Secularism vs. Religion

For one of my choice essays I read "Is That All There Is?" from the New Yorker's "Critic at Large" section.  I chose this essay at first because it dealt with religion, and religion intrigues me.  I was hoping it would bring a new side to the Atheist-Believer debate, but alas, I was wrong.  The essay didn't bring up any new theories or points for me to either agree or disagree with.  To be honest it reminded me a lot of my philosophy class last year.

Because I found this essay in the "Critic" section, I thought it would be more edgy and criticize atheism instead of religion like many of the other editorials do, but after reading it, I'm not sure what side the author was on.  At first I thought it was pro-religion, then throughout the whole middle section the author was providing points of why atheism or "secularism" is better, and then commented on religion again.  I must say that I am quite confused after reading this.  The author said that secularism was better because it dealt with facts, but he also commented about how people "need" religion so there will never be a 100% following of secularism. 

(If you're getting confused reading this, I completely understand!)

All in all I would have to say that this essay was simply mediocre.  It didn't provide any new thoughts or view-points on the common debate, and it used a lot of unnecessary long words.  Plus he totally confused me with his last thought,"Secularism can seem as meaningless as religion...".  Is he refuting both?  How is that possible?  I must say that this essay has left me with a lot of questions...

What I Have Come Up With After Fifty Hours of Intense Labor...

I chose to read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn for my choice novel.  Many of you may say, "eww, a history book," and yes, I would agree that it is filled with boring history excerpts and stories that may not seem relevant, but overall it was a fabulous read.  Best of all, it explains why certain things are the way they are today.

Zinn didn't write the conventional white man's history book, he wrote American History through the eyes of the groups of people that were oppressed throughout our nation's relatively short, yet brutal 235 years: African-Americans, Native-Americans, women, Irish-Immigrants, Italian-Immigrants, factory workers, poor whites, gay Americans, and Latin-Americans.  He told stories of brutality and discrimination that almost breaks the reader's heart.  

The most surprising facts that Zinn presented, in my opinion, were all of the horrible and inhumane things that our government did to Native-Americans.  I had always wondered why the stories of Natives were in the beginnings of our history books but never in the middle or the end, but now I have figured out why -- they were never part of our society, they were just pushed onto reservations out west and forgotten about.

I was also very surprised about how far back our economic unrest trails.  Maybe it's because I was born in '93, but it always seemed to me that this recession is a newer problem, but as I read further and further into the book, I found that we never really had any economic stability...ever.  The richest one percent has always controlled a majority of our funds, and it made me think: if this gap between rich and poor hasn't been fixed in 235 years, will it ever be?

Lastly, it was really unsettling reading about how much corruption and hypocrisies our government has been guilty of.  For example, the U.S. over and over again stopped rebels in different countries from winning their independence from their unfair and tyrannical governments just so OUR economy wouldn't suffer.  I'm sorry, but didn't we win our independence from Britain?  We should understand more than any other country what it's like to have a ruthless government ruling over you.  The bombing of Hiroshima is also a great example.  A day before that attack was put into action, the government had received a letter from the Japanese government saying that they wanted some have some peace talks to try to work everything out, but the government ordered the attack anyway and then claimed that the letter had gotten lost when a media source had outed them.

The point of this book was certainly to bring the horror stories of our history into the light and to criticize the government for oppressing so many people, however I don't believe it was written to turn people against the United States government.  Zinn just wanted to bring the wrongs of this country to the government's attention in hopes of change for the future.  Even with its many faults, I still love this country, and I believe that it can become one of the greatest countries the world has ever seen if it can finally sincerely mean the words that our forefathers wrote for us, "We the people."

"The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed"

I must say that this article is well written, but boy, were there a lot of words that I didn't know!  This article made me realize that my vocabulary needs some work, but good thing I have a forty-word vocabulary assignment that I have to do!


After I powered through the vast unknown vocabulary of this obviously revolutionary article and figured out what a majority of these words mean, I noticed that Mary Wollstonecraft was writing about women's rights and the oppression that they, or shall I say we, faced back in the eighteenth century.  In her opinion, she seemed to believe that women were seen as inferior because of their gentleness and their "stupidity".  Wollstonecraft also commented on how men believed that women should be faithful servants and tend to their every want and need. She stated that men almost thought it was a woman's "duty" to serve a man, be in need of protection, and possess gentle and innocent characteristics -- characteristics that showed "weakness".  Men were obviously thought to be the stronger sex and because of that, "brutal force has...governed the world".


There were a few things about this article that confused me, but the most prevalent one was Wollstonecraft's views on the relationships between men and their wives.  All I got out of that section was that men believed that "[women] were made to be loved, and must not aim at respect, lest they should be hunted out of society as masculine".  I have to admit that she lost me a few times in her long explanations.


Wollstonecraft's article definitely took me a while to understand, there were so many long, almost run-on sentences and the vocabulary was off the charts, but I do have to agree that women back in the colonial period were stepped on and sadly stepped over.  Women back then were nothing in society, and women throughout the next few generations fought so hard to obtain their rights.  It makes me proud to know now that men and women are mostly equal today.