does not have the opportunity to live for fun and excitement, but rather must dedicate our lives to fixing the problems created before us?

All in all, I strongly believe that the pursuit of happiness should not be classified as a human right.  The idea that all citizens deserve to pursue happiness seems morally desirable, but there is no way for a government to enforce it. 

King Asoka's Righteous Empire

Many leaders of early empires, such as the Hammurabi of Babylon, created codes of laws to help citizens survive and maintain order in society. In other words, laws tended to focus on the basic rules for maintaining individuals’ well being. They directed individuals on how to grow food, protect their money, and keep safe. For example, agricultural laws in the Mosaic Code regulated how often farmers could harvest crops in order to prevent soil erosion.

            During the mid-second century B.C.E, King Asoka, the third monarch of the Indian Mauryan dynasty, took a different approach to establishing order. He compiled a code of laws called the “Pillar Edicts of Asoka.” Rather than writing laws to guide followers on how to survive and prosper, Asoka chose to add laws that taught values and morals based on the Buddhist religion. These laws focused on the difference between good and evil, just and unjust, and righteousness versus immorality through a religious lens.  For example, the third Rock Edict stated that “respect for mother and father is good, generosity to friends, acquaintances, relatives…not killing living beings is good, moderation in spending and moderation in saving is good.” This law focused on how to act righteously, a theme that previously not many codes of laws had touched on.

I believe that by writing laws that promoted morality, Asoka’s goal was to create a sense of collective morality within Indian society. Collective morality is a shared belief and understanding in certain morals and values.  By establishing a common morality within the citizens of India based on shared values and understanding of right versus wrong, Asoka was attempting to maintain a greater sense of order within the empire. By establishing “an empire on the foundation of righteousness,” citizens were less likely to break laws and defy norms because they were familiar with the ideas of morality and immorality. 

Writing a code of laws based on religious values, legitimized by a religious justification, could have led to conflicts. I would argue that it could have been difficult for citizens of the empire to follow this code of laws if their cultures (not Buddhist) promoted contrasting morals and values.  

But history shows us that this problem did not arise in India under Asoka’s rule. How was Asoka able to avoid conflict within his empire? It was simple. Asoka promoted religious tolerance. In his seventh Rock Pillar, it states that “beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart…they may practice all of what they should or only a part of it.” This law exemplifies Asoka’s understanding that to maintain internal order within the empire and respect between cultures, he needed to show that he, and his laws, supported religious freedom.  By opening his arms to a wide range of cultures, Asoka was able to maintain peace within his empire and spread collective morality to his citizens.

            I believe that we can learn a lot of Asoka’s rule. He encouraged a sense of righteousness throughout his empire, allowing different cultures to prosper during his reign. Today’s leaders and legislators may be able to govern our country more effectively if they could learn how to create a greater sense of shared values and demonstrate respect for a range of cultural traditions.

 See The Edicts of King Ashoka:

http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

Incentives for Following Ancient Laws

Hammurabi’s Code and the Mosaic Code are two sets of laws and rules written in Babylon and Ancient Israel that were designed to guide the populations on how to live their lives.  These two codes consist of laws and punishments concerning crimes, agricultural life, social conflicts, and business ethics. Like codes of laws today, the purposes of Hammurabi’s Code and the Mosaic Code were to create organization and maintain order in society.  The two codes shared many themes and values, but differed in their means of achieving societal order.

One of the common themes in Hammurabi’s Code and the Mosaic Code is the value of “an eye for an eye. ” For every transgression one commits, one is to be punished in the same way.  If one is to murder, he shall be killed. If one is to steal, he is to give up money. In Hammurabi’s code, “if a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken” (laws 196 – 197). Similarly, a quote in the Mosaic code that reflects this value is, “show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Deut. 19:16-21). Both Hammurabi’s Code and the Mosaic Code state that punishments should be equally as serious as the crimes committed. One deserves to pay in the same way he harmed another.

Is the similarity of values between these two codes of laws coincidental? I believe not. Evidence exists that at some point in time, Jews living in Babylon immigrated to Israel and brought values that they had been exposed to in Babylon with them.  Hammurabi lived in the 1700’s BCE.  The Mosaic Code was established in the late 1400’s BCE. The values derived from Hammurabi’s code, such as “an eye for an eye,” likely influenced the way that the Mosaic Code was written.  This is an example of cultural diffusion that affected the ways the laws for the Ancient Israelites were written.

