Meditation, Mind, and Matter

     All of this talk about torture has reminded me of the common phrase, "mind over matter," and I simply wonder if it is even possible to do such a thing. People usually say this quote when someone is attempting to endure great amounts of pain. It is a way to stress that it is only physical pain, and one can overcome it if they have enough concentration. Evidently, some people claim to be able to do this, and say that they can get past torture or extreme pain by getting into some sort of trance-like state. In my anthropology class this week, one girl gave a presentation about the Native American sundance. In the sundance, men from the community get pierced through the chest by bits of bone, and this bone is tied to wire. The wire is then slung over some sort of structure, and on the other side men pull so much that it lifts the man in the air, hanging by his chest. They would leave the man in the air until the force became so great that his muscle would rip out of his chest and he would fall to the ground. The men who did this thought they were taking pain away from their tribe by doing it, and therefore did it willingly. These Native American men and Westerners who now practice body suspension claim that they go into a trace during the whole ceremony and do not even feel pain. This is pretty unbelievable that someone would not feel the immediate pain of their chest muscle being yanked out. But, perhaps it is not so unbelievable for those who support the whole "mind over matter" notion.
     We are after all, souls that inhabit a physical body. By being able to block out the physical world and explore our minds, we can escape the world around us. Consequently, we do this at night while we are sleeping, for we live out our dreams in our heads. The sundance also reminded me of the yoga class I took last semester. At the end of every class, we would meditate for ten to fifteen minutes. During this time, if I was not too engulfed in my stressful thoughts, I was able to truly meditate. It really is an odd feeling to describe, for I would lay there with no thoughts in my head, and simply exist. Once I broke out of the meditation it was odd, for I could feel myself coming back into my body, which at first felt like a foreign object. This relates to the fact that while trying to create a conscious robot, scientists have been able to figure out everything except for how to give it a soul. It is one huge mystery that no one has been able to solve. So, while many reject notions of the supernatural and gods, perhaps they can exist if we are somehow this living, nonreplicable force inside of a physical shell. Have you ever been able to meditate? If so, how do you think it works? How are we able to disconnect our mental body from our physical body?

Gettin' Lucky

In response to Katie Russell's question,"Do you believe that there is such a thing as luck? Why or why not?"...

     In short, no, for I believe that everything in the universe is truly up to chance. Some argue that there is a god who determines what happens in our lives, but it commonly believed that there is not enough evidence to prove his existence. Honestly, I just believe what happens to you, happens to you, and whether it is good or bad has nothing to do with "luck." What is luck anyways, some mysterious force people claim exists? I simply believe it does not exist because some of the greatest people in the world get the "worst luck." There is a woman I have known for a long time who attends my church. She is an incredibly person, but within the last year her family has gone through some of the worst events imaginable. Her father suddenly passed away, and both her husband and son have been in the hospital for an extended amount of time. While I have been here at college, I learned that she herself has gotten two types of cancer simultaneously. Basically, my conclusion is that luck is yet another concept people have constructed to make themselves feel better when they loose or win a game, for instance. While there are many things in this world we do not understand, it seems people construct many fantastical notions to justify things to themselves and others.

