These and similar questions have occupied philosophers, scientists, and people of faith since the Renaissance. If religion were the ‘opiate of the masses,’ we could not expect an inquisitive mind to adopt any religion. But countless critical thinkers and scientists believe in a God that hears and responds to their prayers.(1)

What we mean by religion and science affects how we answer such questions. Therefore we must agree on common definitions. A study of the scientific method, where and how it is applied, is likely to shed light on the perceived conflicts between science and religion.

Science and Scientism

In broad terms, science is a systematic way of exploring the universe. The scientific method helps us discover facts that can not be directly observed. As described in SGNA: ‘Though we may be unable to observe an aspect of the universe directly, we may deduce its existence and its properties by observing the effect that it has on those phenomena that we can observe. In other words: by explaining the observed aspect of the universe, we go one step beyond that of mere observation, and we gain knowledge about something that we have not observed directly. This is the whole point: we gain information from sources other than direct observation. Use of the scientific method ensures that this information is accurate, and not influenced by the subjective points of view of a single researcher or the use of inaccurate instruments.'(2)

But there is a difference between accepting the scientific method’s discoveries and accepting as truth only what science discovers. The latter, which Huston Smith called scientism, is ‘the belief that no realities save ones that conform to the matrices science works with ‘space, time, matter/energy, and in the end number’exist.'(3)

The successes of science and technology, and their applications, have created a kind of utopia where science, especially positive science, has become the source of all knowledge and wisdom. In the views of positivist philosophers like Hume, Locke and Berkeley, anything that cannot be measured does not exist. But closer examination reveals the oversimplistic nature of this view.

Many contemporary scientific theories talk about subjects that cannot be directly measured. Take the atom. Physics textbooks are full of diagrams depicting it as consisting of a nucleus with and orbiting electrons. The diagrams may be quite sophisticated, and the explanation of how the system works can be quite detailed. Yet nobody has ever seen an atom. The closest we have come is seeing their positions via a Scanning Tunneling Microscope. But this has not prevented us from discovering the details of an atom’s inner workings.

The Scientific Method

When we want to discover new information about a subject, we first use direct observation, which has the highest degree of certainty. The scientific method establishes guidelines and procedures for objective, accurate, and systematic observation. The most dependable direct observation is the one that can be repeated and has known parameters. By repeating the observation under the same parameters, other scientists can verify a statement’s truthfulness.

When direct observation is not possible or insufficient, the thought process steps in. We infer and deduce based on observation. We hypothesize and look for exceptions. Such verification is where the scientific method really shines: It brings an objective mechanism for testing hypotheses to the discovery process. It helps us decrease the degree of uncertainty regarding that which cannot be observed directly.

Controlled and repeatable experiments are the next best techniques, for they enable us to obtain objective and sound knowledge. While we cannot control, we still can observe and infer. However, our degree of certainty and accurate knowledge decrease as we move further away from direct observation.

The scientific method’s main purpose is to decrease such uncertainty and to ensure that it is not affected by individual bias or equipment error. Our level of control while observing a phenomenon determines the level of our knowledge’s certainty. While the media or popular culture label certain statements scientific, their scientificness depends on the nature of the verification process. Some so-called scientific facts are direct observations; others are theories that require a thorough testing.

Not all scientists agree on what constitutes the scientific method. Some describe it as the collection of all means and methods scientists use to investigate a phenomenon. Since this definition is too broad, we will focus on a narrower one accepted by most scientists: The scientific method consists of the following:

1. Defining the problem and making repeated observations to collect information

2. Forming a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomenon

3. Testing the hypothesis by matching it against other observations

4. Developing a theory consistent with your observations

5. Using it to make predictions

6. Testing predictions by repeated, preferably controlled experiments and/or further observations

7. Modifying the theory as indicated by your results

8. Repeating steps 5 through 7 as necessary

9. Reporting the research notes and results for professional review.

These steps can be summarized into three stages: observing, theorizing about underlying causes, and verifying through more observations. Theorizing is the key step. The other steps require hard work and can be done by any competent, knowledgeable worker. Developing a theory, however, requires an flash of insight, sometimes called intuition.

Coming up with new ideas is part of what makes a great scientist. Despite its being the basis from which all scientific work proceeds, we cannot study or explain this scientifically. We may call it a gut feeling, hunch, inspiration, or insight, but we still do not know its source and cannot schedule it. We can encourage and stimulate it, but we cannot control it. The scientific method helps us ensure that what comes out of intuition is sound and objective, but does not how we come up with the idea. So the scientific method really is about verification.

Limitations

The main mechanism of verification is experiment and observation. While a powerful tool, verification is limited by its definition: If we cannot control a phenomenon or make proper observations, we cannot develop an idea into a scientific theory.

How do we establish a proper experimentation environment? First, we must set up a controlled experiment to control all the factors involved, except for the two factors whose relationship we are investigating. This involves a control and an experimental group. The control group is normal (basis for comparison), while the experimental group differs from the control in only one area.

We then allow for the experimental variable, defined as the one area of difference between the two groups. If we set up two groups of subjects with only one difference and our observation confirms a correlation between this factor and a result, we can safely say that that factor is a cause of that result. If we cannot establish two identical groups, the next best option is to try to average out the differences by selecting the group’s members so that no factor is represented disproportionately. This is usually possible only when working with inanimate objects.

It is extremely difficult to control all involved factors, as well as to conduct repeatable experiments, when the subjects are people. Since all people and societies are unique, it is very hard to repeat any psychological or sociological experiment. Also, observing people often causes behavior modification. Thus, some scientists have debated whether psychology and sociology, and others, are really sciences.

Several essential questions of personal and social life fall into this category of phenomena: ‘Questions about the origin of thought, about the origin of intuition or about creativity often lead into the realms of philosophy, if not existentialism. What makes the human mind work? Where does sentience come from? What is the ‘I’ that seems to live three or four inches behind my forehead and thinks it is me? And how are we ever going to apply the scientific method to answer these questions?'(4)

This leaves us with a dilemma: What should we do when confronted with an idea that is hard or impossible to verify scientifically? As noted in SGNA: ‘In modern science, the ‘scientifically correct’ approach in that case is usually to reject the idea. As long as we can’t prove that the idea is correct, it must be assumed to be incorrect. But that approach ignores the fact that the scientific method cannot be used to answer all questions.'(5) Science can tell us almost everything about our body-except Why? Why am I here? Who am I? What is the universe and why was it created? According to SGNA: ‘Science has never really dared to tackle these subjects. The questions are labeled ‘existentialism’ or ‘philosophy’ and ‘appropriately filed.”(6)

The Nature of the Conflict

Now we begin to realize the nature of the perceived conflict between science and religion: The humanities contain issues that the scientific method is ill-suited to answer and yet is taken as the ultimate source of knowledge. Most religious commands and prescriptions deal with an individuals personal and social life that do not tolerate experimentation. The risk associated with failure in such experiments is too high. We can tolerate the loss of some inanimate objects during experimentation, but not the loss of even one person. This is where the scientific method is at its weakest, and where religious directives are numerous, comprehensive, and direct. Where the scientific method is at its strongest, as in matters related to physical laws and inanimate objects, religious assertions are fewer, indirect, and serve the main purposes of faith. The perceived conflict in these areas is minimal and usually due to misinterpretation of religious sources. Before discussing another aspect of the relationship of science and faith, lets review some additional factors that contribute to the friction. In its pure form and when applied properly, the scientific method is a very powerful tool to establish a theorys truth or falsity. However, objectivity can be compromised by a scientists own humanity, for no one is completely free of bias, prejudice, ideological or political concerns, or peer pressure when it comes to income, belonging, fame, and high social status. Even though scientists pride themselves on their objectivity, cases of scientific fraud and plagiarism abound.(7) Sometimes community prejudices and biases make scientists resist new theories and findings for unscientific reasons. The scientific community at first laughed at some of the greatest theories of the twentieth century. Peer review may hinder advancement, and theories and perspectives may go in and out of fashion. It is hard to oppose the whole society to defend new theories and findings. History is full of accounts where unscientific factors have affected scientific work.

The Limitations of Logic

Human logic is a limited truth-seeking device, a machine with a mechanism, inputs, and outputs. Assuming the mechanism works perfectly, the output depends on the input. Hence two persons with different sense-related inputs may reach different conclusions by using the same logical mechanism. The logical mechanism may not always work perfectly. There are many examples of logical fallacies, among them wrong inference, improper generalization, false assumptions, and false analogies.(8) So when a religious jurisdiction is perceived as illogical and hence unscientific, it could very well be because of a limitation in the logical inference mechanism or in the subject knowledge. Philosophical reasons often cause friction between science and religion. Asa Gray, a faithful colleague of Darwin, was puzzled by Darwins atheistic proposals in the Theory of Evolution, for certainly God could use evolution to create diverse life forms. Darwin indicated that he had problems reconciling suffering with a merciful God, among other difficulties, and so had adopted an atheistic perspective.(9) Thus, he proposed an atheistic theory due to his philosophical problem with religion. But this is not the only relationship between science and faith. There are others, such as: Do science and religion live in orthogonal spaces? Do they present mutually exclusive views of the universe, thereby making themselves incompatible? But first of all, what is the role of reason in establishing ones faith?

The Worlds of Faith and Reason

By definition, religious faith implies belief in the Unseen. For many, belief is the culmination of a mental and spiritual effort transcending reading the Scripture and blind faith. Many religions command us to use our intellect. The Quran, in particular, emphasizes the use of reason in hundreds of verses. The pillars of Islam are shown to be evident truths for those who have intellect. Believers are encouraged to observe nature, reflect, and draw conclusions. To show how a logical process may lead people to believe in God or confirm their belief by reason, lets look at three pillars of major monotheistic religions: the Creator, life in the Hereafter and Messengers. Just like a work of art displays the artists skills, the universe can be seen as a huge collection of art by the Eternal Artist. The universe, as well as each human being, contains countless signs of organization and order. The human brain is immeasurably more complex than the most sophisticated computer. Since we could not attribute even the simplest computer to pure chance, how can we attribute the design of the human brain to a random process? These signs point to an all-knowing and powerful Creator. The human soul yearns for eternity and is not satisfied with any earthly pleasure. While all of our desires potentially can be fulfilled on Earth, leaving this critical desire for eternity unfulfilled would be a contradiction. Hence there must be an eternal life. It only makes sense for the Creator and Sustainer of this universe to communicate with the creatures who possess the most advanced intellect and the ability to communicate with language. Hence Messengers and revealed Scriptures make perfect sense.(10) This method of basing ones beliefs on observation and logical inference is essentially the scientific method without direct observation. A person whose belief is thus established can claim to be as scientific as a person studying anthropology or fossil zoology, for both deal with the available (indirect) evidence and logical conclusions. Although their objectives and foci differ, faith and science help us discover what is not directly observable. Sciences primary area of interest is the physical laws of the universe; faith is concerned with the personal and social principles that lead persons and societies to happiness in this life and the hereafter. Both appeal to our intelligence and our ability to observe. Believe suggests something not directly observable; Theory (in science) implies something not directly observable. If everything religion tells us were directly observable everybody would be a believer or, more accurately, an observer. If everything we needed to know were directly observable, the scientific method and scientists would be unnecessary. Nevertheless, non-believers may object by pointing out that having established their faith scientifically, believers may have to submit to religious directives that they may not understand or question. Inquiry is the basis for scientific advancement, while submission is an essential tenet of any religion.

