The Difficult Justice of Melville and Kleist Essay Example for Free

The Difficult Justice of Melville and Kleist Essay According to many scholars, Billy Budd is the archetypal story of good vs. evil, the injustice of an imperfect world, and the impossible decisions good people are forced to make. On a first reading of the story, Captain Vere appears to be a symbol of merciless justice, cold efficiency, and the power of the State; a godlike figure with the power to take life when and where he sees fit. The captain, whose name is loosely translated as Truth, is caught in the middle between the two. He is fond of Billy, because of his friendly open nature. He dislikes Claggart because he instinctively feels that he is evil, â€Å"No sooner did the Commander observe who it was that deferentially stood awaiting his notice, than a peculiar expression came over him. It was not unlike that which uncontrollably will flit across the countenance of one at unawares encountering a person who, though known to him indeed, has hardly been long enough known for thorough knowledge, but something in whose aspect nevertheless now for the first provokes a vaguely repellent distaste†(Chapter 19, Melville). Vere appears to have an intuitive knowledge of what is right and just, which makes it all the more baffling why he chooses to disregard what he knows is right in favor of the expedient. Martin Greenberg, in â€Å"The Difficult Justice of Melville and Kleist,† cites two arguments for Vere’s decision to punish Billy: first, is the loss of free will that follows enlistment in the Navy; second, the fear of mutiny and chaos is extremely compelling to a high ranking official like a captain (4). Greenberg and Melville understand Vere’s predicament as a man of the military. Had he been soft, perhaps more lives would have been lost through mutiny, and the cohesion of the Royal Navy might have been destroyed. The story is set in 1797, following the American Revolt against the Crown. In such tumultuous times, any form of clemency—especially in the armed forces—would be seen as a weakness for the unscrupulous to exploit. The story of false accusations against an innocent has a long history in the literary, Biblical, and historical traditions. Quite often, the person in charge of making such life or death decisions is either unable or unwilling to do the right thing (i. e. Pontius Pilate). Pontius Pilate and Captain Vere have both sent innocent men to their deaths for fear of social unrest, or an end to the status quo. In the realm of ethics, their action would have been unconscionable, but in politics, leaders must abide by the Macchiavellian dictate to When Vere calls upon Billy to answer his accuser, he believed that he would be quickly exonerated because there is nothing in his nature that would give credence to such an outlandish allegation. Until Billy strikes Claggart dead in a fit of incoherent rage, In Martin Greenberg’s analysis of Billy Budd, he remarks on the Biblical imagery immanent in the descriptions of John Claggart and Billy Budd, The two of them are the great forces of light and dark in the miniature universe of the ship, â€Å"And that world provides, like the great world itself, a Satan, harsher than his harsh name of Claggart, as sinisterly handsome as Billy is angelically—modeled on Milton’s Satan, despairing like him, but ignoble†(5). One of the ironies in examining this supposed lack of free will, is that it is an ineffable part of the Christian doctrine; yet those that are obedient to this higher power often feel compelled to perform actions they never would have dreamt of doing. Melville makes frequent allusions to Abraham and Isaac, with respect to Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son on the mountainside. Greenberg remarks upon this likeness at length in his analysis, â€Å"The two are imagined as embracing like father and son, like Jacob and Isaac, in the privacy of the sailor’s confinement, where as if it were a sacred precinct, the storyteller doesn’t venture to enter. Each experiences a sacrificial exaltation: Billy, sacrificing his life at the behest of the father-god of his world, exclaims â€Å"God bless Captain Vere! † just before he drops from the yardarm; the Captain, as the one who condemns to death, makes even the harder sacrifice (according to the narrator at the behest of his father-god the King†(5). With the death of Claggart, Vere argued for Billy’s death in a military court. The officers present knew that he was innocent of mutiny and homicide. He did not have the mental capacity to engineer such a coup, nor was he aware of his own strength. All he wanted to do was stop the lies coming out of Claggart’s mouth, and he reacted physically since he was unable to do so verbally. Would it not be a crime to kill someone that is mentally handicapped and too strong for his own good? Would it not be better to set him ashore in England or the Americas, then restore order to the At the beginning of Chapter 23, when sentence was to be passed upon the approved, the narrator presented a rather sympathetic portrait of Captain Vere, â€Å"The austere devotee of military duty, letting himself melt back into what remains primeval in our formalized humanity, may in the end have caught Billy to his heart even as Abraham may have caught young Isaac on the brink of resolutely offering him up in obedience to the exacting behest† (Melville). Like Christ, Billy had done no wrong, and perhaps this very perfection makes him less sympathetic than Captain Vere to Melville. As fallible human beings, some have more power than they know how to wield, and some decisions come at the price of the soul. It is Greenberg’s contention that the supernatural powers of the one true God, a pantheon of gods, heaven, or angels are no match for earthly injustice. The crucifixion of Jesus, the execution of Billy, and the avenging of Claggart substantiates this cynical world view. Works Cited Greenberg, Martin. â€Å"The Difficult Justice of Melville Kleist. † The New Criterion. (March, 2005): 3-11 Melville, Herman. Billy Budd, Sailor. Retrieved 5 Apr. 2007 from http://xroads. virginia. edu/~HYPER/bb/BillyBudd. html

The Political Philosophy Of Deception Philosophy Essay