Although similar in many values and punishments, Hammurabi’s code and the Mosaic Code differed in an important respect. Hammurabi’s code was focused on punishing wrong-doers as a way to keep people from breaking these laws.  Almost all transgressions noted in Hammurabi’s code were supposed to be punished with death. The purpose was to frighten the Babylonians from committing crimes. This way, society could remain organized.

Rather than solely emphasizing harsh punishments as the motivation for following laws, the Mosaic code gave an explanation for why its laws were beneficial to society. In other words, as opposed to threats alone, the Mosaic Code established a set of moral behaviors for followers that supported the adherence to the laws themselves.  For example, one law stated that “if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you.” The first part of this quote taught the importance of honor and truth in society.  This is a value that the Mosaic Code attempted to teach all of its followers.  Although the second part of the quote gave a punishment for the crime, the last part of the quote suggested that if these rules were to be followed, society will rid itself evil.  The purpose of this was to supply society with a common moral code and understanding of good and evil. In other words, the laws in the Mosaic Code taught its followers how to live moral lives and therefore respect why the laws were in place. Because society would then understand why these laws were written, they would be more respected and followed.  

Cultural diffusion blended values from Babylonian society into the legal structure of Ancient Israel.   Both Hammurabi’s code and the Mosaic Code contain laws and punishments that cover all aspects of society.  However, while Hammurabi’s code strictly used fear of death to demonstrate the importance of its laws, the Mosaic Code attempted to establish a common morality among its followers that would result in a greater appreciation and respect for its rules.  

Socrates' Respect for the Justice System

This past week, we read a document titled The Last Days of Socrates (Crito) that described a conversation between Socrates and Crito in prison the day before Socrates was to be killed.  In his conversation, Crito begs Socrates to escape prison and to continue teaching Athenians despite his conviction for corrupting the youth. However, Socrates refuses and is too stubborn to leave with Crito.

Socrates’ decision to remain in jail is primarily based on his respect for law and the judicial system in Athens.  He believes that he should not undermine the justice system by despite his disagreement with his sentence. Crito believes that Socrates is wrongfully convicted and would better serve society as a teacher rather than as a martyr on behalf of the judicial system. He explains that it is only fair that Socrates should have the right to escape.

I believe that both of these arguments are extremely logical and the conflict is not easy to solve.  So, I pose the question, if one disagrees with a judicial judgment, is it right for him/her to ignore the judgment (and to escape as in the case of Socrates), or is it better as a believer in an accountable government to demonstrate respect for the justice system? In other words, do the ends of helping society (by teaching) and escaping punishment like Socrates could have done justify the means of undermining the justice system and in turn challenging its legitimacy?  

I cannot deny the fact that Socrates deserved to escape, raise his children, continue teaching, and question the ideas of powerful men in Athens who did not support his thinking.  It makes perfect sense for Crito, a close friend of Socrates, to beg him to escape prison because his conviction is unfair and cruel.  However, I believe that Socrates, a man whose priority is to approve Athenian society, makes the right choice by remaining in prison.

I feel strongly about this point because in the long run, it seems most honorable and beneficial to society to comply with how the Athenian justice system had decided Socrates’ fate.  By publically undermining the decision to convict him, he would have shown that any imprisoned individual who felt he/she was innocent, deserved the right to escape. This sounds like quite the un-Socrates-ish thing to do.  If Socrates had the best interests of Athens in mind, he certainly would not jeopardize its justice system.

In a broader perspective, if a respected role model and teacher in society were to spread the belief that the justice system did not need to be strictly followed, this could lead to major chaos within society.  Crime rates could shoot up and faith in the justice system would drop. If people no longer believed that the justice system served and protected the citizens of a society properly, it is likely that not many would abide by its rules. 

It may be righteous and selfless to remain in prison to improve trust and faith in the justice system, but it is easier said than done. If one were to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, I believe that it would be very likely that he/she would escape prison given the opportunity.  It is not a selfish decision for an individual to believe that he/she deserves to be free if he/she is innocent.  It is not inhumane for one to put his/her own health before that of the justice system.

This goes to show how unique of a man Socrates was.  Throughout his life, he worked and taught with the intention of improving life in Athens. Until the day he was killed, he was dedicated to strengthening organization and morality in Athenian life. 

The Pros of Human Rights

            I believe that the generally accepted belief in natural human rights has allowed our society to remain organized and moral. I would argue that because the idea of inalienable human rights is so deeply rooted in our laws and societal structures, our nation would live in chaos if the belief were not universally shared.

