System Examples

Countrywide did nothing to help because it didn't have to. We live in a capitalist economy, and so mostly everyone (but not all) are in the game to make money. Countrywide is not a company intended to help the people it serves; it is meant to make a profit for those in the company (even though their services in someways help others). This man who had his house taken away is not their problem. They followed the law and their own personal rules, and so they did "nothing wrong and were doing their job". What should have been done was this: the letter from the foreclosure section of Countrywide should have sent the original notice in his language(especially if they had the "decency" to tell him that they were taking away his house in his own language), and should have had Countrywide's name on the envelope. After the house was taken, Countrywide should have realized that even though they did nothing "wrong", their system is corrupt and had unfairly hurt one of its customers.
Because I am not part of their system, I feel that they were in the wrong. Were I in the situation of that guy I would be so pissed because I was being unfairly screwed. I would hate to be in that situation, and so I can give him sympathy. On the flipside, if I were part of Countryside I would feel horrible, but I wouldn't do anything about it. What happened was not against the law, and he was treated like any other customer. If I were very high up in the company and had jurisdiction over these matters, then I would do something (like the 1st servant had the power to do). But as a lower employee (like the second servant) I would fear for my own job and well being. Also helping this guy might mean an overturning of the whole system, and if that meant hardship for me and the rest of the company, I probably wouldn't want it to happen. And that is the sad truth.


The Stanford prison experiment is realistic and scary example of how people with power abuse it. The study involved people who were normally nice, but as soon as they were assigned certain roles (prison guard-prisoner -->oppressor-oppressed), they conformed to those roles. The "guards" were given the power to do basically whatever they wanted to because they were given power over the prisoners. They became oppressors, I think, for two reasons. One is that there was this idea in the back of their mind that the prisoners had done something bad to be their (purely psychological). Therefore, they had to punish them for committing whatever wrong they had done. The other reason is that they needed to show their power. If your parents tell you not to do something but you know they consequences will be minimal, then you will probably go ahead and do it. In the same way, if a guard comes off as weak the prisoners will be given reason to not behave. The guards were oppressive because they had to show who was in charge, not only to protect the system, but also to protect their own sense of power and worth. And so systems make normal people behave badly because the people are benefiting from the system (self-worth, salary), and they can always hide behind the fact that they were only doing what was permitted or actually helping the oppressed. If you think about it, every situation that you face in requires an examination of how you might benefit and whether you can justify your actions. And so you can see systems have the ability to tip the scales on a normal and moral person's choice.

Carlos Moreno lived in Boston, where there was a lot of youth violence. When afterschool program funding was completely cut, crime rose and Carlos got involved in getting more jobs for youth and helped organizing addressment of these issues to state and local government. So why did he do this? The answer, I think, is that he saw something wrong and saw a way he could try and fix it. The information doesn't say if he had a personal connection with the violence, but I don't think that it needs to. I believe that everyone has the capacity to do something good or at least think of some way to help others. Some people, however, have a more of this than others and have more of an inclination to act upon them. Carlos would be one of those people. I think it is also important to point out that Carlos wasn't really taking any risks (accept using up his time and possibly his money). Even if his campaign failed, things would be no worse of than they were before.

Why systems serve to benefit themselves

Systems tend to be self-serving, unethical, and conservative because people in power are mostly selfish and seek only to benefit themselves and those surrounding them.
Sometimes the system governs their affairs to get a profit (not necessarily monetary). For example, the U.S.’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is supposed to be making peace. Instead, our leaders favor the oppressors because they can better satisfy our needs, regardless of the injustices it causes. Again with the government, many argue that we are still in the Middle East to get oil and profit in other ways (e.g. Haliburton). While this helps the rich get richer, it is at the cost of not only American hard earned money and lives, but also trust and patriotism. In both of the above situations, those in charge, as heads of the system, have the power to do what is morally just and beneficial for our people, our country, and our global community. But if termination of these operations hurts me in any way, why should I stop them? In the case of the Revolutionary War, the pre-war consensus was that there needed to exist a republican government in which all (white) men had a voice in affairs. Represented at the Constitutional Convention were all wealthy men, and their fear of power in hands other than the elite resulted in a system that only gave voting rights to the propertied, and then only allowed them to vote for one-half of one-third of the government. Their fear of loss of power ended up completely changing the original ideals that progressed the founding of the government itself.
Because those who often run systems have insatiable appetites for both material and political power, they ignore their duties to those they are supposed to serve. That is not to say that all systems are this way. There are many leaders out there who truly believe in bettering whatever system they belong to. The question is, when they are given the power to redirect it for the betterment of other or themselves, which way will they swing?