Inquiry and Submission

The only sources that have satisfying answers for such questions as asked above are the major monotheistic religions. Science does not attempt to answer purpose or why questions, mainly because these questions imply an intelligent, wise Being behind creation. Since most scientists are reluctant to accept such an implication, they do not necessarily think that there should be a reason for existence other than a lucky accident. When people question the source of knowledge and become sure of its authenticity, and if they still have difficulty understanding, they must choose between their limited, imperfect logic and a source in which they have confidence. They do not stop questioning; rather, they change the nature of their investigation. Instead of rejecting immediately, they accept and investigate the underlying wisdom. So, believing scientists first base their belief on observation and reason and then explore the wisdom behind the Divine sentiments.

Conclusion

We live in an age ruled by science and positivism. The scientific method is considered the most reliable source of knowledge in almost every aspect of human life. In its moderate form, this worldview reduces superstitions and prejudices that have chained human reason in many societies. However, it also has the unscientific generalization of completely rejecting all other sources of knowledge and hence limiting inquiry into a purely material and quantifiable form. While friction among scientists was the norm for past centuries, harmony among moderates is establishing itself as we enter a new millennium. Today, it is possible to find scientists from reputable institutions who are willing to use the scientific method to explore subjects considered taboo for centuries, such as the role of prayer in physical healing. They do so despite the risk of being labeled as charlatans by their colleagues.11 This encourages us to think that one day the scientific method of inquiry could be used to investigate such essential questions as the purpose behind creation and signs of an eternal life without necessarily rejecting all religious doctrines. Open-minded and believing scientists are poised to show us that religion can coexist and is compatible with reason and science, which know their limitations.

Footnotes

1. National Institute for Healthcare Research: http://www. nihr.org.
2. The Skeptics Guide to the New Age: Limitations of the Scientific Method: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/ sgna_5.html.
3. Huston Smith, Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the Worlds Religions (San Francisco: Harper, 1993).
4. The Skeptics Guide to the New Age.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Michael W. Friedlander, At the Fringes of Science (Westview Press: 1998); H. M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know About Science (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1998); David J. Miller and Michel Hersen, Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences (John Wiley & Sons: 1992).
8. Nicholas Capaldi, The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (Prometheus Books: 1987); T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Wadsworth: 1995); S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Bedford Books, 1994).
9. Frederick Burkhart, Charles Darwins Letters: A Selection 1825-1859 (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1998).
10. For extensive essays on this subject, consult Said Nursi, The Words (Truestar: 1997) and The Flashes (Sozler: 1996).
11. Alphonse Williams, Healing and Faith, The Fountain 3:30 (April-June 2000): 8-14.

I would like to focus briefly on the twentieth century in terms of technological innovations and their impact on the human soul. The Industrial Revolution radically changed our traditional lifestyle. Modern technology engendered many improvements in such areas as production and transportation. These changes were reflected in the literature and art of the period as well.

Views of Technology

In 1909, for instance, the Italian writer Marinetti published The Manifesto of Futurism, a great example of how intellectuals were affected by technology. He states that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by this new beauty, the beauty of speed: We stand on the last promontory of the centuries! Why should we look back? What we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the impossible. Time and space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed. We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice.(1)

This approach is very understandable, because its adherents assumed that modern technology would provide opportunities they had never experienced. The prospects of technology amazed them. But looking back, we see that technology shaped a new type of people who are dependent on machines. Producing tools and making money became cornerstones of modern life. These views threaten cultural values and traditional relationships among people who feel alone in these technologically separated environments. We ask: How much do machines dominate humanity, and why do people feel so deeply abandoned?

We can look at two perspectives from that period. The first is technology as a magical and wonderful creation, promoted by Marinetti and other futurists. The other is characterized by people like Charlie Chaplain who, in one of his movies, shows a worker who screws bolts every day as eventually starting to see everything as a bolt. This is the worst effect of twentieth-century technology: People have begun to feel like machines or parts of machines.

Do people need and deserve more than this? Of course, they do.

The latest version of modern technology is cyberspace, a place where people can find all sorts of information. Locating information and sharing experiences is easier than ever before. The Internet, for example, has become the information superhighway on which people can find almost everything. The Internet and other technological tools have helped create the expression being digital, which refers to people who use a lot of technology. Is this the illusion of technological globalization(2) or electronic democracy will be the end of participatory democracy?(3) Even though this digital medium provides a new source of information, we have not figured out how best to use it or what information to trust on it.

Issues

At this point, we must learn how to use modern technology and regulate information, because we cannot ignore them. These scientific and technological advances will play important roles in future developments. Science and technology in and of themselves are not the problem, nor have they ever been. The real problem is that science and technology are developed, deployed, and controlled by the predatory system of pancapitalism. The mainstream development of knowledge and technology is guided by increased efficiency in militarized production of violence and/or by potential corporate profits in civilian markets.(4)

There is another significant point here: Modern technology has been trying to create a cyberbody. In the future, scientists will be able to produce digital flesh to enhance our abilities. So here is the problem we have to solve: People who have these enhancements installed may begin to wonder if they are humans or robots. We already have seen that people can adjust their bodies in many ways: laser surgery to correct their vision, or synthetic material to replace their teeth.

Cyberfeminism focusing on women’s role in cyberculture is another interesting example of changing the human body. This already has caused some problems. The challenge here is rather how to combine the recognition of postmodern embodiment with resistance to relativism and a free fall into cynicism.(5)

Technology has limited privacy. When we are born, we get a birth certificate that quickly goes online. Educational files, social security files, insurance files, criminal files, consumption files, and so on are all in cyberspace. The Internet has become an on-line marketplace and is continuing to grow.

On the other hand, even though we are so connected, our social relationships with others have fallen apart. Every relationship between teachers and students, buyers and sellers, parents and children, for example, will be changed radically in the next few decades.

The most important question is how can we find a good balance that gives happiness and hope for both our bodies and our souls? We are not just bodies that need to eat, sleep, and rest, among other things; our souls must be nourished. In this technological age, this has led to a conflict”the crisis of modernity”between religious and metaphysical ideas. Nietzsche said that God was dead. Of course he was wrong, because he, like other philosophers, could not have realized that spiritual needs would become so important in modern times.

Today, we still are seeking for something to feed modern society’s spiritual hunger. We will have to find or build a way of thinking that will include metaphysical ideas, scientific innovations, and religious thought. After that, we will be able to put ourselves in a place where people can regulate their spiritual and physical needs. Otherwise, we will never feel that we are free

Footnotes

1 F. T. Marinetti, The Manifesto of Futurism, Le Figaro (February 20, 1909).

2 Steve Gibson, www.kk.kau.se/mct/MCTO199/steve/ right.html.

3 An Interview with Paul Virilio, www.nettime.org/ nettime.w3archive/199904/msgn00456.html.

4 Critical Arts Ensemble Staff, Critical Art Ensemble, The Flesh Machine: Cyborgs, Designer Babies, and New Eugenic Consciousness (Autonomedia: 1998), 7-8.