Torture on Television

     All of this talk about torture has reminded me of my favorite television show which ended a couple of years ago: Prisonbreak. I love action movies and shows, and that is probably why I enjoyed it so much, for watching someone break out of three different prisons was incredibly fascinating and a thrill. But, this show also involved a huge amount of violence, and when the show first came out, I was in seventh grade. That year, I ended up watching Prisonbreak and Lost and loving both shows tremendously. My parents on the other hand strongly disapproved of me watching Prisonbreak. They did not understand as to why me, a seventh-grade girl, would want to watch a violent prison drama. Truth be told, it is odd that I enjoyed watching a show where people were constantly being shot, stabbed, or getting beaten. However, the show was not just violence. It was also a love story between the main character and the doctor at the prison. It was a story of brotherly love between a wrongly accused inmate and his brother who actually committed a crime so he would be sent to prison where he could break his brother out. It was a story of innocent people who were targeted by a secret organization and a corrupt government. This, was what I loved.
     This has got me thinking though, why is it that people enjoy watching people be tortured on television shows? I know for myself I would sometimes look away if the torture got too graphic, but I did not turn off the television and walk away. Why was this? I think it may be because people realize that television and movies are truly fiction. They forget the fact that the actors are portraying real-life scenarios and get lost in the fantasy world. It is obvious that if they were to watch someone actually be tortured, they probably would not be able to handle it. This also reminds me of the saying, "It was so bad I just couldn't look away." Often people say this when talking about a "train-wreck," or one scenario that is playing out in front of them in which one person is suffering, usually from extreme embarassment. That then reminded me of when my sociology professor last semester told my class that people truly are obsessed with death. This is true, for if someone dies in public, there is often a large crowd of people who surround them. People slow down on the highway to get a better glimpse at the fatal car crash on the side of the road. If someone in public is having an emergency, most people stop and stare at them instead of trying to get help. This is called the bystander effect, in which everyone in a crowd will assume that someone else will get help so they do not need to. Obviously, this can lead to deadly results if everyone is assuming someone else will get help and therefore no one does. Why do you think that this happens? Why are humans more prone to stand back and watch than actually help in an emergency? Relating this back to what I discussed earlier, why do humans voluntarily watch extremely violent shows and movies in which people are being tortured?

An Interesting Dilemma...

In response to Cameron Hamlet's question, "If the person you were taking torture from was better at being tortured would you still take it for them?"...

     I hope that I never, in my entire life, have to go through torture. Obviously most people would agree with this statement, but I feel like it would seem even truer for those like myself who have a low pain tolerance. For years I always thought my pain tolerance was the same as most, but I have come to realize recently that I do have a lower pain tolerance than most of my friends. However, I hate that this is the case and when I am in pain, I try to appear as if I am not feeling it to the severity that I am. Essentially, I have conditioned myself not to tolerate it, but to act like I am. Though I am not afraid of needles or anything of the like, my pain tolerance is why I have never given blood or gotten a tattoo. If I needed to I would, but I choose to not subject myself to the temporary pain.
     So, it is evident as to why this question Cameron posed is such a difficult one for me to answer. I do not know if I would take torture from someone I knew could handle it better. It probably would depend on who the person was. If it were my mother or my best friend for instance, I would certainly take the torture instead of having them suffer. But, if it were someone who I felt less of a connection to, unfortunately I would let them take the pain if I knew they could handle it better than myself. I know this sounds horrible, but the reality of the matter is, humans do anything they can to avoid pain. If it is unnecessary for us to feel it, we make sure that we do not. Nevertheless, it is miraculous that we can be so devoted to another member of our species that we would endure agony to keep them safe. Some people perpetuate their own mental or physical pain, though it is sometimes unintentional. Such people sometimes claim that they actually like the pain. Do you think it is possible for anyone to ever truly "enjoy" pain, or do they just trick themselves into believing it is so?

Torture...

     Which is form of torture is worse, being physically harmed or being mentally harmed? This question was posed today in class and I will admit that it is an intriguing one. It is also incredibly difficult to answer. This is because, quite frankly, no one would prefer being locked in a coffin when they are claustrophobic to being punched in the face. In reality, neither one is quite pleasant. So, perhaps it would be helpful to analyze them individually. First, we will start with mental forms of torture, which can include anything from making someone believe their child is being tortured, to having a person who is deathly afraid of rats be strapped down and covered in them. The type of agony that comes out of this torture is unique. It is the type that makes one hyperventilate, have a heavy ache in their chest, and sob in frustration and anguish. While it is not physical pain, it is pain nonetheless. Often, people say that mental, or emotional pain is "not as bad" as physical pain. It actually is, for as humans, our minds and bodies are connected. Therefore, the pain we feel physically can be just as unbearable as emotional anguish.
     Physical pain is pretty easy to imagine, for we all have experienced it to some degree. In extreme amounts, such as when someone is being tortured, this pain can be so severe that it can make someone wish for death. In fear of being tortured, most people will even confess any information that the torturer wants to hear. Some though, such as experienced terrorists, have the capacity to withstand this pain. They do the whole technique of "mind over matter" and somehow endure it. In some respects, it seems that physical pain could be worse than mental pain because physical violence often results in death. After mental torture, generally speaking, the person will come out of it alive.
     Basically, I believe that being physically harmed and being mentally harmed can be equally as bad. Our minds inhabit our bodies, so therefore any type of torture is horrible. So, I do not understand how people are able to strongly withstand either. If they can, they are clearly stronger people than myself. Would you ever let yourself be tortured to keep a relative or close friend safe? 