It is not that there are systems that don't work or serve to benefit the lowly. For example, Kennedy started the Peace Corps because he believed that America, in all her wealth and prosperity, should give back to the less fortunate. But these good systems are short lived. When a good regime is in power, there is always another group that looks upon the leading group as doing it wrong, because all people have different opinions, goals, and morals. If this second party tries hard enough, they can oust the moral group and insert their own influence over the system, turning it bad and to benefit themselves. Examples of this overthrowing are in the assasinations of Abe Lincoln, JFK, and Martin Luther King.

Questions about the Unforgiving Servant

The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant is first and foremost about people who do not forgive others, in this case Peter and the servant. Peter asks the question in the beginning: “…how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times"? He sees that if someone continually wrongs you, eventually there is a point at which you should stop forgiving them. This isn’t a totally wrong idea; if someone continually is wronging and hurting you, you eventually see that they are no good and stop giving them chances. But I think the parable is less about forgiving things that people have control over, and more about forgiving what is out of someone’s control, like debt. The servant is given a chance, and it may be the first, second, or even 490th (70 x 7) time, and yet he doesn’t reciprocate that charity. Peter is not without need of forgiveness, and he is obviously forgiven. Therefore he should not be placing a limit on how much he should forgive. This parable is about Peter and servant because the parable’s message is portrayed through their actions.
One might ask why the king forgives the servant’s debt. As the Bible says, he is filled with compassion. But I think there’s also more to it than that. The king, because he is a king, is obviously rich. He is also sort of mean, as we see from him wanting to sell the servant and family for not paying the debt. But he does forgive them, which means either he realizes that the money owed is insignificant compared to his wealth, or something just suddenly overcomes him to do the right thing. So why does the servant not follow his example on the lower servant? It might be that he doesn’t make a connection between his actions and the kings (a.k.a. he’s ignorant). It might be that he is just plain greedy, and regardless of what lesson he has learned it is not worth giving up 100 denarii. One last possibility is that he might think that because he has been forgiven by the king, he has this feeling of “importance” and is somehow above everyone else because now.

When Peter originally asks if there is a certain amount of times that one should forgive someone, Jesus replies: "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven”, and then goes on to say that because of the this, the Kingdom of God is like the parable. “If you do not forgive, then like the servant you shall not be forgiven”. When the king hears of the servant’s mistreatment of one of his servants, the tortures him, and Jesus says that God does the same. So in his kingdom, since he forgives you, you better damn well forgive others.

I think that there is a lot more to this parable than I'm talking about, because the answers seem to obvious. I hope this isn't kitchen-sinking it.

NPR sections 3-7

Section 3:
Britain is unable to resolve conflicts between Jews and Arabs, ans so first limits immigration from Europe. In reataliation, the Jews organize both a diplomatic campaign to get Jews into Israel and support illegal immigration. Fighting also occures from Jewish extremist who become later leaders. Britain finally becomes exhausted ans so withdraws and hand the problem over to the newly formed UN, which wants to partician the land (US supports). Particianing of land passed in UN which causes disorganized and weak Arab offense. Nonetheless, Israel is declared an independent state. They end up occupying more land than promised and so force Palestinians to flee as refugees. This aspect of the problems is hugely significant today.

