Religion and Tolerance

The western media has always had an issue with portraying Muslims as terrorists or people who follow an inherently radical, violent, and immoral religion. Since I was born and before, the US has been involved in conflicts all over the Middle East; as a result, I grew up with a false perception of Muslims in the Middle East. Growing up in a society where everyone held secular or Christian views, I didn’t experience much trouble with religious people. However, due to the radical Muslims, the media gave Muslims as a whole a poor reputation which was pounded into my head. The problem is that many Americans and I know few Muslims who can get rid of the stigmas we hold against them. Although I have learned about the history of Islam in the past, we never really analyzed the conflicting messages that both the Quran and the Bible have, and this has made me more understanding Islam and religion as a whole. The Quran, like the Bible, has verses that encourage good morals relative to our society, but also contains verses that encourage violence and discrimination; ultimately, this has taught me that religions are inherently flawed due to the fact they can be cherry-picked to support one side. The way that someone cherry-picks their religion is more indicative of their morals and character than their religion, and this realization will help me be a more effective naval officer by being tolerant of the all religions, but not beliefs that threaten the safety of others.

Religion does not define anyone’s character, meaning their distinct moral qualities, and this is vital to understanding others alongside their religious beliefs. Anecdotally, us Americans all know many Christians, some who are accepting of all, some who many consider hateful (such as the Westboro Baptist church), and many who fall in between. This occurs because the Bible has verses that very clearly encourage discrimination against a group of people, such as Leviticus 20:13 which states, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” This had long lasting influence as South Carolina was the last state to remove the death penalty for homosexuality in 1873. In contrast, Jesus says in Mathew 22:39 to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” This clear lack of consistency is present in the Quran as well; for example, in Sura 16:125-6 it says that “patience” and “beautiful preaching” are the best ways to convert people, but it also tells Muslims to “Fight [non-believers], Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.”

As a naval officer, an understanding of the different beliefs that many people hold in their respective religions will serve me well. I will be able to understand and respect other people’s beliefs in an authentic manner and know when someone is crossing the line by using their religion to justify bigoted beliefs against others. Tolerance of others will help me with not only with the people I lead, but also the people I meet along the way since there is a good chance I will be in the Middle East at some point. Meeting a foreign population with different beliefs is a lot easier if you have an open mind, and it will ultimately increase the trust between the US and other nation’s populations. Most importantly, through this course I have learned that knowledge and education are extremely effective tools to debunk flawed, bigoted beliefs.

-Kevin Smith

Word Count: 541

The Inevitable Spread of Christianity

The Roman Empire adopted the Hellenistic pagan beliefs of the Greeks, what we call “Greek mythology.” The pagan beliefs that people held in the Roman Empire were varied, with most people favoring a single god, or treating it as a tradition. Roman mythology was not a religion that inspired the people of an empire to stand united, but Christianity was. Although Constantine helped Christianity spread through the empire greatly, the spread of Christianity was inevitable due to its universal appeal.

The polytheistic beliefs that the Romans had were not universal in nature. The Romans all worshiped different gods from their mythology so there was no strong unity in beliefs and values. It also did not have a strong structure or scripture as the stories of Roman mythology were usually passed down orally through generations. Christianity on the other hand, had a holy book which allowed people to adhere to a clear doctrine that people could use to guide their morals. Because of the Bible, people claimed they could interpret the book in a superior way and this led to church officials, such as bishops, popes, etc.

The doctrine of Christianity itself appeals strongly to the poor, as it promotes kindness towards them and charity, the Bible even says, “Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life.” (Proverbs 22:22-23) In addition, Christianity explicitly states in the Bible to “preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15) This verse encouraged missionaries to spread the religion to anybody and everybody, a practice that is utilized to this day by Christians and something that Roman mythology lacked.