5 Rosi Braidotti, Cyberfeminism with a Difference, www.let.ruu.nl/womens_studies/library.html.Other Negative Effects The majority of electronic media content, especially TV programming, contributes to materialism and consumerism. Material well-being and possessions are viewed as lifes greatest values. The AAP labels child-directed advertisement as inherently deceptive and exploitive. Numerous studies conclude that children under the age of approximately 8 cannot understand the intent of advertisements. This vulnerability leads them to accept such advertisements as true,(11) which leads to unnecessary spending in some families and to childrens keen disappointment in others. Part of the reason for the Wests decreasing spirituality may be attributed to increased materialism via electronic media programming. The electronic media contributes markedly to obesity by displacing many more active alternative activities. Advertising also is a factor, as many of food advertisements are for unhealthy products. In particular, child-directed toy and food commercials may result in increased conflict between parents and children because of the parents inability or un-willingness to meet the childs demands. Most electronic media content glamorizes and normalizes alcohol, tobacco, and drug usage. The implicit message usually associates these substances with fun, prestige, humor, and excitement. But their negative consequences are usually depicted rather poorly or not at all. When Sweden banned alcohol advertising on TV in the mid-1970s, alcohol consumption decreased by 20 percent. If this was the result with a clearly stated message, we can expect the effect on an implicitly stated message to be even more dramatic. The implicit message concerning sexuality is roughly the same: Everybody, especially the young, is sexually active. There is nothing to worry about. The drawbacks and consequences of such depictions are rarely, if ever, mentioned. Abstinence is either not presented or is portrayed negatively. Another concern is the medias provision of ready-to-use gender, occupational, race, religious, and other stereotypes. Many viewers accept these passively and then generalize them. The impact is much greater on children than adults. Finally, the electronic media affects school and job performance. If we consider the people we know, we would find that academically or professionally successful people rarely invest much time in the electronic media. Similarly, many heavy users have accomplished nothing significant at school or on the job. Recent studies have pointed out that more than 1 to 2 hours per day of TV viewing has an adverse effect on academic performance, especially a childs reading and comprehension scores.(13) As we read in Drabman and Thomas: A socially interactive environment that stimulates curiosity and exploration enhances the development of an effective brain. Thus, excessive childhood involvement with electronic media that limit social interaction could hinder the development of a brains social system.(14) Heavy electronic media viewing might lead to attention deficit disorder (ADD) or a decreased attention span. A person with ADD cannot concentrate on any task for long, and so does not acquire the necessary persistence required both at school and at work to achieve something. Such children also may become accustomed to learning through visual images. But learning at school is primarily verbal, via teacher lectures, and contains few images. Thus they may be unable to learn as much, for this is not the way they have learned to comprehend. The impact also is seen in ones imagination, which may be considered a precursor for creativity. Carlsson-Paige and Levin conclude that before TV, children usually made up their own war-play themes. Today, most of it comes from imitating electronic media content.(15) Such imitative, in lieu of imaginative, play impairs the proper development of childrens cognitive systems. Media Literacy or Media Education One rather radical solution to counteract these negative effects is to remove all electronic media from our lives. However, this is not a realistic option for those with children. Electronic media has the potential to enhance peoples, especially childrens, knowledge, experience, and perception. Isolating children from its harmful effects is impossible, for they will be exposed thorough their school and friends. Such isolation may have an even more adverse effect. A more elaborate and sensible alternative is to improve critical electronic media usage skills through media education or literacy. Such strategies can be defined as eliminating negative effects while taking advantage of its benefits by educating children, adolescents, and adults. According to the AAP, a media-literate person should understand that(16): All media messages are constructions produced by people to be viewed Media messages shape our understanding of the world People interpret media messages uniquely Electronic and mass media have powerful economic implications. People can become more media literate if they: Get involved in sports, camping, hiking, reading, and other non-media activities. Provide immediate and elaborate content-related explanations to children and adolescents via content interpretation and explanation Ban all violent, offensive, and indecent electronic media content, including non-educational video games and cartoons Restrict electronic media usage to those with high educational content Have one TV per house Put the TV and other electronic media in the houses less-prominent areas Keep TVs, computers, video games, and so on out of childrens rooms Do not use the electronic media, especially TV, to babysit, punish, or reward Turn off all electronic media during meals, when most family interaction occurs Do not fight boredom by using more electronic media, for if directed properly, boredom may lead to creativity Prepare a weekly schedule of programs to watch Keep children under 2 years old away from the TV and other electronic media, for such children require a great deal of interaction for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. For older children, limit it to 1 to 2 hours. Conclusion The electronic media has potential benefits. However, it also has negative, harmful effects, especially on children. As it cannot be banished, both parents and children should become media literate. Rather than waiting until unacceptable behavioral patterns are learned and then dedicating substantial resources to cope with them, it is far better to redirect efforts and resources toward early prevention programs, particularly for children and adolescents Footnotes 1 This is the American Academy of Pediatricss definition. 2 Judith Van Evra, Television and Child Development, Children, Youth, and Family Consortium (CYFC), (1990). 3 Pediatrics: Policy Statement on Impact of Music Lyrics and Music Videos on Children and Youth, American Academy of Pediatrics 98, no. 6 (December 1996): 1219-21. 4 Said Nursi, Letters: Seeds of Reality (Turkey: Sozler Nesriyat, 1994), 545. 5 Victor C. Strasburger, Children, Adolescents, and the Media: Five Crucial Issues, Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews 4, no. 3 (October 1993); Van Evra, Television and Child Development. 6 R. S. Drabman and M. H. Thomas, Does TV Violence Breed Indifference? Journal of Communication 25, no. 4 (1975): 86-89. 7 R. Sylwester, The Effects of Electronic Media on the Developing Brain, Media Literacy Online Project (College of Education, University of Oregon: 1994). 8 Surgeon Generals Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence, Report to the Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972); D. Pearl, Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, US Department of Health and Human Services, Publication No. ADM 82-1195, vol. 1, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office 1982); A. C. Huston et al., Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in American Society (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1992). This book is the APA Task Forces report on television in society. 9 C. Anderson, Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, no. 4 (April 2000): 772-90. 10 C. Kalin, Television, Violence, and Children (M.Sc. Synthesis Paper, College of Education, University of Oregon, 1997). 11 Pediatrics: Policy Statement on Children, Adolescents and Advertising, American Academy of Pediatrics (February 1995); Surgeon Generals Scientific Advisory Committee, Television and Growing Up. 12 In the context of this article, spirituality is defined as implementing the requirements of religious orders in ones life. For instance, the size of the Sunday service congregations has been declining for several decades. 13 Victor C. Strasburger, Does Television Affect Learning and School Performance? Pediatrician 38 (1986): 141-47; M. Morgan, Television and School Performance, Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews 4 (1993): 607-22. 14 Drabman and Thomas, Does TV Violence Breed Indifference? 86-89. 15 Huston et al., Big World, Small Screen. 16 Pediatrics: Policy Statement on Media Education, American Academy of Pediatrics 104, no. 2 (August 1999): 341-43.

I would like to focus briefly on the twentieth century in terms of technological innovations and their impact on the human soul. The Industrial Revolution radically changed our traditional lifestyle. Modern technology engendered many improvements in such areas as production and transportation. These changes were reflected in the literature and art of the period as well.

Views of Technology

In 1909, for instance, the Italian writer Marinetti published The Manifesto of Futurism, a great example of how intellectuals were affected by technology. He states that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by this new beauty, the beauty of speed: We stand on the last promontory of the centuries! Why should we look back? What we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the impossible. Time and space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed. We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice.(1)

This approach is very understandable, because its adherents assumed that modern technology would provide opportunities they had never experienced. The prospects of technology amazed them. But looking back, we see that technology shaped a new type of people who are dependent on machines. Producing tools and making money became cornerstones of modern life. These views threaten cultural values and traditional relationships among people who feel alone in these technologically separated environments. We ask: How much do machines dominate humanity, and why do people feel so deeply abandoned?

We can look at two perspectives from that period. The first is technology as a magical and wonderful creation, promoted by Marinetti and other futurists. The other is characterized by people like Charlie Chaplain who, in one of his movies, shows a worker who screws bolts every day as eventually starting to see everything as a bolt. This is the worst effect of twentieth-century technology: People have begun to feel like machines or parts of machines.

Do people need and deserve more than this? Of course, they do.

The latest version of modern technology is cyberspace, a place where people can find all sorts of information. Locating information and sharing experiences is easier than ever before. The Internet, for example, has become the information superhighway on which people can find almost everything. The Internet and other technological tools have helped create the expression being digital, which refers to people who use a lot of technology. Is this the illusion of technological globalization(2) or electronic democracy will be the end of participatory democracy?(3) Even though this digital medium provides a new source of information, we have not figured out how best to use it or what information to trust on it.

Issues

At this point, we must learn how to use modern technology and regulate information, because we cannot ignore them. These scientific and technological advances will play important roles in future developments. Science and technology in and of themselves are not the problem, nor have they ever been. The real problem is that science and technology are developed, deployed, and controlled by the predatory system of pancapitalism. The mainstream development of knowledge and technology is guided by increased efficiency in militarized production of violence and/or by potential corporate profits in civilian markets.(4)

There is another significant point here: Modern technology has been trying to create a cyberbody. In the future, scientists will be able to produce digital flesh to enhance our abilities. So here is the problem we have to solve: People who have these enhancements installed may begin to wonder if they are humans or robots. We already have seen that people can adjust their bodies in many ways: laser surgery to correct their vision, or synthetic material to replace their teeth.

Cyberfeminism focusing on women’s role in cyberculture is another interesting example of changing the human body. This already has caused some problems. The challenge here is rather how to combine the recognition of postmodern embodiment with resistance to relativism and a free fall into cynicism.(5)

Technology has limited privacy. When we are born, we get a birth certificate that quickly goes online. Educational files, social security files, insurance files, criminal files, consumption files, and so on are all in cyberspace. The Internet has become an on-line marketplace and is continuing to grow.

On the other hand, even though we are so connected, our social relationships with others have fallen apart. Every relationship between teachers and students, buyers and sellers, parents and children, for example, will be changed radically in the next few decades.

The most important question is how can we find a good balance that gives happiness and hope for both our bodies and our souls? We are not just bodies that need to eat, sleep, and rest, among other things; our souls must be nourished. In this technological age, this has led to a conflict”the crisis of modernity”between religious and metaphysical ideas. Nietzsche said that God was dead. Of course he was wrong, because he, like other philosophers, could not have realized that spiritual needs would become so important in modern times.

Today, we still are seeking for something to feed modern society’s spiritual hunger. We will have to find or build a way of thinking that will include metaphysical ideas, scientific innovations, and religious thought. After that, we will be able to put ourselves in a place where people can regulate their spiritual and physical needs. Otherwise, we will never feel that we are free

Footnotes

1. F. T. Marinetti, The Manifesto of Futurism, Le Figaro (February 20, 1909).
2. Steve Gibson, www.kk.kau.se/mct/MCTO199/steve/ right.html.
3. An Interview with Paul Virilio, www.nettime.org/ nettime.w3archive/199904/msgn00456.html.
4. Critical Arts Ensemble Staff, Critical Art Ensemble, The Flesh Machine: Cyborgs, Designer Babies, and New Eugenic Consciousness (Autonomedia: 1998), 7-8.
5. Rosi Braidotti, Cyberfeminism with a Difference, www.let.ruu.nl/womens_studies/library.html.

Abstract: Appadurai’s work offers a very critical and deep analysis of modernity and globalization. He believes that no single theory can describe modernity’s complexity, for he believes that a theory cannot be universalistic, and because societies are much messier than our theories about them. His focus is more on globalization’s cultural dimensions, as opposed to its economic ones. In addition, he looks at globalization in terms of homogenization and heterogenization, for migration and media create both sameness and difference in today’s globalized world. Migrating people and media, particularly television, produce different cultural spheres in different countries. As a result, he looks for irregularities as much as he looks for regularities in the modern or postmodern social world.

Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization

In Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Appadurai examines new dimensions of globalization, particularly cultural ones. He argues that few theories describe modernity, and that all of them either declare or desire universal applicability. Looking at modernity and globalization from a historical context, he argues that modernity was very much a product of the Enlightenment. However, he is not convinced that the Enlightenment created modernity and made people wish to become modern (p. 1).

Modernism originated in the late-sixteenth century after the rise of capitalism. However, it is not limited to economic dimensions, for it also contains cultural and political ones. Becoming more visible after the Industrial Revolution, modernism eventually became the dominant culture of the West and then of the world.

