Learning from the Past

After watching Hotel Rwanda, two things really stuck with me. One was the voice of the U.S. State Department official and her dismissal of a reporter’s questions regarding the events in Rwanda. Secondly, despite learning about the Rwandan Genocide prior to the movie, I had keep reminding myself that everything in the movie happened. In Hannah Arendt’s “Total Domination,” she references Hitler’s “Big Lie,” and applies it to the concentration camps, meaning that if a crime is extremely vicious, people will not believe it. In our class discussions, we have talked about why the Jews submitted to the Nazis without really fighting. When looking at Arendt’s points, it appears that atrocities committed at the camps, may have been too incredulous for the Jews to believe. Even in the concentration camps, the Nazis continued to employ the principle of the “Big Lie,” and tricked the Jews into thinking everything would be okay. At the end of Maus I, the sign above the entrance to Auschwitz (p.157) reads “Arbeit macht frei,” which translates to “Work makes free,” essentially meaning that the prisoners had a chance to be set free by working. In Maus II, Vladek explores the principle of the “Big Lie,” when describing how the Nazis tricked the prisoners into thinking that they were getting sanitary showers but actually ended going into the gas chambers (p. 70).

From the lies told in Nazi Germany, to watching Hotel Rwanda, where the entire world community abandoned the people of Rwanda, because it seemed unreal, I contend that the world has not learned from the lessons of the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide. Oftentimes people use the quote:

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it

Hotel Rwanda, described a story that has been told before, the Holocaust, and is happening again in Darfur. The hotel in the movie, Hotel Des Mille Collines, is actually still in operation and after visiting their web site, the only reference to events that occurred there, is a picture of the pool, described as, “The world famous swimming pool.” If nothing is documented about the past, then we begin to forget it and move on with our lives. Hence the reasoning behind graphic novels such as Maus and movies like Hotel Rwanda; to keep the events described from happening again. While the use of pictures and film to tell hard stories has been criticized as “oversimplification,” the media used in Maus and Hotel Rwanda keep the stories alive and relatable, so we do not stop learning from them.

Connections

Hotel Rwanda and Maus I & II are stories about surviving the horrible act of genocide. In the film Hotel Rwanda, Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager, struggles to keep his family and hundreds of Tutsi people alive. In Maus I and II, Vladek Spiegelman struggles to survive through the Holocaust, especially in the concentration camp, Auschwitz. Both of these stories, sadly to say, are true even though they seem unbelievable. How could people be so cruel to others and not feel guilty?

What I noticed in both these stories was the similarities between Vladek and Paul that helped them survive. Vladek was a good businessman with many connections. He was able to work with tin and repair shoes. Vladek also knew how to use his resources well and was able to talk in German and English. Paul, on the other hand, was a good manager and he kept connections with higher up people. He was also very good at bribing and had excellent convincing skills. These skills and connections that Paul and Vladek had helped them both survive. When trouble came they either had someone who they knew help them or they just used what skills they had to make the situation better. Vladek, for example, repaired shoes to receive more food from the Nazi guards, while in Hotel Rwanda; Paul bribed and convinced the Hutus so they wouldn’t shoot him or his family. In both stories, I believe, these are the only reasons why they survived the genocide.

We saw how bad it was too survive just for Vladek and Paul, but imagine how much harder it was on other people if they were poor, only knew one language, or had no connections to others that could help. The chances of survival would drastically fall. Paul and Vladek had at least a small use to the Nazis or Hutus. Even though it was just teaching a Nazi guard English or providing beer to the Hutus, I believe that was key in their survival.

Who can you turn to for help?

The film Hotel Rwanda tells the story of Paul, a hotel manager, and his efforts to save hundreds of people from the Rwandan genocide. Paul spent much of his life building relationships and connections with influential Europeans and dignitaries through his hotel. When the untimely murder of the president leads to the mass genocide of Rwandan people, Paul shelters them and uses all his resources to help not only his family escape, but also all the refugees who stayed in his hotel. This movie exposes a lot of the realistic elements of when such a situation, which is unfortunately not so uncommon, that are often hidden or ignored by the outside world.