The Political Philosophy Of Deception Philosophy Essay Deception is a part of our everyday lives, it is a part of who we are. What differentiates each and every one of us is the degree of deception that we incorporate in to our lives. Hence, how we look at and interpret deception, and thus, the truth, depends on our perspective, our moral grounding, our exposure and experiences in the wider world- beyond our immediate circle of life. This essay will attempt to find a general definition for deception that will agree with most, and will explore how deception is present in our lives and how that affects the amount of deception involved in politics. It will argue that deception is necessary in politics, and sometimes beneficial (and sometimes not), and this is because we as the general public allows it so. Drawing from the Machiavelli and Strauss schools of thought on how deception is an integral part of politics- and examining this claim through the case studies of the Vietnam and Iraq wars- this essay will conclude that the reason politici ans use deception is because it is sometimes more desirable than the absolute truth and also because it is easier to exploit and appeal towards the human conditions deep inclination towards self-deceit. Lies and deception often used interchangeably however, there is a difference. Citing Mahon (2008), Arico Fallis (2013) states that in order to lie one must say something that they believe is false. Deception engages people in a more deeper extent with the intention overriding the face-worth of a lie; Lies are a form of fabrication, where false information is created and presented as true whereas deception, especially in politics, is more motivated to manipulate, where information which is technically true is being presented out of context in order to create a false implication (Caddell, 2004). According to Caddell (2004) deception depends on two criteria: first, it is intentional; and, second, it is designed to gain an advantage for the practitioner. To understand why and how deception is involved in politics warrants a deeper analysis into the people involved and thus a look into understanding human behaviour and reasoning associated with deception. In the most basic sense, politicians and those who are engaged in the governing processes of our everyday life are only distinguishable from the general public because of the authority we as the general public grant them. Therefore they are also susceptible to the behavioural and cognitive aspects of an ordinary human being. With studies that propose and adopt the notion of self-deceit thus also applies to politicians, so as this essay will argue, will inherently translate into their decisions and actions and thus it is no surprise that politics, as with all other parts of life, would involve deception; therefore, deception is s present and necessary in politics. Self-deception also has many definitions offered its way, and as with the definitions for lies and deception, it will identify with everyone in varying levels- because individuals tend to treat their personal values as a kind of ideal point (Cowen, 2005). He defines it as individual behaviour that disregards, throws out, or reinterprets freely available information; people keep, absorb, and magnify the information that puts their values and affiliations in a favourable light and disregard the rest. Beahrs (1996) adds that deception of others is often accompanied by deception of self and vice versa. This leads to what Williams (1996) calls collective self-deception where the status of politics as represented in the media is ambiguous between entertainment and the transmission of discoverable truth. There are many ways deception is used in politics, and for many reasons. In politics, deception as the term will be used in this essay, could be used as a diversionary tactic, as a means to retain a favourable public relations image, a strategy to handle a difficult and sensitive situation or as the version that is linked to Platonic Noble Lies, used to protect society, a little sacrifice, in order to achieve the greater good (Jacobsen, 2008). Deception in politics and especially foreign affairs, usually involve decisions that are made in the spirit that they are acceptable or excusable because it is done in service of the national interest (Jacobsen, 2008). Therefore according to Beahrs (1996) deceit is probably required for a politician to achieve political success, because we as the people are so engulfed with expectation that it is inevitable and that if it is done in good faith there can be no harsh consequences, so it is easier to handle and deal with. There are many arguments on whether or not deception in politics, in government- essentially as an institution that holds the peoples trust (Williams, 1996) is acceptable. The idealists make a moral and ethical case, where deception, according to an absolute set of standards, is absolutely improper and inappropriate, but according to realists, and dependent on a cost-benefit analysis, the use of deception depends on how good it will achieve and whether it is consistent with protecting national interests and values (Caddell, 2004). Politicians need the people support; and in a liberal democracy one cannot coerce it or expect it as a gift, so they need to put on a persona that is of acceptable standards to others and this leads to deception that builds on (Sofier, 1999). Machiavelli and Strauss: A Look at Modern Day Politics Politicians have less incentive to be absolutely truthful and tend to deceive because they are in office only for a number of years and hence their accountability is limited (Davis Ferrantino, 1996). And politicians know this; according to ex-Australian Senator Graham Richardson, whether one tells the truth is not what really matters, but whether one gets the job done- and in that respect, one simply has to do whatever it takes, and if that involves an element of deceit or misdirection, then so be it (Malpas, 2008). Politicians tend to distract people from the negativity that is involved in everyday political decision making and focus on tunnelling public emotion toward achieving their goals by appealing to their sense of nationalism and personal preferences/group and party loyalty, especially in the event of wars. Deception is politics is almost considered traditional- it is not a recent phenomenon nor is it a fad that peaks every now and then. How politicians conduct themselves have been largely influenced by how politics had been handled in the past and the role deception plays has evolved; it has been more of a learning process, where by using the past political deceptions, politicians have extracted knowledge from what works to what doesnt, and when and how to use it best. Therefore deception in modern politics have become more sophisticated and subtle in its execution. This essay will discuss the schools of thought of two famous political thinkers whose influence has shaped the way deception in politics is carried out. Niccolo Machiavelli, whose most famous work, The Prince, is a handbook that offers effective techniques to retain power- that is still considered relevant today, because