According to Google dictionary, religion is defined as the “belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power”. In almost every part of the world, a religion of some type, exists. Within the United States alone there are about 313 religions (ProCon). The most prominent of these religions are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.   Each religion has a different set of beliefs and history, but all have a huge impact on human life. Consider how many violent acts have stemmed from a difference in religious beliefs. Terrorism, for instance, has dominated the headlines in our recent history. One topic often alluded to in these religions is empathy. I would like to examine each religion’s interpretation and practice of empathy in order to determine how each religion’s concept of empathy affects the practitioners’ behavior. The question I want to investigate is: Does the practice of a specific religion impact certain measures of empathy such as charity or altruism or measures of lack of empathy such as violence. This review on religion could put into perspective its influence on empathy in society and its effect on maintaining civility.

Work cited:

ProCon.org. “All Religions and Denominations in the US.” ProCon.org. 24 Oct. 2008, 9:00 a.m., undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000068

Possible works to use:

Idinopulos, Thomas A., and Brian C. Wilson. What is Religion?: Origins, Definitions, and Explanations. vol. 81.;81;, Brill, Boston;Leiden;, 1998

Spae, Joseph J. Buddhist-Christian Empathy. Chicago Institute of Theology and Culture, Tokyo;Chicago;, 1980.

Allen, Roger, and Shawkat M. Toorawa. Islam: A Short Guide to the Faith. William B. Eerdmans Pub, Grand Rapids, Mich, 2011.

Buehrens, John A., and F. F. Church. A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism. Beacon Press, Boston, 1998

To what extent are emotions the key catalysts to problems?

In Thomas Osborne’s artile “What is a Problem,” he argues where the problems stem from and their importance. He does this by comparing two philosophers, Bergson and Canguilhem. Canguilhem that problems arise from error.  Canguilherm believes that life is set up in a way that an organism responds to its environment. When the environment changes, a problem arises. While Bergenson also believes that problems arise from the environment. He does not believe there are evolutionary properties, where solutions help organisms evolve. With Canguilherms theory, all problems must be solved as a response to the environment in order to better the environment. Bergenson however, believes that not all problems need a solution. That logical thought is connected in order to determine the importance of solving a problem. Overall, however, Osborne finds that a problem is a response to life and environment.

In the research article “Norms for Experiencing Emotions in Different Cultures: Inter- and Intranational Differences,” the researchers determine what emotions are held constant within different cultures and which are not.  They do this by separating the different cultures based on an individualism scale and giving them a questionnaire pertaining to their emotions. The researchers then analyzed the data by comparing the people within the cultures they studied and then between the different cultures. They found that within the cultures there is variability, although there are obvious trends based on culture, there is still a mixture of different views on emotions within one culture. They also found that there is more variation between different cultures perspective on negative emotions but less so on positive emotions.

In the NPR podcast “The Problem with the Solution” the story of Jackie Goldstein’s journey to Geel and what she discovered there is depicted. This podcast points out how the stigma of mental illness is part of the problem. The speakers use the example of Geel to provide evidence that the best treatment for mental illness may be to treat the patients as though they are not mentally ill. In Geel, the mentally ill are treated like normal people, they are given to volunteers who don’t know their mental illness and don’t care. They find through observation that this treatment is far better than common treatment  modalities in the United States, where patients are dehumanized and treated pharmacologically and with little human interaction. This raises the question:  Do humans construct false ideas of what is normal? Since possible solution to the treatment of mental illness, is to treat the “mentally ill” as though they are perfectly normal, it leads us to believe that they may not actually have a problem to begin with, only that they deviate from human perception of normalcy.

This question is important because of many conflicting and polarizing issues. It is very clear historically, that humans find problems with others for self promotion or benefit. These issues are often believed blindly as they are integrated into our culture. One example of this is: Whether homosexuality is a mere deviation from the norm or whether it is caused by some developmental problem. Another type of ‘false idea” is based on an illogical conclusion. For example, the reason why African –American males represent the largest racial group in American prisons, is because they did not have a “normal” upbringing.  Although quite different, both these examples have one factor in common, they are perpetuated by the need of a large segment of the American population to justify core beliefs.  These “core beliefs” have a primary benefit of excluding those who do not fit a perceived norm from financial, educational or societal benefits. For instance in States which do not recognize gay marriage, gay couples cannot claim tax relief. African American families are often shunned and made to feel uncomfortable in many neighborhoods because of the belief that members of broken black families are criminals destined for prison. The list could go on, but it is obvious that many issues in America and around the world, derive from a false belief in what is normal and how people should be treated based on that belief.

