Post 3: Henry IV

The Christian religion is the prime religion apparent in Henry IV by William Shakespeare and while everyone, even the rowdy Falstaff, takes part in this religion, their levels of devotion vary. For instance, the King at the beginning of the play was about to embark on a pilgrimage and was considered to be a very moral, honourable man during the play. Falstaff recognized Christianity and even made references to the bible, and occassionally attempted to reconcile his sins but soon gave up that notion and went back to his stealing ways. While Hal was ambivalent between these two extremes, he seems to take religion in a more casual way, using it to find his morals because in a way, he will one day be the God of the society: people have great respect for him and his actions show that he knows what the right thing to do is.

Falstaff at times tries to pursue religion and become "good" but is religion the only thing that could make him good? Does this mean that an entire society is motivated to be good only by means of religion?

On pg. 21 (lines 145): Falstaff: Hawl, wilth thout make on? Prince: Who, I Rob? I a thief? Not I, by my faith. Falstaff: There's neither honesty, manhood, nor good fellowship in thee, nor thou cam'st not of the blood royal, if thou darest not stand for ten shillings.

Hal insists that his religion is what prohibits him from stealing, so is he refraining ONLY from religion?

On pg. 19 (lines 96-105): Falstaff: O, thou hast damnable iteration, and art indeed able to corrupt a saint. Thou hast done much harm upon me, Hal, God forgive tehe for it. Before I knew thee, Hal, I knew nothing and now am I, if a mand should speak truly, little better than one of the wicked. I must give over this life, and I will give it over. By the Lord, an I do not, I am a villain. I'll be damned for never a kign's son in Christendom. Prince: Where shall we take a purse tomorrow, Jack?

Just when Falstaff tries to leave his villainous ways behind, he easily crosses back over. There appears to be the religious: the king, the unreligious: Falstaff, and the beneficial equillibrium inbetween: the Prince.

Post 2: Oedipus Rex

After reading Oedipus, Mrs. Makovsky posed a question to the class about whether the gods in Oedipus were benign or vicious. While I came to the conclusion that they were a compromise between the two, a more fateful influence. Some character's actions appeared to be dictated by the gods, for instance the blind seer, while Oedipus spent his time running from the actions of the gods, or so it seemed. I am interested in how the presence of God and religion play into society today. Did anything within Oedipus' religious beliefs motivate his actions or was it all cause by fate?

The people in Oedipus' society were horrified that he would marry his mother and murder his father, as anyone would be, but was this caused by their strong religious basis? Did religion influence society's views of individuals and their actions? Does religion make people moral and good? Do we do this by nature?

Do we count on religion to teach young people morals? Is this because we cannot count on our own actions to show youth the right way to go? While Oedipus was unaware that he murdered his father and married his mother, is it religion that makes this wrong? Or rather a standard social contract?

Post 1: Big Question

What roles do God and religion play in society?

It seems that even through our studies in history, entire societes and eras have revolved around their numerous Gods and religions. Religion has also provoked conflict between groups with differing perspectives, which seems contradictory in that religion is supposed to be a unifying force between people. What makes people believe in a God or a religion? Is it a something that causes mostly unification or mostly conflict? Why do some people believe in God but others not?

Another thing that motivates me to ask this question is why do people need a religion to make their lives worthwhile? And also how do people believe in a religion or a God that does offer any proof? Is religion merely a tool to help people be more moralistic?