it addresses to the primitive, most basic psychological aspect of people. He employs a realist approach to politics, which is still used by many countries in their approach to domestic and international affairs, and adopts the view that politicians need to act dirty and learn how not to be good (Bellamy, 2010). He insists though, that this shouldnt be always the case; there is a right time to apply this to decision making. This is because we live in a world of wolves and traps so one as a politician must be willing to act as lions and employ force to overcome the one and be as cunning as foxes to avoid the second. However, to compensate for their deceitful means poli ticians should use proportionality in their actions, and must appear good; therefore the Machiavellian politician must appear compassionate, generous, reliable, morally upright and honest, yet be prepared to be treacherous, break their promises and use their resources selectively (Bellamy, 2010). But for this to work, nobody must know or want to know- and this is where its success hinges upon; thus the reason deception in politics almost always works because we as the public allows it so, because we ourselves are prone to self-deceit. And especially when it comes to the politicians, as Machiavelli instructed his Prince, force- as it would be used in conflict and wars- might be necessary if the safety and perseveration of community is threatened but one should never to attempt to win by force what can be won by deception; however, he did not instruct carrying out deception because the public cannot handle the truth, it was more out of necessity to ensure national interest are served and power remains intact (Drury, 1996). Leo Strauss on the other hand, did believe that deception was necessary because the public cannot tolerate the truth. He believed that societies should be hierarchical, divided between the elites who rule and the masses who follow, and this was the natural order (Lob, 2007). He states that people need to be told only what is considered the bare minimum and no more and if information is not controlled as such, they would into nihilism or anarchism (Lob, 2007). Religion was seen as the moral grounding that one should lead their lives on, but this only applied to the masses; according to Lob (2007) rulers need not be bound by religion and the ethical codes associated with it because they are required to deceive in order to govern. Strauss believed that humans are wicked and aggressive by nature, and that there needs to be strict governance and this requires unity. But in order to unite the masses the politicians need to find a cause and this could be achieved by referring to an external threat, which could result in wars (Lob, 2007). Following the ideas of these two thinkers, this essay will now look into two wars that have resulted from roots of deception and analyse how political deception works in real life. Fabrication and manipulation have both proved to be useful in the history of warfare and used as a means to vilify opposition, justify violence and to protect national security and other interests. Caddell (2004) states that depending on the intent, militaries at the command of politicians engage in three levels of deception; The U.S. military community traditionally recognizes three levels of deceptionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¢based on the nature of the intent; Strategic Deception intends to disguise basic objectives, intentions, strategies, and capabilities whereas Operational Deception, tries to misguide an adversary regarding a specific operation or action you are preparing to conduct and as seen in the American doctrines, finally, there is Tactical Deception which is intended to mislead others while they are actively involved in competition with you, your interests, or your forces. Caddell (2004) also points out that unless under oath in a court or otherwise bound legally to tell the truth, under domestic law there is no constitutional principle that says that the President of the United States or the Executive Branch must tell the truth. Iraq and Vietnam This essay will now discuss two of the most controversial wars (conducted by the United States of America) that have been marred by the use of identified deception in its operation. The Vietnam War (1964-1975) was initiated based on a lie. The incidents that supposedly initiated the war revolved around a couple of incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin; the USA announced two unprovoked attacks on U.S. destroyers by North Vietnamese boats- one of which did not take place and the other being provoked by the USA due to their proximity (ten miles) of the destroyer to the Vietnamese coast and by a series of CIA-organized raids on the coast (Zinn, 1991). The lies followed and multiplied; there were lies that were told by the then-President Johnson who assured the USA was only engaged in conflict with military targets when thousands of non-combatants were killed, and when President Nixon suppressed information from the public about the 1969-1970 bombings of Cambodia, which was considered unnecessa ry (Zinn, 1991). According to Jacobsen (2008), the deceptions that took place were done with full knowledge of the people involved; as admitted by a US General, the objective at the time was to keep the American public in the dark and as later found out President Nixon wrote to Henry Kissinger that it would be very helpful if a propaganda offensive could be [mounted], consistently reporting what we have done in offering peace in Vietnam in preparation for what we may have to do. Following Machiavelli and Strauss, all this was masked by implanting ideas that those who opposed the war were un-American (Beahrs, 1996) and that this was a war being fought to secure American national interests and as a means to fulfil its world responsibility, in order to gather and maintain support and power. The recent Iraq war (2003-2011) is also under much scrutiny for its reasons for initiation and implementation. The main reasons to go to war were based on the suspicion that the Iraqi government harboured chemical weapons and that its dictator leader, Saddam Hussein, could potentially use them; what the justification for how inhumane this would be left out of the picture was that when weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were actually used in the 1980s, the US government was supportive of the Saddam regime (Martin, 2003). There was more vocal debate against this war at the time, because its direct correlation with the war on terror did not provide sufficient ground for an invasion of that scale. The crucial political asset of trust which