It was especially interesting to me that it was the Belgians who created the separation in the Rwandan population when they tried to colonize Rwanda after “winning” the territory from the Germans at the end of World War One. To control the Rwandans, the Belgians made two separate classes, the Hutus and the Tutsis. The determination of who belonged to each group was based off the width of their nose, because those with more narrow noses looked more European. Therefore while the Belgians occupied Rwanda, it was the Tutsis that were in power. Once the Belgians left Rwanda, the Hutus overthrew the Tutsi government because of the injustices they had incurred while in power. There have been numerous overthrows of each government, but when Hotel Rwanda starts, it is the Hutus who are in power. I think it is incredible that so much killing was done over a distinction that was forced on them many years ago by a foreign power.

Like in Maus I and II, family remains the most important when the genocide began. However, Paul seems to be an exception in that he helped his neighbors, and complete strangers as well, where in Maus, Vladek had to bribe even his cousins to help them. However, bribes remain an important tool in both situations, as well as connections.

I thought the role of the UN in the Rwandan situation was quite fascinating. Those who are actually there in the situation full heartedly believe in trying to save the refugees and stop the genocide, while those who are making decisions and who are well removed from the situation choose to remain only mildly involved. The UN brought in an intervention force, but only to help those who were not Rwandans. The UN colonel explained it to Paul in this way: “You're black. You're not even a nigger. You're an African.” I also thought the comment to the reporters that the UN is peacekeepers not peacemakers to be quite memorable. The outside world always seems to be slow to take action when they are not involved. And it’s not only those in power who have this attitude. A reporter described the standard reaction to footage of such horrific killing: “I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners.”

How can we sit back and ignore that this is happening around the world even today? Those who knew about the Holocaust, but did nothing about it were the ones saying ‘thank god it’s not happening to me.’ And as Maus portrays, eventually it will be you. If we continue to stand by and say nothing, then eventually we will face the same fate.

I think that this might provide some justification to the United States going to war with other countries because of the treatment of the citizens. People will argue ‘its not our job to be the world police. We need to just mind our own business and worry about ourselves.’ Well, if no one else is doing anything, if the UN is going to turn a blind eye even when its own people are crying out about the injustices, then who can be expected to do something?

One Nation "Under God"

Recently, controversy has been surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance and the “under God” phrase. Dr. Michael Newdow brought before the Supreme Court the argument that his daughter should not be required to listen to a pledge which promises “under God” because it conflicts with his own teachings to her, which is that there is no God. Atheist views have been strong in protecting freedom of religion, in their right to have no religion.

Many people argue that “under God” has become a part of the “fabric of society” and that it should not be taken out just out of respect to the Pledge, which shows the pride in being American of those who recite it. However, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the 1950s, during the Red Scare, there was a mad rush to add references of God to the American culture. With the mass fear of communism, Congress was quick to make changes in order to differentiate America from the other “godless” countries by adding “In God We Trust” to money and “under God” to the Pledge.

Dr. Newdow’s case was dismissed on the grounds that due to a custody battle, he was not in a position to speak for his daughter and her rights at the time. Had the case been actually tried, it would have been interesting to see how the Supreme Court would have applied the rather ambiguous “Lemon test.”

Well first of all, was “under God” added for a secular purpose? It was added out of fear. In order to be separate from the communists, we needed to be more religious. But being religious is not the only way to separate oneself from communism, and not having religion does not make one communistic. So I would say that there is no valid secular purpose for adding “under God.”

Secondly, does the primary effect advance or inhibit a religion? Well it forwards the views of those who believe in a God and inhibits those who do not believe there is a God. There are those who say that when we way “under God,” we don’t literally mean God. This would be blasphemous to those who do believe in a God and there are millions of people pledging allegiance “under God” but not really meaning God. So that could be considered inhibiting the beliefs of those who do believe in God. All around, this is clause is definitely being violated.

Lastly, does it foster “excessive entanglement with religion”? Based off the complexity of the previous two answers, I would definitely say that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance definitely qualifies as “excessive entanglement.” So not one but all three parts of the Lemon test are being violated.

