Utopia?

This week was a rather odd week because we only had class on Monday, so I will discuss the reading of "Utopia" by Saint Thomas More. I'm going to have to be completely honest and say that I really couldn't understand most of what he was saying, but I will comment on my thoughts about this idea of Utopia. We have been discussing Utopian movements in Western Civilization II as well, so I feel I am getting this ideology drilled into my mind, thankfully it's a very nice and optimistic theology. In a perfect world, the society that More describes would be ideal. A communal society, where there's no distinctions of class or violence, or disparity, is something all of us would want. It is this philosophy that Utopian thinkers used to create New Harmony, the "city on a hill", and all other metaphorical or real places created by these ideas. However, the sad reality to communal living, to Utopias, is that they rarely last long enough to be deemed successful. Taking out competition is like taking away a piece of humanity, while it would be great if all people could live up to the standards of these thinkers, most people succumb to the greed and jealousy of it all. This is why, in my opinion, communism can never truly work, because there will always be corruption. There will corruption in any form of government, because sadly the truth of it all is that there will always be some bad people.

Thoughts.

Religion is often a hot topic for debate, and for a very good reason. For those of us who have strong religious beliefs, faith is not just a part of our lives, it is the whole meaning of our lives. With that being said, in everything I am going to say I say with due respect to people of all different creeds. If you've read my earlier posts, you know that I am a Christian. To go even further I will point out that my religion is Roman Catholic and my faith is in Jesus Christ. You may wonder why I am differentiating between religion and faith, and my answer to you is that they do not always go hand in hand. In "The Praise of Folly" and other works of Erasmus, he points out the need for reformation within the Church, and he stresses huge grievences he has with the organization and practices of the people who run the church. I was really moved by his sincerity to cultivate faith, along with religion. He didn't believe in the people just blindly following the priest or pope, he calls on princes, clergy, and ordinary people to read the bible, trust in God, and most of all seek to know God. I believe that the larger picture of what Erasmus was getting at was that faith, the true meannig of Christianity, is what we should be striving for. He changes Jerome's theories on penance and brings about the revolutionary word "repent" that most of us believe in today. We know from the bible that God is a forgiving God as well as a just God. Erasmus also spells out what it is to be a Christian leader; it's not all about appearances and armies and who's in cahoots with who. Erasmus tells them to be virtuous and a leader to their people by example. This brings me to another point, leading by example. Machiavelli discusses that the ends justify the means, but this only works if you do not believe  in divine judgement. In "The Prince" he discusses being deceitful and doing whatever it took to gain wordly possessions and power. Erasmus on the other hand based his beliefs off the bible and as 2 Corinthians 5:10 says:

 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. "

This is to say that it's not just the people of the church that need to be pious, but the clergy, the princes, and the pope as well. Going to church on Sunday and owning a lot of land does not secure you a spot in heaven. He wants us to be meak, to be noble, to be like Christ.

In a final note, because I could ramble on and on, take this for food for thought:

Just because you park a bike in the garage, that doesn't make it a car.

Keepin' Up With the Jones'!

This week was the conclusion of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and he definitely did not fail to deliver in his final chapters. Once again you could see major correlations between his philosophies and modern day politics. As he says in his book you might not actually have all the great virtures but you must appear that you do. I draw this back to our politicians. The man we see on t.v. is clean shaven, happy, devoutly Christian, and a family man but in reality, he is practicing cut throat politics and rarely sees his family or attends church because he is too busy with his agenda to do so. This is a strict stereotype but I feel that for many of our politicians it is correct. However, many of our people do not press to see beyond the false visage because we (the general public) want our politicians to fit into the mold. Isn't it true that when politicians show their true colors we are much more likely to criticize them? According to a recent poll, nearly 1/4 of the nation believe President Obama is a Muslim. Why? Because he has failed to keep up the "Christian" appearance, now mind you he has claimed to be a Christian on several occasions, and I myself believe him, but too many people see his lack of attending church and his heritage, as a threat to the Christian nation. I am a Christian, and I find this appalling. God calls us not to judge, if President Obama says he is a Christian then we ought to believe him. We shouldn't harrass people because they are not "keeping up appearances".

So does Machiavelli have a point, is it necessary for a leader to keep up appearances, to seem virtuous in all aspects of his life? Take a look at our country's politics, and the evidence will show itself.

Cut throat politics.

This week in class was pretty intense. We had this guy wanting to kill that guy, and this guy going after that guys money, and it was really confusing because their names were Italian...and my head hurts just thinking about all of this. The one thing that I really got from this week though, is the rise of political thought and secular art. Let me start first with art.

The Medici's willingness to help out young artists was really inspiring, but part of me wonders if it was driven by the power of having such a rare talent in their hands or if they really cared about the art. Which ever it is, the Medici's were marvelous patrons of art and their financial investments made way for some pretty impressive artists (Michelangelo!). On the other hand though the Medici's were kind of drama magnets. Someone was always trying to kill them, or they were always trying to kill someone. If they were around today they would've been part of the mafia, for sure!

My favorite lesson of the semester happened today when we discussed Machiavelli's "The Prince". So far I get the feel that this book is the doctrine to modern day politics. We talked about some really important issues that I'd like to shed my own opinion on, that's what blogs are for, right? While in theory it seems that Machiavelli's ideas about ends justifying the means seem rutheless, in reality, it is necessary at times. I might be sticking my neck out here a bit, but without coercion and sometimes violence, things would not get done. I agreed with Dr. Tucker saying that we are hypocritical in saying that we stand for God given rights whilst torturing internation criminals, I must say that without those practices there would be alot of important intel that would not be acquired. I do feel it is barbaric to torture a human being, but we must keep in mind these are not innocent civilians that we plucked off the streets of Baghdad; they have committed some sort of grevious offense to be in the difficult position they are in. Freedom isn't free and while it turns my stomache a bit, I have to admit that Machiavelli was right about that.

On the issue of guns, here is my opinion. Guns are an important tool for protection and should be encouraged in the average American house hold, but I have to say that not everyone should be able to own a firearm. My brother is a convicted felon, and although it is really painful for him to never be able to hunt again or even just have one for protection, there is a balance in our judicial system that must be kept. He is well aware of why he no longer has the right to own one. The right to protect oneself is a right, the right to own a gun is a privelage. It seems confusing, but they are not always the same thing. However, I agree with Switzerland's approach that if a person is worthy of owning a gun (meaning no former felons) then they should be trained to know how to do so properly. This would allow them to protect their home and their life. Bearing arms is a very powerful part of the American constitution, and it is one that should be upheld.