The Battle of Milvian Bridge was one of the first events that helped spread Christianity in the Roman Empire. As Constantine was preparing for battle with his army he claimed that he saw a “trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this,” (Eusebius 28) and this was the first step in the spread of the religion. Furthermore, the Edict of Milan, which made Christianity a legal religion, and the founding of Constantinople, a Christian city, helped cement the religion in the Roman Empire. However, Constantine was not the primary reason that Christianity “won.” Christianity spread like a plague and its growth was unmatched by any religion up to that point in Rome. Julian the Apostate, emperor after Constantine’s son lost in battle to him, tried to bring Hellenistic pagan beliefs to take the place of Christianity by stripping Christian’s rights and reopening pagan temples. Ultimately, the pagan beliefs did not have the compelling universal appeal that Christianity had, which gives evidence that the spread of Christianity was inevitable.

-Kevin Smith

Word Count: 409

Cult of Christianity

Xenophobia is something that every civilization has experienced throughout history. This is something that many cultures, religions, and ethnic groups have faced, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Growing up in the US, many of us are raised in a Christian community, with many people never questioning their religion and acting like Christianity is a global norm. However, before the 3^rd century, the Romans did not trust the new Christian religion and its people in their empire. From the Romans perspective, Christians were bringing blasphemous religious views, strange foreign lifestyles, and, as Pliny describes to Trajan in a letter, “depraved, excessive superstition.” It’s not fair to judge the Romans harshly when the Christians were bringing a religion that drastically differed from their lifestyle, and offended their own religious views; Romans had reasonable justification to oppose the strange, foreign Christian religion.

In regards to lifestyle, Christians were trying to drastically alter the Roman way of life. This is something that will never go well regardless of which cultures/religions/nations we’re discussing. Imagine if the conservative treatment of women in Iran was brought over to Sweden, it would certainly be met with backlash, and vice versa. Ancient Rome had many practices that are obscene or offensive in a fundamentalist Christian point of view, such as pederasty, homosexuality, and prostitution. Men with spouses usually engaged in these practices, which went against Christian teachings. Although there is misogyny in the Bible (like in Tim. 2:12, in which women are not permitted to “assume authority” over men), the book also commands men to “love [their] wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Eph. 5:25) It is clear to see how this would anger many Romans, especially when these new ideas would be coming from a bunch of “depraved” superstitious people.

To the Romans, who practiced polytheism, Christianity was blasphemous. From a Roman point of view, the worship of a single god was bizarre and essentially made them borderline atheists, as they rejected all the other Roman gods. Today in the United States, religious tolerance is a hot topic, as many people in the country are islamophobic, and disrespect many other religions. I’d like to think that our culture is far more sophisticated and civil than ancient Rome’s, and we are, as we don’t publicly execute those who have differing religious views; however, the prejudice that some Americans have against foreign religions is the same feeling that the Romans had against Christians to an extent. The Romans circumstance was a bit different because religion was part of their laws, unlike American separation of church and state. In the Roman Empire, Christians were breaking the law and offending the Roman people’s beliefs.

Although many of us today attempt to preach and practice tolerance towards others, it is unfair to judge the Romans harshly when we possess over a thousand years of hindsight. To the Romans, the Christians were an obsessive cult that drank the blood of a zombie Jewish man. Lack of understanding and xenophobia were two factors that led to the Roman persecution of Christians, two factors that are observable today when a culture is attacked. The Christians are partly to blame, as their lack of awareness and considerations of the Roman’s beliefs led to them appearing as blasphemous and as an overly zealous, invasive religion. Analyzing the history of Christianity shows us that there are many other perspectives in the world, which lets us break free from a strict, Christian perspective that makes people less tolerant of other cultures.

-Kevin Smith

Word Count: 571

Dreamers: The Metics of America

Immigration is one of the hot topics in American politics right now, especially since the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (DACA) is one of the issues that is included in these immigration debates. DACA allows illegal immigrants who came to the US as children to receive a renewable two-year work permit. This policy has helped many children today, who have come from nothing, giving them a chance to pursue the ideals of the American Dream, which encompasses civil rights, equality, and opportunity. In ancient Athens, the similar issue of citizenship for metics was a polarizing issue for many Athenian residents, as people who had been living in Athens their whole lives were not considered citizens. History repeats itself, and it is easy to see that metics and people who are protected under DACA (aka “Dreamers”) suffer under similar circumstances that pose a tough moral dilemma for our electorate.