            The idea of natural human rights keeps our nation morally in check. Inalienable rights prevent unfair persecution.  They create a boundary that prohibits people from impinging on other peoples’ rights. They draw a bright line between what behavior is acceptable and what behavior defies the shared moral code.

I would argue that in a world where people do not share a belief in natural human rights, our system of law and order would not be effective. Some citizens might feel that they have the right to break laws and to treat others inhumanely because they are superior. Leaders may attempt to govern with absolute power because they would not have to respect the rights of the governed. Lawmakers could pass laws that deny a certain group access to basic services and the ability to provide for their needs. Without a system of law based on natural rights that everyone must follow, I believe our nation would be barbaric.

            Not only does this idea enforce a moral code and maintain order in our society, but it gives countries around the world a reason to connect.  The worldwide belief in human rights allows nations around the globe to work together to end human rights violations and to enforce a global moral code. For example, the genocide in Darfur brought countries together to collectively fight for the inalienable rights of the victims.  The belief in human rights creates a basis for countries to share common morals and standards for the treatment of humans.  

The Inevitability of Natural Rights

This past week in class, we were asked to discuss where and why we believe the idea of natural human rights started and whether human rights actually exist. As we circled the room, sharing our opinions and views on the topic, I began to realize that the development and spread of the idea of natural human rights was inevitable, regardless of whether or not they are real.  In other words, it doesn’t matter how many people throughout history believed that humans had natural rights such as the right to freedom and to pursue happiness, because there would always be someone to support this belief and there would always be people to follow it.  

Why would there always be someone to support the idea of natural human rights? I believe that as soon as social hierarchies were established and individuals were cast to the lower social classes, the members of lower classes were motivated to gain equality. The less powerful in society needed a way to prove that they deserved the same rights and treatment as anyone else. Armed with the belief that all humans possess natural rights, these groups challenged the leadership that seemed unfair and demanded the same rights as those who sat on higher rungs of the hierarchy. The belief in natural rights even influenced some to establish new communities and nations that would pride themselves on giving citizens equal rights and opportunities to achieve their goals.

One example of a nation that used and uses the belief in inalienable rights as the basis of its government and system of laws is The United States of America. Originally, the colonies were a haven for people who wanted to escape religious persecution and find a home where their religious freedoms would be accepted and encouraged. With The Declaration of Independence written in 1776, the founding fathers came up with the argument that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The earliest leaders of America society used the premise of natural rights to defend their break from Britain. The result was to create the possibility of a nation based on certain undeniable right for all.  To this day, the United States takes pride in being a country that respects each citizen’s “unalienable” human rights.

In today’s society, the belief in natural human rights has taken a new face and has become a near universally accepted idea.  The belief in human rights is now not only embraced by the people in varies societies who are attempting to gain equality, but this idea has become the norm for how modern and developed societies should function. It is almost taboo for one not to believe in these rights.

I believe that the idea of natural rights that all humans are entitled to was a means for the powerless to justifying their desire for more representation and equality.  Because the idea is attractive to those who want to gain equality, the concept of unalienable human rights has become a near universally cherished and accepted view.  Most countries today function with the ideals of fundamental rights for all humans.

Forgiveness Vs. Justice

This past week, we watched Cry Freedom, a film that shed light on the work of black activists during the Apartheid.  What intrigued me about this movie was not only the actions that these leaders took to help the black population gain equality, but also their non-violent approach to reaching an egalitarian society.  Throughout the course of the movie, I attempted to put myself in the position of the leaders who tried to represent and advocate for the black population.  I tried to imagine both their bravery and their anger as activists and friends were arrested, tortured, and killed. 

The film ended without an explanation of how the Apartheid dissolved or how power shifted to the black majority.  So, I decided to look for more information on how the new leaders of the country chose to punish the white population after the Apartheid.  What I found completely contradicted how I would have dealt with the situation.  Rather than trying, convicting, and punishing the politicians and the police, the new leaders in South Africa established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Commission was a court-like body that was created to uncover the truth about human rights violations that had occurred during the Apartheid.  Rather than prosecuting individuals for past crimes, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission focused on gathering evidence and uncovering information from both victims and perpetrators.  The entire objective of the Commission was to uncover the truth.

After learning about this, I could not understand how people who were treated so poorly under the Apartheid regime could have continued with their non-violent approach to gaining equality. Why did the black majority in South Africa not rise up and take revenge on the white population? Why didn’t they put every policeman that enforced the racist laws on trial?

