Israeli governmnet formation

Recent NYTimes article on current Israeli politics.

Alfred Dreyfus

Writer's Almanac from Feb 23, 2009 (listen)

On this day in 1898 the French novelist Émile Zola was found guilty of libel for writing "J'accuse," in an open letter to the French government. It accused the government and the military court of deliberately mishandling the case of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer who was wrongly accused of giving intelligence information to Germany. People were eager to convict a Jewish man, and Dreyfus was given a life sentence and sent into solitary confinement on Devil's Island. Soon after, the government found conclusive evidence that another man, Ferdinand Esterhazy, was actually guilty of the crime. But to save face, the military and the government produced false evidence to acquit Esterhazy and confirm Dreyfus' guilt.

Émile Zola was a prolific novelist and a well-respected public intellectual. Two days after Esterhazy was acquitted, his 4,000-word letter took up the entire front page of the French newspaper L'Aurore, with its one-word title, "J'accuse!" ("I accuse!"). Zola took apart the case, proved Dreyfus' innocence and Esterhazy's guilt, exposed the government cover-up, and directly accused government and military figures of anti-Semitism and abusing the justice system.

Zola was well-known outside of France, and "J'accuse" brought the Dreyfus case to the attention of the international community. After reading it, most believed that Dreyfus was innocent. Zola was arrested for libel, and his trial got a lot of media coverage. In the courtroom, people screamed and got in brawls, and mobs tried to attack Zola as he left each day. He was convicted on this day in 1898 and ordered to spend a year in jail. He escaped to England, where he lived in exile. But in less than two years, a new court reversed Dreyfus' sentence and dropped the libel charge against Zola. Both men returned to France, and in 1906, Dreyfus was reinstated in the army.

Judaism

Judaism can not simply be defined as a religion, a culture or a race; Judaism can have different meanings for different people, and these meanings can tie two or more of these identifications together. Many Jews identify themselves with the Jewish faith. Practicing these rituals, along with upholding the expectations of the Jewish god is what gives Judaism its culture. Because of the demands of this belief system the way of life for Jews may be singular in that this way of life separates them possibly making them feel that they have each other. They identify themselves with their culture and religion thus bringing the feeling that Judaism is also a race. To me it seems that because of the beliefs and culture of Jews they have a tight knit community which creates a solid culture. This solid culture may make it easier to live with or get along with other Jews since there way of life is similar to each other, just as any religious groups may be. In sum I believe that the different parts of Judaism have made it so the meaning can change depending on the person and how they live their life and which part of Judaism they identify themselves with.

Judaism Response Paper # 1

The definitions of religion, ethnicity are complex on their own as it is. To categorize something as either one of them is even more difficult due to their interrelatedness. Similarly, Judaism can neither be called solely a religion or an ethnicity. It started as primarily a religion and ethnicity but has evolved as more of a culture that is a product of the two.

The fact that at an early stage Judaism embodied Jews—at time an ethnic group—who according to the Torah were the “chosen people” and directly contacted by YHWH shows that being Jewish was more religious. It would be safe to say that the percentage of Jews who believed in a supernatural power who asked to call Him their God and Him only was more compared to that of today. Judaism at that point focused more on the literal fulfilling of the covenant between YHWH made and the Ten Commandments He put forth them. In addition it included only descendants of the tribe that was “chosen”; portraying that Judaism in its roots was also an ethnicity.
However, the fact that the Ten Commandments came after the covenant shows that Judaism had started becoming less of a merely an ethnicity, encompassing instead a moral code for living (giving a framework to the expected behavior of follower, characterizing the functioning of a group or organization—a cultural trait). Unlike the covenant that required only circumcision and loyalty to YHWH, the Ten Commandments included more specific rules that a follower must follow on a daily basis. Judaism being maternally inherited has become a lesser known fact about Jews which shows the deteriorating importance of the once set rule and deviation from Judaism as an ethnicity.

Even though Judaism has not become evangelical, Jews on the whole have become relatively more acceptable to converts proving that Judaism has become less of an ethnicity. This might be due to the increase in the number of secular Jews which is another proof to how Judaism has become less of a religion and perhaps more of a culture. The fact that Jews have a nation of their own gives Judaism a nationalistic identity. This identity however is one that has been acquired from the cultures of the lands which Jews have encountered and have at times emerged themselves in. However since so much of their culture depends on the historical events that they went through as a religious ethnic group, Jews collectively have started defining Judaism as a product of both religion and ethnicity. Judaism though can not be defined as a race since Jews have physical features of nearly every race.

If one associates all Jews more with their Matzo Ball soup rather than circumcision, then it is evident that Judaism has become more overtly a cultural identity.

Judaism Response Paper

It is hard to define Judaism because people who define themselves as Jewish define Judaism differently. However, the different definitions of Judaism all have common features of basic religions and share the same fundamental religious beliefs; that there is one God who works in and through historical events and has chosen the Jews as an agent. They also follow the same “absolute law” provided by their God, the Ten Commandments, and myths in the Torah. Judaism can also be characterized as a religion by the many common features it shares with basic religions. These features include taboo, sacrifice, myths, rituals and rites of passage. Judaism also provides answers to the fundamental questions of human existence and the reoccurring misfortune in Jewish history.

Judaism is not necessarily an ethnicity because some who practice Judaism are not “ethnically Jewish,” and some who have Jewish parents do not practice Judaism. All those who practice Judaism identify themselves as Jewish, regardless of ethnicity, but those who don’t practice Judaism don’t necessarily identify themselves as Jewish. Because of this, it seems that Judaism is primarily a religion. Although there are arguments about it being an ethnicity, or culture, those ideas could have formed as a result of the stories of this religion and how the Jewish following developed.

