Postmodernism in My Life

Postmodernism has at its heart general distrusts of grand theories and ideologies, thus accepting that all knowledge is constructed in people’s minds and is not true reality. However, reality is in the eye of the beholder and one cannot claim that their reality is superior to that of another because these are solely human creations. This theory accurately explains the religious and educational aspects of my life.

Postmodernism creates a new tolerance with religion because it means never questioning the authority of another religion. On the flip side, however, it declares that no one religion can claim itself the bearer of the truth, because after all, the reality is in the eye of who which perceives it. This claim goes against my entire childhood because I went to a Catholic grade school, where I learned that following Catholic ideologies and God’s words was the only correct way to live my life. However, in my high school experience, I have run into the postmodern philosophy and it has run completely counter to Scripture and virtually challenges every biblical truth that was pounded into my head for 8 years. The postmodern ideology on religion now correctly explains my life because at OPRF I have entered into a new kind of social sphere, where acceptance of all kinds of people is more widespread than I have ever experienced in the past. Everyone’s reality is accepted because people are free to equally interpret the idea of reality.

Ideally, in postmodern education, it is believed that teachers are no longer the transmitters of information, but rather facilitate children’s construction of their own knowledge. However, teachers cannot avoid imposing their own moral values on their students. This makes it important that teachers promote good values, as their students absorb this information and use it to are construct their identities and their own personal opinions. Again, going back to my grade school education, lessons were taught at us and we were not given the opportunity to create our own knowledge, However, this postmodern theory accurately explains my educational experience at OPRF because teachers speak with a more vague tone, allowing students to interpret information how it fits in their mind. The best example of the intellectual freedom I’ve experienced at OPRF is the presidential election. During the presidential election, it would have been easy for my teachers to talk down a certain candidate and promote the one they supported. However, my teachers were unbiased while educating my classes on each candidate and did not express their personal opinions, allowing students to create their own position based on the knowledge relayed by our teachers.

Postmodernism ideology is a better fit for society because society as well as individuals progress when people are given the power to choose and attain their own goals. Many people would claim that postmodernism does not affect their daily lives, however its ideas shape our culture through art and commodities without us even recognizing it. Looking at it in retrospect, I realize that postmodernism has drastically affected my perspective and my daily life in the few years from grade school to high school.

The Most Diverse Country and its Political Representation.

The United States of America is the most ethically diverse country by population. However the government is not diverse at all. Countries around the world have more diverse governments than the U.S. A country that is roughly 50% female has had no female leaders and a congress that is 81% male.

Politicians in the U.S. serve a wide assortment of different minority groups. Each group has its own needs; Mexican immigrants require different things than disabled people. When we have a government that is mostly white upperclassman we aren't really able to get any other perspectives besides a white upper class male's.
Part of this problem is that the voting turnout in the United State's is really low. But this is usually because they feel forgotten buy their government.

Another part of the problem is that both women and people of color face much more prejudice than their white male candidates. There are even recent examples of this happening during the current election campaign with Clinton and the past two with President Obama. Hillary Clinton has faced so much hate from the media on her appearance that male candidates would have never even thought of receiving. Trump has also taken advantage on the fact that she is the woman by saying she is not well suited or "does not have stamina."  Obama has been called racial slurs, and many people even claim that he was not even born in the U.S. 

Hasty Generalization: Trump v. Muslims

It is no secret that Donald Trump does not like some groups of people in America.  One of these groups are Muslims in America.  Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly voiced his dissatisfaction with American foreign policy towards Muslims.  Trump thinks that in order to "make America great again", we need to stop letting Muslims into the country for a variety illogical reasons.

Trump's islamophobia shows itself in his press release from December 7th, 2015.  Trump and his campaign officials claimed, "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah."   It was later revealed that this poll was an online opt-in survey of only 600 Muslims.

Trump's use of this data represents a hasty generalization.  Trump surveyed a small population of Muslims and used this data to generalize the views of the population of Muslims in America.  To put this in perspective, a study done in 2014 shows that 0.9% of Americans are Muslim.  That means that there are around 3.3 million Muslims in America.  Of those 3.3 million, 600 were surveyed in an online pole.  The statistics presented by Trump in his press release do not adequately represent the views of the majority Muslims living in America, and should be considered a proper logic.
For Trump's Press Release Click Here

Salem Witch Trials

It is a known fact that there were accusations of witchcraft in the town of Salem Massachusetts. There were strange illnesses occurring along with strange behavior of its inhabitants. The accused were brought to court and many were convicted with the sentence of death by burning or hanging. The town today is a tourist attraction with tours with information on the accused.

I went to Salem this past summer and you would have never guessed that what went on there actually happened. There were many houses that had been there at the time of the witch trials that you could tour along with a theater that performed a reenactment of one of the trials. However, when I was in the center of town or walking through the houses I couldn't quite shake the odd feeling from the things that had taken place in the past. The stories that the tour guides told us gave me the creeps kind of. But the accusations and the trials seemed unnecessary. Today, they would just seem like someone going insane or catching some mystery virus. That happens today and we don't go around accusing people of witchcraft. The whole witch trial thing seemed to go out of hand after the first witch was convicted.