The issues that people have/had against Dreamers and metics are similar. Many Athenians thought in a bigoted way that metics wouldn’t be loyal to Athens and they wouldn’t be fully committed to the success of our country. Similarly, today there are many people that are against Dreamers because of xenophobia. America has always had a problem with discrimination against foreigners, and it’s no different with Latin Americans; many people know about “Jim Crow” laws, but the less known “Juan Crow” laws posed many of the same discriminatory issues against Latinos, such as segregation in schools (Mendez v. Westminster deemed this unconstitutional in 1947). Given the US’s history of discrimination, it’s not a stretch to think that prejudice fuels some people’s opposition to Dreamers. However, many of these Dreamers have only ever known the US as home, these Dreamers are, as former President Obama described in his statement regarding DACA, “young people who grew up in America — kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants.” Similarly, metics were Athenian in every sense of the word until Pericles declared that only people with two Athenian-born parents were Athenian citizens. Just like these Dreamers, many metics were just as committed to Athens as any Athenian, but a law was the only thing standing between them and citizenship.

In one of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign rallies, he famously stated of illegal immigrants that, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” This is a statement that many people agree with, but I believe that there is more than just “some” good people, especially when we are talking about the Dreamers. How much of a difference does it make if someone was born on this country or came here as a toddler, knowing nothing of their birth country? These people just want to seek the same opportunities that people have in the US, what is so bad about that? Lysias, over two-thousand years ago told his immigration story: “My father Cephalus was induced by Pericles to come to this country, and dwelt in it for thirty years: never did he, any more than we, appear as either prosecutor or defendant in any case whatever, but our life under the democracy was such as to avoid any offence against our fellows and any wrong at their hands.” (Lysias, 12) This story shows how just like the metics, the overwhelming majority of Dreamers just want to play their part as American citizens, and peacefully enjoy the same freedoms that American citizens have.

The question of the legality of Dreamers is a moral question. When we’re making decisions about these people’s legal status, it’s important to consider the effects this has on their lives, their families’ lives, and friend’s lives. When we kick these people out who are American in every sense, other than the required documents, we’re ruining lives. Like Obama said in his DACA statement, “They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.”

-Kevin Smith

Word Count: 573

Representative Democracy is Better than Direct Democracy

Congress is frustratingly slow. Today, with all the government shutdowns and division in Congress, it seems that our representatives accomplish nothing. The static nature of our government annoys many Americans, who want their representatives to vote on issues they believe in. However, these past few weeks in my history class have made me appreciative of our slow representative democracy. After learning about the volatile nature of the Athenian direct democracy and participating in an imitation of an Athenian assembly, I have realized that the rash decision making of ordinary people is not the best for a state. For the sake of longevity and well thought-out policy-making decisions, the USA’s representative democracy allows for an educated electorate that dedicates their life to politics.

Direct democracy caused Athens to have a poorly educated electorate that typically voted based on selfish needs. A notable example would be the way the Athenian assembly voted on the lives of 6 generals after the Battle of Arginusae. In the battle, storms prevented the rescue of the survivors of the sunken Athenian triremes. News of this outraged the public, and the direct democracy, out of the selfish desire for revenge, impulsively voted to execute the generals. Xenophon claimed that shortly afterward “repentance seized the Athenians, and they passed a decree authorizing the public prosecution of those who had deceived the people, and the appointment of proper securities for their persons until the trial was over.” (Xenophon 1. 7. 35) Voting on such an important issue should have enough thought into it that it doesn’t cause the electorate “repentance.”

In America’s representative democracy, even if an idea as popular as executing generals were to exist with the public, the legal process would make it extremely tedious and almost impossible to pass such a law. To understand how our government differs from ancient Athens’ government, James Madison in Federalist No. 51 asserts that “ In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” What Madison is speaking about embodies our system of checks and balances. It controls the government to keep it from making overly ambitious or emotionally-driven decisions that may not appear to be good decisions after the fact.