Judaism Response Paper

Though Judaism is a multilayered concept, it is first and foremost a religion. The Israelites were an ethnic group in the Middle East like countless other tribes that have been lost in time. However, the Israelites became prominent in history because they developed the first monotheistic religion, Judaism. This monotheistic religion enabled the Israelites to maintain faith and not assimilate to other cultures when the Romans created the Diaspora. It was the Israelites faith in their one god that saved the traditions of Judaism despite the exile and lack of a cohesive cultural or central home. Judaism remains today because of the strength of its follower’s devotion and therefore it should be considered primarily a religion. In addition, Judaism is rich with religious traditions such as Yom Kippur, Passover and Hanukah and has a spiritual doctrine known as the Torah both of which are characteristics important to many religions.

Judaism does have many important secular facets, however they are not strong enough forces to replace religion as the definition of Judaism. Judaism has strong ethnic and cultural ties that are based out of its origin from a tribal society. Because Judaism is so ancient, it has some remaining traditions that were important historically to provide unity and tribal loyalty. However, these traditions are not at the heart of what Judaism is but remnants of the society they evolved from. In addition, in the modern world it would be impossible to classify Judaism as an ethnic group because Jewish culture varies depending on the place. For example, bagels are considered culturally Jewish in the United States, but are considered American in Israel. Therefore though in traditional Judaism, you can only be Jewish if your mother is Jewish there is no real cultural unity that would support the ethnic group that would create. In addition, Judaism is not divided into groups based on its culture in different places around the world but instead of religious beliefs. Lastly, Judaism has a political element because of its influence in the creation of the state of Israel. However, Judaism can’t be considered a nation because there are more Jews living in New York City than in Israel. This statistic would therefore eliminate many of the individuals that make Judaism such a powerful force in the world.

Judaism Response Paper # 1

Judaism can be referred to all culture, race, and religion. It is hard to distinguish between all three categories because from different aspects “Judaism” can have a different definition. Judaism is a culture that developed the world oldest monotheistic religion, and in ancient time the religion traditions was practice more actively in one race only other than open up to all races in the world. The culture and religion of Judaism are closely relative just like other religions, but now in the modern world it is hard to call Judaism a race anymore.
The founder of Judaism Abraham covenant with God and Moses Ten commandments are the foundation of Judaism’s values and believes as a culture and a religion. Following the Ten Commandments, believe in YHWH as the god and go though circumcised, can have in exchange of powerful nation and protection. To say Judaism is also a culture and religion because a group of people shares the common understanding, values and practice same traditions. However, it is hard to define Judaism as a particular race because a person can be a Jew but not born in a Jewish family. In addition, a person how is born s a Jew can be secular, who doesn’t follow the Jewish traditions. Judaism is still some how related to race because the children who’s mother is a Jew than children will be a Jew also. Judaism is a great example to see the development of a religion change thought out the time.

Judaism Response Paper #1

When I first think of Judaism I think of it as a religion, but when I think of all the different aspects that go into following that religion it becomes hard to decipher which one it most identifies with and it starts to morph itself into a culture and a race. Judaism is first and foremost a religion. Although one is said to be Jewish if their mother is in fact Jewish, I don’t believe that this is enough background to make it a race because it is limiting. When one thinks of the religious aspect of Judaism they understand that there are rituals that are followed annually that helps those follow their faith, making it most evidently a religion. Although some may choose to be more “laid back” with their practices, they still have Judaism as a guide when they need it; this is where it starts to form itself into a culture.
Everyone that practices Judaism follows it in a different way and may in fact pick and choose what aspects of that religion they as an individual focus on and this is what helps mold it into a culture. Everyone practices Judaism a different way whether they are stricter with their rituals and religious holidays or if they are secular and still observe holidays but are not as connected with the everyday part of their religion. This is why I personally classify it as a culture because it is not a uniform religion; everyone interprets it in different ways making it unique to the individual.

Judaism Response Paper- Vivian

Judaism is just like any other religion in the world that is comprised of many characteristics a basic religion: a close relationship to God that is bonded by the Ten Commandments, a group of people being defined in Judaism, Torah as a guidance of the religion, myths about the origins of Judaism in the Jewish Bible, and rituals to follow in terms of dedication to God.
However, Judaism is simpler, or rather, more complicated than the other world religions. The Judaism is less complex because it is not evangelical, and only the descendants of Abraham or people with Jewish mothers. As a result, Judaism is less likely to be accessible to the non-Jews. This additional factor to this religion nonetheless has made Judaism more complicate because it seems like Judaism is just a practice of a certain ethnic group that allows the specific race of people to live by moral codes and practice some rituals to appreciate the God who lead them to the right path of life.
Moreover, the Jewish were the “chosen people” by God, whose words are so sacred that people must follow what God says, or else they would die. It seems to me that this certain group of people did not become what they have by their own will. Instead, they were destined to be Jewish and follow everything what God say so they would not suffer from this “mutual relationship.” If this is the case, I don’t agree that Judaism can exactly be defined as a religion, but more of a race that has specialized its own culture since the birth of the race. Besides, other than Torah, there are no other primary evidences that prove the existence of the myths written in the book.
On the other hand, since the descendants of Abraham have spread out through the world from Israel, Jewish in different places have developed into various kinds of rituals. In addition, some Jewish even do not practice the “religion;” they just have an additional title than just human, like any other race.