I believe that Nelson Mandela and his government’s ability to forgive in South Africa reflected a characteristic of a great leader and thinker.  I believe that the leaders of the black population in South Africa realized that punishing all of the white individuals who may have committed atrocities against the blacks would not be beneficial to the country and the South African population.  These leaders realized that a bloody revenge against their previously harsh oppressors would not lead the country in the direction of peace and equality that they had dreamed of. Nelson Mandela, the president of South Africa, explained that “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.” His vision of what South Africa should be was a peaceful and equal society. I believe that the leaders of the country after the Apartheid such as Nelson Mandela understood the distinction between what was just and what was needed for their country. The intelligent decision was not to pursue justice, but rather to forgive and move on. These leaders helped reshape the country of South Africa.

I would argue that this is not always the right response to dealing with the aftermath of crimes and injustices.  I believe that sometimes, pursuing justice is a better course of action. Sometimes serving justice to wrongdoers is what countries, people, and the world needs.  Justice (and revenge) can be used not only to equal the playing field, but also to prove that some actions cannot go unpunished. For example, if a murderer were to be caught and then forgiven and let go, there would be no clear punishment to stop future murderers from killing.  There would be no punishment to be afraid of.  The decision to bring a murderer to trial and to pursue justice for his/her actions is the right decision because it keeps society in order.

I also think that pursuing justice is important because often times justice brings a sense of comfort, closure, and relief that can help a victimized nation or a population recover and grow.  For example, I believe that the decision to prosecute the leaders of the Nazi government and deliver justice to those who had committed crimes against humanity in the Nuremburg Trials was in the best interest of the victims of World War II.  After years of unfathomable suffering, forgiving the Nazis would not have helped anyone or any society.  The Nuremburg Trials brought a sense of revenge and closure to those who had lost everything in the war.

But as the post-Apartheid period showed, sometimes the most beneficial decision for a country is not to pursue justice and fairness, but rather to forgive and move on.  Black leaders in South Africa such as Nelson Mandela decided not to take revenge on their white oppressors, but rather to uncover, acknowledge, and forgive their crimes for the good of their country.  The decision of whether to forgive or to pursue justice is not always clear-cut.  I believe that the validity of these decisions is circumstantial.  It depends on what is best for the future of a nation, a population, or the world. 

Internalizing Second Class Citizenship

Throughout history, leaders have used different methods for holding onto their power and keeping others from challenging their rules.  For instance, leaders have used religious justification to maintain power.  Monarchs called upon the Divine Right of Kings to legitimize their absolute power. The Divine Right of Kings stated that the one deserved his or her power because he was chosen by god to lead.

The Caste System in India was a system of social hierarchy that separated the haves and have-nots.  The people in lower castes were promised rewards in the after life as long as they respected their positions in society.

The Apartheid government did not use religion as a means to keep the minority in power, but was still able to effectively subjugate the majority black population.  How was this possible? 

The movie that our class watched, Cry Freedom, suggested that suppression was possible because members of the black community ultimately internalized a sense of inferiority that was a byproduct of the government’s brutal treatment.  We watched scenes depicting deadly crackdowns on peaceful protests in the homelands.  We saw black leaders being arrested and tortured for speaking out against the government. This brutality served two purposes.  One was to physically subjugate, intimidate, and isolate the black population.  The second was to corrupt the psyche of the black population into accepting the notion that they were second-class citizens.  As a result, many members of the black community lost the motivation to rebel against the government because they started to believe that they did not deserve to be treated equally.

The racism and prejudice that the government of South Africa demonstrated against the blacks amounted to a strategic political plan.  The Apartheid leaders in South Africa wanted to keep their power and positions by subjugating the black population.  This included leading some to believe that they were indeed less deserving of equality.  This was a particularly effective strategy for the government to maintain its power.[1]

---

[1] Here is a clip that shows how easy it is for people to lose their identity when they are repeatedly told that they are something which they are not, The Bear That Wasn’t (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0a5JTSGvU).  In this video, a bear is told repeatedly that he is just a silly man wearing a fur coat and needs a shave, until he finds himself believing that he actually is man.  The bear internalizes the idea that he is not a bear but a human. The moral of the clip is to show how difficult it is to maintain an identity when one is repeatedly told that he or she is something else.

The Balance of the "Do" vs. "Do Not" Philosophies

For thousands of years, religion was primarily used as a set of codes that instructed people on what not to do.  Religion guided the lives of followers, by setting limits and boundaries, with the intention of keeping people from behaving immorally. For example, the Ten Commandments, a code of laws followed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are mostly made up of what not to do. Followers cannot murder, steal, or be jealous of a neighbor.   This is an example of a “do not” philosophy of religion.  For most of history, religion told followers what not to do, rather than what they should do. 