broke the publics opinion and respect for government was still not fully restored since Vietnam-because only one third of the Americans supported George W. Bush decision to go to Iraq (Jacobsen, 2008). Despite the undermining reports of the existence o f WMDs and other contradictory evidence, the need to go to war to protect American interests and defeat terrorism was too strong, and to justify this an agency called the Office of Special Plans was created, distinct from the known and reputable defence services, specifically to find evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq (Lob, 2007). The public outrage over these two wars and the other scandals that have resulted after uncovered deception goes on to show that we still regard truthfulness is still somewhat important (Malpas, 2008). Governments have been overthrown and its officials brought to justice because such deception does much damage to our conviction of credibility and legitimacy of our trust; yet, at the same time, as Malpas (2008) suggests, associated with self-deceit, our commitment to truth in itself is a lie. Although truthfulness is an honourable ideal, the realities of life require a more pragmatic approach, and thus we must accept the necessity of the lie, the half-truth, the obfuscation, and the omission (Malpas, 2008). But what is Truth? In order to fully appreciate deception, we must know what truth is. Malpas (2008) defines truth as a combination of both accuracy, understood in statements and sincerity, understood in actions. According to Arico Fallis (2013) you warrant the truth if you implicitly promise, or offer a guarantee, that what you assert is true. Truth is important, because if there is nothing to distinguish beliefs and our errors, deception and our limits. Truth is the idea of ethics that reach beyond the particularities of our personal and social situatedness that makes possible the engagement with others who may not share in that situatedness (Malpas, 2008). Self-deception thus falls under as a failure of sincerity (Williams, 1996). In government and politics, truth is desirable and it holds itself in virtue, but in line with Machiavelli thought, the responsibilities of government are sufficiently different from those of private individuals to make governmental virtue a rather different matter from t hat of individuals; that is for any government that is charged with the security of its citizens, a responsibility which cannot be discharged without secrecy, deception is a necessity- a government would be considered lucky if it can discharge its duties as such without force and fraud (Williams, 1996). Towards Effective Governance In conclusion, this essay will look at whether we can void deception in politics or whether we should not be fazed by its presence. In essence, only a few actually would prefer absolute truth from their political leaders, given that the deception we would expect would be for our own good. We are often victims of self-deception ourselves, and we accept that deception sometimes is acceptable- we engage in it in every day and every way of our lives. But what should not be confused with this admission is that deception in politics should not reflect politicians individual beliefs and opinions; as long as the deception serves domestic and foreign interests in a manner that would not jeopardize public trust and respect- and if it is done in secrecy than outright lying, it could be held with tolerance. But it should be noted that even benevolent deceptions can acquire their own momentum in unpredictable and undesirable directions (Beahrs, 1996). The way we understand politics could have an impact on how we approach and respond to political deception. The Machiavellians of our time, the advisors, the Generals, the state and defence officers insist that they serve national interests, national security and national defense; these phrases put everyone in the country under one enormous blanket, camouflaging the differences between the interest of those who run the government and the interest of the average citizen which would challenge any reservation we might have raising questions about our identity, our role in the society and our priorities (Zinn, 1991). This, depending on our various levels of understanding, would also stand to the extent deception is possible by a government and how susceptible we will be as the masses. To broaden our capacity to detect deception, we should expand our knowledge base; the more one knows, the harder it will be for someone to manipulate information out of context and the more likely one will be able to detect a fabrication (Caddell, 2004). But we must be careful because typically all deceit carries with it an element of self-deception and almost all deception involves to a greater or lesser degree a willingness on the part of the deceiver to be themselves a party to the deceit-to allow themselves to be deceived (Malpas, 2008). However, deception can only be recognized when we retain a sense of truth, so it is crucial that we keep our commitment to our sense of truth, because otherwise according to Malpas (2008), we lose our engagement with ourselves, others, and the world, and we lose, not only our sense of ethics, but we lose a sense of ourselves, of others, of the world. We need to appreciate that even after accepting the general basis for deception and truth in politics, when it really matters our opinions and acceptance vary; that is to say that ones sense of what deception and truth is and how much we will tolerate it comes from, as used in the premise to this essay, how we understand ourselves, our society and our world. In the political arena, the tragedy is that we cannot have perfect freedom or virtue at the same time (Drury, 1996). But what we can strive towards would be a world where deception would not be a means to justify the end and where truth will remain an honourable ideal and politics is not synonymous with deception but with the genuine intention for effective governance. general definition for deception explore how deception is present in our lives and how that affects the amount of deception involved in politics. deception is necessary in politics, and sometimes beneficial (and sometimes not), and this is because we as the general public allows it so. Drawing from the Machiavelli and Strauss schools of thought on how deception is an integral part of politics- and examining this claim through the case studies of the Vietnam and Iraq wars- the reason politicians use deception is because it is sometimes more desirable than the absolute truth and thus it is easier to exploit and appeal towards the human conditions deep inclination towards self-deceit.

