Final Blog Post

            After reading the preamble we were assigned as a reading, I started to compare the laws we had read over time to it.  Hammurabi’s code was the first set of laws we looked at this unit and I’ve come to realize the evolution that has happened from then.  Hammurabi’s code is very descriptive towards certain laws and happens to have very violent punishments for each of the broken laws.  A theme that pops out between the comparisons is the idea of slavery.  In Hammurabi’s code, slavery is mentioned as a normal idea in about 45 of the laws recorded.  In the preamble, Article 4 strictly states, “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”  To continue on that, the 5^th article of the preamble states that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.,” which also beats the violent punishment ideals in Hammurabi’s code.  Then to move on to a more recent set of laws we discussed or The Division of things (Law of things) we find a more modern set of laws that are closer to the preamble.  One thing that’s different between the two is that the Division of things goes into a lot more detail on its laws.  It also touches on environmental factors of property, like in law number 12, “Wild beasts, birds, fish and all animals, which live either in the sea, the air, or the earth, so soon as they are taken by anyone, immediately become by the law of nations the property of the captor...” In the preamble, it doesn’t talk about the ownership of environmental components, which could mean that either they didn’t think it was important or that they assumed it was moral.  Over this unit I’ve really come to understand the structure of human laws.  I really like this unit, and what activities we went through to strengthen our knowledge on it.  This was a great way to end the unit and I believe students of future years should focus on the same.

Class Rights Reflection (women/men)

Today during class we had a discussion on two separate documents given to us.  One of the documents was written in 1789 and talked about the rights a man who is considered a citizen has.  Now the problem with this first set of laws was the ability that people have to use those laws and interoperate them differently.  They were soon thought as rights only for men and not for women.  The other document came in after the other document (two years), to express how women have the same rights as the men do. I thought that the author of the women's rights set of laws really expressed how women felt neglected to this set, and how they not only deserved the same rights, but receive the same punishments.  I thought that this discussion after reading the two readings was showing how easy it is to interoperate texts.  Just because the authors wrote all men on the laws some people took that as just men.  Another example i could think of like this situation is the idea of homophobia is against god and that is supposedly spoken of inside of the bible.  Half the people value that because the text says it, it must be true, while the others say that the text cannot always be true.  That is how that connection of people trying to go against the written law is started.  The readings were a little broad and didn't explain to their best abilities what they meant in the long run, but they showed off the idea of perspective of different people on texts.

Magna Carta

In class on Monday, we were split up into groups and were sent two different readings.  My reading was about Magna Carta.  Magna Carta is the concept that all people in and not in the government of a nation must abide and follow by the same rules.  Magna Carta was not like a strictly built concept or set of laws, but more of a set of principles known.  The Magna Carta speaks about the power certain people have under certain circumstances.  For example, one of them is that the king has authority in situations of violence and leadership, but isn’t given any excuses to break the rules.  It also states that the Archbishop has the rights to act on anything without interference from the king.  Something that stuck out to me in the Magna Carta summaries was that one of their principles states that there should be a place where courts could always take place and have places to store legal records and information to refer to.  This was suprising to me because It was suggesting that there hadn’t been a court house before.  The idea of doing courts on numerous of different areas just didn’t seem logical to me.   Overall, in the Magna Carta I believed in the ideas of fair hearing and treatment to all people.  When we discussed the Magna Carta, classmates had the same reaction as I did.  Do I think that it is a good functioning set of principles?  Technically I do because it preaches the idea of moral treatment to people and how everyone as a equal right to trials.  One of the problems with it is dated and would need updating.  It is also a little broad from what I read.  I never had really known what Magna Carta was until this activity and it gives off a good sense of what human laws should be.    

Post on theme thinking process

For the final this year, my thoughts have been bouncing between the themes of communication or industrialization.  In the process of deciding, many of the big events I chose fit under both themes.  For example, Oil production, a communication between countries for economy, peace, and war.  But the Oil production is also a industry, so it falls under industrialization.  Over the course of the year both of the themes flashed up under the events we were learning about.  When we were learning about government and human rights, many instances of managing the working people of communities.  In environmental and religion, it showcases the need for expansion and travel of word spread for advancement.  In the end, I decided that choosing industrialization would be a better theme.  I decided this because it chooses a path that has many more interpretation in the learning process.   

Group discussion on laws islam

today in the group discussion i thought our class did a decent job on having a group discussion on laws of islam.  Compared to the that was had on the illinois laws, less people talked.  I think the reason why this happened is because the answered questions of the text were pretty much expressing the same thing everytime.  The conversation started out slow, mostly with statements about how the text was very flexible.  When i say flexible i mean in the sense that the laws can be flipped and divided up based on different regions, countries, or cities' beliefs on their own form of islam.  The discussion started to turn into theories on how religion can effect a community.  The group talked about how in most religions, you can choose which parts of the religion you wish to follow.  For example, many followers of Judaism believe in keeping kosher.  But in a lot of cases, people who believe in judaism choose not to.  The question that came up was how does religion effect law?  In my opinion, they are two separate things.  Law is something that depicts and enforces a community that you choose to live in to follow rules set by leaders.  In religion, it is completely belief and you can choose which parts you believe in and which you wish to leave behind.

Twelve Tables

During Friday’s class we were given a list of human rights named the Twelve Tables.  The Twelve Tables were formed at the foundation of Ancient Roman Law.  They used the laws to enforce peace and justice within their cities.   Most of the laws set in are used to create a image of a perfect moral citizen.  Usually though, the laws would fall in favor of a wealthy male, leaving behind women, children, and ones who live in poverty below.   I thought the Twelve Tables, even though they helped form modern law today, were not very helpful.  A lot of the laws stated have circumstances that can be false.  Also, it displays that the government should know more about your personal life within your family.