Judaism Response Paper

There is no definite way to describe Judaism. Judaism can be a religion, a culture, a race, and/or something else. It is very challenging to prove or disprove each definition of Judaism listed above, since Judaism is comprised of so many different aspects. If Judaism must be described in one specific way, however, then the most accurate way to define Judaism would be a race.
People who are Jews in a racial point of view instead of a religious or cultural view are “born-to-be” Jews. They are not given much choice because if their mothers are Jewish, then they are Jewish as well. These Jews do not necessarily have a choice to pick of which race their mothers are. On the other hand, Jews who use Judaism as a religion choose to believe in such god and may become a “Non-Jew” later in the future. Also Jews who use Judaism as a culture choose to accept cultures around them, and may acquire other cultures depending on different environment and experiences. Unlike the religious Jews or the cultural Jews, the “racial” Jews cannot change their race by choice; therefore, it is most definite to claim that Judaism is a race. In addition to how race cannot change by choice, Judaism as a race becomes more significant as the forms of Judaism becomes more radical. All different religious levels of Judaism require Jews’ basic beliefs in God (YHWH), but the orthodox Jews only allow Jews who are racially Jews. In other words, among all the Jews (religious Jews) who basically have similar beliefs and cultures, only the Jews (whose mothers are Jews) are allowed to this orthodox form of Judaism. Thus, Judaism as a race is like a last key to complete many aspects of Judaism.

Judaism Response Paper 1

Judaism is a religion, a culture, and a race, and these characteristics are not mutually exclusive. A person can be one but not another, or they can be all three. The definition of Judaism is so broad that it encompasses all three in different aspects. For example if someone converts to Judaism they are Jewish, or someone born Jewish can still be Jewish and be secular. However, the degree that someone is Jewish varies, but on the most basic level anyone who wants to be Jewish can be as long as they follow or meet any of the guidelines of Judaism.

Judaism is perhaps most well known as a religion. People who practice Judaism are by definition Jewish. They follow the 613 rules in the Torah, the 10 Commandments, and kosher guidelines. The males have gone through Bris, and perhaps most importantly they believe they are decedents of Abraham, and believe in the covenant with God. Judaism is a culture because if someone is an Orthodox Jew then his or her life is steeped in the religious aspects of Judaism. People form a culture from their religion. In Judaism their culture brings them closer together with places like kosher delis where Jews do not have to worry about kosher rules because it is a kosher deli, and celebrating religious holidays together. Judaism is a race because originally Judaism was an ethnic group. Also, Judaism is a race because if the mother of a baby is Jewish, then the baby is too whether or not that baby chooses to practice Judaism. The baby will still be Jewish because Judaism is passed maternally.

Judaim Response Paper

Judaism is a monotheistic religion with loosely organized set of beliefs that dictate the way Jewish people should lead their lives and what G-d expects of them. While these beliefs are certainty interpreted differently by different branches of Judaism and by different individuals there still is a core set of beliefs. The idea of separating culture from religion is very difficult. Many people who consider themselves “secular Jews” or those who do not belong to any synagogue still observe key Jewish holidays like Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Passover. Many of these secular or cultural Jews feel connected to their Jewish heritage though ancestors, community, language or food.
However this is not to say that practicing or religious Jews do not also feel connected to Judaism for the same reasons. Because of the grey area between culture and religion in Judaism it is safe to say Judaism is primarily a religion, but still a combination of religion and culture.
Judaism is many things, but a race or ethnicity is not one of them. One could argue that all Jews have a common ancestor or homeland. If this is true then Christians and Muslims would all belong to the Jewish race because all three trace their beginnings to Abraham. Additionally, if a person considered themselves a part of the so called Jewish race then they would be implicitly implying that they acknowledge being either culturally or religiously Jewish or else they could not consider themselves to be Jewish at all.

Judaism Response Paper #1

Judaism manages to be a race, religion, and culture.
Judaism is undoubtedly a religion. It is a system of beliefs based on scripture that includes the worship of a god. Judaism is marked by the hallmarks of religion, including rituals, tradition, and a significant following.
Technically, if a person’s mother is Jewish, he is Jewish too. Therefore, Judaism is based almost exclusively on family heritage. Indeed, in making His covenant with Abraham, God declares “I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” Hence, all descendants of the patriarchs are Jewish. This nature of the covenant supports the notion of Judaism as a race. However, conversion by those not descended from the patriarchs or by those who were not born into the Jewish faith, instead supports the notion of Judaism as a religion and culture.
One can be a secular Jew and still identify as Jewish because of the “deeply embedded forms of family, educational, job and residence patterns reinforced by religion” (Sharma, 296). Neusner asserts that indeed, Jews do exhibit common qualities that demonstrate Judaism’s validity as a culture. “For instance, they live together, forming Jewish neighborhoods; they work in a few specific types of occupations; they marry within the group…As a result, Americans think…that psychiatry is a Jewish profession whereas professional football is not” (Sharma, 296). Having been raised in a practicing Jewish neighborhood, a secular Jew might also choose to abide by kosher food laws. He manages to be effected by Jewish culture (based on religious values), without being religious himself.