Parents, The Good and The Bad

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Will you raise your children similar to how your parents did for you?Or is your goal to raise your children in a completely different way?"...

     I have to say, I love how my parents raised me. So many of my friends complain about their parents constantly, and while I occasionally do when they do something particularly annoying, for the most part I fully appreciate their years of hard work. As cliche as it might sound to say it, one of my role models truly is my mother, and every day I find out that I am more like her than I initially thought. While we obviously do have some differences in personality, how I socialize, my view on life, and my opinions on many things are exactly the same as hers. She is an incredible woman and I am proud that I have somehow subconsciously adopted some of her amazing traits. It may seem like I am gushing about her, but I have good reason to. My friends complain about their "helicopter parents" and say that they will never raise their children like their parents did. But, my parents truly did prepare me for the world. They taught me how to work hard, be independent, and have a complete sense of maturity about matters. Growing up, I have had so many teachers tell my parents how mature I was for my age, and even when I spend time with my friends I sometimes feel like I have grown up a great deal quicker than them. For instance, I know how to manage my finances, work hard, multitask, manage time extremely well, get to places on time, and handle situations professionally. My friends are not so lucky to have learned these skills, and I wonder if it is because of the age of their parents. My parents are in their late fifties while most of my friends' parents are in their late thirties or early forties. I know from personal experience that some of these younger parents do not know how to manage their money and handle a great deal of parenting situations in a fickle, childish way. On the other hand, the rare friends I do have who have parents the same age as me, are very similar to myself in many aspects. They automatically seem to have a different, more mature world view.
     So, if it is not clear thus far, I definitely will raise my children like my parents and I have thought this way for years. Obviously my family is not perfect, and I do believe I will make my husband or father of my children not be as rash and close-minded as my own father. Nevertheless, dealing with my father has made me have the capacity to deal with many short-tempered individuals. I truly do love my parents, and for that precise reason, I do not fear having children like many of my children do, but see it as a happy experience that is far in my future. Do you think that your parents' age had anything to do with how you were parented and how they handled certain situations? How have your parents shaped how you see the world?

The Young and The Old

In response to Shannon Ciuk's question, "What is your first impression when you see a young female with an elderly man or the opposite, a young male with an elderly woman? Thanks to the media and stereotypes I bet most people think the younger person in the relationship is in it for the money. Do you agree or disagree?"...

     As unfortunate as it is to admit it, when I see an elderly person in what seems to be a relationship with a young person, I think what many of us probably do, "What is he/she doing with him/her?" As Shannon mentioned, in our society our perceptions have been shaped so that we assume that the young should not be in relationships with the old. In some evolutionary sense, it makes sense as to why the pairing would seem so odd to us. First of all, when looked at from a eugenic viewpoint (and I am not saying that it is correct to think this way), the young ("fit") should mate with the young (also "fit") to produce the strongest children genetically. Additionally, if the young mate with the old, the old are likely to die sooner, which would leave the young to take care of the child by themselves. Not to mention, older women often cannot even produce children with a younger man. So, perhaps some of these perceptions are automatically built into our minds, causing us to feel such uneasiness when we see a young woman with an old man, for instance.
     However, I also believe that we see the relationship as odd because "looks" are such an overpowering force in a relationships, as much as we would like to deny it. After all, we do not think the relationship is odd because of the personalities of the individuals, but rather because of how they each look. In other words, we do not understand why a young, and in our view, and automatically more attractive person would want to be with an older person, who we automatically assume to look worse because of their age. Considering this, we do not see young paired with young as odd, for they are considered both relatively attractive. We do not see old paired with old as strange because they are on the same level of attractiveness in our minds. So, young and old is processed in our minds as an odd pairing.
     Personally, I do not agree with Shannon's statement that most people would assume the younger person in a young and old pairing to be in it for the money. I feel like primarily people feel subconsciously uneasy about the pairing for the reasons I have mentioned, and some, in an attempt to justify it in their minds, attribute the pairing to money for they cannot think of any other explanation for it. I know when I see a young man with an older woman I do not automatically assume that he wants her money, but instead I first register how different of a couple they are. However, with media promoting Hugh Hefner and the Playboy Bunny, it makes sense as to why people would assume this money connection. Imagine there were two suitors available to you and you had to pick one of them to marry. Would you choose the very attractive, poor individual or the very rich, but highly unattractive person?Do not take personality into account. 