Therefore, I think that the religious references that have been built into our state, that were not originally intended by the Founding Fathers, need to be removed. We should go back to printing “E Pluribus Unum” on our money, and remove the “under God” phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the following video, Dr. Newdow addresses the Founding Fathers, their original intentions and an example of when they declared “under God” in an oath as unconstitutional. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA68TTISRi8

Carter’s main concern is that with the growing height of the wall of separation that people’s right to support their religion and share it with others will be inhibited because of the mounting push for protection of secularity. I think Carter has a valid concern. Often people’s opinions are discredited merely because they may be influenced by their religious views. Of course people will be affected by their religious views, but that does not make them invalid. There is a fine line between protecting secularity and inhibiting religion. The first amendment specifically protects religion, not secularity.

A lot of the decisions that have been made since the implementation of the Lemon test have been inconsistent. The exceptions that have been allowed are causing increasing entanglement with religion that is unnecessary. I wonder if the Supreme Court had released a ruling on the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, whether the ruling would have followed the Lemon test or if it would have become another exception because it has become a part of the “fabric of our society.”

After Seeing Rwanda

My first thought after seeing Hotel Rwanda was that this movie was very well done. I felt very involved with the situation and the characters. I also felt that this movie was hard to watch. What I mean is that the setting of the movie and the tone of the movie gave me no hints about the outcome of the story, other than that it was a survivor’s story. Normally a story is generic and you can figure out what will happen at any moment but this survivor’s story was so crazy that it wasn’t predictable. Not knowing the plot, I was always half expecting any of the main characters to die. To me this kind of reflects the feeling of the actual situation in Rwanda. No one knew what would happen next or who would survive.

Genocide

Art Spiegelman’s Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novels, Maus I & II, are about the Holocaust of the Jews in WWII. Spiegelman tells his father’s story of his WWII experience, from handing over his business to being sent to Auschwitz death camp. It is the story of one of the world’s worst genocides from a victim’s point of view.
The film Hotel Rwanda is a similar tale about a hotel owner in the midst of a different genocide. Paul, the hotel owner, risks everything he has, including his life, to save the lives of over one thousand refugees by sheltering them in his hotel. This genocide involves the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s, two racial groups in the country fighting an old battle of superiority. When the Hutu’s become the majority they begin to slaughter the Tutsi’s with the intent of wiping them out. Both of the above cases happened very far apart, and while they are different in many ways, they are also very similar. The big question is, what makes genocide?
Propaganda is a big factor in most genocide situations. Propaganda tells the people what to believe, so it is easier for them to kill without feeling. In Rwanda, the main propaganda came from the radio station that constantly told the Hutu’s that they were superior, and encouraged them to protect what was rightfully theirs from the rebel Tutsis who would try to kill them. It was very similar in Germany, but it was more widespread because an international war was also being fought. The Nazis also used the radio, but they also used newspapers and newsreels to completely bash the Jews. The media is a very effective way to transmit propaganda to the people, because as we all can tell even today, people will believe anything they see on TV.
Another ingredient of genocide is nationalism. This rallies the people around the cause and silences dissent. In the cases of Rwanda and the Holocaust, the nationalism was embodied in the phrase, “retaking what is ours.” Even if this is not true, if the country rallies around beliefs that support it, reality doesn’t matter. The Hutu’s believed that they had been oppressed by the Tutsi’s in the past and that this “revenge” of sorts would prevent them from ever coming to power again, leaving it rightfully to the Hutu people. Hitler and the Nazi’s did an incredible job of convincing the German people that the Jews were responsible for all their problems. This was quite a feat, but it helped that nearly all the German people were impoverished, and Jews owned many of the businesses. The Nazis could portray the Jews as outsiders, and when their shops were ransacked, it could be said that the Germans were taking back their towns and economy from the Jews.
Perhaps the most important aspect of genocide is dehumanization. This allows people to kill, without feeling, unprecedented amounts of people for no real reason. Through dehumanization, the victims of genocide are made less than human in the eyes of the oppressors. In Rwanda, this was linked directly through the propaganda, because the average citizen was the one taking to the streets with a machete. The radio announcer referred to the Tutsis as “Tutsi Cockroaches,” and before long, the “Tutsi” part came off, leaving only “Cockroach.” The Tutsis have been reduced to insects. They are now disgusting the oppressors, making it all the easier to eliminate them. In Germany, it was not the people but the army that was doing the exterminating. Once the Jews were in the camps, the Germans did things like taking away the Jews names and assigning them numbers in order to dehumanize. They also shaved all their heads and gave them identical clothing, making them completely uniform. By taking away all Jewish individuality, it was much easier for the soldiers to kill without remorse or regret.
Propaganda, nationalism, and dehumanization are present in most genocide, and are very important to recognize because every country is susceptible. They say history repeats itself, and they have been correct, but we can try to do everything to prevent this from happening again (or more than it already is, see http://www.savedarfur.org/content).