It was not until the late 1800’s and early 1900’s that individuals began to believe in a “do” philosophy of religion.   The new idea was revolutionary.  Rather than be subjected to a structure defined by limits, followers were encouraged to look to religion for guidance on the actions they should take in their lives. This new perspective was based on the idea that religious followers should live their lives abiding by their religions’ rules and by making changes in their world. These changes were to reflect their religious values and strengthen their religion. Every religious follower had the responsibility to promote and affirm their religion in their society. 

This perspective inspired a range of religious people to throw themselves into working for change in society. Mahatma Gandhi was one of them. He felt that it was his religious responsibility to reform the social and political systems in India.  He believed that as a follower of Hinduism, it was his purpose to help the less powerful and less represented people in his society.

However, not all believers of the “do” philosophy have taken such noble action. Violent jihadist groups like Al Qaeda also follow a “do” philosophy of religion. They too have decided that it is their religious responsibility to support less represented and less powerful groups, although they do so in a violent way. They carry out fatal terrorist attacks on “western cultures” because they believe that they must fight for their religion.  This is an example of a group of individuals who are influenced by this “do” philosophy to take radical action that they believe is for the better of their religion and for the world. 

This leaves the question, if the “do not” philosophy does not encourage social justice, but the “do” philosophy can lead to mass violence, what is the most advantageous philosophy for people to live their lives by? I believe that people need to live a life where these two philosophies are balanced.  It is important to have a moral code that restricts certain behavior including murder, but it is also important to have the motivation to make a positive change for the world and for one’s religion. 

The Role of Religion in Violent and Non-Violent Reform

In the course of history, individuals have often used religion to justify violent action in order to accomplish their goals and interests.  In other cases, individuals have used religion to justify non-violent methods for pursuing their goals and interests.  I believe that it is important to examine the effects of these two conflicting means of achieving goals in order to understand whether violent or non-violent action is more effective in accomplishing a goal. In the larger scheme of things, which of the two philosophies is a more effective way for religiously-motivated people to achieve their purposes.

For thousands of years, leaders and powerful individuals have called on interpretations of religious teachings to provide an excuse for violence. One example of this kind of leader was Pope Urban. In 1095, Pope Urban declared that it was every Christian’s responsibility to participate in the Crusades against Islam for the good of the religion and its followers.  Urban “made it mandatory for all Christians to fight for this as if their lives’ depended upon it.” He used his religion to justify violent action against the people that he believed to be the enemy of Christianity and to justify sending thousands of people to a war that many would die in. He waged war on Islam, promising that the crusaders would be rewarded for all eternity (based on his claim to know how god would reward).

Though the Christian zeal to conquer Muslims thrived during Pope Urban’s lifetime, the fury that Christians had had towards Islam eventually abated.  Crusaders realized that their attempts to conquer the Holy Land would not be successful.  By around the 13^th century, there was no longer a desire to fight in these wars. Pope Urban’s hope of conquering the Muslim religion and strengthening Christianity ultimately failed and all of the violent wars had accomplished almost nothing.  Jerusalem remained in Muslim control and thousands of Christian Crusaders had died.

In contrast, leaders and activists throughout history have also utilized religion to motivate their non-violent methods of achieving goals. In other words, religion has served as a guideline for how leaders should go about pursuing their objectives.  In particular, members of society who have experienced exclusion or injustice have called upon religiously-based non-violent methods of achieving social equality and political representation.  For example, in the 1930’s, Mahatma Gandhi promoted non-violent protests and opposition to leadership, first in South Africa and later in India, because he felt that the poor were not treated fairly in society and were not represented well by the governing body. His philosophy of non-violence derived from his interpretation of Hinduism.  He understood that social-activism was his responsibility as a Hindu and as a member of Indian society. Gandhi led hunger strikes and peaceful protests, which resulted in multiple arrests.  However, his efforts to bring the poor and unrepresented Indians a more equal society succeeded in the end.  One of Gandhi’s most significant accomplishments was his role in freeing India from British colonization.  Gandhi was able to use non-violence to bring social equality to the powerless in India.

So, I pose the question, can non-violent action can be as revolutionary as violent action? In other words, can people accomplish the same or more for their cause by using non-violent action as they can by using violence? 