Attraction versus Beauty, Love versus Lust

In response to Griffin Thayer's question, "Is there a difference between attraction and beauty?"...

     In short, yes there definitely is a distinction between attraction and beauty. Attraction essentially has to do with lust. Compiled from their genetic makeup and life experience, there are certain types of people some are attracted to, and others they are not. So, for instance, one of my friends is attracted to grungy, dirty-looking guys. Another friend is attracted to males who appear more androgynous. People have such varying views of what they consider attractive, for genetic makeup differs so much from person to person. Attraction also has a great deal to do with sexual preference. So, men may be attracted to certain parts of a woman or man that others may not find so appealing. People can also be attracted to someone, without actually "liking" them or wanting to spend time with them. Not all attraction is sexual though, for people are attracted to certain qualities in friends as well. So, there may be one person that you cannot stand, but yet there are many others who value them as a friend.

     Beauty is entirely different. People can fall in love with beauty, and people tend to conceive beauty as being long-lasting. What is meant by this, is that a person might try so hard to make themselves young and attractive, but looks do fade over time. It is commonly thought that those who are truly beautiful have such a quality about them that they stay beautiful even as they age. Of course, the conception of beauty in society most definitely changes over time, for what one generation might consider beautiful, another generation might not. Conceptions of beauty vary cross-culturally as well.

     So, beauty and attraction definitely are two completely different things, even though they may seem to slightly overlap. After all, people are attracted to beauty, but what is beautiful is not always attractive. Do you find people more attractive because of their looks or their personalities upon first impression? Most people make an initial impression of someone based on their looks. Do you agree or disagree with this? Why are looks, and not other qualities such as intelligence and compassion, most highly valued in our society? 

"Oh wait a minute, I'm just going to check my Facebook!"

In response to Shannon Ciuk's question," How drastically do you think our lives would change if Facebook was shut down? How 'lost' would we be without it?"...

     I will admit it, I am addicted to Facebook. I check it multiple times during the day, and when I am bored I can spend hours on it talking to friends, looking at pictures, and playing games. I even checked my Facebook while writing this blog post, to see if one of my friends had responded to a message I sent them. Facebook obviously does have some positive aspects though, for otherwise it would not be so popular. I use Facebook mostly to stayed in touch with my friends from high school, and it is wonderful that one is able to connect with so many that they would not have been able to otherwise. However, this addiction to technology, and especially to Facebook, is overall more negative than positive. For instance, I do not remember the last time that I was with a group of people my own age who did not text or check their Facebook while I was spending time with them. It does become rather disappointing, for it seems that they care much more about talking to others who are not there, than talking to those right in front of them. Then of course, there is the security issues with Facebook. Though it is rare, there have been instances of sex offenders "stalking their prey" on the site. Many individuals are ignorant of their privacy settings, and they often make a great deal of information public that they did not intend to.
      I definitely feel our lives would undergo a positive change if Facebook was shut down. Last summer I went on a vacation with my family to a cabin on a lake in New Hampshire. The cabin had a wireless Internet connection, but at the time I did not have a laptop. I could not access the Internet on the cell phone I had at the time, so I spent a week and a half without checking the Internet or Facebook. Honestly, it was refreshing, and though I did have a slight urge to check Facebook a few times during the trip, I soon forgot about it with everything that was going on around me. However, if Facebook was shut down, there might be a chance that some other social networking site would take its place. After all, MySpace was extremely successful until Facebook gained more popularity.
     Without the site, some extremely addicted people might feel "lost" at first, but as the case with myself, eventually people would feel better for not spending so much time on the site. Today my R.A. made a very good point as my roommate's parents picked her up. He said that unfortunately with technology, we might stay in touch with people too much. Many of my friends here call, email, and talk to their parents on Facebook frequently. While they do miss their parents still, when they do reunite, it will not feel as special as it would have if they had not made contact with their parents as frequently. So, while technology does keep us connected, it can drive us apart and make us take our relationships with those around us for granted. Sometimes we need a break from the people in our lives, and with the constant use of Facebook, it is extremely hard to truly get away from anyone. Have you ever spent a great length of time not using Facebook? During this time were you anxious to check the site, or were you content with your present activities?