Judaism Response Paper I

As the oldest monotheistic religion, spanning thousands of years, Judaism is hard to classify: is it a culture, a religion, a race, or all three? I believe that Judaism is both a culture and a religion, but I do not believe in today’s world it is a race. Judaism is, primarily, a religion and with religion comes culture. Culture can be defined as a set of common values and beliefs held by a certain group of people. When Abraham made the covenant with YHWH, and Moses wrote down the Ten Commandments a culture was born. The Ten Commandments mandate a set of values the Jewish people should abide by and the covenant between Abraham and YHWH requires all of Abraham’s descendants, the Jews, to be solely devoted to YHWH and to be circumcised. Therefore providing the set of values and beliefs that are necessary to define a culture.
At one time in history Judaism was, indeed, a race. In the covenant between Abraham and YHWH, God told Abraham that he and his descendents, the Jews, would be the chosen ones and when the world was more contained and Judaism was held in one general region, Judaism did pertain to a single race. In today’s world, however, there are many different people of different races that can be described as Jewish: if a Jewish woman bears a girl by an Asian man and that girl goes on to have daughters with another Asian man, and those daughters have daughters, and so on these girls are technically Jewish but are physically Asian, therefore it is difficult to describe Judaism as a race.

Judaism Response Paper #1

A word can have several denotations and even more connotations depending on the way and the context within which it is used. Likewise, a comprehensive definition of Judaism has multiple facets, and to examine only one would be to deny the truth and existence of the others. One of the most popular definitions is that of Judaism as a religion, but even within that aspect of Judaism there are many branches with different beliefs. The different branches of belief vary in some practices and at times contradict or even fail to recognize other branches as Judaism. Solely defining Judaism as a religion is not viable as there are those who do not practice the religion or even believe that still identify themselves as Jewish. This indicates the possibility of a definition that corresponds to a cultural link and heritage. Using the nation to define Judaism is also unviable as it excludes populations world wide. It might be possible to define Judaism as a people, but only if that definition allows for members with almost completely disparate views, looks and lifestyles. “Race” is not feasible term for it, as race itself is entirely a social construct with its own varying connotations. It almost seems easier to define Judaism by what it is not, but that leaves just as many gaps and discrepancies. One of the most unifying themes out of these contrasting views of who is Jewish or what is Judaism is the sense of the history of the term. Judaism might have once been easier to define in a world that was smaller, but the term has changed over time as have the people who use it. Its history is one of the most important aspects of the religion, and the same might be true for those who apply the term to themselves as by doing so they are accepting at least some of the connotations conjured by the word. The most appropriate definition of Judaism would then be the facet out of the many that is most relevant to the context within which it is used. In this sense, perhaps Judaism could be best defined as an idea with historical connotations or as construct relative to the people claiming the title.

Judaism Response Paper 1 - Lei

Judaism can be defined as a race, culture, and religion. Such a seeming paradox is caused by both the many denotations that accompany a one-worded definition and the discrepancy in the ways Jewish people see themselves. In fact, Judaism must be defined by all of them or risk leaving out some people who should be included. The real question is, what is the significance of pinpointing the definition of Judaism?

Judaism can be defined as a race. One of the OED definitions of race is:

II. In extended use: a group or class of people, animals, or things, having some common feature or features. 6. a. A set or class of people who share a characteristic attitude or other feature.

Although there may not be one common characteristic that binds together all Jews except self-identifying as a Jew, it is true that communities of Jews tend to share non-religious characteristics that can distinguish themselves from the other local populations. Members of a Jewish community tend to intermarry, sometimes creating physical similarities. Other definitions of race, such as a "A group of people, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin. " do not apply because one can also convert to the culture and religion of Judaism, and call himself a Jew but not be related to any Jewish people.

To account for those who do not have Jewish lineage but still apply the label to themselves, Judaism can be seen as a culture:

7. a. Chiefly as a count noun. The distinctive ideas, customs, social behaviour, products, or way of life of a particular society, people, or period. Hence: a society or group characterized by such customs, etc. b. With modifying noun: a way of life or social environment characterized by or associated with the specified quality or thing; a group of people subscribing or belonging to this.

Members of the Jewish culture have traditions passed down from their family or Jewish environment that are, if not unique, then more predominant within their community. Many of these traditions have religious origins, such as celebrating a particular holiday, or avoiding one type of food.

Finally, Judaism would not be Judaism without the religious aspect of its many definitions. Judaism originated as a means of bringing together a group of nomadic Semites, and the history of the Jewish people is not complete without mentioning its religious component, as many of the Jewish peoples' actions have had a strong religious component. For example, the conquering and subsequent dispute over the region in the Middle East known as Israel, or the promised land.

Judaism Response Paper #1

Write 2-3 paragraphs in response to the following:
Is Judaism best defined as a religion, an culture, a race or something else?
Be sure to defend your answer. Please label your post "Judaism Response Paper #1"

Neanderthals!

Scientists studying the DNA of Neanderthals say they can find no evidence that this ancient species ever interbred with modern humans.

"There is no reason to believe they couldn't speak like us," said Prof Paabo.
"I don't think they became extinct due to something in their genome," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists were actually able to pull apart the whole Neanderthal genome!

Father Abraham song

So he actually had "many" sons, not seven. Here are the lyrics and some kids singing.

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them and so are you
So let's all praise the Lord.
Right arm!

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them and so are you
So let's all praise the Lord.
Right arm, left arm!

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them and so are you
So let's all praise the Lord.
Right arm, left arm, right foot!

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them and so are you
So let's all praise the Lord.
Right arm, left arm, right foot, left foot!

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them and so are you
So let's all praise the Lord.
Right arm, left arm, right foot, left foot,
Chin up!

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them and so are you
So let's all praise the Lord.
Right arm, left arm, right foot, left foot,
Chin up, turn around!

Father Abraham had many sons
Many sons had Father Abraham
I am one of them and so are you
So let's all praise the Lord.
Right arm, left arm, right foot, left foot,
Chin up, turn around, sit down!

