Christianity and Islam’s Attitudes on Merchants and Trade Christianity and Islam’s attitudes towards merchants and trade were that they discourage people for becoming rich, emphasize trade as if it’s a good thing for society, and tolerate it as long as it’s fair. Documents #1 and #4 shows how Christianity is different in their attitude towards merchants and trade than Islam in that they discouraged people or society for becoming rich and wealthy which were mostly the merchants. Matthew, (1) author of the book of “Matthew” in the New Testament, wrote that a rich man has a hard time entering heaven and discourages wealthy people for their inability to inherit the Kingdom of God. He probably had this point of view because he wanted to reach out to the poor people who were more open to his message and accept Christianity. It was a new religion in that time and he wanted more people to join and spread his religion everywhere.
At their origins, Christians and Muslims had different views about merchants and traders. This can be seen in the first document which is an excerpt from the holy books. “A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God“(Doc 1) This excerpt from the document can be clarified as bias because it means for a rich man to enter the presence of god, it is near to impossible. The Christian bible uses a parable to compare riches to the kingdom of God.
They feared once these principles were established they could be extended to ‘soak the rich’ and even out the unfair distribution of wealth in Edwardian Britain. The land taxes were especially controversial, as they would not actually produce a great deal of tax revenue. The Lords denounced this proposal as a ‘class war’. The Lords believed it was their duty to restrain governments from making sweeping changes the electorate had not voted on. A final less important reason was that the Lords believed that it was the fault of the poor that they were destitute in the first place.
author:love88 Karl Marx is the father of communism. In this essay “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx argues that class struggles between the bourgeoisie and proletarians. Marx believed that all property should be publically owned. There would be no government, and everyone would work together for the good of the community. Thus, the society would be classless and stateless.
In comparison to this view Marxists see society as promoting the interests of the ruling class and legitimating suffering and therefore preventing social change. In Marx’s words religion is the “opiate of the people” which makes their working class life more bearable. Feminists also agree that religion serves the interest of the powerful, however they believe this supports the social structure of patriarchy and legitimates women’s subordinate position. For example this is seen through Hinduisms support of arranged marriages and the Catholic Church’s banishment of abortion. In contrast Weber’s views suggest that religion has acted as a powerful force of social change.
It is for these reasons that all traditions within Anarchism wish to advance human kind through the removal of the state in society. Anarchists agree that there will be a natural order, no authority and a free market. However, there is a clear divide between individualist and collectivist anarchists with regard to the social arrangements and the economy and how it should be run. Anarchists are united in their belief that natural order will arise in a future stateless society. This stems from their Utopian view of human nature which argues that people cannot flourish under a state and will only reach their full potential when they are free from religious authority and power.
Martin takes an interesting marxist perspective on the role of religion for the working class, he argues that mainstream Christianity is unpopular due to its marxist politics that religion is used to pacify the working class. Davie, who agrees with Martin, takes the argument further, she argues that the middle classes either take part in religious services and actively practise belief or they don't have anything to do with religion at all. If they do believe however they tend to travel to a church that suits their needs and not just go to their local church like the working classes tend to do, she further argues that the working classes show belief and are members of a church but don't actively practise, for example, only attending church services for weddings, baptisms and funerals. Outside of mainstream Christianity class still has an influence over how religious society is, usefully Bruce argues that Islamic fundamentalism arises from the new socially able who have experienced a rise from poverty, they remember,
Puritans set out for the New World with a vision already created for how they would shape the civilization into a utopia rooted in religious values and ideals, so great that it would shame England. Economically, Puritans had the idea that religion and profit would “jump together' as in they would function together and religion would hold profiteering to a moral obligation to keep merchants from abusing shortages to obtain “excessive” profit. Socially, Puritans used Puritanism as the frame-work for a perfect, god-worshiping society. John Winthrop denounced the idea that social classes bred hate among people, he believed that the rich and the poor should depend on one another. Also, Puritans were held to moral standard at all times whether private or public and that marriage was to be regulated by the state rather then religious sacrament.
Believing that the constitution is evil, to say the least, Thoreau states that the only way to win as a whole is to take action accepting all consequences thrown their way. “For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once done well is done forever” (Thoreau 2.8). Bringing up the wealthy in his essay Thoreau feels that with more money comes a loss of virtue. No longer focusing on self-moral’s but more focused on what to spend their wealth on. As a part of his plan to go against the rules set by the government Thoreau refuses to pay a poll-tax given to him by a preacher as a way to show reader’s that it is not the government who protects one’s property it is man himself who protects his own belongings.
The name Pi carries much meaning, to begin with the protagonist’s name is considered to represent the idea of irrationality in the field of mathematics. Throughout the novel, Pi is portrayed as a ‘religious child’. Pi’s believe in religious ideal is somewhat irrational due to the lack of evidence given by these beliefs. A well-known sociologist Karl Marx argues that religion “is the optimum of the people, since religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering” (Karl Marx). What Marx means by religion being the optimum of the masses is that people tend to turn to religion for support.