Near-Death Experiences...Reality or Hallucination?

     Today in class we were discussing why individuals enjoy the feeling that accompanies near-death experiences. After all, many people are drawn to sky-diving or bungee-jumping just to get that thrill, that moment of clarity. Obviously in these situations people are experiencing this feeling without the danger of actually dying. But, what about those who claim that upon drowning or dying temporarily in surgery they had certain visions? I was curious about this and looked up "near-death experience" on Google. It brought me to a site that is run by the Near Death Experience Research Foundation, which is made up of doctors attempting to solve the mysteries of such experiences. In one part of the site individuals could share with others what their near-death experiences were. One person "recalled" stepping into a peaceful place and being greeted by a person in white when having almost drowned at age two. Another, when temporarily going unconscious from an illness, recalls being suddenly on a sunny beach, and having a woman with a child wave him to go back from where he came. Yet another person remembers while having almost drowned as a teenager, floating upwards above their body and feeling a force pull them into a light before meeting their deceased grandmother who bid them to go back.
     So, it is clear that many of these experiences have common themes. Often, people remember going to an extremely peaceful place and not wanting to leave. Then, usually some individual bids them to go back because it is "not their time." This is all so fascinating, and I wonder whether people are just hallucinating due to oxygen and blood flow being restricted to their brains, or if they really did experience these things. Obviously there are many unexplained things in this world, and just like religion, people's near-death experiences probably will never be proved to be true. As I have mentioned before in my discussions on religion though, stories do come from somewhere. They may be exaggerated over time, but they most likely have at least a slightest bit of truth to them. Is the same true of near-death experiences? Do they really happen or is a person just imagining it? The way I consider things, out of all the things scientists have been able to replicate in a robot or clone, they have not been able to recreate the human soul. I am not saying that all supernatural phenomena necessarily exists, but there definitely are things that humans are not able to understand. If it cannot be understood how a human gets a soul, it would therefore be logical to conclude that a soul could still exist outside of the body after the person is deceased. Unfortunately, none of us will find this out until we meet our own end. Have you or someone you know ever had a near-death experience? Did it change you/them?

This is the website I was referring to. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will see people's accounts of their own near-death experiences.

http://www.nderf.org/

Labels...Good or Bad?

In response to Griffin Thayer's question, "Do you think that labels will confide us and make us stay within their boundaries?"...

     While Griffin formed this question out of the context of discussions on theism, atheism, and agnosticism, I will expand this to a broader context. Labels have existed  for hundreds of years, and have been a way to include, cast out, and separate people and things. They do confide many people. People tend to see themselves as strictly in the categories of male or female, American or non-American, black or white. But, as with anything else, their are thousands of exceptions. Humans were not born to fit one label, but instead cover the broad ranges in between them. So, there are transgendered people, those who identify equally as being from America and another country, and people who are born both black and white. Society likes to strictly impose boundaries, and people do not like the fact (though it is true) that the lines are fuzzy. While categorizing people may seem logical in theory, it often has repercussions, as is evident through the social revolutions of the 20th Century.
     Labels might be something that we use to find where we belong, or to keep us feeling safe, but as I have mentioned, many people staunchly resist the label that is placed upon them. For though it might be human nature to give labels, it is also within human nature to resist them. Have you ever been labeled? Did you agree with this label, or did you try hard to resist it?

Money, Money, Money!

In response to Lauren Lemieux's question, "Do you think that money can buy happiness in any other way?"...