Clearly, the answer is not black or white. Neither violent action nor non-violent action can guarantee that an individual will achieve his or her goal.  Non-violent methods of accomplishing goals may have worked for some leaders during a certain era, but did not work for other leaders in a different time period.  Even after Mahatma Gandhi used peaceful protests against the British and demonstrated the need for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Hindus, there was and is still violence in the Indian subcontinent. Even after Martin Luther King Jr. peacefully worked to help African Americans overcome racism and inequality that they had faced for centuries, there was and is still racism in America.  But the track record for leaders who used violent methods of accomplishing their goals is not perfect either.  Pope Urban sent out armies of Christians to capture Jerusalem and to destroy the Muslim religion, but after thousands of deaths, neither of these objectives was reached.  Perhaps what is most interesting is that religion can be called in to justify either method of action.  When people want to change the world, religion can be used as a justification for both violent and non-violent methods of action.

Threats to Religion

At the height of its expansion, Christianity faced multiple political and theological threats.  For example, the spread of Islam from the 7^th to 11^th centuries not only impeded on the ability for Christians to conquer land south of Europe, but also threatened Christian ideology.  By the same token, heretical “witches” were a threat to Christian theology because satanic manifestations on earth were the enemy of god.  In order for Christianity to maintain its political power and its existence, Christians needed to develop ways to combat these challenges to their authority.

            As Islam quickly spread west through North Africa, east to India and north to France, Pope Urban II realized that he had to find a way to reestablish Christianity’s dominance by conquering land and slowing the spread of Islam.  “In 1095, Pope Urban II declared the need for a ‘Crusade’ against the advancing Muslims.”  It was every Christian’s duty to take up arms against Islam and fight for Christianity.  This decision was very much a political strategy that the Pope chose in order to combat the rising threat of Islam.  The Pope felt that this act of aggression was justified to stop Islam from conquering more land and spreading its ideology.

            Centuries later, Pope Innocent the VIII felt that Christianity was faced with more of a theological than political threat.  In the late 15^th century, the fear of witchcraft began to spread among Christians.  Manifestations of the devil were thought to be living on earth, and they had to be exterminated if the idea that God was the most powerful force universe was to persist. In 1486, Pope Innocent encouraged members of the church to compile the Malleus Maleficarum, a guide to finding and exterminating witches. The Malleus Maleficarum laid out a systematic approach to holding trials for “witches” by torturing them into confessing that they worshiped the devil. The steps that needed to be taken were described as gruesome and inhumane, but were religiously justifiable.  In the end, Christians had to do whatever necessary to rid the world of Christianity’s enemies.

            What I find most interesting is that in both cases, the powerful and educated members of Christianity were the ones in position to declare which actions would be beneficial to Christianity. They gave the responsibility of carrying out these highly violent and seemingly unreligious acts to the less powerful because these people were not able to argue otherwise.  These are examples of decisions that individuals made in order for them to maintain power, even if these decisions seemed to contradict the values of the religions they represented.

            Throughout history, Christianity has faced political and theological threats and has found ways to combat them.  For example, the leaders of Christianity declared the need for Crusades and the implementation of “witch” trials to fight these threats. The overarching theme between these two instances is the absolute authority of the religious leadership that allowed them to make destructive and fatal decisions in order to maintain power.

A Possibility of Coexistance

This week, we read a number of historical accounts of events that occurred during the Crusades, and how they reflect biases based on the authors’ religions. Most accounts had either blatant or subtle biases towards Christianity or Islam, while criticizing the other religions.  Depending on their affiliation, the authors all seemed to have chosen their opinions on which religion should be dominant, and their writing reflected these ideas.  Yet, one historian seemed to promote a different objective. I believe that this historian’s view on the Crusades and the general relationship between Christianity and Islam represented an idea that the world was not yet ready to embrace.  He may have been attempting to introduce his ideas to future readers.

            William of Tyre was born in the twelfth century in Jerusalem and was a well-known chronicler and archbishop during roughly the second Crusade.  Though he held a position in the Christian church, his accounts of events are considered to be largely unbiased by historians today.  Unlike other Christian or Muslim chroniclers, I believe that William of Tyre tried to promote the idea of a society where Christians and Muslims could coexist.

In his piece titled, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, William of Tyre described an instance when Muslims persecuted Christians because the Muslims believed that the Christians had disgraced their temple.  Eventually, one brave Christian man gave up his life to save his people from death.  On the surface, this story seems to be an effort to prove the righteousness of Christians and the potential destructiveness of Muslims. 