Government Funding

In “The Separation of Church and State,” Carter raises an interesting point of view about religion and the government. Mainly he asserts that over time we have forgotten that separation of church and state is supposed to protect religion from the state rather than how we think of it today as protecting the state from religion. Carter says separation of church and state does not ban religiously motivated people from being active in government.

Early in his essay, Carter provides a scenario about a Christian minister who could not receive any government funding for his drug-rehabilitation program. In this program the staff prayed for the dug abusers and taught the abusers to pray as well. This example reminds me of a program to help the homeless in Dayton. My sister volunteered there with my church youth group once or twice. This program is called the “Gospel Mission,” and homeless people can get a hot meal if they go to the church service. There are also basketball courts and other activities the people can enjoy. Now I am not sure if this organization receives government funding or not, but as Carter addressed and as we discusses a little in class, should programs like this receive government funding?

Obviously the church group that runs the program is religiously motivated, and the homeless people must go to the church service if they want a meal there. But where’s the harm in this? I argue that programs such as the Gospel Mission, or the drug-rehabilitation program that Carter talks about, should be able to receive government funding. These types of programs, in my opinion, do no harm. The programs like the Gospel Mission get homeless people off the streets, into a safe warm building, and provide a good meal and relaxing atmosphere. While they have to go to a church service, I see no harm in this either. There are other places that these people could get a meal, and they choose to come to that place anyways. Still, some of the main ideas in the Christian faith encourage people to be kind to others, and to not murder people or steal. Where is the harm in that?

I understand the argument that if the government funds a Christian based program, then aren’t they hindering the success of another religion? But I do not really believe this is a valid argument. As long as the government would provide funding for all programs that help out the general good of its citizens, without discriminating between what religions each program is motivated by, I feel like this is only advancing each religion and the good of the government’s people.

Thoughts on Carter

Whenever I hear a debate about separation of church and state, it seems like the debate is usually framed as religion vs. atheism. It’s a lot more complicated than that. Even though 81 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian (American Religious Identification Survey), that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are practicing Christians. My parents never go to church, but I am almost certain that they would answer “Christian” on a survey. They do believe in some Christian ideas, and there’s not really anything else that they would identify with. I think there is a big difference between being an active member of religious organization and having some religious beliefs. Also, many people are hesitant to identify themselves as nonreligious. They’re even less likely to say that they are agnostic or atheist. I think those words, especially, atheist, seem to imply that the person is “against” religion and anything that has to do with it. We tend to think of atheists as the kind of people who want “in God we trust” removed from currency. If you’re an agnostic or atheist politician, you would probably avoid saying so. It may be better to not say anything at all than lose a large numbers of voters by saying you don’t believe in God. I think this is interesting because there are lot of areas in which you would be instantly less credible if you say that you are religious.

Either way, I think that the extent to which a person is religious (not just whether they are or not) plays a big role in how they perceive the issue of separation of church and state. Some people, while they may not be very religious, wouldn’t mind if the government funded faith-based organizations. But I guess they would mind if the program conflicted with their own beliefs…and that could very easily happen. Then there’s the question of whether the government funding religious programs with inherent biases. This is difficult question, because I don’t know how the government could do that without promoting one religion over another. It might be easier for the government to exclude religion completely.