The understanding and theorizing associated with modernity is very much a part of Western social science, for it was shaped by such leading Western social scientists as Karl Marx (d. 1883), Auguste Comte (d. 1857), Max Weber (d. 1961), and Emile Durkeim (d. 1917). Appadurai sees Western social science as problematic, for it reinforces the sense of a single moment (which he calls the modern moment) serving as a dramatic and unparalleled break between past and present. Western social science has focused on categorizing and typologizing traditional and modern societies, practices that Appadurai argues distort the meanings of change and the past, and assumes that the Western experience of modernity is universal.

Modernity, however, is irregularly self-conscious and unevenly experienced in different parts of the world. This causes Appadurai to disagree with modernization theory’s identification of societies as modern vs. traditional, urban vs. rural, small family vs. large family, and so on, for he sees irregularities within so-called modern and traditional societies. He claims that modernity is experienced differently over space and throughout time. For instance, such modern metropolitan cities as Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Cairo experience modernity and tradition simultaneously. The same is true of Germany, the United States, or any other modern state in which both traditional and modern ways of life are practiced at the same time in different parts these countries.

Appadurai thinks that the media and population migration are the most important factors defining today’s global world. He explores their joint effect on the work of the imagination, as a constitutive feature of modern subjectivity. Both media and migration create specific irregularities. For example, he analyzes both print and electronic media, while claiming that electronic media, especially television, has been much more influential in terms of modifying cultural spaces and cultural worlds: Electronic media give a new twist to the environment within which the modern and the global often appear as flip sides of the same coin (p. 44). He believes that the electronic media’s ability to transform the sense of distance between viewer and event transforms everyday discourse. It also shapes and reshapes society and the self in all different types of societies and people.

Migration is the second constitutive force. This is not limited to moving or migrating people; rather, he includes within this concept a process of transporting ideas, values, life styles, and everyday lives from the home of origin. As he puts it: When the story of mass-migration is juxtaposed with the rapid flow of mass-mediated images, scripts, and sensations, we have a new order of instability in the production of modern subjectivities (p. 44).

Migrants create diasporic public spheres that confound theories that depend on the continued salience of the nation“state as key arbiter of important social changes (p. 4). For instance, Turkish guest workers in Germany watch Turkish movies and gather together to celebrate religious and traditional festivals. This is an irregularity in modern German society, as different cultural groups lead everyday lives that have nothing to do the dominant culture of the country in which they live.

When discussing migration, one must realize that the young or new generation are the agents of social challenge and change, not the elderly. The new generation experiences and pushes new ways of life, and is people’s minds migrate along with their bodies and produce change.

Appadurai considers globalization as both cultural homogenization and, at the same time, cultural heterogenization (p. 32). He urges us to think of the new global cultural economy in terms of complexity, overlap, and disorder. Moreover, he is unsure if existing center-periphery models can address such complexity and irregularity. Nor is he convinced that traditional models, such as the pull“push migration model or surpluses and deficits, can explain the global cultural economy.

Therefore, he proposes a new framework for understanding the new global cultural economy’s complexity and messiness. This consists of five dimensions of global cultural flows: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, techno-scapes, financescapes, and ideocapes (p. 33). He uses the suffix -scape to point out the fluid and irregular shapes of landscapes. These deeply perspectival constructs are inflected by nation-states, multinationals, diasporic communities, as well as religious, political, and economic groupings and movements confronting such groups as neighborhoods and families.

I am not going to discuss each cultural landscape. Suffice it to say, as Appadurai asserts, that these cultural landscapes are the building blocks for imagined worlds. He quotes this from Anderson’s discussion of imagined communities. These worlds are socially and historically constructed by historically situated people and social groups all over the globe.

Appadurai disagrees with the idea that goods and services end in consumption. Calling it an illusion, he urges us to re-situate consumption in time and place. He especially focuses on history, periodicity, process, and how demand is produced and consumption is achieved. How do people make their preferences? How is demand produced?

Although people seemingly make free choices in their everyday lives, their choices are structured through the market. Everything is commodified, from food and medical care to transportation and housing, from education and leisure to body and knowledge. Everything is bought and sold in the capitalist market. Thus, it is important to know that commodities are socially constructed and humanly produced.

Expanding capitalism allowed scholars and philosophers to rework time and space. New philosophies showed social constructions of time and space. We know that they are not natural; rather, they are human constructions.

I conclude with a few words about knowledge“ relations. Appadurai proves that different cultural landscapes exist. It also is important to realize that all cultural landscapes are socially made, and that we produce those landscapes with our everyday practices, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Landscapes, maps, and cultural spheres are social products, and their construction reflects ongoing power relations. Appadurai deals with this when discussing how Britain measured its Indian colony (e.g., census and maps) to control it. The resulting knowledge served British imperial interests, not those of India. Maps as social texts were not used for social betterment, but as tools of social control.

As a result, Appadurai urges, if we are to understand today’s cultural, economic, and political globalized world, we need to understand it in those time“ space contexts and knowledge“power relations that have shaped both its homogeneous and heterogeneous cultural, economic, and political realities

• References:
• Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.
• Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have much in common. For example, they are monotheistic and have their roots in the Abrahamic tradition. Islam is closer to Christianity, for Muslims recognize Christianity as being based upon Divine Revelation, whereas Jews do not accord this status to either religion. Ironically, while Jesus is the common link between Islam and Christianity, nearly all doctrinal differences between the two religions center around his nature. Therefore, we shall start with this topic.

What Do Muslims Think about Jesus?

Reputable scholars of Christianity continue to portray Islam and Muslims as enemies of Jesus. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It is often a surprising experience for Christians to learn that Muslims hold a deep love and respect for Jesus and Mary. In fact, a Muslim cannot be considered a true believer if he or she rejects Jesus (Qur’an, 2:136). One of Qur’an’s chapters is named Mary (Surat Maryam). The Qur’an praises Jesus and his family, and Muslims consider Jesus one of the five great Prophets, among hundreds of thousands of others.(1) In an authentic Tradition, Prophet Muhammad says: I am the nearest of all people to Jesus, son of Mary, in this life and the Hereafter.(2)

The Qur’an acknowledges the virgin birth (19:18-24), reports the miracles Jesus performed by God’s will (5:110), and praises his sincere followers not only at his time but also at the time of Prophet Muhammad. We give two examples below:

Behold! the angels said: Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter, and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. (3:45)

In their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus, son of Mary, bestowed on him the Gospel, and ordained in the hearts of his followers Compassion and Mercy. But the monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them. (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah, but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed on those among them who believed their (due) reward. But many of them are rebellious transgressors. (57:27)

At the root of all doctrinal differences lies the perspective on God and the relationship between God and humanity. The Qur’an leaves no room for subjective interpretation, for God is as He describes Himself: eternal and infinite, with absolute knowledge of everything, and able to do anything. We cannot imagine any form for Him, or define Him in any limited fashion.

Based on this, any anthropomorphic characterization of God or assignation to Him of any shortcomings or partners contradicts what Islam teaches.

Jesus As a Prophet

Muslims believe that Jesus was a genuine Prophet sent by God for the Jews.3 God created Jesus without a temporal father (4:171). But this does not make Jesus the son of God. Rather, it is a sign of God’s ultimate power. If such a birth made one a son of God, clearly Adam deserved it more, since he was created without a father or a mother.

The Qur’an relates that Jesus performed miracles. This does not make him a son of God, for all the religious texts report that other Prophets performed miracles. Muslims believe that if Jesus ever used the phrase son of God, he did so metaphorically, as is explicit in several places in Gospels.4 Consequently, Muslims do not believe that God sacrificed His only son so that humanity would be forgiven.

What Do Muslims Think of the Trinity?

In its simplest terms, the Trinity means that God is the union of three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Christian Church accepts this as a divine mystery that cannot be fully comprehended. Muslims acknowledge that a lack of knowledge on something’s nature does not imply its non-existence. For example, they believe in angels, God, and Heaven and Hell, yet know little or nothing about such things’ nature. However, the Trinity is not one of those concepts.

First of all, the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions reject the existence of any deities other than God. Sometimes the Trinity is explicitly mentioned, as in:

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (only) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. Believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not: Trinity. Desist, it will be better for you, for Allah is One. Glory be to Him, (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the Heavens and on the Earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171)

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (5:73)

Some Christians say that they do not worship three gods, that Christianity is monotheistic, and that people who say they are worshiping three gods do not understand the Trinity. However, Muslims feels that even if they do not understand the Trinity (but how many Christians understand it, assuming it is a divine mystery?), it is clear to them that God, speaking in the Qur’an, understands it and rejects it for reasons discussed above.

If there were several gods, none of them could be omnipotent, which contradicts the Islamic concept of God. Those who live on the Earth cannot be accepted as God, for they have needs: food, sleep, fulfillment of desires, and so on. In the Qur’an, God invites humanity to reflect upon the universe and thereby realize that God has no needs. The harmony and perfection of creation is enough evidence for His power and oneness. In fact, one can ask the following questions: Where is the evidence of the Trinity? If the concept of Trinity were so crucial to faith, why do the four canonical Gospels not refer to it? Why did Jesus not explicitly detail this issue in his teachings? Such questions make the Muslims doubt its veracity.

Do Muslims Believe in Earlier Scriptures?

Muslims are required to believe in all Prophets sent by God, and all Scriptures revealed to them in their originally revealed form (2:136).

The phrase in their originally revealed form is critical, for if it is ignored the Islamic viewpoint might be misinterpreted. Muslims believe that essentials of pure faith do not change, although laws that Prophets are sent with might be subject to change.5 Thus statements in earlier Scriptures that are at variance with Islam indicate human interference in those scriptures. The Qur’an refers to the Gospel of Jesus and Torah of Moses, but those are believed to be different from the Gospels and Torah as we now know them. This does not mean that Muslims reject the current Scriptures altogether; rather, Muslims use the Qur’an and the authentic Prophetic Traditions as criteria to see what is correct in other religious texts.

How Do Muslims Know That the Qur’an Has Not Been Altered?

The Qur’an was written and preserved immediately after it was revealed. The pieces were assembled shortly after the Prophet’s death, and with incredible sensitivity on the collectors’ part, and checked against by those who had memorized it fully. This careful process resulted in the Qur’an that eventually belonged to Caliph Uthman, who died 34 years after the Prophet, and which is preserved in Istanbul’s Topkapi Palace. There is no difference between it and the Qur’an that Muslims read today. There is no other version of the Qur’an in existence. If anyone can find such a thing, we would be interested in seeing it.

