Emerson's Self Reliance

Ralph Waldo Emerson believed in transcendentalism.  He had an a priori view on knowledge which means,  he believed that a sole focus on the individual gives a power of limitless knowledge without prior experience(a posteriori).  During the time of this movement in philosophy, the focus was not on government like in earlier times, but the focus was on the power of the individual.  Emerson believed that in order for a society to succcessfully survive was to have non-conformists within.  The survival of the society depends on that one non-conformist to argue against the majority in order to initiate right from wrong.  The "Emerson Society" is one that depends on individuals to use their own knowledge.  Because he believed that people could be intelligent about things they have not experienced, it was important to Emerson that they speak their opinion.  An opinionated society allows for change to occur and conflicts to arise.  Conflict and change allow communities to thrive and prosper in many different ways.  These individuals who have the courage to be opinionated are the main reason for the prosperity of society.  In his essay titled, "Self Reliance", he states, "It is easy to live in a world after the world's opinion;it is easy to live in solitude to live after our own ; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."(page 23).  It is difficult to interact with individuals of a group who have perpendicular views.  Problems arise when views are not parallel in communities.  When a person apporaches out of the crowd, they must have strength and courage to disregard the opinions of the opposition.  Opposition apposes a threat unlike any other, they are able to glare at you and immediately prove you wrong before an individual gets a chance to talk.  Here, Emerson encourages others to come out of the crowd to state their beliefs.  Society is dependent on the loud spoken, courageous individuals who understand the meaning of knowledge and the people who are able to see change in the world.

Quran Burnings in Florida: Thoughts about the first amendment and the constitution

The ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks is fastly approaching. It is a day of rememberance and a day of shame in the history of our nation. Yet, nine years later, there is still controversy regarding the attacks. There has been recent news of a Pastor in Florida planning to burn the Quran, the holy book to muslims. Reverend Terry Jones of Gainesville, Flordia will burn the books if he does not have a meeting with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the members of a possible Islamic Culture Center to be built at the spot of Ground Zero.
"I am prepared to consider meeting with anyone who is seriously committed to pursuing peace," Rauf said in a prepared statement. "We have no such meeting planned at this time. Our plans for the community center have not changed. With the solemn day of September 11 upon us, I encourage everyone to take time for prayer and reflection." Rauf and other leaders of the Islamic Culture center do not intend to offend or threaten anyone by constructing this facility. It is a relgious center for people of the Islamic faith, and these leaders encourage Americans to reflect on the horrific acts that took place nearby the possible building.
The first amendment of the constitution explains the personal liberties of United States citizens. The first amendment of the United States constitution states, "Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the freee exercies thereof." It is interpreted that anyone can practice the religion they want freely. By threating to burn the Quran, Jones not only is taking advantage of this liberty, but he is defying the supreme law of the land. Ruaf and the other members of the culture society are demonstrating the first amendment by freely practicing their faith. They are being threatened of this liberty that is guarranteed by the constitution.
To me, by practicing my Jewish faith, I am setting an example for peace. I don't believe in all of the philosophies of the religion but peace is a major part of how I practice. A muslim faith leader, al-sistani stated, "This disgraceful act contradicts the very duties of religious and spiritual leadership to enhance the value of peaceful coexistence and safeguard the rights and mutual respect among religions." Participating in a religious faith is to enhance peace and respect among all people of the world. If religious leaders are caught in offensive actions, followers may believe that this is acceptable. Jones is setting the wrong example for the world and the people of his faith. It is not acceptable in any circumstance to disrespect people of other faiths, the law states we should practice what we believe. Lastly, not only does this not follow the constitution but it interferes with the values of being an American. As Americans we respect the views of others even if ours do not coincide with theirs. It is the duty of Americans to practice and preach these ideas so people like Jones will recognize their wrong doings.

Response to Zinn Revolution

After reading and identifying the common elements of this text, I have discovered that there were many internal issues in the colonies during the American Revolution.  Zinn stated,"conflicts between non poor and poor among the Americans kept reappearing."  How can a nation fight a war over external affairs when they are dying inside? Isn't it the priority of the government to have balance internally before exploring external affairs?  Life in America today is very similiar in the sense thar we are fighting overseas in Iraq in a never ending war when issues at home are severe.  The financial recession has put many families into poverty and yet we still worry about international problems first.  Another issue addressed was the lack of all of the population being equally represented in the declaration of independence.  Various highly educated, respected, and wealthy men contributed to the document allowing their needs to only be met.  Does this provide a clear sample of all Americans?  Shouldn't a document regarding the rights of citizens apply to all of the needs of different groups of individuals?  In his piece about revolution, Zinn commented, "this serves the interest of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for a small property owner."  What about the farmer or the merchant? The guidelines of the nation should be a representative sample for all Americans. 

The American Crisis

The inability to have personal rights and liberties in America during the late 1700s was the reason for the arising problems in the colonies.  Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet called, "The American Crisis" during this time. George Washington stated some of Paine's work at Valley Forge to his struggling troops.  Throughout his pamphlet, he stated his thoughts regarding the fight for freedom.  After learning to begin about the American Revolution, I am beginning to understand the difficult times that different types of Americans faced.  While an African American may not have any liberties or the right to fight in the war or even a white woman such as Abigail Adams, who lacks the rights that are imposed by God. All Americans living in the colonies faced oppression.    Thomas Paine believed that "Tyranny, is like hell, is not easily conquered...".  My interpretation of this is that when someone holds power, they will not surrender the wants of others unless they are literally conquered by the people.  Because tyranny is compared to hell, Paine is able to explain to the reader that it was quite impossible to sway the views of the men in power of the colonies.  The only way to conquer hell is to physically fight it, which Washington I think agreed with this.  Another thought which I think is interesting is the issue of natural rights that God gives to all of mankind.  Paine raises this issue as he wrote, "Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited a power can belong only to God...".  All individuals are offsprings of God and are the children of the world.  Washington used this to encourage the fight of his troops against the British. The meaning of the word impious is lacking respect, according to merriamwebster.com.  Respect is valued greatly and always has.  It is important to treat others the way that we want to be, although this is often said, it is often ignored and passed by.  All people are not treated with respect, individuals who don't have the right to go out and work freely to support their families isn't respect. Pain also refrences Joan of Arc in his piece when he states, "was driven bak like men pretrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces  collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc."  Joan of Arc was a French hero during the Hundred Years War.  I believe that Paine refrences her because she was able to lead the French army to several important victories. Not only was she a hero, but a fighter, she wanted liberty and she fought to make this happen. Additionally, I think Washington agrees with teh ideas of Joan of Arc, he doesn't want his men to stand around, he wants them to fight for freedom.   Thomas Paine was a preacher of freedom in the American colonies and he directly influenced many people of that time.