     Lauren was very right when she said at the end of her blog that money can prevent a great deal of stress, and in a way, preventing stress is "happiness" to some people. Along with this, I think money can buy people security and safety, and I mean that both literally and figuratively. It can buy you literal safety, but also safety in the sense that  your family can have food to put on the table every week, and normal everyday expenses can be covered easily. So, to many, this would be buying happiness. 
     Money can also ensure that you get a good education. As mentioned in class today, the costs of both private and public education are skyrocketing. It is incredible that so many families are able to spend thousands of dollars just for their child to get a college degree. For those who cannot afford to do so, it does come "at a cost." In other words, today our society is set up in such a way that if you do not have a college degree, you have no hope of getting a decent, well-paying job. As Lauren touched upon, it is so ironic that you need a degree to get money and a job, but you often need a job to be able to afford the degree.
     I do believe that having a moderate amount of money can buy happiness. If you are comfortably middle class and can buy a few nice things with out spending exorbitant amounts, then this is great. You probably will be better off for it. It is when people start crossing the line into the upper class, where money often fosters feelings of dread and regret, instead of happiness. We spend a great deal of our lives wishing we had more than we do. But, people must realize that the fact they do not have everything has made them a better person. Basically, if you have to work a little for what you have, you are all the more deserving in the end. Do you think you would be happier if you were much richer than you are now? In the news there are many stories about miserable millionaires. Do you think there are people who have great amounts of money and are happy with their lives? How do you think they managed to retain such happiness?

"Undercover Boss"

     All of this talk about CEOs has reminded me of a television show I have watched a few times called "Undercover Boss." On this reality show, CEOs of huge businesses like Hooter's, Norwegian Cruise Line, Subway, and Chiquita Brand go undercover at entry level jobs at their company, to see what needs to be improved and what is being done right. Many times, the CEOs enter expecting everything to be perfect and well-run. They end up often uncovering unsanitary work practices, overworked employees, and sexual harassment. In the end, after working a week with the low level employees of their company, they do have a whole new appreciation for them and how hard they do work for such low pay.
     This really should be something that every CEO is required to undergo. It is usually true that a CEO is in their boardroom, extremely isolated from the very people who are ensuring that their million dollar salary is getting paid. Many CEOs did not start off at an entry level job at their company, and being able to experience it really does give them a new outlook. I believe if a CEO had started out at an entry level job, or was able to experience one, then they would have a better view of their company as a whole, and would perhaps deserve more of their astronomical salary than they do now. Do you believe CEOs should only be hired out of a pool of those who started off very low in the company and were able to work their way up to the top? Or do rich outsiders with no experience in the company deserve the position of CEO?

Inheritance or Incapacitation?

     Sometimes I wish I was rich. It gets frustrating when I see my friend's parents willing to shell out thousands of dollars just to send them on a one week trip to Europe, paying for huge expensive cable TV packages, and buy them any clothing they want. I do not mean to say I am poor, and I do not think any of my friends could be considered rich. But, it just seems that many parents are a great deal more willing to drop such huge amounts of money, which is often, money they can barely afford to loose. Growing up, my parents have taught me to be very responsible with money. We are a middle class household, and my father who worked on the fire department for thirty years has now retired. My mother works part-time at our city's library and tutors high school students for the SATs so we can get a bit of extra money. We go on vacation every year, and if I am in need of something, my parents are able to buy it. They put my sister through college, and while I am now attending M.C.L.A., my brother is a senior at UMASS Amherst, all of which they are paying for. However, we have never had cable TV, my parents would never pay for the cell phone bills of my older siblings and I, and they would never dream of buying any of us a car. Basically, while we do have money, we just tend to save most of it. This is a very good thing, especially seeing as so many people are in debt in America today, and we are not at all. Nevertheless, I will admit it has been hard to grow up watching friends have things that I do not, and I believe everyone struggles with this to a certain extent. All of this responsibility surrounding money though, means that I am all the better prepared for the future. Many times children of millionaires or billionaires are not so lucky.
      Everything I have just explained might seem irrelevant, but it is not, for it is what I thought about when we had a discussion on inheritances in class this week. CEOs are obviously paid astronomically high salaries, and many times their children inherit their companies immediately after they pass away. But, are inheritances a blessing or a curse? I have occasionally followed the rich children of America's big businessmen through entertainment news. Often, they are crazy partiers and lack any knowledge of the company, responsibility, and money itself. These children often take over these gigantic companies though, and this does not make any sense. In Harris's article, he mentions that there should be equal opportunity for those who want the job of a CEO. This is incredibly true, for I believe everyone in America would rather have a multimillion dollar corporation in the hands of someone who is qualified, rather than an inexperienced young adult. I think inheritances can be a curse, and it is good that some millionaires refuse to pass their fortunes on to their children. After all, many of these people have worked very hard to get to the point in their lives that they are at. It is simply unfair to just hand to their children what they spent the past fifty years trying so hard to get. Children should get at least a small amount of possessions or money from their parents, for many parents wish to provide for their families even after they are gone. But, millions of dollars and a huge company should definitely not be passed onto the children unless they are qualified and responsible. So, after all, I really am glad that I was raised as comfortably middle class as I was! What skills do you think you would have and what skills do you believe you would lack if one of your parents was a millionaire?