Do Muslims Believe in the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is mentioned in several Qur’anic verses.6 However, this does not refer to the Christian idea of Holy Spirit, but rather to the Angel Gabriel.

Will Christians Go to Hell?

Although this is a frequently asked question, it is hard to find a satisfactory answer. The reason is twofold. No one, not even the Prophet, can say that someone is going to Hell or Heaven unless God informs him on the issue. Also, there is a difference of opinion among Muslim scholars. The opinion we present here is the one that most fits the Qur’an and the essence of Islam.

People who are exposed to pure faith in an undistorted way, have a fairly good idea that it may well be true but do not search further and reject it out of arrogance or stubbornness, and then die in such a state will go to Hell. Those who have pure faith or are ignorant (i.e., they have not been exposed to pure belief) and have no practical means to search for more knowledge eventually will go to Heaven. These two groups are outlined fairly well in the Qur’an. As for those in the middle, meaning most believers in other faiths or in no faith at all, Muslims are told to leave the judgment to God, Who will judge them according to their specific conditions and render a final and absolutely just decision.

What about Original Sin and Salvation?

One fundamental disagreement between Islam and Christianity is Adams original sin. Christianity declares that Adam sinned by disobeying Gods order and that this sin is inherited by all of Adams children. In other words, humanity is born sinful, as everyone is a child of Adam. Gods justice requires a price to be paid for every sin, and only the shedding of blood can wipe out this sin. Since the original sin was infinite in nature, an infinite recompense was necessary. For this reason, God allowed Jesus Christ, His son, to have his holy, sinless blood shed. His suffering and dying on the Cross paid for humanity’s sins. Only those who accept Jesus Christ as their redeemer can be saved in the Hereafter. According to Islam, Adam and Eve were created and put into the Garden. After this, God told them to enjoy the Garden but not to eat a certain fruit. Satan deceived them, and they disobeyed God by eating the fruit. As a result, God ordered them to leave the Garden and descend to the Earth, where they and their children would live and die (7:24-25). In the Quranic perspective, both Adam and Eve share this sin. Islam does not recognize Original Sin or the need for a savior to redeem an inherently sinful humanity. It regards children as pure and sinless at birth, says that sin is not inherited, and that no one is responsible for someone else’s sin (53:38). God is just and holds every person responsible for what they do. Even after people sin, God forgives those who sincerely turn to Him and seek forgiveness. Thus He did not curse Adam or Eve, for they sincerely sought”and received”forgiveness from God.

Was Jesus Crucified?

The crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ represent the heart of Christianity. Everything a Christian believes in and hopes for is based on Jesus death on the Cross for unworthy sinners. His resurrection is the Divine vindication of the fact that Jesus did not die for any crime he had committed, but died in the place of sinners needing redemption and justification before an infinitely holy and just God. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19; Romans 4:25, 5:8-11) Islam rejects these events, for the Quran gives very direct and clear information about what happened to Jesus: That they said (in boast), We killed Christ Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them. Those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow. They killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:157-58) Some Muslim scholars think that Quran 4:159 refers to Jesus return before the Day of Judgment. This belief is supported by several authentic Traditions. Thus, although Christians and Muslims disagree on Jesus mission, they agree that he will return before the Day of Judgment.

Dealing with the Differences

Faced with many things in common and serious doctrinal differences, how do Christians and Muslims deal with those differences? The Quran commands Muslims to avoid counterproductive debate and, whenever a controversial topic arises, to discuss it according to the highest ethics of civilized debate: And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit (29:46). Though it would be naive to assume that Christians and Muslims do not disagree on certain issues, it would be equally foolish to portray their relationship with each other as composed of conflict. Is there any religion whose followers have no form of virtue? Clearly there is not. And, especially in the case of Christianity and Islam, both parties have a lot to learn from each other. Christian civilization was built upon an Islamic heritage, yet even most respectable Christian scholars are unwilling to admit this freely. This is also true of those Muslims who wanted to stay away from Christian civilization, because the Christians have gone astray. Thanks to advances in mass communication, Christians and Muslims now realize that the other was not that bad. Shortly, we will realize that the other is not so different from us, hence not bad at all. Today, thanks to the Internet, we can increase our knowledge of the other rather easily. For example, the entire Quran can be read online at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/Quran/, while the Bible can be read online at http://bible. gospelcom.net/. To reach this point, Christians and Muslims living in Americas democratic and highly heterogeneous society have a tremendous responsibility to serve as role models for people in less tolerant and more prejudicial countries, where the vision of the other remains entrenched. We have to carry out this task in the most efficient way, by continuously seeking for opportunities to learn about each other. Even if we can afford to live without getting to know the other, our children cannot

Footnotes:

1. Bukhari, Prophets, 652. See http://db.islam.org:81/ hadith/ssearch.htm. The other great Prophets are Abraham, Noah, Moses, and Muhammad.
2. Ibid. The authentic Traditions of Prophet Muhammad represent the second source of religion, immediately after the Quran.
3. The Gospels also state that Jesus was sent for the Jews: For example: He answered, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24).
4. For example: Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12); …and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one (John 11:52).
5. That is, believing in a monotheistic God, His Prophets, the Scriptures revealed to them, His Angels, the Hereafter, and that both good and evil are decreed by God.
6. For example: We gave Moses the book and followed him up with a succession of Messengers. We gave Jesus son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit (2:87).

The Internet is a whole new world for everyone. If your children are not online, they probably will soon be joining the 10 million children already using the Internet.

What Is on the Internet?

Basically, the Internet is a great place for children. The good news is that it offers them educational and rewarding experiences, and that its effective use just might improve their school performance.

There are some disadvantages as well, such as inaccurate information and various inappropriate and uncomfortable information areas. Families and teachers should be aware of this potential problem. Just as parents do not allow their children to wonder alone in unknown territory, they should not allow them to interact on the Internet without parental guidance and supervision.

If parents worry that their children know more about the Internet and computers than they do, they can use this as an opportunity to have their children teach them about the Internet, such as where they like to go and what they like to do. Encourage children to talk about what is good and not-so-good about their Internet experience.

What Are the Risks?

Different Internet tools (e.g., chat, instant messaging, e-mail, news groups, and Web page) offer different kinds of risks and benefits.

Statistically, probably the greatest risk is that children will encounter mean or very unpleasant people in chat areas and news groups. Another risk is that they will spend a lot of time in areas that are not very productive. Other risks might be:

Loss of privacy (legal and financial, password, credit card number and private information)

Getting into online fights

Making threats and breaking the law

Viewing inappropriate material

Getting inaccurate information

Putting people in danger

Getting into drugs, alcohol, tobacco and other dangerous substances

Gambling and other inappropriate behavior.

What Parents Can Do

Keeping children safe on the Internet is everyone’s job. Parents must talk with their children about inappropriate behavior and stay in close touch as their children explore the Internet. By taking responsibility for children’s online computer use, parents can minimize any potential risks. Here are some suggestions:

Spend time online with your children. Your involvement is the best insurance of your children’s safety.

Teach children not to give out personal information (i.e., name, address, school name or address), especially in chat rooms and on bulletin boards.

Share your children’s e-mail account and password.

Teach them not to plan a face-to-face meeting with online acquaintances.

Keep the computer in the family area to better monitor their activity.

Spend time online with your children regularly to learn about their interests and activities.

Teach them how to end any uncomfortable or scary online experience by pressing the back key

Establish an atmosphere of trust and understanding by not blaming them for uncomfortable online experiences.

Discuss the difference between advertising and educational or entertaining content. Show your children examples each.

Tell them not to respond to offensive or dangerous e-mail, chat requests, or communications, and to leave if a Web site makes them uncomfortable.

Tell them to show you anything they receive that makes them uncomfortable.

Remember that anything you read online may not be true.

Explain that people in chat rooms are not always who they say they are.

If you become worried that your children in danger, contact the authorities.

Some Safety Tips to Help Children Online

Do not give out personal information (i.e., last name, phone number, credit card number, address, where you go to school, parent’s work address/phone number) without your parent’s permission.

Tell your parents right away if you come across anything that makes you uncomfortable.

Never send your picture or anything else without first asking your parents.

Never agree to get together with an online friend, without your parent’s permission. Meeting such people is usually a really bad idea. How people are in real life can be very different from how they are online. If you decide to do it anyway, be sure that it is in a public place and bring your parents along.

Do not open up e-mails, files, unknown attachments, or Web pages that you get from people that you do not know or trust.

Always follow your family’s rules for the Internet

Remember that honesty is the best policy. Not everyone believes this, however, so watch yourself when you are in cyberspace. Remember that since you cannot see or hear the other person, it is for a 40-year-old man to present himself as a 12-year-old girl.

Avoid chat rooms or discussion areas that look sketchy or provocative, and do not let people online trick you into thinking of them as real-life friends if you have never met them in person. Also, avoid online fights, because if you are looking for trouble on the Internet you will find it, and things can get out of hand very quickly.

The Internet, the World Wide Web, the information superhighway, and cyberspace describe the newest and most innovative and exciting learning tool of recent years. Remember that it is not the technology, but how it is used, that makes a difference.

Spending time online with your children is one of the best ways to learn and teach responsibility, good conduct, and values that are important to you. Ask your children to share their favorite Web sites and what they like about them. Work with them to discover Web sites that will help them with their homework, hobbies, and other special interests. Also, teach your children to be wise consumers in cyberspace. Not everything they see or hear may be true. Some sites may be trying to sell them something.

The vast majority of Internet sites are perfectly safe. But like the real world, the virtual world contains sites with sexual, violent, and other content that may not be appropriate for children. Since different families have different standards, it is important that parents establish clear Internet guidelines for their children.

If you have a home computer, several software programs are available to block objectionable Web sites. Even if filters were 100 percent effective, however, this software is no substitute for parental guidance. We strongly recommend that you supervise your children’s Internet use, and that you teach them how to make informed choices

References

• CyberAngels, Internet Safety Organization: http://www.cyberangels.org.
• Internet Use Survey: http://www.cyberdialogue. com/products/isg/aius/index.html.
• Safeguarding Our Children United Mothers: http://www.soc-um.org/.
• SafeKids: http://www.safekids.com/.