Still, that’s probably not even possible because voters and politicians do have religious beliefs. Carter says that “faith may be so intertwined with personality that it is impossible to tell when one is acting, or not acting, from religious motive.” That may be true. Sometimes, it may not even matter if someone is motivated by their religion. As long as the program promotes something good and it’s not forcing anyone to follow religions when they don’t want to, it’s probably okay. While someone’s religious beliefs may influence their decision to support certain programs and legislation, their religion probably shouldn’t be the only basis for their opinion. They need to have other logical reasons for making such decisions, instead of doing something like claiming that the Bible says it’s right. I don’t know how often that actually happens. Either way, the separation of church and state isn't an "all or nothing" issue, because people don't necessarily have "all or nothing" religious beliefs. The way we deal with the religion and the state should be a compromise that reflects this.

Thoughts on Germany and Jew's Survival

After seeing the sheer amount of evidence on the Holocaust and seeing the detail contained in Maus, I do find it hard to believe that someone today would be able to deny the Holocaust. Maus and Maus II is only one account of a survivor’s story among many. What I can see, however, is why the Holocaust is so difficult to imagine. I mean, the extermination of the Jews was conducted so secretly and at such a random impulse that not even the Jews knew if it was the truth. It would have been a different story if the Germans and Jews had some sort of strained relationship, or were already at arms with each other, but Germany had no reason to do this.

Germany was overwhelmed with fighting in WWII yet continued to keep the camps going. Carter said that Germany lost the war because of its involvement with the camps. This involvement defies all logic of war; the Germans were sending troops and supplies to the camps. The situation makes no sense because Germany was fighting for two agendas, both of which seemed to hold equal importance and deplete Germany’s resources.

People insist as well that no one would be capable of doing to another person what Germans did to Jews, but I think everyone knows that there is something in all of us that could push us to become just as bad. For example, a parent would kill to save a child. Here, http://www.prisonexp.org/30years.htm, is a link to the Stanford Prison Experiment website. Experiments like this one have shown, beyond just speculation, that yes, circumstances may push someone to behave violently or to become oppressive.

I also believe that the belief that Jews didn’t fight back against the Germans is partially untrue. Yes, of course the Jews didn’t begin a war with the Germans but they were survivors. It is my opinion that the Jew’s fight for life was a valiant, although individual, war against the Germans. Many Jew’s never lost hope no matter what happened to them, hope was the Jew’s greatest trait and constant motivation. Every Holocaust story that I hear makes me think that I might not have had the strength to do the things that these people did and survive the things that these people did.

Police Brutality

Personally, I am not a huge fan of the police. I have never been arrested but I have been pulled over or stopped when walking home from my friends house one day. A coach from my highschool had called because someone was attempting to break in to a Tire Man down the street from my house. My friend was walking me home and we saw 3 police cars on the main road. We continued to walk and one pulled up alongside of us and made us stop. We were standing in my front yard and they would not let me get my mom or do anything for that matter. They did not tell us why they were pulling us over or anything at all. To me, the officers were a bit friendly to my friend they were not. He is 6'4 and black and they treated him way different then they treated me. When putting us into the police car he was having a hard time because he is so tall and the seats are so far back but they kept shoving him and pushing him into the car. He tried explaining but the two officers kept telling him to shut up and get in the car. When another car showed up I was put into that one. As they took him out of the car they continuously kept threatening to tazer him although he was doing exactly as they said. The next night his brother was hanging out with some minors and it was past curfew although he was the only one who was 18 years old, the cops let everyone else go and kept him for an hour or so. Once again he did nothing wrong but he was the only black kid out of six. In both incidents, the cops showed major racism and I think this is wrong. However, that is exactly what happened back then. The Jews got stereotyped and even if they no longer practiced the Jewish faith, they were still considered a part of the Jewish race and treated poorly. So although police aren’t as bad as the Germans were back then, if nothing is done about the cruel and unjust treatment of the police, it could lead up to the point where an officer may seriously injure or even kill a person and it will be ok because it was self defense or some other BS excuse for their actions.