Take Me to Church//Hozier

Recently I have become  huge fan of the song 'Take Me to Church' by Hozier, an Irish singer-songwritter. It's a great song and I would recommend anyone to listen to it. Just as I sat down to dinner to think about what I should post about this week I heard this song come on. As I blindly listen to the lyrics and repeat them, I begin to wonder what they really mean. Curious, I googled the music video and lyrics to come to a better understanding.

I started by just watching the video. If you watch the video yourself you will see that it is all about two men who have a secret in a homophobic society, ending in a hate crime. And of course this message was obvious. But to me what is not so obvious is the message the lyrics send. If I were you, before reading the rest of this blog post, I would watch the music video and listen to the lyrics closely before you come to assumptions and judgements.

I believe that Hozier uses Church and a feminine pronoun to represent anything that the church he grows up around frowns upon. Clearly the music video links the song to homosexuality but it isn't just that. Personally I am not very familiar with any church atmospheres, but I think that he mainly references the Catholicism or Christianity, because there are a lot of ideas they frown upon in society. For example, drugs, sex before marriage, and homosexuality being some of the most popular. I AM NOT MAKING ANY ACCUSATIONS. I know perfectly well that people have their own ideas and can be part of a group or religion and go against what is expected of the church. I understand religion does not define a person.

In the lyrics of the song, Hozier "She's the giggle at a funeral/Knows everybody's disapproval/I should've worshiped her sooner" He is saying that drugs or homosexuality is the giggle, and it is frowned upon and could make every judge you. He also says, that it must be embraced when you are

comfortable. I don't think he is really referring to drugs in this situation, but more likely adultery and being gay. The second lyric I'll share is "I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies/I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife/Offer me that deathless death/Good God, let me give you my life" He is kind of being sarcastic. Now that he, or who ever is the subject of the song, is accepting sin the religion becomes the sin. But if you are going to accept sin, why have someone judge you when you can keep it to yourself. There's no need for him to anger someone who he knows is homophobic.

I could go on about all of the lyrics in this song and translate it but some of it is better left unsaid and for you to figure out. I really hope you take a listen to the song, not only is the message powerful and thrilling, but it is a great song.

Thanks.

P.S. If you are interested about what the writer of the song has to say about the song himself click here for the interview he did.

Across the Postmodern Universe

In the 60's the common western family was christian. The thoughts of these people did not go outside the boarders of their faith. It was blasphemous to think of any other religion to make any seance. Also during this time the Beatles were one of the most influential group of people. Everything that they did, was analysed and looked at under a microscope. In the mid 60's the Beatles went on a spiritual journey to India with the beloved guru Maharishi Yogi. He opened their eyes to new ways of thinking and the eastern religious world, a unknown area at the time.

The song Across the Universe is a prime example of postmodernism because of the radical interpretation of religion given in the song. The song contains a religion built out of the western Christianity and eastern Hinduism. This concoction of religions was a unheard and at the time and a  taboo idea. In the song Lennon sings "Jai Guru Deva. Om. Nothings gonna change my world. Nothings gonna change my world..." The postmodernist is willing to be "spiritual", but avoided "religion." He likes the former because it involves making your faith your own, not following a strict set of rules. This song is a great example of postmodernism because of it unorthodox interpretation of religion.

Beard-Bashers: A Prisoner's Denial

This week, I read an op-ed on the Los Angeles Times’ website concerning an imprisoned man in Arkansas by the name of Gregory Holt. This man, hoping to keep in accordance with the traditions and practices of Islam, wanted to grow his beard to be half an inch long. The current beard-growing limit in Arkansas prisons is a quarter of an inch long, and the author of this op-ed believes that his request is simple and should be allowed. The author, Michael A. Helfand, argues that the prison officials have not tried to make any sort of compromises with this man, such as daily beard inspections by the guards. Helfand also argues that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act requires that the government explains why there are no other available options before “it substantially burdens an inmate’s religious practices”(Helfand, "Is a Prisoner’s Beard Dangerous?").

Personally, I would have to disagree with Helfand’s response to Holt’s demands. The prison officials made the point that Holt’s beard could hide something dangerous such as an SD card or a razor blade. Just because Holt wants to keep in line with his religious values doesn’t mean that it becomes the prison’s problem. Wanting a Kosher or vegetarian meal is one thing, but demanding that one’s beard should be grown to twice the allowed length seems unreasonable. This compromise suggested by Helfand also creates extra work for the guards, who would have to search Holt’s beard daily to make sure he isn’t hiding anything dangerous.