Consider how great a source of power is a chick’s weakness, on account of which a mother hen will attack even a lion. Or how the weakness of a lion cub subjugates to itself so great a beast as a lioness, which suffers hunger to feed her baby. How remarkable is the powerful appeal inherent in weakness, and what a spectacular manifestation of Compassion for importunate beings.

In the same way, loved children obtain their goals through weeping, wishing, or making a sad face, all of which can cause mighty people to serve them. If they relied on their own strength, they would never realize any of this. On account of their weakness and powerlessness, in fact, feelings of affection and protection are so motivated in their favor that a single gesture may allow them to subjugate powerful people.

If such children become so arrogant as to deny the care and affection shown to them and say, in accusation of the protection over him: ‘I do all this with my own power, they deserve to be punished. We also will deserve to be punished if we deny our Creator’s mercy to us by attributing all that we achieve to our own power and knowledge, thereby accusing God’s wisdom in ingratitude for what Divine Mercy has bestowed upon us. We will be like Korah, who said: I have been given it [my possessions] on account of my knowledge (28:78).

This shows that our observed dominion in nature, as well as our advancement and progress in civilization and technology, have not been realized solely through our own power, effort, and success. Rather, we largely owe them to our essential weakness and helplessness, which attract Divine aid. Our poverty is the source of Divine provision, our ignorance is made up for by Divine inspiration, and our need draws Divine favors. Also, it is Divine Mercy and Affection, and Divine Wisdom, not our own power and knowledge, that have empowered us with dominion over creation and have put things at our disposal. Only Divine Authority and Compassion enable us, who are so weak that we can be defeated by a blind scorpion and a footless snake, to dress in silk made by a silkworm and to eat the honey produced by a bee.

Since this is the truth, renounce your arrogance and do not put your trust in yourself. Rather, affirm your impotence and weakness in the high presence of God by asking for His help, and by praying and entreating Him. Declare your poverty and insufficiency, and show that you are His true servant. Then say: God is sufficient for us. Most sublime is He in Whom we trust (3:173), and ascend to the higher ranks.

Do not say: ‘I am nothing. What significance do I have that the All-Wise Creator should intentionally put creation at my disposal and demand from me universal gratitude? You are almost nothing with respect to your physical being, but your duty or rank makes you are an attentive observer of this magnificent universe, an eloquent tongue of beings declaring the Divine Wisdom, a perceptive student of this book of creation, an admiring overseer of the creatures that glorify God’s praise, and a respected master of worshipping beings.

You are an insignificant particle, a poor creature and a weak animal as far as your physical being and soul are counted, and so are carried away by the huge waves of creation. But if you are perfected through the light of belief, which comprises the radiance of Divine love, and through the training of Islam, you will find a kingliness in your being a slave, a comprehensiveness in your particularity, a world in your small entity, and a very high rank in your insignificance. The realm of your supervision of creation will be so broad that you can say: ‘My Compassionate Lord has made the world a home for me. He has given me the sun and the moon as lamps, spring as a bunch of roses, summer as a banquet of favors, and the animals as obedient servants. He has put the plants and vegetation at my disposal also, as ornaments and provisions for my home.

In conclusion, if you obey your evil-commanding selfhood and Satan, you will fall to the lowest level. But if you follow the truth and the Qur’an, you will ascend to the highest level and become the most excellent pattern of creation.

Fifth remark

We have been sent to this world as guests with a special responsibility and endowed with important potentials. We have been assigned important duties in accordance with these potentials, strongly urged to carry out those duties, and are gravely threatened if we do not. To make the mystery of ‘being the best pattern of creation more comprehensible, we summarize the essentials of the worship and duties required of us.

Our worship consists of two aspects. One is implicit and concerns reflection and consciousness. The other is visible prayer, done in direct supplication in God’s presence.

The first aspect is that we submissively confirms the Sovereignty of His Lordship over creation, and observe in amazement the works of His Beauty and Perfection. We then draw the attention of our fellow beings to the intricate, ornamented works of art that are manifestations of the sacred Divine Names. We also measure in ‘units of due perception and discernment the gems of the Lord’s Names, each of which is a hidden spiritual treasure, and evaluate them with grateful hearts.

After this, we make a close study of the pages of creation, the sheets of the Heavens and the Earth, each of which is a missive of Divine Power, and contemplate them in great admiration. As we gaze in amazement and admiration at the subtle ornamentation and refined skills in creation, we ardently desire to know their Beautiful Creator and yearn to enter His Presence, where we hopes to be received into His favor.

The second aspect is that we turn toward our Majestic Creator, Who wants Himself to be known through the miracles of His artistry. We unburden ourselves to Him in sincere belief and try to acquire knowledge of Him. By doing so, we discern that a Compassionate Lord wants Himself to be loved through the beautiful fruits of His Compassion. In response, we makes ourselves loved by Him by devoting our love and adoration to Him.

Seeing that a Generous Provider nourishes us with the best and dearest of His material and spiritual favors, we respond to Him with gratitude and praise, expressed through our works, deeds, lifestyle and, if possible, all our senses and faculties. We then observe that a Lord of Beauty and Majesty manifests Himself in the mirror of beings, and draws attention to His Glory and Perfection, and His Majesty and Beauty. In response, we proclaim: ‘God is the Greatest! Glory be to God! and prostrates before Him in wonder and adoration.

He also notices that One of Absolute Riches displays His limitless wealth and treasuries in an infinitely generous fashion. In response, we glorify and praise Him and, displaying our need, ask Him for His favors. Then, observing that the Majestic Creator has arranged the Earth like an exhibition that displays His matchless works, we appreciates them and say: ‘What wonders God has willed and created! Confirming their beauty, we say: ‘God bless them! Showing our wonder, we say: ‘Glory be to God! Expressing our admiration, we say: ‘God is the Greatest!

Also, we see that the Unique One demonstrates His Oneness in creation through His particular signs and His unique decrees, and through His inimitable stamps and seals, which He has places on each creature. He inscribes the signs of His Oneness on everything, and raises the flag of His Unity throughout the world, thus proclaiming His Lordship. We respond to this with belief and affirmation, admission of and testimony to His Unity, and with devotion and sincere worship.

We may attain true humanity by all such types of worship and reflection. We may demonstrate that we are the best pattern of creation and, through the grace of faith, become a trustworthy vicegerent of God on this Earth.

Now, those of you who heedlessly go toward the lowest level by misusing your will although you were created as the best pattern of creation, listen to me! To see how ugly is the face of the world that turns toward passions and desires, and, by contrast, how extraordinarily beautiful is its other face that turns toward the Hereafter, look at the ‘tables given below.

The First Table

(This table depicts the true spirit of the world of the heedless.)

Do not invite me to the world; I came and found it evil and mortal. Heedlessness was a veil; I saw the light of Truth concealed. All things, the whole of creation, I saw were mortal and full of harm. Existence, indeed I put it on. Alas! It was non-existence and I suffered much. As to life, I experienced it; I saw it was torment within torment. Intellect became pure retribution; I saw permanence to be tribulation. Life was like a wind that passed in whims; I saw perfection to be pure loss. Deeds were only for show; I saw ambitions to be pure pain. Union was in fact separation; I saw the cure to be the ailment. These lights became darkness; I saw these friends to be orphans. These voices were announcements of death; I saw the living to be dead. Knowledge changed into whims; I saw in science thousands of ailments. Pleasures became unmixed pain; I saw existence to be compounded non-existence. I have found the True Beloved; Ah! I suffered much pain because of separation.

The Second Table

(This table describes the true spirit of the world of the people of guidance and peace.)

Heedlessness has disappeared; I have seen the light of Truth to be manifest. Existence is a proof of Divine Being. Life is the mirror reflecting Truth. Intellect has become the key to treasuries. Mortality is the door to eternity. The spark of self-attainment has died. There is the Sun of Grace and Beauty. Life has become pure action. Eternity is pure life. Darkness is a thin membrane enclosing light. There is true life in death. All things have become familiar. All sounds are the recitation of Divine Names. All the particles in creation: Each recites God’s Names and glorifies Him. I have found poverty to be a treasury of wealth. In impotence lies perfect power. If you have found God,all things are yours. If you are a slave of the Owner of All Things,His property is yours. If you are egotist and claim self-ownership,it is endless trial and tribulation. It is infinite torment you are to experience,it is an unbearable calamity. If you are truly a slave of God,devoted to Him,it is an infinite delight. Taste its uncountable rewards,experience its boundless bliss… Glory be to You! We know nothing but what you teach us. You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. O my Lord, relieve my mind and ease my task. Loosen a knot from my tongue so that they may understand my speech. O God, bestow peace and blessings on Muhammad, his pure, unique essence, who is the light revealing all the mysteries, the manifestation of light, the point upon which manifestations of God’s Majesty are centered, the pivot around which the world of His Grace and Beauty revolves. O God, for the mystery of him in his relation to You, and for his journeying toward You, secure me from my fears, protect me from falling, diminish my sorrows, and purify me of my passions. Be with me, take me away from myself unto You, favor me with effacement from myself. Do not leave me obsessed with my self and veiled by my feelings. Unveil to me every mystery. O Eternally Living and Self-Sustaining, O Eternally Living and Self-Sustaining, O Eternally Living and Self-Sustaining! Have mercy upon me, upon my companions, upon all believers, and upon all the people of the Qur’an. Amen. O Most Compassionate of the compassionate, O Most Generous of the generous! The conclusion of their call will be: All praise is due to God, the Lord of all the worlds.

Adapted from Bediuzzaman’s Twenty-third Word, Second Chapter.

Ibn Battuta and Marco Polo traveled through many of the same lands less than 50 years apart. They were able to do so, in part, due to some of the same conditions: the Pax Mongolia had united (and devastated) much of Central Asia, and China and India were relatively stable. Marco Polo traveled during the height of the Pax Mongolia, while Ibn Battutas travels occurred while the first effects of the Plague were being felt. In many of his descriptions, especially of older cities located in the vicinity of Persia and Central Asia, the destruction wrought by the Mongol conquest was still evident. Although Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta did not travel exactly the same path, a reader of both books nonetheless gets a sense of the changes occurring in those areas during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

Unfortunately for historians, Marco Polo does not always notice the same things, or simply chooses not to mention them. As he is concerned almost exclusively with what the land and its inhabitants produce, he rarely notices or comments on the destruction and decay that pepper many parts of Ibn Battutas travel narrative.