Opponents to my ideas will point out the fact that elected officials will sometimes vote against the desires of the majority of their constituents; while this is true, it’s hardly a good reason to have a direct democracy. A trustee (a representative who votes for what he/she thinks is best) is not a poor representative just because they don’t vote for everything that their constituents want. A clear example of why this is the case is the fact that the majority (61-69% according to YouGov) of Americans support the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan; what if our elected officials know more than we do about the conflicts we are in? Should we trust the American public’s opinion if only 58% of voters (according to Rasmussen Reports) know that we are, in fact, still at war with Afghanistan? The answer is no, some issues are better left to our elected officials to decide on due to the knowledge they possess that the average American doesn’t have. It’s also important to note that most representatives are a mixture of both a trustee and a delegate (a representative who votes based of his/her constituents’ desires) to effectively represent their constituents opinions and to make the best well-informed decisions for them.

It is tricky comparing the USA and ancient Athens because of the large time gap. However, it’s important to make these comparisons when many Americans feel like their voices aren’t being heard in the government. By analyzing the failures of Athens’ chaotic direct democracy, we gain insight on the fact that while the USA’s system isn’t perfect, it effectively utilizes the system of checks and balances between the branches of government as the framers of the US Constitution intended it to be.

-Kevin Smith

Word count: 602

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/10/08/most-americans-would-support-withdrawal-afghanista

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/afghanistan/do_voters_know_we_re_still_at_war_with_afghanistan

300: A Somewhat Historical Film

TThe movie 300 is a highly controversial film among the public, including historians and critics alike. When I first saw the film in the 1st grade, neither my mom nor I knew what we were getting into by watching the film. At the age of 6, I didn’t have any deep critical thinking skills and I just enjoyed the violent action in the movie. It wasn’t until I got older and my thinking abilities matured, that I was able to form a reasonable opinion on the film. One of the major issues I had with the film (other than the corny dialogue) was its historical inaccuracy. Even if you aren’t knowledgeable about Ancient Greece you can tell that a lot of things in the film don’t make sense and come off as ridiculous at times. For example, the Spartans were practically naked in the film, when in reality, they wore armor, additionally the Spartans numbered 300 with no reinforcements when they had about 7,000 total men at the Battle of Thermopylae, and King Leonidas kicking a messenger into a bottomless pit next to where all the children play (which only stretches the truth to be fair, as they threw him into a well). However, this film isn’t historically inaccurate because of ignorance, but rather because the writer of the comics that led to the movie, Frank Miller, wanted to create a story that would primarily entertain, not educate. Miller traveled all over Greece and intensively studied its history, so as a connoisseur of Ancient Greek history, he still wanted to educate people to a degree. That is why women were respected and played a critical role in the film and why the Spartans have such a distinct warrior ethos, which were both true about Spartan culture. Authors and filmmakers know that people go to the movie theater to be entertained; if they want to learn, there are many books, documentaries, and classes that can advance one’s knowledge on a particular subject. This is why nearly all movies about historical events, people, etc. are “inaccurate”; the theater is not an academic environment. Now, do I think that watching the movie 300 is a poor way of learning about Ancient Greece and the Spartans? For the most part, yes, if someone watches 300 and the contents of the movie are all they know about the Spartans, then they are deluded. However, as Frank Miller stated, the best result he can hope for “is that if the movie excites someone, they’ll go explore the histories themselves. Because the histories are endlessly fascinating.” (Miller, during an interview, with Entertainment Weekly) Miller’s words are a refreshing take on all Hollywood blockbusters that deal with history. Movies like 12 Years a Slave, Titanic, and Gladiator are obviously not entirely accurate, but they inspire curiosity. Because of that spark of curiosity, I, along with many others, have become more interested in history because of these movies.

-Kevin Smith

Word Count: 474

https://ew.com/article/2007/03/13/how-300-went-page-screen/