However, I find it interesting that previous to the incident described, Christians and Muslims seemed to be coexisting in a city without any conflicts. The event the William of Tyre described disrupted society. It caused a conflict between Christians and Muslims that could have only been significant enough to record if there had not been tension between the two religions beforehand.

 So what does this mean? I believe that the author was trying to show that there was potential for Christianity and Islam to coexist without conflict and tension.  The two religions were living together (presumably) peacefully before the event had occurred.  I interpret this as the author’s opinion on the possibility for Christians and Muslims to live together. Rather than Christianity or Islam vanquishing each other, the two religions may be able to live in peace.

            William of Tyre probably had many reasons not to promote the possibility of coexistence between religions during his lifetime. The first reason for hiding this idea was that during the Crusades, it was probable that not many people would have supported his ideas.  The clash between Christians and Muslims reflected a belief that Christians should not exist side by side with Muslims, but rather that Christians should emerge victorious in battle.  A second reason that William of Tyre may not have wanted to speak openly of this idea was that he was an Archbishop, a religious figure in the Church.  For him to suggest that his religion should try to live in peace with the Muslims may have jeopardized his position in the hierarchy.  The last reason that this might have been a difficult idea to communicate is that during the time period that this piece was written, most people were illiterate.  It would have been hard for him to spread his ideas in writing if hardly anyone could read them.

Therefore, I believe that William of Tyre may have been attempting to promote a society where Christians and Muslims could live together in the future. By showing the disruption in society caused by the desecration of the Muslim temple, William of Tyre subtly pointed to the possibility of coexistence between the two religions. Because this idea would most likely have not been supported during his lifetime, he concealed it within his writing. This man’s goal may not have been influence the individuals during this era, but rather to spread his ideas to future generations.

How to Create Religious Coexistence

This week, one of the readings in our history text explained that after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., the once unified and growing Islamic religion broke into groups with conflicting belief systems.  Without Muhammad, the leader who was known for the ability to resolve any dispute, could lead his Arabian army into battle, and teach god’s words to humanity, Islam became a less unified and communal religion.  What does this show about Islam and religions in general?

            After Muhammad’s death, conflicts arose over power, interpretations of Islamic beliefs, and views on the role of Islam in everyday society.  For example, the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims resulted mainly from differences in opinion about who were the legitimate Muslim leaders.  The Sunnis supported the caliphs, while the Shiites thought the leadership should come from the imams, the direct descendents of Muhammad.  This political division evolved into a theological division because Sunnis believed that political leaders did not serve the same purpose as religious leaders, and Shiites believed that the imams were both political and religious leaders. This conflict has lead to the creation of new empires and civil wars between Muslims. Why did this problem continue to grow? There was no one to resolve it.

I have come to believe that the without a unifying leader, religions cannot fulfill their full potential to connect millions of people together under a common belief system. The powerful ability of a religion to create peace and community cannot be harnessed without a leader to bond followers together. During his lifetime, Muhammad was more than just a spiritual leader.  He was able to bring competing tribes together over a belief system.  He was able to settle violent disputes over who should hold local power. His role in Islam was more than spreading god’s word; it was to unify the Arabian people of different backgrounds and origins into an empire that shared a common belief system.

            Though one unifying religious leader may sound like the answer to both intra-religious and inter-religious conflicts, I believe that these major Islamic divisions are too far apart in beliefs values and traditions today to be brought back together under a leader. At this point, it is not up to one leader to unify these sects.  Rather, it is up to the members of these religions to recognize the benefits of living according to ideals of peace and respect. There needs to be a collective Muslim effort to promote tolerance, acceptance, and coexistence between all Muslims, Sunni or Shiite.  With this sense of respect, not only will different divisions within a particular religion interact more civilly, but we may move a step closer to achieving worldwide religious tolerance.  

            As Islam emerged, it depended on a unifying leader to bring individuals with diverse backgrounds and traditions together and to create a powerful religious community.  Today, as the world faces conflicts within and between religions, I believe that acceptance can only be accomplished collectively by individuals of different faiths spreading the importance of religious coexistence.

America's Educational Oversight

This week in history class, we were each asked to compile a list of well-known historical philosophers, scientists, astronauts, doctors, and great thinkers.  We each had around a minute to put our lists together and then we circled around the room to share our ideas.  As we took turns reading from our lists, a few names came up most frequently such as Socrates, Plato, and Galileo.