Travels in a Stricken Land

Ibn Battuta finds the first signs of decay after he leaves Makkah for Iraq. He leaves the main caravan to travel to Basra, which had been a main center of Islamic learning. He notes that he has to travel in the company of a large group of native Arabs, for it is impossible to travel in those regions except in their company. At least one danger he faces is that of Arabs inhabiting a waterlogged jungle of reeds in the area, who in fact did attack and plunder a party traveling behind his. Ibn Battuta does not comment on this, but the necessity of traveling with an armed escort and the constant threat of highway robbery would seem to indicate a weak central state.

Upon his arrival in Basra, Ibn Battuta is told that a large building located some distance outside of the city, the Mosque of Ali, used to be in the middle of the city. However, Basra has shrunk so much that it now stands alone. Another indication of Basras diminished status is the fact that during the Friday congregational prayer, the preachers sermon contains grammatical mistakes. He is also told that no one in the city speaks or writes grammatically correct Arabic”and this in the very city where Arabic grammar was devised and established! So it appears that this area has slipped from the control of whatever centralized government once controlled it, that the population has left, and that it is no longer a center of learning.

Reporting on his trip to Kufa, the other historically great garrison city in Persia, he writes that it also has diminished in size and prestige: Though it was once the abode of the Companions of the Prophet and of scholars and theologians, as well as the capital of Ali, Kufa has now fallen into ruins as a result of the attacks which it has suffered from the nomad Arab brigands in the neighborhood. That such a formerly important city has been left so vulnerable that even a band of brigands can attack it at will again indicates the central governments increasing weakness.

Even the western part of Baghdad is found to be partially in ruins: The hospital is a vast ruined edifice, of which only vestiges remain. Traveling near the Tigris river, he finds yet another city in ruins, as well as Jazirat ibn Umar and Nisibin. He observes a similar swath of destruction in Central Asia and in areas located to the north of India.

Marco Polo notes that some cities have been destroyed, but Ibn Battuta goes into much more detail. Bukhara, once the capital of the lands beyond the Oxus river, is mostly destroyed; Samarkand is likewise mostly in ruins, as is Balkh, where Genghis Khan partially destroyed a mosque in his search for treasure; Banj Hir (Panjshir) city has been destroyed, and the surrounding country uninhabited since that time.

Fondness for Miracles

Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta resemble one another in their fondness for miracles, especially those that validate their own religion or sect. Marco Polo tends to be more enthusiastic and narrates many miracles (second-hand) at great length, while Ibn Battuta is generally more skeptical. In addition, his miraculous happenings, if usually not very miraculous in nature, are easier to believe.

For example, he relates how the Caliph Walid I wish to expand the Umayyad mosque in Damascus into the area occupied by a church. The Greek Christians refused to sell the land, for they believed that anyone who destroyed the church would be stricken with madness. The caliph decided to set an example and thus began to tear down the church with his own hands. According to Ibn Battuta: The Muslims on seeing that followed his example, and God proved that the assertion of the Christians was false. Although Ibn Battuta does not exactly claim miraculous status for this event, the tone is very similar to the one used by Marco Polo to describe miracles performed by Christians in Muslim lands.

Many of Marco Polos miracles are a sort of polemic against Muslims, and many of Ibn Battutas miracles, as well, are polemical. He does not direct them against Christians, however, but rather against the Shiah, whom he dislikes intensely. He writes of a man who told the Shiah that he was the mahdi (the awaited messiah) and convinced people that he was going to perform many miracles. Of course none were actually performed.

He mentions the place in Mashhad Ali, located in the city of Najaf, that supposedly holds Ali’s tomb. The townspeople, all Shi, regard the miraculous healing of the sick that is said to occur there as proof that the place is, in fact, Ali’s final resting place. Ibn Battuta comments that the fact is widely known among them, and I heard it from trustworthy authorities, but I was not actually present on any such night. He also says that he saw some cripples there who were waiting for that night. Although he does not refute these events, he appears to be very hesitant to actually believe and confirm them. One might simply attribute this to his reluctance to give credence to supposed miracles that he did not actually witness. However, he is not so cautious about believing such stories in other places. For instance, during his stay in Shiraz, he visits the illustrious Shaykh Majd al-Din Ismail, the marvel of the age [who] is held in the highest esteem by the sultan of Iraq, for reasons which the following story will show.

He then relates how this shaykh was the judge of an Iraqi province that refused to turn Shiah. The sultan was infuriated and had him brought to his summer residence to be thrown to the large, fierce, man-eating dogs that he kept there. However, when the dogs were loosed on the judge Majd al-Din, they would not attack him but wagged their tails in the friendliest manner. The sultan thereupon rejected the Shiah doctrine. This incident is treated as something of a miracle and related in rather strong language, although Ibn Battuta did not actually witness it. Therefore, it does not seem that he is overly reluctant to accept miracles when it suits his purpose.

Views of Other Peoples

Although, as the translator points out, Ibn Battuta is quite tolerant of Christians (despite his frequent derogatory references to them), Marco Polo’s hostile attitude toward Muslims is mirrored very accurately in Ibn Battuta’s attitude toward the Shiah. He describes them as abominable people who hate the Ten Companions and every person whose name is Umar, and as revilers who hate the ten. He claims that in Sarmin, one cannot even mention the word ten. At one place, he refuses to enter the city because the inhabitants are fanatical Shiah. All of this is no doubt due in large part to his strict Maliki views. Another similarity between the two traveler’s work lies in what they choose to include and describe. One of the most striking elements is the character and appearance of the people they encounter. Generally, Ibn Battuta has good things to say about the people he meets, such as his assertions that the inhabitants of Makkah are very kind to strangers and the poor, the people of Shiraz are very pious and upright, and the women of Sana are virtuous and have many fine qualities. He also writes: I have never seen anywhere in the world more excellent people than the Khwarizmians, or more generous or more friendly to strangers. In Hinawr, the women are beautiful and virtuous. When he meets people he does not like, he is not slow to explain why. In Taizz, for example, the people are overbearing, insolent, and rude, as is generally the case in towns where kings reside. And the inhabitants of Bukhara are looked down upon and their evidence is not accepted in Kharizm and elsewhere, because of their reputation for fanaticism, falsehood, and denial of the truth.

Conclusion

Although Ibn Battuta and Marco Polo wrote their travelogues for somewhat different reasons, as they were of different religions and backgrounds and faced different circumstances, the two authors show a remarkable similarity in their approaches to their subject matter, that which interests them, and their reaction to the places they visit. Their works of course differ in some ways, but the similarities argue rather forcefully that the cosmopolitan, unified world to which they both seem to have felt they belonged did, in fact, exist

References

• Ibn Battuta. The Travels of Ibn Battuta (trans.) London: 1829.
• Marco Polo. The Travels. Translated by Ronald Latham. England: Penguin Books, 1958.

The movie makers probably did not intend to make killing look attractive. But was it the final effect anyways? Do movies depicting indecent acts fail to show the consequences sufficiently? What can society do about this trend? These and similar questions have been asked and debated for decades. Below, we analyze a time in Hollywood when the concentrated efforts of concerned individuals and organizations had a significant positive impact on forcing the movie industry to move toward self-regulation.

The Beginning of the Movie Industry

Movies rose as a new form of entertainment at the turn of twentieth century. By the 1920s, 40 million Americans were watching them each week. After winning the right to vote in 1920, flapper girls were exercising their new-found freedom, Harlem nightclubs flourished with whites with an interest in African American culture, and the number of gangs selling liquor during Prohibition increased. Movie producers displayed these value changes in their films to attract more young people. This started the big fight between America’s moral guardians and the movie makers.

Hollywood scandals in the early 1920s accelerated the demand for movie censorship. In 1921, the famous comedian Fatty Arbuckle was accused of raping and murdering a young actress; director William Desmond Taylor was found murdered, and a series of front page stories revealed his drug use and sex life; actor Wallace Reid died of a drug overdose; and America’s “sweetheart,” Mary Pickford, got a quick divorce to marry Douglas Fairbanks.

The motion picture business had become an industry. Film companies seeking to integrate production, distribution, and exhibition had one formula in mind: expansion meant capital, capital meant Wall Street, and Wall Street meant conservative business practices. They could not afford any scandals or federal investigations of Hollywood.

The Pressure for Codes Builds

Leff and Simmons write: “In 1921 alone, solons in thirty-seven states introduced nearly one hundred bills designed to censor motion pictures. Women could not smoke on screen in Kansas but could in Ohio; a pregnant woman could not appear on screen in Pennsylvania but could in New York. Six censorship states, which controlled over thirty percent of the theater seats in America, condemned illegitimacy and sexual deviance.”(1) State censors recut films after the producers, and the outcome was unfavorable. Local exhibitors were tired of the cost of censor cuts and attacks by the public and the media. In January 1922, the movie company presidents formed a trade association, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributers of America (MPPDA). Postmaster General Will Hays, an ex-Republican national chairman with White House connections, was chosen as their head. He was a great success as a spokesperson, but failed as a censor regulator of movie content.

Under Hays, Hollywood instituted a morals clause that, as part of the standard employment contract, regulated performers’ off-screen lives: “The artist agrees to conduct himself with due regard to public conventions and morals and agrees that he will not do or commit any act or thing that will tend to degrade him in society or bring him into public hatred, contempt, scorn or ridicule, or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or ridicule public morals or decency or prejudice the producer or the motion picture industry in general.”(2) Furious with such self-regulation and restraints, many ignored the contract, and so the scandals continued.

A mainly Protestant anti-movie lobby grew larger and more threatening in the mid-1920s. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the Reverand William H. Short’s Motion Picture Research Council, and Canon William Shaefe Chase’s Federal Motion Picture Council, among others, all lobbied for federal action. Supporters of cencorship bills claimed that movies were immoral, vile, and corrupting young people. With the advent of —talking— films, the moral guardians of America faced a bigger threat: movies were more popular and dialogue challenged public norms. According to Black: —In 1928 the New York State censorship board cut over 4,000 scenes from more than 600 films submitted, and Chicago censors sliced more than 600 scenes.—(3) Martin Quigley, owner and publisher of the industry trade journal Exhibitors Herald-World, initiated in 1929 the first attempt by Catholics to influence the film industry. Believing that government censorship was futile, he began thinking of a code that would include rules, regulations, and philosophy. Father FitzGeorge Dinneen, Chicago censor board advisor, sent him to Father Daniel Lord, a St. Louis University professor who could write the document. The resulting production code had three working principles:

• No picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it.