Maus and Contemporary Connections

Art Spiegelman's Maus is a riveting account of the Holocaust and its aftermath. The tale recounts the struggle of Vladek Spiegelman living with his family in Sosnowiec in the late 1930s and his tragic odyssey during the war which ultimately led him to Auschwitz. Throughout the story, Art also confronts his complicated and difficult relationship with his father. Vladek is very stingy, and he and Art do not always see eye to eye.

A major theme in Maus is not just the tragedy of the Holocaust and its effect on those who survived it, but also its impact on those who did not live through it. This is highlighted near the end of the first book when Art calls his father a murderer for having destroyed Anja's diaries. Art wanted the diaries to complete his work and their destruction also cuts him off of any chance of finding out the truth about his mother.

The use of animals in the story is very controversial. I believe Spiegelman is using the animals in a satirical manner. The animals are based off of how the Germans depicted certain nationalities: Polish are pigs, Jews are mice, Americans are dogs, and the Germans are cats. The use of animals serves to prove how ridiculous the entire tragedy really is. It also shows that the Holocaust degraded the victims and perpetrators to less than human status.

I think that when looking for contemporary connections we should be careful in our selection. The Holocaust systematically killed 10 million people because they were perceived as flawed, different, and imperfect. That being said, there are a few examples that I think have some similarities.

First, I am reminded of the partition of India in 1947. After India was granted independence from Britain, it was divided into India and Pakistan, which eventually splintered into East Pakistan, West Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The partition forced the upheaval of at least 15 million people. Over 7 million Muslims left India for Pakistan and about the same number of Hindus moved to India from Pakistan. During this massive migration, violence and ethnic cleansing accounted for what is estimated as at least 1 million deaths.

Another possible contemporary connection is the Rwandan genocide of 1994. The Rwandan Genocide was a mass extermination of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. The killings were carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups over the course of 100 short days. Over 500,000 Tutsis and thousands moderate Hutus died in the genocide. Some estimates place the deaths at closer to one million. Today someone in class said that it is important to talk about events like the Holocaust so that history does not repeat itself. In the case of Rwanda, it would seem that history is repeating itself in Darfur.

Finally, I would like to close with a quote from Maus that caught my attention. In the first book on page 122, Anja is distressed and crying about how the family has broken apart. Vladek consoles her by saying that "to die, it's easy but you have to struggle for life!" This is very similar to the famous Frederick Douglass quote, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress."

Maus Discussion

One question asked today in class was why are the races portrayed the way they were in Maus. I think they made the Nazi’s mice not only because the cats, which were the Germans, eat the mice but also because they are small and to most people disgusting. We lay out traps to kill mice that run around the house. Back then, all Jews were seen as "dirty creatures" who had no right to a good life like everyone else. The Germans destroyed their identity, tore apart their families, and ruined their homes. By making the Jews mice I think Art Spigelman showed readers how the Germans really did look at the Jews. They saw them as creatures they could walk all over and do as they pleased with.

As for people denying the Holocaust, someone mentioned in class people don’t want to believe people are really that cruel. It is hard to think that one race could really kill so many people and not feel bad about it and that everyone else could just stand around and let it happen. However, there is way to much evidence and pictures and so forth to even question whether it did or not. Holocaust survivors would not make up a story that detailed and troublesome. When I went to the Holocaust museum and heard this lady tell us her story, I just sat there feeling sorry for her. I know that may be a bad thing but I just thought what she experienced was horrible. I don’t know if I could have made it. It definitely makes you question how people can be so cruel and cold hearted, and why one race thinks they are so much better then another. The Germans thought they were so much better and that they had the right to destroy another whole race.

A third question I want to respond to is why didn’t the Jews fight back? Although at one point in time they out numbered the Germans, they didn’t fight back because they didn’t think that was the answer. I’m sure they didn’t think things were that bad and that if they did as they were told everything would be ok. But there did come a point when they knew how bad things were and still didn’t do anything. If they fought back would it really have made a difference? I don’t think so. I’m curious to what others think about that. Could the number of Jews killed been cut down if they would have fought back and others would have stepped in to help?