Fight For Your Country!

In response to Shannon Ciuk's question, "Do you believe that in order to be considered completely loyal to your country you have to be willing to physically fight for it?"...

     

     For many people today, this statement is entirely true. As someone mentioned in class today, the term patriotism has simply come to mean "super-patriotism." So, it is no longer acceptable to just mildly support your country, for you will not be viewed as a patriot. Instead, you must actively, physically, defend your country. In the minds of many, the only true patriots right now are the soldiers stationed overseas who gave up their life, closeness to family, and many of their freedoms just to be able to fight for what the government of this country says is correct. Obviously there are some flaws in this system of belief. Patriotism also can mean having the strength to protest the government and say what their doing is wrong, while often, soldiers just go along with what the government tells them to do without much choice. 

     It seems that today's notion of patriotism is very close to what pride of one's homeland was in the past. In medieval Europe, people willingly fought to defend their country from the encroaching powers of other nations or territories. Many people felt so strongly that they were willing to die for their country. But, why is it today that there are so many less people who are willing to physically fight for America than in the past? With improved technology and medical practice, one would think that more people might be willing to fight, for they have a much lower chance of dying than in the past. Today, being a soldier just seems to be a scary profession to many. In the past, it was expected of people to become a soldier so they did. Now, with more choice, people are simply choosing not to risk their life on missions that may or may not make a true difference. So, there is such a conundrum, for many people believe that in order to be a true patriot you must fight, though many are not willing to take such a risk.

Required Religion?

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Do you think kids should be 'forced' to attend church? What age do you think a person can truly begin to understand religion and develop their own thoughts about what they want to believe?"...

     It is obvious that children are usually unable to make good, logical decisions. That is why parents often choose what their child should wear, where they should go to school, what they should eat for lunch, and when they should go to bed. This lacking ability of children really is no fault of their own though, for they simply have not acquired enough wisdom yet to make such decisions. Nevertheless, one very debatable decision parents make is whether their children should attend church with them. Many times parents force children into going to church, which can often prove to be a boring, uninteresting activity for kids. As the child grows up with parents who believe in a certain religion, children are expected to have the same beliefs. If they do not, they are sometimes cast out and rejected by their families. 

     I honestly believe that when they are young, children should be required to go to church with their families, if the family already engages in this practice. The way people learn is by being exposed to so many world views and determining which one they want to follow. For kids, church can teach good lessons like the "Golden Rule," while putting them in a loving community. I know when I was younger, I hated church services, but I loved the feeling of family I got from the members of the church and my friends in Sunday School. There is nothing wrong with a child experiencing such a loving environment. However, that being said, I think the way in which people teach religion in Sunday School needs to be modified. Instead of ruling with an iron fist and telling the children they are required to believe all of the Biblical stories, the Sunday School teachers should instead just say what they believe. They should teach the children about how their own faith helps them in their life, but not make it seem like the child will be an outcast is he or she does not go along with such ideas. But obviously, the way in which people teach religion is something that might not be able to be changed. 

     I believe that as children move out of childhood and into young adulthood (ages 11-14) they start to be able to grasp what is being taught to them. I know at this age I started transitioning from wholeheartedly believing what these adults were teaching me, into questioning and wanting to know why they believed such things. Teenagers are incredibly inquisitive, so it is no wonder that as children become them, they try to get a better understanding of the situation they are in. At this age children start to develop their own beliefs, which in many cases goes strongly against what their church is teaching them. Nonetheless, once children are able to form their own concepts of religion independently, they should be allowed to attend church at their own will, and believe what they wish to. Do you wish you had not been forced to go to church as a child? Has being 'forced' to go to church affected you in any negative or positive ways?