• Law, natural or divine, must not belittled, ridiculed, nor must a sentiment be created against it.

• As far as possible, life should not be misrepresented, at least not in such a way as to place in the mind of youth false values of life.(4)

The production code termed movies entertainment, and those who made them were obligated to produce —correct entertainment— for mass audiences. Movies had a profound impact on the —bodies and souls of human beings,— and could —affect spiritual and moral progress.— Hays saw the code in early 1930. He later wrote: —My eyes nearly popped out when I read it. This was the very thing I had been looking for.—(5) The code announced specific limitations on language and behavior. Lots of offensive words and phrases were banned, and the ridicule of religion, nudity, evocative dances, depiction of illegal drug use, and scenes of childbirth were prohibited. The code was explicit when it came to on-screen crime and sex:

I. Crimes against the Law

These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a desire for imitation.

1. Murder

1. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation
2.  Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified

2. Methods of crime should not be explicitly presented

1. Theft, robbery, safe cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method
2. Arson must be subject to the same safeguards
3. The use of firearms should be restricted to essentials d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented

3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented a. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

II. Sex

The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not interfere that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing. 1. Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated, or justified, or presented attractively. 2. Scenes of Passion a. They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot. b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown. c. In general passion should so be treated that these scenes do not simulate the lower and baser element.(6) Interestingly, the above principles set forth by a Catholic scholar were in perfect accord with the moral codes of Islam, another Abrahamic religion that prohibits the vivid depiction of actions not approved by God.(7) By the beginning of the Depression, film studios turned increasingly to themes of sex and violence to attract audiences. Finally, Hays used the resulting public reaction to persuade the studios that enforcing the code would be the most secure and economical answer to their troubles. If the movie industry regulated itself, it could prevent likely government intervention. The film companies were in debt, having spent a lot of money to introduce sound, and many had lost money in the stock market crash of 1929. Desperate to cut costs, they decided to avoid paying to revise the film after the censorship boards made their edits, by following the code before making their movies. The code was adopted in 1930.

Joe Breen Gets Involved

During 1930-34, movie producers ignored and openly mocked the code. The pressure continued from the Catholic Church with the support from Jewish and Protestant leaders. In 1934 Joe Breen, a strict Catholic moralist working as a public relations man for the production code in Hay’s office, was hired to run Hollywood’s Production Code Administration (PCA). Breen brought new standards: —The PCA had the authority to review all movies and demand script changes. Any theater that ran a film without the PCA seal of approval would be fined $25,000.—(8) Finally the Code had some power. Studios accepted it and produced films that met Breen’s standards. Largely because of his efforts to get the code implemented, it has become known as Breen’s Code. It lasted for more than two decades, being officially abandoned only in 1968. Breen’s Code is a perfect example of people affecting the behavior of institutions whose motives may not match the best interests of the people they serve. By expressing their dissatisfaction and organizing to pressure the motion picture industry, Americans managed to change the nature of the movie industry’s products toward higher moral standards held in common by most monotheistic religions. As we go into the twenty-first century, there are many areas in which people of faith can work together to make a positive change in their societies and the world

Footnotes

1. Six states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New York, Maryland, Kansas, and Virginia. Leonard J. Leff, and Jerold L. Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), 4.
2. Ibid., 5.
3. Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Censored (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 34.
4. Leff and Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono, 284-85.
5. Black, Hollywood Censored, 40.
6. Leff and Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono, 284-85.
7. Bukhari, —The Prophets,— No. 8.
8. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/beyond/hollywood.html.

Additional References

• O’Connor, John E. and Jackson, Martin A. (eds.). American History/American Film.
• New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1979. Walsh, Frank. Sin and Censorship. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

A: After belief in God, this is the main way to secure a peaceful social order. If I don’t believe in personal accountability, why should I be honest and upright? The Qur’an declares: In whatever affair you may be, and whichever part of the Qur’an you recite, and whatever deed you do, We are witness over you when you are deeply engrossed therein. Not an atom’s weight in the Earth and in the heaven escapes your Lord, nor is there anything smaller or greater, but it is in a Manifest Book (10:61).

Angels record our actions, and God knows our thoughts and deeds. Those who live accordingly find true peace and happiness in both worlds. This belief prevents young people from wasting their lives, gives hope to the elderly, and helps children endure the death of loved ones. It is as necessary as air, water, and bread.

As this belief leads to a life of peace, intellectuals seeking public peace and security should emphasize it. Those who are convinced of: Whoever does an atom’s weight of good shall see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil shall see it (99:7-8) live responsible lives. A community composed of such people finds true peace and happiness, and its people serve their nation and humanity.

Children are easily affected by events. Their world becomes dark when they see death or are orphaned, and they become depressed. When one of my sisters died during my childhood, I frequently went to her grave and prayed sincerely: O God, please bring her back to life and let me see her beautiful face once more, or let me die so as to be reunited with her. What other than this belief and reunion with loved ones can compensate us for such losses?

How can you compensate the elderly for what they have lost? How can you remove their fear of death and the grave or make them forget death? More and newer worldly pleasures cannot console them. Only convincing them that the grave is a door or a waiting room to a much better world can accomplish this.

The Qur’an voices such feelings through Prophet Zachariah: This is a mention of your Lord’s mercy unto His servant Zachariah; when he invoked Him with a secret, sincere call, saying: My Lord, my very bones have become rotten and my head is shining with gray hair. My Lord! I have never been disappointed in my prayer to You (19:2-5).

Fearing that his surviving kinsmen would not be loyal to his mission, Zachariah asked his Lord for a son to continue it. This is the cry of all elderly people. Belief in God and the Resurrection tells them: Death is only a change of worlds, a discharge from this life’s distressing duties, a passport to an eternal world where all kinds of beauty and blessing wait for you Only this console them and allows them to face death without fear.

Q: What about our free will?

A: Our free will, which directs our life and makes us unique, is the manifestation of Divine Mercy. If used properly, it will cause us to be rewarded with the fruits of Mercy. Belief in the Resurrection is a most important and compelling factor urging us to use our free will properly.

Sahl ibn Sa’d narrates that God’s Messenger was told of a young man who stayed at home for days. The Messenger went to visit him. When the young man saw him appear before him unexpectedly, he threw himself into the Messenger’s arms and died instantly. The Messenger said: Lay out your friend’s corpse. Fear of Hell frightened him deeply. I swear by Him in Whose hand my life is that God will protect him from Hell. The Qur’an declares: Those who fear to stand before their Lord and curb the desires of the carnal self, Paradise will be their dwelling place (79:40-1).

In a hadith qudsi, God says: I will not unite two securities or two fears. Thus, those who fear His punishment here will be protected from it in the other world, while those who do not fear it here will not be saved from it there.

Q: What impact did this belief have upon early Muslims?

A: Upon seeing a young man bravely protest and resist a wrong, Umar said: Any people deprived of its young are doomed to extinction. If young people waste their transforming energy, your nation’s future is undermined. Belief in the Resurrection directs them to lead a disciplined, useful, and virtuous life.

This belief consoles the sick. Secure in this knowledge, all beloved servants of God, Prophets and saints, welcome death with a smile. During his final minutes of life, Prophet Muhammad said: O God, I desire the eternal company in the eternal world. When Umar ruled over a vast area, he prostrated before God and sighed: I can no longer fulfill my responsibility. Let me die and take me to Your Presence.

Such a strong desire for the world of eternal beauty and being blessed with the vision of the Eternally Beautiful One caused the Prophet, Umar, and many others to prefer death to this world.

Q: Does it matter if I believe in the Resurrection?

A: The world is a mixture of opposites. Many instances of wrong (seem) go unnoticed, and many wronged people cannot recover their rights. Only belief in being resurrected in another world of absolute justice dissuades them from revenge. Similarly, the sick and unfortunate are consoled, for they believe that their suffering purifies them and that their loss will be restored in the Hereafter as a blessing, just as if they had been given as alms.

This belief changes a house into a garden of Paradise. A family without religion contains young people pursuing pleasure, children ignorant of religious sentiment and practices, and parents striving for the good life. Grandparents live in an old-folks or nursing home and console themselves with pets Life is a burden. Belief in the Resurrection reminds people of familial responsibilities. By undertaking their duties, an atmosphere of mutual love, affection, and respect begins to pervade the house.

Spouses deepen their mutual love and respect. Physical love is temporary, of little value, and usually disappears quickly. But if spouses believe that their marriage will continue in a world where they will be eternally young and beautiful, their mutual love will remain…

Such a belief-based family life makes its members feel that they are living in Paradise. If a country orders itself accordingly, its inhabitants would enjoy a life far better than that imagined by Plato in his Republic or by al-Farabi in his The Virtuous City. It would be like Madina under the Prophet, or the Muslim lands under Umar.

Q: How did the Prophet establish the ideal society in Madina?

A: To better understand this, we provide several of his sayings on the Resurrection and the afterlife:

O people! You will be resurrected barefoot, naked, and uncircumcised. Listen to me! The one who will be first clothed is Abraham. Heed what I say: That day some from my Umma will be seized on the left side and brought to me. I will say: O Lord! These are my Companions. I will be told: You do not know what disagreeable things they did after you. I will say as the righteous servant [Jesus] said: I was a witness over them while I continued to stay among them. When You took me, You became the watcher over them. You are Witness over all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves; if You forgive them, surely You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

The most terrible event is death. However, death is easier than what will follow it. People will be so terrified that sweat will cover their bodies until it becomes like a bridle around their chins, until it grows into something like a sea on which, if desired, vessels could be sailed.

People will be resurrected in three groups: those who combined fear of God with expectation [fearing God’s punishment and hoping for His mercy and forgiveness], those who [frequently sinned and so] will try to go to Paradise mounted on a mule in twos, threes, fours … or tens. The rest will be resurrected into Fire [since they indulged in deeds deserving Hellfire]. If they sleep in the forenoon, Hell sleeps with them; when they reach night, Hell reaches night with them; when they reach morning, Hell reaches morning with them; and when they reach evening, Hell reaches evening with them.

God’s Messenger made sure his Companions understood exactly what Hell was, and roused in them a great desire for Paradise by conveying its good tidings. Thus they lived in great consciousness of Divine reward and punishment, as well as religious obligations and people’s rights.