Marx Response Paper

Although Marx presents an interesting argument against religion, he fails to offer any concrete alternative while disregarding the positives of religion. Marx claims that religion “is the opium of the people,” suggesting it is used solely for narcotic purposes; to heal pain without having to overcome it. Religion is not just a way to deal with pain. With it comes a community and people to relate to, a foundation of morals and answers to life on earth. It gives people a purpose who may have otherwise felt lost in the world. Although many wars have been fought over religion, many good deeds are done based on the morals that come with religion. For example, many charitable organizations are founded because of religion and many churches and temples offer ways to do community service. Things that we would not normally think about, such as feeding a hungry person, are also done because of the moral codes of certain religions. Religion has also been the inspiration for marvelous art, incredible architecture and music. Marxism has not.
Marx offers history and philosophy to “establish the truth of this world.” However, the role of religion in history has been so extremely influential in shaping the world today, that disregarding everything that related to religion to “establish the truth of this world,” would leave Marx with a scarce amount of material to establish anything with. Merriam-Webster defines philosophy as “a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.” In many ways that is what religion is. Much of philosophy is theories that can be debated and leave people asking the same questions that religion has already answered.
Essentially Marx wants us to live under his “religion.” Because no one is legitimately sure of what “reality” we’re living in, it is not fair for Marx to say he is right and religion is wrong, nor is it fair to say that Marx is entirely wrong. We may never find the actual truth. Ultimately, Marx’s idea against religion is just another idea, like the religions that he criticizes, that tells us what we should do.

Marx Response Paper

Marx is able to see some valid negative effects of religion although he fails to see clearly any positive benefits of religion. Marx’s sees religion as an illusion that man uses to cover up their sufferings and create false reason. Instead of society facing and overcoming their suffering they turn to their religion to cover it up or dull the feeling of it. This is where he brings in the comparison to opium, like drugs, societies use religion to keep from feeling pain that exists by focusing on what is to come. Many religions help people accept their status and hard lives because they feel they can look forward to an after life, therefore they do not focus on the hardships that they must deal with. But if people were to “pluck the imaginary flowers on the chain…so that [they] shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flowers” (Marx paper) suffering may be conquered instead of numbed. If people believed that this life is the only life, they may work more to change and improve it for themselves. Simply thinking of themselves first and not the gods could improve life. For example, people would not sacrifice for the gods, but in order to feed them selves and possibly feed more hungry. Marx’s view can be seen as optimistic in the way that he believed man has more potential that could be achieved by changing our worldly religious state of mind.

Marx understands that what he is asking of the people is a major request, wanting them to abandon their way of life and thinking. Though he truly believes that man would be better off without religion, he is unable to see the positive things that religion does for the people. Marx fails to understand that religion gives people a sense of purpose, hope, security, a moral code and many other comforts. I believe that Marx saw what man was capable of if man’s state of being was changed by eliminating religion, but because he was unable to see what religion gives to the people he was unable to give a convincing and unbiased argument.

Marx Response Paper

Marx presents an ignorant point of view while criticizing religion. He truly has no evidence to support his theory and he avoids proving his point by not providing definitions to what he believes is the answer if religion is not. Given the way our brains, and thoughts have developed over the thousands of years we have existed, given Marx’s theories, we most likely would have realized that “man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.” Marx fails to see the spiritual aspect and how people benefit from it in their every day life. He describes religion as the “opium of the people” expressing that religion has beneficial yet false manifestation for the sensation is merely just a temporary “high” that people try to obtain in order to give them purpose for living.
He says, “Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.” This is, indeed, a negative sentence in the eyes of Marx, and to me, a very ignorant one. If a man is trying to win through himself or once lost, trying to find himself again, what is he to do, Marx? A soulless man may not find issue with such a situation; however, humans are spiritual beings for they have thoughts and emotions. This, in turn, promotes them to seek refuge in times of need. If “man makes religion” and benefits from that, so that they can attempt to get something out of this dead-end of a life, is that wrong? Marx thinks so. I feel that he is wrong to fail to see what exactly it is that fuels this highly important topic.

Marx RP1

Religion is intrinsic to human existence. As Marx writes “Religion is the general theory of this world”. In his audacious critique, he attempts to “[pluck] the imaginary flowers on the chain”, ”disillusion[ing] man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has…regained his senses”. However, Marx’s attempt consists of generalized statements on the subject.

Marx claims that religion is a product of the society to keep the oppressed oppressed. In making this generalization, he fails to account religions that do place all their followers on the same level. For example, when Muslims pray in the mosque they stand shoulder-to-shoulder, regardless of race, wealth and education all in one line.

Associating religion with opium, Marx tries to portray man’s dependence on his faith. It is evident that man has used and continues to use religion to answer his questions, give a purpose to his life and a path to follow. The extent of this dependence on religion, though, depends entirely on the follower. If one’s religion obliges him/her to read certain holy verses, it is him/her who decides if reading once in a lifetime is enough or reading three times a day.

It is perhaps man that has corrupted religion by interpreting it in ways that serve his motives. What we see today as religion is nowhere close to what it once represented. The Bible has gone through numerous revisions in order to make it relevant to today’s society, which might have resulted in a loss of its intended meaning. The Qur’an has been interpreted in ways never anticipated—the concept of jihad (which literally means struggle) justifying killing innocent people.