Gender and Religious Discrimination in Islamic Countries

Gender and Religious Discrimination in Islamic Countries ANTHROPOLOGY: CONFLICT AND CULTURE Introduction Some of the vices of the society that were supposed to have been done away with ages ago are still so pronounced in the society today. There are some controversial cultural practices that continue to thrive even in this 21st century though have been passed by time: such includes the discrimination of the minority in the society. Its expected that with the development emanating form advanced science and technology, men should have developed parallel with technological advance hence overlook some destructive cultural practices based on myths proven scientifically to be wrong. This is not the case as religious and gender discriminations continue to deepen its roots in many cultures especially among the Muslims. This paper endeavors to unveil the evils of minority discrimination based on religious laws. The minority discussed in this paper are the religious and gender based in Islamic nations using a case study of Saudi Arabia. This study is based on a thesis statement that discriminatio n based on Religion and gender is pronounced and in continuity in Islamic based nations. The religious cultures are the sources of the controversies and minority discriminations. Discrimination The concept of discrimination has triggered much reaction in the society we live today because the adverse effects it has on the victims. Discrimination is the treatment taken against an individual or a group of people and based on category or class (Benton, 2007). According to the United Nations, discriminatory behaviors may take a variety of forms but all having a common factor: they include some form of rejection or exclusion. Any action that treats a group of people in an unfair manner because of their membership to a particular social group is discrimination (United Nations Cyber School-Bus, 2010). Minorities and Discrimination The minorities in the society are a group of people who do not constitute formulate the dominant majority of the total population in a given society. Minority group does not necessarily mean numerical majority, rather may include any group of people considered subnormal in relation to the dominant group of people in terms of wealth, employment, class, political power, education and social status (Traiman, 2006). The minority may also be referred to as the ‘subordinate group while the majority group may be referred as the ‘dominant group instead of minority and majority respectively. The term minority group is mostly used in reference of an ethnic group which may include: nationality, language, religion, gender and culture. Some other minority groups may include: The working minorities (unemployed and working poor, people with disabilities, age minorities who are older or younger than the typical working class and the sexual minorities (Lovelace, 2006). The commonality of the term ‘minority group is manifest alongside the discourse of collective rights and civil rights gaining prominence from the 20th century. Those who fall under the category of the minority group frequently fall prey to different treatments in the societies and the countries where they reside. The discrimination can be based on the individuals perception as belonging to the minority group failing to notice an individuals personal successes or occur indirectly based on the social structures that do not offer equal opportunities to the entire subject. Those who belong to the categories of the minority groups are often identifiable while tabling of complains of maltreatments and demanding for equal rights (Lovelace, 2006). Religious Discrimination: Saudi Arabia case study The focus of this paper is to look into the minority groups in the Islamic nations and how they are discriminated by the society and the governing laws within their nations. The two major categories of minority groups within the Islamic culture are the religious minority and gender minority: women. One of the most established Islamic states of the world is Saudi Arabia; though our focus is the Islamic culture in general most of the examples shall be obtained from the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is governed by Sharia laws that are derived from the Holy Quran. The kingdom has no legal protection in relation to freedom of religion hence no authority offers such protection to the minority groups: those who do not profess the Islamic religion such as the Christians and the Buddhists. The requirement of the Sharia law is that all people should be Muslims. The government does not condone a public practice of non-Muslim religions, in fact its illegal. The non-Muslims are only allowed to conduct their worship in private. Nevertheless those limited rights are not always respected and contravention does not necessarily carry a lot of weight (International Labor Office, 2007). The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a population of about seventeen million with about seven million foreigners. The foreign population includes about 36,000 Americans, 40,000 Eritreans, 130,000 Sri Lankans, 150,000 Lebanese, 250,000 Palestinians, 800,000 Filipinos, 800,000 Egyptians, 900,000 Pakistanis, 1 million Bangladeshis, and 1.5 million Indians. Of the entire population in the Saudi society, the majority are Muslims with minority Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews. There are very few of the foreigners who are Muslims. There is a high degree of cultural homogeneity as well as high social stratification (Federal Research Division, 2004). The freedom of religion does not exist, Islamism being the official religion; all the citizens are required to be Muslims. The government is an Islamic monarchy declaring Prophet Muhammads Sunna traditions to be the governing constitution. The government is fully conservative observing the precepts of the Quran to govern the country. The government as well as the society do not allow for any separation between the government and religion. The Muslims societies are allowed to adjudicate their legal issues using the Shia Muslims traditions. This is at the expense of the minority groups who are not Muslims since they are judged according to the Muslims laws: this becomes unfair since the non Muslims are not versed with the basic knowledge hence may contravene the laws out of ignorance. On the same note the non Muslims do not enjoy the Christian festivals and holidays since the only permissible public holiday is Eids, Eid Al-Fitr done as a wrapping up of Hajj (International Labor Office, 2007). The religious minority suffers in that the system of education is based on the Islamic laws. Some other religious teachings such as Christian religious Education are not provided for, the parents and guardians have to organize for tutorial classes to teach their children the basics of their religions. Those who have attempted to advocate for some forms of democratic systems or criticized or written opposed the Islamic administration have faced the Sharia law some being imprisoned while others have faced reprisals. The minority groups pay the revenues to the government which is used in the establishment of Mosques. The government also uses collected revenues to pay the Imams who are the prayer leaders and the other mosque employees though it does not permit the establishment of churches (Abir, 1993). The jurisdiction in the legal system treats the majority, Muslims, unequally to the minority: other religions. For example the retribution sort for blood