Monday, October 29, 2012

Condemnation and Recantation of Galileo

The theme of this reading is submission. Galileo was required to submit to the church and tell them that everything he had discovered was a "lie."
Galileo  never actually admitted to believing in a heliocentric universe, even though his writings allow us to believe that he does. However, even the mere fact that he was presenting ideas opposite to the Bible as probable was considered heresy. His trial was conducted in such a manner that everyone against him was on the jury. The text book says that the pope would have been seen as weak if he had accepted Galileo's defense.
I am surprised how fully and humbly Galileo recanted everything he had discovered. He knew it was true, yet he submitted to the church and even went so far as to apologize for saying what he said. I guess, if it had been me, I would have done the same thing just to keep the peace. Depressing.
As I wrote that last paragraph, I saw that Galileo and I are not much different. When I first read about it, I saw him as a weakling and that he should have stood up for what he believed. However, I started thinking about how I am harmonious to the point of foregoing stating my own opinions in order to keep the peace. Galileo was just doing whatever he could to keep the peace.
Modernly, this could be compared to the Amish. The reason I thought of them is because they have a strict way of living, and it's based off of the Bible. If any of their children go against what the Amish believe, they are excommunicated from the community. In a way, they are put in the same position that Galileo was in...either recant and stick with what the church believes or be punished.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Raimon de Cornet (14th cent troubadour) Poem Criticizing the Avignon Papacy

The theme of this reading is criticism. The author points out everything that the papacy is doing wrong, and asserts that the motivation is money and greed.
During this time, when the pope was moved to Avignon, the Italian papacy was losing money. This led them to receive money from questionable sources, such as "accepting kickbacks from appointees to church offices, taking bribes for judicial decisions, and selling indulgences," according to the text. (Levak, p. 211)
I think the most interesting thing to me in this song is the matter-of-fact tone the author uses. He lays everything out in poetic form, and calls out the church leaders.
Modernly, this is seen through spoken word. There have been several poets that speak out against the word "religion." They say that Christianity is a relationship...not a religion.
While these aren't exactly the same thing (religious leaders aren't stealing money from people), they are coming from people who are fed up with religious practices that harm other people. Religion has such a bad connotation in our society today. This is because Christians aren't living by the James passage from the Bible that tells us that pure religion is caring for orphans, widows, and the poor.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Requerimiento

The theme of this reading is submission. The requerimiento was written to be read to the natives of the different lands that conquistadores, Spanish adventurers, would find. The requerimiento was a document that laid out Christian principles along with the pronouncement of the pope and king's authority. If the natives did not accept this document and submit to their authority, then the conquistadores were free to declare war on them.
This document mainly served as a reason to make war with natives. More likely than not, when someone comes into your hometown and requests that you change religions or engage in combat, if you believe in something strongly enough, you will choose a war. The text says that on one hand, the Spanish were "sincerely interested in converting the natives to Christianity...on the other, the conquistadores were trying to justify the immorality of their actions by suggesting that the natives had brought the attack on themselves by refusing to obey the Spanish king." (Levak, p. 255)
I think it is interesting that they are giving the people the choice of either accepting Christianity or (basically) dying. The message of Jesus is love, and He accepted people right where they were at - tax collectors, harlots, and thieves. People seem to miss that a lot. 
Which brings me to my modern day example: the Westboro Baptist church. These people want to convert people. They honestly believe that they are loving people when they picket funerals with hate signs. However, they do not realize how awful this is, and they are leaving people with a terribly bad taste in their mouths...much like I am sure the conquistadores were doing for other Christian Spaniards. 
A new idea it generated was the fact that we are so quick to judge people by their stereotype. I know this is an age-old idea, but it really hit home when I realized that the Christian stereotype is what we see in the media. And who is in the media? The Westboro Baptist church. I do not want people to look down on me because of what those people are doing. I want them to see who Christ really is by how I am loving people where they are at.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

The Famine of 1315

The theme of this reading was hunger. The poor were not the only ones who were starving; even the king, when he came to visit, could not feed his entire party.
The text says that the weather was changing in a way that had never occurred before, and this caused the rains to come for long periods of time. When the weather altered the normal patterns that people were used to, it ended up causing the grains and other crops to rot. This weather continued and caused a famine.
I think it is interesting that people were so hungry that they are said to have secretly eaten their own children. I can't even imagine that intense of a famine that you are okay with that idea. We have poverty today, and even a lack of food. But I can't think of anyone in their right mind who would consider something of that magnitude. However, these people, judging by the fact that they have absolutely no food, were probably not thinking right and made the choice to stay alive by whatever means necessary.
It's hard to imagine life being any different than it is now. Even looking back to when I was 10, the internet was still a fairly new idea and cell phones were miles away from where they are now. To think, 697 years ago people were starving and depending on what they had been taught from previous farmers on when to grow crops. I can't imagine how hard it must've been to sit by and watch this all happen.
In America today you do not see any famine. Poverty, yes, but there has always been food to buy. While there may be recalls on some food items, we are always fully stocked with groceries. In other countries where they still depend solely on their crops, they may be more apt to have famines. With the weather changes our world has been going through, we may be headed straight for another famine.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Charter of Homage and Fealty of Bernard Atton, A. D. 1110

The theme of this reading is loyalty. Fealty specifically means "a feudal tenant's or vassal's sworn loyalty to a lord," while homage literally means "formal public acknowledgment of feudal allegiance."
This document is between viscount Bernard Atton and lord abbot Leo. Bernard Atton gives his homage and fealty to Leo and promises to take care of Leo's property. This is a great example of feudalism in the Middle Ages. Feudalism, at its core, is when two parties exchange loyalty for protection. The richer offers to protect the poorer, and the poorer (in return) will take care of the wealthier individual's property.
I think the most interesting thing in this document, to me, is that Bernard states that he will cover the costs of everything to see that Leo has the most comfortable journey and a delicious meal. In addition to this, Bernard also says that he will pay to feed and shoe Leo's horse. I would have thought that Leo would take care of his own stuff.
Modern-day feudalism comes in a few different forms. One blog I read said that she viewed capitalism as a sort of feudalism. She says that celebrities, executives, and athletes have the most money and power in our society and basically control how people think. And we let them have that control because when they do something, we talk about it and reinforce their actions. I can agree with her somewhat, but I don't feel comfortable agreeing with her wholeheartedly.