Carter raises some questions

As Carter explores the First Amendment, he highlights that they are crafted to give maximum freedom to the religious. A question might be asked that if a majority in the nation are Christian and are creating laws, upholding constitution, enforcing laws, etc. wouldn't that imply that they already have a great deal of power and influence? How do the majority's viewpoint affect others who hold "minority" faith views?

How could state's negatively influence religions if they give money to particular religions?

Does the state give money to all religions or just Christian ones? Muslims? Taoists? Wiccans? Who decides?

If the government has anti-bias laws, yet some faiths have inherent biases, should the state fund them? For example, Evangelicals believe homosexuality is evil and some openly discriminate against gays, should they get funding for other programs? Again, who reviews and decides?

Many argue the state should listen to their religious constituents and instill more Biblical law -- whose interpretation of those laws should we follow? Abstinence only education in schools comes from "faith" groups -- no sex ed? How about evolution as some faiths reject the theory? Some faiths reject the theory that earth revolves around the sun -- should the state listen to them? If we allow the state to be run/significantly influenced by some one's faith, who gets to decide which faith and to what degree or what "intrusions" are acceptable?

He argues that legislators' "faith may be so intertwined with personality that it is impossible to tell when one is acting, or not acting, from religious motive" and later argues that the Establishment Clause "might end up not anti establishments but anti religion." Are religious people afraid to talk about their faiths? Do politicians share their faith experiences or "hide" from them? I have heard many politicians expressing their Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, Mormon, and even Muslim faiths, but yet to hear a politician say (s)he is an atheist or agnostic -- what might that suggest? If the majority of the nation is religious, Christian, how can they be repressed? Who is repressing them?

Scenerio: As a Catholic, even my father has said that I am in a "cult". His interpretation and application of faith are significantly different than mine -- If the area is prodominantly Catholic, and it influences local laws, should he have to follow them?

Now consider the agnostic or atheist etc., should that person be denied sex ed because some people of faith disagree with it due to their religious background?

Hannah Arendt had a strong belief that concentration camps are the highest, most capable form of evil done by man. They are an example of total domination and its aims to eliminate individuality. In class I raised the point of Guantanamo Bay and its use of camps and how they are very similar to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Some may be thinking that it is quite a stretch to compare our government’s detainee camp to one of Nazi Germany but while discussing the two in class I was also surprised how closely the two are related.
Within concentration camps of Nazi Germany, Jews were stripped of their identity, belongings, clothing, spouses, and children they were given a number and a job to do if not sentenced to death. Within Guantanamo Bay detainees were captured (many without strong evidence of terrorist support) stripped from their environment, clothing, religious practice, and identity. Once arrived to Cuba, they were given a number and a camp assignment. Every so often a detainee was transferred from one camp to the next. If a detainee wasn’t allotting the torturer information that he wanted to hear, the detainee would be sent to a “worse” camp; with a different uniform, different living conditions, different food, different washing privileges and different bathroom abilities. See this article within this link http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/gitmo1004/3.htm for more details regarding the different camps.
I am not saying that the United States government is using gas chambers to kill Arabic men, like the Nazis did with the Jewish. But the US government is using multiple torture tactics that make a many want to die. I don’t know which is worse. Not having the will or desire to live because of the condition that one is trapped in without valid evidence or support, or being killed quickly because of ones religious affiliation. In both cases, Nazi Germany and Guantanamo Bay, man’s psyche is destroyed. To the point where he does not desire to live. The ultimate elimination of an individual is the destruction of his psyche to the point where he does not desire to live.