money varies from that of a Muslim man from that of a member of the other religions. The blood money payable to a Christian man is half that of a Muslim man. The members of the other religions are valued 1/16th of a Muslim man (Saudi Arabian Government and Law). Gender Discrimination The acuity of the womenfolk as a minority group facing discrimination has been publicly debated from time immemorial. The concept of gender discrimination is based on belief that women are a lesser sex in the society. Its generally propagated by attitudes and beliefs concerning the gender of a person. The attitudes and beliefs are social nature normally not carrying legal consequences. The treatment of women varies from one society to another and from institution to another (Tofilon, 2005. The advance in development continues to provide for more opportunities for women. Though not many societies have managed to achieve a level of equal rights for all people despite of their gender, the Islamic based countries do not even make the initiative to provide equal opportunities for all. Gender discrimination can arise in different settings. The discrimination may involve an employee being asked some discriminatory questions in job interviews or while working: if a woman presents herself as a Chief Executive Officer of a given company others may doubt her ability to run such a position based on cultural beliefs that a woman ought to take less task positions not such which involves the control off the entire company. Such cultural beliefs have been impacted on women to an extent that some have accepted the position as a reality of life. Unfair discrimination of women follows gender stereotypes that are held by the society (Hyde, 2005). Gender Discrimination in Saudi Arabia The discrimination of women as the ‘minority group is most pronounced among the practitioners of Islamic religion though also very evident in other societies such as in America: it was identified that more than half of the masters degree programs are offered to women though this is not reflected in the management of organizations; over 95% of senior management positions in organizations remain occupied by men (U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gender discrimination is so pronounced in almost all circles. The greatest challenge in pursuit of gender equality in this monarchy is faced owing to the fact that not many including the womenfolk are willing to see change; many are contented with the status quo. This is chiefly because the discriminations are not perceived by the women since its based on the laws of God: Sharia from the Holy Quran, to them God ordained men to rule as women serve the men (Kline, 2005). Despite the fact that about seventy percent of those enrolled in universities are women only five percent of the workforce is composed of women, 95% of workers are men. This ratio is the most unusual in the world. Any attempt to increase womens opportunities in the working force has faced pronounced resistance from without the government (men citizenly and religious police) and within the labor ministry. The position of a woman is at home according to the Saudi peoples cultures and Islamic religion. Most of these cultures state that a woman was created to take care of her husband and family. The segregation for this minority group is continued even to the home settings where there are some special doors that are set mens usage. In Saudi Arabia women are prohibited even from driving cars and those who drive do it out of contravention of the law, they are very few for not many husbands would allow their wives to drive. They are allowed to fly aircrafts but have to be chauffer driven to the airstrips (Kline, 2005). Women in Saudi Arabia are not even allowed to contend for political positions. They are just allowed to vote. The discrimination of women among the Islamic nations is not only manifest in Saudi Arabia, in Iran there is no much difference; there are so many rights that women are denied from accessing based on the Islamic religion. If a Muslim man commits adultery with a Muslim woman he receives a penalty of 100 lashes, but if with a non Muslim woman there is no provision of the punishment involved. If a non-Muslim man commits adultery with a Muslim woman the penalty is death sentence. Iran law allows a Muslim man to marry a Muslim woman but a Muslim woman can never be married to a none-Muslim man (FIDH report, 2003). Conclusion The discrimination of people in todays society based on beliefs and practices that can not be proven has received vast criticism from many circles. With the current advance in scientific and technological advance its expected that most of the cultural myths that continue to thrive in the society should have been done away with along time ago, but this is not the case. Minority discriminations based of cultural beliefs are so evident in many circles of life especially in the Islamic religious societies. Religious decimation against the minority and gender discrimination are so pronounced in Muslim societies. The minority groups continue to encounter massive challenges in an attempt to fit in these societies. The Saudi Arabia Kingdom which is our case study is a monarchy run in accordance with Islamic religious ethics. The constitution of this monarchy is based on Sharia form the Quran. The greatest percentage of Saudis citizens is Muslims hence all the rest fall under the category of minority group subject to various minority discriminations. Women in the society from time immemorial receive a different perception and treatment by the society. This is based on the belief that they are a weaker sex; the Islamic nations have not been left behind in unequal treatment of women. The paper has outlined the various religious and gender discriminations especially in Islamic based states using the case study of Saudi Arabia. References Abir, M. (1993). Saudi Arabia: government, society, and the Gulf crisis. New York, NY: Routledge. Benton, A. J. (2007). Are Your Genes Protected: Federal Legislation and Genetic Discrimination: The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, Iowa City, 10(2), 285-311. Federal Research Division. (2004). Saudi Arabia A Country Study. Montana: Kessinger Publishing. FIDH and the Ligue de Dà ©fense des Droits de lHomme en Iran. (2003). Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran, Paris – France. Retrieved on January 23, 2010 from: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf Hyde, J. S. (2005) â€Å"The Gender Similarities Hypothesis†, American Psychologist, (International Labor Conference); 96th session, I (B). Publisher International Labor Organization. International Labor Office, (2007), Equality at work: tackling the challenges: global report under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work International Labor Office Series Volume 91; Volume 96 of Report (International Labor Conference) Report. Publisher International Labor Organization. Kline, J. (2005). Ethics for international business: decision making in a global political economy. New York, NY: Routledge. Saudi Arabian Government and Law. Retrieved on January 23, 2010 from: http://www.jeansasson.com/law_and_government.htm Tofilon, L. (2005). Masters of Discrimination: Augusta National Golf Club, Freedom of Association, and Gender Equality in Golf. The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice. Iowa City: Fall, 9(1), 189-20. Traiman, L. (2006). Guidelines but No Guidance: GaySpermBank.com vs. FDA. The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice. Iowa City: Spring, 9(3), 613-623. U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). â€Å"Glass Ceiling Commission A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nations Human Capital A Solid Investment:† Making Full Use of the Nations Human Capital. Retrieved on January 23, 2010 from: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117context=key_workplace United Nations Cyber School-Bus. (2010). What is discrimination? Retrieved on January 23, 2010 from: http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/discrim/id_8_ud_print.asp