Marx Response Paper

Marx holds an entirely contemptuous view of religion, seeing it as a means by which the common man accepts his suffering. His view of religion in society is thus limited to the one in which he lived, and what he saw as necessary for drastic change. With his bold criticism of religion Marx sought to “disillusion man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality.” His goal is to incite action to remove the sources of discomfort in society for which religion is the salve, not just take away the comfort that religion can provide. Marx uses the analogy of opium because of its negative connotations such as addiction, and the shock value of using such strong language in furthering his purpose: societal change.

Marx’s critique is fashioned more for achieving his goals, but can still be examined as a definition. Taken out of the context that Marx provides, the assessment of religion as “logic in popular form” and as the “universal basis of consolation and justification” holds truth. Outside of law, religion can provide a foundation of ideas common to the group with which people can use to interact with each other and within themselves. He Arguing against this place of religion in society Marx states, “man makes religion, religion does not make man.” Even so, religion may yet be an intrinsic part of man or the human experience. If man makes religion, then man can make a religion that is more than “the sigh of the oppressed creature” as Marx sees it. Man makes society as well, and every religion and society are not the same. Although religion often fills similar roles within societies, that does not mean it carries the same significance or weight in each one. Something Marx did not mention is the way in which religion can encourage secular knowledge and learning, such as through the establishment of schools and preservation of documents. Marx’s critique of religion also insinuates that those in positions of authority within religion wish to oppress or control the masses, which is certainly not true in every case.

Marx Response Paper

Marx argued that religion anesthetized people because it hindered people from discovering their own identity. However, I disagree with this statement, for many people often find religion helpful to discover more about themselves and relation to society as a way to respond the unanswered of the world.
Marx’s idea has become too extreme when he concluded religion with such a negative impact like drug on people’s lives and judgments. It is true that people often rely a lot on religion and find comfort in it to explain what they cannot answer by themselves. The abstract guidance of religion seems to lead human beings to an extent where everyone develops the same attitude toward any circumstance in life. Based on Marx’s opinion, this idea not only prevented people from thinking independently, it also caused the illusion of the world, which became faultless in religious sense.
Marx also stated that religious suffering is “the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.” People suffer through religious rituals to be punished for their sin; on the other hand, they also give the responsibility of the pain they suffer in life to some kind of spirit, or to their religions. These are all true statements, but Marx failed to realize that there is nothing wrong for people to find comfort through religion while in difficulties or in pain. If religion can make people feel better about themselves and enables them to move on with a more positive thinking, it will also improve the development of the society, for people don’t struggle with the same idea repeatedly. While Marx suggested that one should “move around himself as his own true Sun,” this would cause the problem of having too many opinions within a society. If that was the truth, there will never be any agreement between people, which would not help establish a stable and healthy society while there are endless conflicts

Marx Response Paper

As Marx said, “It is the opium of the people.” He did not clearly declare whether or not the religion has a completely negative influence on the society. “Religion is the opium of the people” seems a little bit extreme to describe religion because many people might just link opium as the problematic drug addiction from the history text. However, it is interesting that Marx’s chose Opium to describe religion, Opium is not a completely a bad thing, and it can actually be useful in some medical use. I feel like Marx was trying to suggest that whether or not religion is positive or negative effects have to depend on how a person views and practices the religion. One person can misappropriate religion, like over relying on opium, but a person can use religion as a way to find his/her own self-esteem, like using opium to relief from pain.
Quoted from Marx, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” The religion can be seems as the fulfillment of the world’s imperfections, and as the mental supports of people. It is truth that religion might led human to a wrong direction, for example, the religion conflicts between different Christianity branches, however, the starting point of any religion is to have faith and hope in this imperfect world.

Marx Response Paper

Marx states that religion can be used to oppress and is “the opium of the people,” however he fails to consider the positive benefits of religion. Marx states that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” Throughout history this can be seen in basic religions where leaders made themselves divine to inspire a loyal following that would fear to retaliate. This oppression can also be seen in Christianity in the Romanesque period when religion was used to inspire fear in the populace so that they would convert. In these instances religion created a ruling class that oversaw the underclass of worshipers and therefore created a class based society. In addition, Marx states that religion can be the “opium of the people” and create “spiritless conditions.” In many civilizations, cultures did become almost fanatical and obsessed with their faith like an addict to a drug. This can be seen in the Crusades when Christianity created a fervor that sent hundreds of young men off to war, in the witch hunts that plagued the New World and Europe and in Islamic religious extremism that leads to terrorism today.

However, Marx does not consider the positive benefits of religion which gives people hope and belief in justice. In Paraguay, where the people live in limited conditions, religion is the hope of the people. Each family prays at night that their well will not dry up or their sick grandfather will get well. Religion gives meaning to their lives and hope that a higher being will intervene on their behalf to support them in troubled times. Religion may be "the opium of the people," but many people forget that opium is used as medicine and pain reliever. Used properly religion too can make the world less painful and allow for recovery when an adverse environment exists. In addition, Marx states that when a person throws off religion they will enter reality and find true happiness. This is incorrect because people create their own realities based on what they need. Some people do not require religion as a support because they live in a prosperous society, however others are not so lucky and they need hope and belief in a higher being to get them through difficult times. No one can define reality, so who is Marx to say that letting go of religion will create it?

Today Marx has almost succeeded in his hope to encourage people to “throw off the chain and pluck the living flower” of religion. In the western world people rely more on science than on religion and this has led to less oppression and more prosperous nations. However, Marx’s criticism of religion has now been taken on by western cultures and used to criticize Islam in the Middle East. Western nations say that Islam is oppressing women and creating fanatical terrorists. Because of this American has made it it’s goal to give people in the Middle East “freedom” and this has led to military conflicts. Now it appears that religion is not the only opium, but science and freedom as well.