Contemporary Issues: Rousseau

Rousseau’s Social Contract discusses the development and formation of government, as well as the nature of rights and freedom. The social contract is as relevant today as ever, because it raises the question of what requirements does a government need to meet to be a legitimate government and what rights do people absolutely have to have.
America as a country has often held high ideals of freedom and equality for all and yet rarely have those ideals been faithfully acted upon. Rousseau believed that because everyone gave up equal rights for the social contract, they in turn were given equal rights. Unfortunately, as we can see this somewhat idealistic view never seems to translate to the real world. Even in America, prejudice and inequality are still a fact of life. We talked in class earlier about affirmative action, such a law would be unnecessary if people were given equal rights by the government from the beginning.
The social contract came about by people in a state of nature coming together and giving up some rights in order to form and have the protection and stability of a government which represents the people. To be a legitimate government, the ruling body should represent the views and wants of the people. Unfortunately, in many situations, especially in a dictatorship, this is not the case. The views of the people are not always represented fairly even in America, where a law such as the Patriot Act can be passed despite the protests and disagreement of many.
Rousseau was considered radical for his time, because he suggested a method for changing governments completely, and not just making changed to the current government. As we have seen in the past decade or so, changing governments is not always easy or in reality effective. The Soviet Union was disbanded from communism, yet there are still difficulties in maintaining a fair democracy. In Iraq, America overthrew a dictator in order to create a democracy. Still 3 years later, the democratic government has problems running and controlling the country, while there is current unrest among different demographic groups.

Quote of the Week

First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

More Habeas Corpus

Here is a link regarding the petition to restore Habeas Corpus.

Also, in class someone mentioned the fear of communism spreading during the “Red Scare.” During the 1950’s Senator Joe McCarthy held investigative hearings about the spread of communism and basically labeled all witnesses at the hearings as “communist sympathizers.” It was not until journalist Edward R. Murrow spoke out against McCarthy with special commentaries, did others begin to take on the McCarthy machine. Check out the movie “Good Night, and Good Luck” for more information. Murrow stated:

His [McCarthy] primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.

In a more intense clip than the one shown in class, Olbermann attacks the Military Commissions Act ala Edward R. Murrow:

Military Commissions Act (MCA)

I was going to say this in class but Matt skipped over me so I'll just write it here. (haha, just kidding Matt, it's all good:)

Anyway, we talked a lot about the MCA and whether or not a majority of Americans would be in favor of this type of legislation. Now, I am biased since I think the legislation is a disgrace but hear me out anyway. I think we should ask ourselves if this type of legislation is even effective. Personally, even if it was effective I would not support it because it infringes on our most basic rights but many people would definitely have no problem with MCA if it worked. The goal of MCA is to catch terrorists before they strike but I get the feeling that it has adverse effects. Namely, it creates more terrorists than it catches. There are many documented stories of innocent people being detained by the government and tortured for a long period of time. After their release they join a terrorist organization even though they were never in one before. Why? Well, if you were caught and tortured by some government agency as a suspected terrorist wouldn't you harbor some negative feelings against the government provided that you were innocent? So in this way the Military Commissions Act is not effective.

And just to clear some confusion up, the bill itself passed 65-34 (12 Dems joined all but one Republican to vote yes) while a provision by Sens. Leahy and Specter to preserve habeas corpus failed 51-48. I was surprised that 12 Democrats would vote yes but since this was only 2 or 3 weeks before the midterm elections, many Democrats did not want to be painted as weak on national security, as they were in 2004. Yes, tricky tactics indeed, but that's just everyday politics in Washington.

The smaller man

Today in class I asked when do the citizens of the state lose their right as individuals for the quality of the state. Chad noted that when an agreement on a revolution is made to change the previous agreement, it is at that point the citizens claim their individual rights back to start this revolution. But how many citizens are enough to start this revolution? Does it take a small group from a town to realize that their rights are not being treated accurately? Or does it take a larger group that has courage because of the shear number of people? Can it be both?
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.

The smaller man

Today in class I asked when do the citizens of the state lose their right as individuals for the quality of the state. Chad noted that when an agreement on a revolution is made to change the previous agreement, it is at that point the citizens claim their individual rights back to start this revolution. But how many citizens are enough to start this revolution? Does it take a small group from a town to realize that their rights are not being treated accurately? Or does it take a larger group that has courage because of the shear number of people? Can it be both?
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.