World Culture :: essays research papers

Africa   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Africa is a continent of natural resources both living and non living. These resources affect how African countries deal with other countries and how it works internally. One example of this is diamonds. Sierra Leone is a country in Africa that has gone through various political regimes and has gone through great conflict. Various war factions want to have control over the diamond mines and they force workers to perform this backbreaking work. These diamonds that these factions control are called conflict diamonds because of the atrocities these groups inflict to control diamonds and make money. In Africa there are many things to do. The most interesting would be to go to the Pyramids of Egypt and see the creations of this magnificent group of people. While visiting the pyramids going to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo would greatly improve your understanding of the ancient Egyptians. Another place to visit would be a national park where you could see the animals that are indigenous to this continent. Middle East The Middle East is the birthplace of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. But it is also the birthplace of conflict between countries in that region and the West. The major reason for dispute is over the regions most valuable resource: oil. In this region wars were started because of oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait for control of there oil fields and this triggered U.S involvement. It isn’t just oil that has shaped this region. Spices have made a huge contribution to this region. Arab merchants spread their goods throughout the world along with their culture. Other cultures then seeped into the Middle East from other trading nations. This region’s resources shaped its culture. The Middle East is the birthplace of the major religions and the city to visit would be Jerusalem. In Jerusalem you can visit The Wall, which is one of the most significant places for the Jews. You could also travel to Mecca to visit the Holy Mosque, which is the most famous for the Muslims. It is so important that they are required to make a pilgrimage to here at least on time in there life. India India is rich in spices due to its climate and its relationship with other spice producing regions. Spices like black pepper have been grown here for thousands of years and with trading with South America Chile peppers were introduced into their diet. As a result of this the most famous Indian food is curry.

Waterford Crystal A Case Analysis :: essays research papers

Waterford Crystal   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Waterford Glass was started by two brothers, George and William Penrose, in 1783. It was the most notable of all Irish crystal companies. In 1799, the Penrose brothers sold Waterford Glass to the Gatchell family. The crystal industry was prosperous until 1825. Irish glass manufacturers began to slowly close due to high export duties, the economic depression, and a lack of capital. Waterford Glass was the last to close in 1851. It was reestablished nearly a century later by Charles Bacik and Bernard Fitzpatrick. In 1947, they set up a factory in Waterford, Ireland.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A turning point in the company's history came in 1950 when Joe McGrath made a sizable investment in Waterford Glass. He invested the capital needed to convert the small crystal manufacturing company into one with the potential to become a major player in the crystal industry. This investment gave his family control for the next thirty-five years. Joe McGrath was committed to Ireland and providing jobs for his country. He wanted to reduce the country's high unemployment level. His focus for Waterford Glass was on growing the company through exports to the United States. In 1966, Joe McGrath's son, Paddy McGrath, took over management of Waterford Glass. Like his father, he was dedicated to Ireland and to providing employment opportunities for the Irish. McGrath's quest to provide more jobs for the Irish led him to diversify the company. By 1983, the company had acquired more than thirty non-core businesses. To reflect the expansion, management changed the company's name to Waterford Glass Group. In 1985, Paddy McGrath resigned as chairman of Waterford Glass.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Concurrent with Paddy McGrath's resignation, Paddy Hayes was appointed chairman and CEO of Waterford Glass Group. He immediately began to sell off the non-core businesses in an effort to reduce the company's high debt level. Waterford Glass's debt was virtually eliminated with the issue of American Depository Shares (ADS) on the United States NASDAQ market. On November 28, 1986, Waterford Glass acquired Wedgwood, a two hundred year old manufacturer and marketer of fine bone china. Paddy Hayes was named the chairman and CEO of both companies and Paddy Byrne was appointed CEO of Wedgwood. In 1989, the company's name was changed to Waterford Wedgwood. Three divisions were created as a result of this acquisition: the Waterford Crystal division, the Wedgwood division, and the Creative Tableware division. In 1989, Paddy Hayes resigned from his position as chairman and CEO of Waterford

Life Choices and Consequences Essay

My Grandfather always said to me â€Å" s3 wo si as3 Ny3 wo d3 a 3h) na wo tafiri† –â€Å"Even if you don’t like the taste in your mouth that is where you will always lick† The diversity of life impinges on us to make a choice in every single decision. Whatever you have done in your life and whatever you will do is simple a bundle of choices you have made or will make. And every single one of these choices serves as a foundation for another choice. But the more fascinating thing about choices is that every single one of our choices reduces the probability of options that are readily available to us . And this is extremely important because the surprising number of us do not realized that all that we are and everything we have are the results of choices . We are in control of our choices and thus our life’s direction and destiny. Our choices and our life go hand in hand . the life you are living is simply a cumulative series of choices you have made. We have gotten used to making choices that we scarcely think of it as the means that unfolds our life before our eyes. Choices are about yielding and resisting. They are about reflections and impulsiveness. They are about the present and future and it is a yes and no affair and a now later business but whatever it is the laws of living demands that we make one in every circumstance in other to live. But every single choice we make comes along with a shadow . This shadow is generally referred as consequence . It is very easy in the choice making decision to conjure our best planning skills to navigate the maze of options that covers the path to wherever we want to go and whatever we want to achieve. However, we