Marx Response Paper (RP1)

Marx sees religion as more of a negative force than a positive one, and its downfall will lead to a new clarity in the world. He sees religion as an “illusory happiness”, and when religion is finally disproven there will be “real happiness”. However, Marx does not define “real happiness” nor has he proven religion is false, so how would he know what would happen if religion were disproven? Religion, real or not, has given people in the world a purpose in life. In this sense Marx argues that once religion was revealed as a false hope that everything would need to be reevaluated including law and politics. If Marx is right then religion has been the opiate of the whole world, not just the people. Religion has influenced almost every part of our lives, and disproving religion would leave the world to rethink everything since religion began. The people of the world would have to invent something new to deal with events previously explained by religion. The world would be in chaos.

Marx also believed that once religion was gone that man would find himself and then be able to truly enjoy life. If religion is the opiate of the people, then the people are already content with religion because that is all they have been exposed to. They would not necessarily be happier because most people are happier staying the way they are and not having to change. Although people today do sometimes question religion, most people accept it in some form. In the modern world more people are questioning religion than ever before with science. Religion has almost arrived at a pivotal moment in history where it will be proved or exposed as Marx said it should be, and the world should be ready to pick up the pieces if religion does shatter.

Marx Response Paper-Emma

Marx had a very unique way of describing religion as “an opiate of the people” and I can see some truth within this statement. Opium is somewhat of a double edged sword, to some people it is an important drug that can help aid them or even save their lives, and to others it can be a detrimental and addictive drug with negative effects. I think that religion also correlates with the different uses of opium because some people look to some aspects of their religion for help like they do with this medicine, therefore it can be very beneficial. But when one depends on their religion too much it can cause them to depend too much on their beliefs to the point where they may start to feel insecure without it and become too dependent. This leads me to my next point about Marx’s second statement “man makes religion, religion does not make man.”

I both agree and disagree with this statement because I think that it can do both but it depends a lot on the person. I think that back in prehistoric years when religion was first developed man in fact made religion, because they did not have the means to explain certain situations in their lives and did not have anything to believe in. And also a natural part of their lifestyle morphed into different kinds of religions and helped feed into new ones. But I believe at some point religion can make man. Religion does not literally make a person but it can help mold them into the person they are. When one finds a religion that coincides with their lifestyle, they explore it and start to incorporate it into their daily life. This sometimes new lifestyle can help them or they may decide to explore a different set of beliefs. I thought that Marx made some great points, but I believe that they can be interpreted differently based on how a particular person views religion or how large of a role religion plays in their own lives.

Marx Response Paper

Marx’s criticism of religion stemmed from his belief that a revolution was necessary to end the suffering of the middle and lower classes. Religion was not the only aspect of society that was faulty, in Marx’s opinion, but was a way to mask the other wrongs society faced. “Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.” This quote suggests that Marx thought it necessary to free man of religion, not so he could suffer without the comfort religion provides to those who are oppressed, but because without religion man would have the incentive to rebel against the suffering placed on them by society.
Religion provides people with hope that, perhaps in another life or in heaven life would not be so difficult, man would not suffer. Marx believed that this idea of religion served to oppress the masses by providing a reason to suffer through life instead of rebelling against the oppressors. Religion serves as a sort of opium to the people, a way to numb their pain instead of curing it, and only after freeing themselves of religion will the masses truly be able to “pluck the living flower.” Marx believed that by eliminating the “illusory happiness” that is religion, man will find it necessary to find true happiness. I agree that “religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against suffering.” By turning to religion people are proclaiming their pain, and by doing so, looking for a way to numb their suffering.
I agree that religion is, in many cases, a way to mask the pain and suffering felt by many or a reason to continue in their state of suffering: after a Christian death, family members consol themselves by thinking the person is in heaven, when people are made to work long hours in a factory, earning little pay, they find the will to continue through the belief that if they behave, one day they will be in a better place. I think that in many ways this belief is a way to trick oneself into feeling consoled, while religion may just be “the heart of a heartless world:” imaginary.

Marx Response Paper

Marx famously declared that religion is “the opiate of the masses.” I largely agree with Marx’s view of religion’s role in society as a source of complacency. In referring to religion as an opiate, Marx asserts that its use is an expression of the suffering of the people and that it is used to dull their suffering. Marx thinks that religion is a “fantastic” abstraction, a “heart in a heartless world.” It is purely illusory. He encourages the masses, the lower and middle class laborers who are truly suffering to get over their fantastic abstraction (religion), though it dulls their pain, and face reality, the material world, and make their own lives better. It is Marx’s idea that once religion is abolished, man will “move around himself like his own true sun”; man will know/understand himself and will be the center of his universe. “Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.” Again, religion is “illusory,” not material, and is so powerful as to control man until he realizes that it is his own creation. This echoes Marx’s earlier statement that religion is “the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.”