Work Cited:

Hanna Rosen, Aliz Spiegel. “The Problem with the Solution.” NPR Invisibilia, 2016

In the movie A Time To Kill, a man, Carl Lee Harper, is tried for the murder of two men in broad daylight. While the movie shows Carl Lee bursting out of a closet, that he presumably stayed in overnight, and shooting the two men on their way to court in front of many witnesses, he is found not guilty (ATTK 18:27-19:37). Although seemingly clear cut, the trial is complicated by the motive of his action. Carl Lee was taking the law into his own hands by shooting the two men. These men had raped and left his daughter to die. Although she survived, she would no longer be able to have children and was left very injured still. In the setting of the crime, the two men convicted for this assault were not unlikely to go free or get off with minimal punishment. For this reason, Carl Lee felt the need to hide in a closet and shoot these two men. By appealing to the pathos of the jury, Jake, Carl Lee’s attorney was able to set his client free.

Jake makes the jury feel empathetic toward Carl Lee in his concluding statement. Right when it looked like Jake was going to lose the case, Carl Lee explains that he chose Jake as his attorney because Jake is “a bad guy” like the jury (ATTK 2:10:51-2:10:53). Jake still sees in black and white similar to how the jury sees yet is able to understand Carl Lee’s actions as he is also a father. This helps Jake realize he could only convince them of Carl Lee’s innocence, or at least justify his actions, by figuring out why he himself felt that Carl Lee should go free. The reason? He would have done the same if he was in Carl Lee’s position (ATTK 2:07:45-2:08:07). His only hope to get Carl Lee set free, was to trust that the jury would feel the same way. He designs a concluding speech with the intention to evoke feelings that allow the jury to understand the actions of his client. Jake does this by telling a story, using the imagination of the jury to put them in the shoes of Carl Lee. Then to really make them feel empathetic toward Carl Lee, he asks them to imagine that the little girl in the story who got raped is white (ATTK 2:20:21).

The reactions of the jury show that they felt the emotion Jake was intending them to feel. The women in the jury were weeping while the men looked disturbed (ATTK 2:18:00-2:20:21). This was a clear indication that the jurors were not just sympathizing but genuinely feeling how Carl Lee felt. By asking the jury to imagine that the little girl was white, he was attempting to make them feel how they would feel if they were in the same situation rather than merely feeling sorry for Carl Lee’s position. This affective empathy invoked by Jake’s speech is not uncommon in the practice of law (Hoffman 231). In this instance, it was successful in overcoming racial prejudice to the extent that a black man who clearly committed a vicious crime was exonerated.

Work Cited:

A Time to Kill. Dir. Joel Schumacher. Regency Enterprises, Warner Bros, 1996. digital campus. Web. 20 September 2017

Martin L. Hoffman. Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives. Oxford University Press 2011

This case is about a man, who stands accused of raping and beating a woman. The man, Tom Robinson is a hard-working family man who has never been in or caused any trouble of any sort. Now out of the blue, he is accused of this heinous crime. I would like us all, to look at the evidence presented before us. A trustworthy witness, the sheriff, has told us that Mayella had bruises around her throat consistent with those of a person who had been choked with both hands as well as a black right eye. The first action, choking, requires the use of both hands, and the second, required the use of mainly the left hand. Tom Robinson, as we have demonstrated here in front of you, has lost the use of his left arm and
hand. How then could he have choked her and punched her right eye? It is impossible.
I am not telling you to put the credibility of one man over another. I am not telling you to believe Tom’s story although I would implore you to believe it. I am telling you to look at the facts. If this was not a man of color this trial would never have come to court. First of all, “the state has not provided one iota of medical evidence” that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place (TKAM 1:30:05-1:30:15). Secondly, just looking at the evidence provided, he could not physically, have committed the crime. Remember this is physical evidence, not opinion, that has been provided. The evidence is unequivocal. That’s a word that simple folk like you, me and Tom Robinson may not understand. It means undeniable, leaving no doubt whatsoever. There is absolutely no doubt that Tom Robinson, physically, could not have done this crime of which he has been accused.
Now, we come to motive. What possible motivation could Tom have to carry out this violent attack on Mayella? Is there a single shred of evidence that he fancied her? None. Has there been one complaint, is there one witness who can say that Tom Robinson fancied Mayella? No. Is there any evidence that perhaps Tom had it in for Mayella? There is no evidence at all. So the physical evidence tells you that Tom Robinson is innocent and there is no motive. It is your job as the jury to look at the evidence without bias, without any preconceived notions and determine whether or not this man is guilty of the crime he is charged with.
It is your duty to forget you are in Maycomb county but instead picture yourself sitting at the feet of our Christian God. Twelve apostles, sitting in judgment of a good man with one good arm trying to earn a righteous living. Find this man innocent. Do not punish this man for crimes he did not and could not have committed. For it is sinful to punish those who have not sinned. The truth has been presented before you, let it speak to your hearts.

Work Cited:
To Kill a Mockingbird. Dir. Robert Mulligan Universal International, 1962. Academic Video Online. Web. 10 September 2017.