scarcely make provisions for dealing with the consequences of our choices . And so consequences of our choices have become more or less a headache in society. More often than not, the consequences of our choices open our eyes to the glitter of all the other options we pushed aside. And then we start to think that the choices we made were poor ones . Sometimes we feel like turning back the clock and rewinding the tape in other to make a better choice. Truth is, it does not matter how hard or how badly you want to change the choice. A choice made is a choice made. The best that you can do about it is to develop a positive attitude about it and face the consequences. The bottom line is this: regardless of the consequences that we are going through now, we are all trying to accomplish increasingly more out of the choices we made with increasingly less resources –whether these resources are money, time, focus or energy. The challenge is not that we do not make rational choices, rather, our refusal to focus and work hard at the choices we have made, make those options we left behind glitter like the twinkling stars. Instead of constantly looking over your shoulder at the glittering options you left behind, your best bet is to live positively with your choices and look towards the future . Looking back means you are dwelling on the past instead of living in the present and being stuck in the past does not help you make any better choices in the future. We can all look at our circumstances and point out instances where different choices could have given us a different way of life . But it only sounds easy in words. In action, they are difficult . For the surprising majority of us, when the consequences of our choices rear its ugly head, we respond in a very predictable way. We turn in the opposite direction and try to outrun it . The only problem is that, before long the consequences catches up with us. And so instead of outrunning the consequences, we actually run into it , maximizing our exposure to it. Or like we say,† Challenges and problems compound when we ignore them , and we end up being exposed to something longer and or worse than what might have been. Our best bet is to wait for the consequences to come right at us and as it arrives, we must charge directly into them. By charging at the consequences of our choices, we run straight through it, which minimizes the amount of negative effect we experience . And why not, in life most of the brilliant options are about doing the hard things you know you should do, even when you do not feel like doing them, but doing as early on as possible. As long as we live, we are going to make a lot of choices. And if we do not want negative consequences, then we have to think about and evaluate our choices differently than we have been doing. It is about giving a lot of forethought to the consequences of the choices we are faced with. And it is about being ready to deal positively with whatever consequences that materializes out of the choices we make.

The busiest day of the week

My first visit to a courthouse took place on a Monday, which is apparently the busiest day of the week. The first impression I had of the people was that they all seemed to have a purpose. There did not seem to be anyone like me; an observer trying to get a feel for the courthouse. It was a bit intimidating to go to court without a reason. I was a little concerned that someone would ask me where I belonged, or ask me to leave the courtroom where I was watching the proceedings. As it turns out, everyone is far too busy with their own concerns to worry about anyone else.When I arrived at the courthouse, I had to walk several blocks; this was the closest place to park. I waited outside in line with at least a hundred people, most of whom had a jury notice in their hands. It took a while to get inside because of the metal detectors. I noticed that many people were able to cut to the front of the line. It seemed that they were court employees or lawyers. Once inside, I had to put my bag a nd keys in the tray before being admitted. A woman in the other line set off the detector, and the guard checked her over carefully.Clearly, security is very tight in the courthouse. I checked the schedule that was posted on the wall so I could figure out what courtroom to visit. I was early, so I had to wait outside in the hallway for a half hour before entering with a large group of people. The seats in the courtroom were almost completely filled; I only waited about ten minutes before the bailiff instructed us to remain quiet during the proceedings, to turn off our cell phones, and for the defendants to remain in the courtroom until they had been called.I noticed a few men and women sitting in the front wearing suits and holding briefcases. The bailiff opened a door and several men and women dressed in jail jumpsuits sat down in the jury box. At this point, the bailiff told us to rise and announced the judge as the â€Å"honorable Judge Ronald Meeks†. He was accompanied by a woman with a stack of files. The bailiff introduced everyone; the woman was the file clerk. There was also a court reporter and two clerks. The first case was called. A young black male was led to the defense table from the jury box, and Judge Meeks instructed the prosecutor to begin.He stated that the young man was being arraigned on charges of possession of narcotics with intent to sell. The intent to sell was implied because of the amount of drugs he possessed at the time of his arrest. The judge asked if the defendant had any priors, and was told that he had been arrested twice before on the same charges and convicted once. The defendant had just been released from the county jail three months earlier. At this point, the judge asked for a bail recommendation, and the prosecutor requested that it be set at $50,000.The defense lawyer, an older black woman dressed in designer clothes, argued that he could not afford the bail because he didn’t have a job. She assured Meeks that he lived at home with his mother and that his mother would take responsibility to make sure he came to court for his trial. The judge told her that because of his prior conviction, the amount of bail would stand. Judge Meeks asked if there was anything else, and both lawyers stated that they were finished. At this point, the judge turned to the clerk and asked her to set a trial date.She gave a date that was two months away, but the prosecutor said that he was unavailable. The date was finally set three months ahead. Once the case was dismissed, the prosecutor remained at the table and the defense lawyer and her client left the courtroom. It was at this point that I realized they were doing arraignments the entire day in this courtroom. One by one, the defendants would go up with their lawyers (or in some cases, they would meet a public defender) and hear the charges against them and the amount of bail to be set. There was no drama, and there were no arguments.It was all very quiet and civilized. As I left the courtroom, I saw jury members going in and out of the jury room. Many of them were on cell phones, complaining about waiting to be released. The courthouse was very crowded that day, and there were many individual courtrooms with people waiting outside. I can understand now why the courts have such a long backlog of cases. There are far too many people seeking a judge’s attention, and too few employees to handle the masses. My final impression is that a courthouse is probably the best place to work because it seems that there is a job for everyone.