Marx is not wrong to refer to religion as the “opiate of the people.” It is human nature to seek an escape from suffering, and religion, as the “encyclopaedic compendium” of the world, is a very accessible outlet for the people. Marx does acknowledge the positive aspects of religion, calling it a “protest against real suffering.” However, like Marx, I think that religion is to an extent “illusory” and “fantastic”. Why should the masses live in an “inverted” world, where an emphasis is placed on an abstract entity and not on the material world? The material world is certain; the best man or society or the state can do is indeed to pluck “the imaginary flowers on the chain,” (the chain being the complacency of religious people) so that he can “pluck the living flower,” essentially find the truth of the real/unholy world. I would rather not spend my life in the “vale of tears” looking to “the halo” of religion as my only hope for escape from the status quo of suffering. I agree with Marx that religion is so prevalent that “the struggle against religion is…the struggle against the world,” however, Marx is held back by the idea that man is society, not a singular being, and thus, society must altogether abolish religion. In contrast, I think that isolated individuals can effectively pursue their beliefs. Fixation on an “illusory happiness” is the problem of the individual, not of society. It is possible for a person to find meaning in his own life, through self-realization and connection with others, without turning to religion to find a nonexistent “superman.” Indeed, “man makes religion, religion does not make man.”

Marx Response Paper

While I think that Marx is correct in saying that man makes religion, I disagree with the idea that religion is something that people use to delude themselves into believing in. I think that religion is one of many ways that a person can use to find themselves and that the way in which each person is able to find and understand themselves has validity. For example, religious hospitals, Islamic aid to the poor or Hindu and Buddhist reverence for all life are all excellent and beneficial things that are clearly connected to religion.

However, I do feel that Marx is at least partially correct when he refers to religion as the opium of the people. Many consider religion a central part of their lives. While it is a stretch to compare religion to a drug it is not such a stretch to call religion something milder, like a crutch. Like religion, you lean on a crutch for support. I cannot say that this wholly good or bad, but I think the fact that people use religion as a form of support is an undeniable fact. Millions of people find some sort of comfort and the comfort of a religious community for the death of a spouse and happiness in celebrating a life event like a birth or a marriage.

I think Karl Marx’s theories on religion and its role on society were very extreme, but that was his intention. He was a notoriously extreme, leftist thinker and much like there are politicos today, who like Marx, make what they say more extreme to bring attention to what they are saying. This is not to say that Marx was merely going for shock value, but I think that Marx thought that his extreme position would have a much larger impact on people and ultimately be more convincing.

Discussion Topic: One Aspect of Marx's Theory on Religion

One aspect of the religion/opium comparison that I did not address in my paragraphs is that opium causes people to be ineffectual and less prone to resistance. Given that Marx is, at his heart, a political activist and social reformer, the similie would then imply that those under the spell of religion must cast it off in order to see society for the awfulness of what it really is and begin to move towards a social revolution. Thus it was important for Marx's political agenda that he decry religion.

My questions are: Is this interpretation valid? Is Marx to be criticized for this aspect of the comparison (whether because it is unrealistic or would not accomplish his goals, etc.)?

If you have time, reply.

Marx Response Paper - Lei

Marx's quotation that "[religion] is the opium of the people" is misinterpreted to imply a condemnation of religion as an evil drug and a casting aside of religious people as those who are foolish enough to become addicted. On the contrary, Marx understands the reasons for religion's emergence and in his works empowers the religious people to become more self-reliant.

Among the many epithets Marx gives religion, a few, such as "encyclopedic compendium", "moral sanction", and "the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself" show that Marx views religion as a belief system necessary to fill a void which would or should in time be replaced by scientific knowledge, personal morality, and understanding of oneself. Additionally, religion was not created by Man as an individual, but rather rose out of "state and society," relieving the onus of responsibility from the Man by making religion a byproduct of society.

Criticism of religion is by no means a criticism of the man who has faith in that religion. Rather, it is the leveraging of real happiness founded in concrete truths over the "illusory happiness" of religion. It is not possible to force people to abandon religion, but the search for true happiness must result in the abolition of religion. The difficulty in disillusioning Man of religion is that, frequently, religion has caused problems that can only be remedied with more religion. Therein lies the real meaning of Marx's comparison of religion to opium. Religion began as a way to mediate between oneself and society, but has become in modern times a cause of self-estrangement. Once one is free from under the yoke of religion, one is free to think and act for himself and to "move around himself as his own true Sun".

Marx's view of religion is still pertinent today as sociologists and anthropologist uncover more of the commonalities between modern religions and as the notion that religion is not necessary to humanity gains ground. The usefulness of religion will diminish as Man seeks to have the real experience.

Marx Response Paper

Religion = Opiate ?

Marx suggests that religion can have both positive and negative effects on society. By comparing religion to the “opiate of the people,” Marx is trying to bring in the healthful and harmful aspects of opium to explain religion. The word “opium” usually has negative connotation since there has been some conflicts regarding opium, such as Opium War, and since opium is an addictive drug. Just like opium, religion may cause many conflicts and criticisms. Also, some radical religious practices may result in loss of clear thoughts with unreasonable illusions like opium. Moreover, this “opiate of the people,” or religion, is developed out of “an inverted consciousness of the world.” Marx suggests that religion is created from already a distorted society, so it would hardly be perfect.

Marx, however, is not entirely negative about religion. Opium may rouse some negative impression automatically, but opium can also be beneficial when used correctly. It is a very effective medicine and can be used to treat many conditions unless one is out of control (a.k.a. addicted). And because “man makes religion,” society should be able to maintain control over religion, rather than overtaken by it. Marx implies that society can extract healthful effects from religion. In addition to Marx’s usage of opium to describe potentially positive aspect of religion, his description of religion hints that religion can offer a place to depend on. Although religion may be inherently negative since its creation, it is “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” Religion can be a refuge for some people in need of help.

Marx’s ideas regarding religion are very reasonable for his times, but concluding religions as illusions can be slightly problematic. For the modern world, all religions should be viewed rational, rather than illusive.

Darwinian Explanation of Religion

This is a scientific article on why religion developed that I thought was interesting!