Another important factor in this case is the fact that Holt is a prisoner. Like I said before, I think that wanting a different meal plan on the grounds of a religious requirement is reasonable, because it does not impose the same extra guard work or safety hazard that the beard causes. Eating is also a necessity, and if a person is being forced to eat things that they find unholy or morally wrong, such as meat, then I feel that that is an infringement on personal rights. However, a beard is not a necessity. Prison is not a resort, and to get in one has to break the law in an inexcusable fashion. To me, Holt growing his beard to half an inch seems like a luxury that is both unnecessary and unsafe, and being a prisoner I don’t believe that Holt has the right to demand such an unreasonable request.

I am not at all against people who wish to practice Islam. I just believe that a demand such as Holt's is somewhat ridiculous. For example, if I claimed that it was my religious duty to light a candle each night in my cell and I demanded matches or a lighter to make this possible, would the prison really let me do it? To deny me access to potentially dangerous materials is not an infringement on my rights. The prison officials have a duty to keep the prison a safe environment for both the prisoners and guards. By refusing to let Holt grow his beard longer, they are only doing their job.

I Pledge Allegiance? Two Questions.

Recently it has come to my attention that even though we still say the pledge at the beginning of the school day, no one stands. I would like to know why that is. Sure it's easy to ask myself well why don't you do it? Why don't you stand up and recite the pledge? I don't know if it's laziness that I don't stand to recite the words that I was taught to memorize since the first grade. Or maybe it's as simple as I don't want to be the only one standing.

I'd like to hear the opinions of others because I don't know how we as a class went from thinking saying the pledge daily was mandatory to sitting and talking over it as high schoolers. I understand that there are lines that people may not agree with in the pledge that makes them believe they do not have to recite it, which is perfectly fine. But why do the others who have no problem not stand?

"One nation under God" 
Since the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 it has been modified a total of 4 times. I think about this line a little differently. Since I don't know who believes in a God or several Gods or maybe no God at all, how could we possibly have an alternative in these days of change? Instead of changing the whole pledge why not just change one word? No matter what religion you believe in, or don't believe in, everyone in the world benefits from a good. Why can't the word God in the pledge be changed to good?

I very curious to see what people have to say about this because I've been thinking about this for quite a while. Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

The Use of Religion in War

I wasn't raised to be religious; I can keep track of the number of times I've gone to church on one hand.  So personally I never really understood the thrall religion has over people.  I see the actions people take in the name of their religion, and it makes me wonder if religion isn't just a tool people use to justify their actions.  This always seemed especially true in war.  People seem to often use religion to justify the decision to go to war.  In almost every war it seems that the brutality is justified and even glorified because it is believed to be for a higher power.


The Holocaust, the Crusades, and the Iranian Revolution are only a few of the many wars that have been justified by religion.  Almost every religious group has at one point gone to war for their religion. In this current day and age no war gives proof to this quite like The War on Terror.  These Muslim extremists have bombed building at the expense of their lives, beheaded innocents on the web, and terrorized towns all in the name of Islam.


Is it really fair to use religion as a security blanket to justify these horrific actions?  How can it when these extremists make up only a very small portion of the Islamic people.  The use of religion in war creates stereotypes that people apply to all followers of the religion.


It's difficult for me to find religion as a satisfying excuse for war because their is no physical proof that this is what the higher power's desire, yet people have and still continue to use religion as a just reason to go to war.

Isis and the Middle East

The other day, the U.S. began air strikes on ISIS. Isis is one of many issues that have occurred in the middle east this past century. It is curious why this region of the world always seems to have issues. I read an op-ed in the New York Times titled as "Isis Crisis". In this op-ed the author, named Thomas Friedman, tries to explain why this region has so much conflict. He believes it is only because of the Islamic religion, however I disagree. Every religion has extremists and although these certain extremists have taken their violence much to far, the original reason for conflict in this area is oil.

Oil is a major energy source in our world. Every country needs oil and will do anything to get it. The middle east is a region known to have a lot of oil, because of this many countries wish to control the oil wealth in this region. This greed for oil causes conflict between countries trying to control the region and people in the region. Since these conflicts occurred the region began to become broken by war and civil dispute. Arising from this crippled society are extremists. Since Islam is the primary religion in this area the extremists are Islamic. Also the United States' attempt to control the oil in the area has made many of the citizens in the area hateful towards us. When they believe they can hold no hope on their individual governments they turn to someone else to lead them. These leaders are the extremists and so the hatred grows and violence erupts.

The author of the op-ed argues that the extremists arose out of a broken religious society. He says, that Islam is the only reason for the violence in the area, and that the Arab society is too far gone. He says that any of our victories will be temporary. I agree that there is a very large amount of extremists, but he does not offer the idea that our involvement in the area sparked violence. His statements also do not go into the fact that their are many muslims trying to fight ISIS. Religion has sparked violence but the same  religion is also attempting to stop it with our help. The extremists of Islam are a terrible group of people and must be destroyed, however Islam is not the only reason for violence.

Adding More Labels

Need to create a post to add more labels.