Section 4:
1967 - Israel is surrounded by Arabs (Egyptians, Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians) who want them out of there. The Soviet Union misinforms Syria that Israel had plans to invade, and they inturn tell radical and powerful Egypt, who begins attacks on Israel. Israel holds back on fighting order to prove it had exhausted all forms of diplomacy to the US, then begins The Six Days War. In this they put a whooping on Egypt (Egypt blames failure on US involment which is untrue but cost US many Arab allies), seize Jerusalem from Jordan (which they had not been allowed to enter), and capture Golan Heights. In the end it caused expansion of Israel (geographically, militarily, politically), an new sense of pride and nationalism, American involvement, and Palestinian guerilla warfare.

Section 5:
1973 - The Yom Kippur War is started by Egyptians and Syrians trying to gain back lands lost in 6 day war. This shakes the Israelis and though they prevent reaquisition, it proves that the Israeli army is not invincible. America takes opportunity to become leader in negotiations, which has caused lots of controversy. The Israelis and Egyptians sighn a treaty restoring Sinai back to Egypt while Egypt and in effect the rest of the Arab world, acknowledged Israel's right to exist. It also meant that the Arabs world would not support the Palestinians, though thy and Americans tried to lobby Israel to allow a state. This leaves Palestinians on their own and makes them relize a need to negotiate, but also leads to the movement to try and totally remove Israel in the '80's.

Section 6:
'87 - Palestinians confront Israelis in non military intifada. This reached out to to Israel saying : "We are going to resist and it is in your best interest to listen", and many Israelis did. As intifada pressed on some Israelis began to promote particioning, and met in Oslo to discuss. The Oslo Agreement was signed in '93 at the White House by Rabin and Arafat, and envisioned a Palestinian state. It however didn't provide how do get there Oslo agreement partly failed b/c Arafat didn't know what he agreed to, and because Rabin was assasinated. Meanwhile, Hamas and Jihad had built up andd they would have a significant on violence to come.

Section 7:
Basically Oslo is totally killed by assasination of Rabin and suicide bombers of Hamas. The New prime minister slows withdrawl of occupation and increases building, Arafat doesn't follow agreement to stop armament or provide democracy. Clinton brings both sides together fr peace talks, but both sides fail. The second intifada breaks out on a much larger and more violent scale thanks to Ariel Sharon. And that is where we are left. Boy this blows.

Parable of the Tenants

I’m pretty confused sooooo I’m going to just take a stab at it, and if I kill it then I’m sorry (I hope I’m not washing dishes).

The parable, I think, illustrates that the system is corrupt. As a metaphor it might represent the state of affairs of 1st century Palestine. In metaphor, the Israelites are represented by the tenants to whom Yahweh has given the land. Because the landowner is distinguished as a Jew, he represents the Jewish leaders of the time who, though they are their kin, oppress the poor, in direct violation of God’s laws.
Verses 10-12 talk about how some builders had chosen not to use a section of stone (probably because they deemed it of low quality or not good or whatever stone guys do). This rejected stone however turns out to become the tablets of which The Law is written upon. What was rejected and viewed as garbage has all of a sudden become the most important thing on earth. Like the stone guys, the tenants and Pharisees (Scribes, Sadducees, e.t.c…) are given the power to create a super awesome structure, or society. The choice made is poor, and so there are consequences they must face. Had the builders picked up the crappy stone, one might assume that, based it’s destiny as something so great, whatever was being built would be incredible. If this is the case, then if the tenants/leaders were to pick up the crappy pieces (the poor), then some great institution might become of the whole. Therefore, the parable shows that “the system” must be run in such a way that one group does not oppress the other.

The Mustard Weed

By comparing heaven to a weed, Jesus suggests that heaven is enforcive. A mustard seed, when planted, is nearly impossible to get rid of. Similarly with heaven, if you commit yourself as a child of God and one who seeks to enter heaven then you can’t later deny yourself and undo it. It’s like a promise made to a friend that you can’t get out of. And if say you break your promise in order to keep a promise with another friend, then like a weed heaven would choke it’s opponent to death.