At the beginning of this process, I had no idea how this activity was at all related to our current unit in class, Islam. However, as we neared the end of our circle, I realized what the point of this activity may have been. We had shared around twenty-five names, but not one of the people mentioned in our discussion was a Muslim. Despite the video that we had just watched, stating that some of history’s brightest and most influential people have been Muslims, not one Muslim came to mind when we shared our lists of important historical figures. The activity made the point: what does this say about our education system? Even further, what does this show about our society? What changes should be made to the way we learn about history?

            Clearly, our education system is biased towards Western European history and ideas.  Socrates, Plato, and Galileo were all European thinkers. This doesn’t mean that our class actually believes that Islamic thinkers are less interesting. It rather shows that we have never been taught about famous Islamic thinkers, or if we have been, their religious background was never emphasized.  In my twelve years of attending school, I have never focused on Islamic history and culture. I now see that this is problematic. Islamic thinkers contributed to major achievements in philosophy, math, science, and literature. They also influenced many of the great Western thinkers that we know so much about. By not being exposed to Islamic history, we have been kept from learning about some of the greatest scholars of all time.           

This exercise has also made me think more about our society’s view on Islam in general.  It seems to me that not many non-Muslims in America can say they understand Islamic ideas and philosophy.  When I hear people talk about Islam, I get the impression that that many people are fearful of the religion. Muslims who have lived here for their whole lives are sometimes treated as outsiders. Many Americans associate the actions of radical Islamist groups with all Muslims.  This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Islam in America. Our lack of understanding may not sound like such a horrible thing, but the simple shortage of knowledge about Islam in America leads to racism and distrust of the most populous religion in the world.

Though it seems as if these problems have their roots deep in society, I believe that they could be avoided in the future if our education system spent more time teaching about Islamic beliefs and history.  Educating kids about Islam would likely lead to a greater acceptance of Muslims here at home and in the rest of the world.  If American society could appreciate the history of Islam, as well as the philosophical, scientific, and other achievements of Islamic thinkers, I believe that our society could be a more accepting home for everyone.

Islam in Southeast Asia: An Appealing Social Message

From 632-750 C.E., following Muhammad’s death, Islam was able to spread throughout Southeast Asia until it was a dominant religion in the area.  Why was Islam able to flourish across Southeast Asia, a territory already rich in religious culture, in a relatively short amount of time? The first main reason is straightforward, military conquests. The second answer to this question gives some insight into which characteristic of Islam was most appealing to followers during the time period. I believe that Islam offered the promise of egalitarian societies, which other religions lacked, and therefore attracted followers.

The first reason for the spread of Islam in South Asia, military conquest, was possible because of geographic proximity. From the 7^th to 8^th centuries, Islam expanded from present day Saudi Arabia to Egypt and eastward to the Sasanian Empire (present day Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan). Muslims promoted their beliefs in these newly claimed areas. Under a central command, the Muslim empire could conquer a vast amount of land because it could “mobilize the military potential of the entire Arab population.” Overtime, many Hindus and Buddhists in northern India chose to convert to Islam, the religion of their conquerors. With battles won against the Byzantine and Sasanian Empire, Islam became a dominant religion in the course of around a century.

Yet I would argue that the idea of shared geography is not enough to convert people whose families have followed certain beliefs for decades. There had to be something especially attractive about Islamic values or beliefs that gave individuals the incentive to join the religion.   This incentive was Islam’s promotion of an egalitarian society. Hinduism and Buddhism, two dominant religions in South Asia at the time, were not structured with the same sense of equality between all individuals like Islam was. Hindus in India were organized in a social hierarchy called the caste system.  The individuals lowest on the caste system were never given an opportunity to rise out of the poverty and hardship that they were born into. Therefore, the idea of an egalitarian society was especially appealing. Even before their military conquests, Muslim merchants and traders were able to convert local Hindus in Southeast Asia because Islam promoted an equal society. At the time, an equal society was an attractive idea to those who had no hope for material improvement. 

Similarly to the conversion of Hindus, Buddhists began converting to Islam in large numbers in around 1174 C.E. The same significant reason for these conversions was the desire to live in an equal society rather than in a culture where monks were benefiting from Buddhism more than everyone else. At the time, monks were profiting from life in the monasteries. Islamic ideals of an equal society were attractive to Buddhists who were fed up with the monks’ power.

Islamic ideas and beliefs spread throughout South Asia in a short amount of time due to the Muslim conquer of land as well as the appealing Islamic value of an equal society.  This suggests that the spread of religion can often depend on an appealing social message. Many Buddhists and Hindus ended up converting to Islam because Islam gave them the opportunity to live in an environment where they could be content with their position in society.