Author: admin

ETH 2050
Final Essay Instructions and Prompts.
I.             
Instructions
& Requirements
·      Choose from one of the three
essay prompts below and respond with an essay of 1250-1750
words. There should be a re-stating of the prompt, a thesis, key supporting points,
evidence from the texts we’ve used in class, a conclusion, and a works cited page.
o  
You must reference at
least three sources from the course’s required reading for this assignment.
§ 
Outside sources will not count toward the three-source requirement.
o  
Late papers will be
penalized 10 points per 24 hours late.
§  Paper must be: 1) free of spelling
and grammatical errors;
2) 12-point font, double-spaced; 3) Be within the designated word count range.
Papers must include a works cited page
and proper in-text citations. Failure
to follow these specifications will result in penalties.
II.          
Prompts
·     
Religious Discourse and Social Change
o   Utilizing the categories of religious discourse and social change
supplied by Grelle, select and categorize three thinkers we visited in the
second half of class into either a reformative, revolutionary, or
transformative approach. Then, argue which thinker’s arguments are most
successful in sparking social change. Provide evidence to support your claim.
o   Your thesis should go like this: “While we analyzed many discursive and religious strategies for
creating social change this semester, I argue that the X approach taken by Y
(theorist) is the most effective.”  
§  From there, you will want to explain why you identified this thinker as
the most effective and offer two other thinkers who take different approaches
that you find less compelling. Provide evidence that supports your positions.
·      Religion, Race, Gender, &
Sexuality.
o   In Audre Lorde’s “The Master’s Tools,” she writes that “without community, there is no
liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an
individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a shedding of our
differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist.”
Instead, if we want to create lasting, transformative change for a better
world, we must learn “how to take our differences and make them strengths, for
the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us
temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring
about genuine change” (2).
§  Write an essay arguing that one of the
other religious approaches in this unit exudes what Lorde suggests above. After
providing an intro and thesis, a successful essay will (1) contextualize and
parse the meaning of Lorde’s statement quoted above and (2) identify another
author in the Race, Gender, and Sexuality unit that successfully implements or
embodies Lorde’s suggested approach. To draw attention more sharply to your
chosen author’s methodology, you will then (3) identify and compare their work
with another author who does not embody or oppose Lorde’s difference-centered
approach to social change.[1]
You should then
provide a conclusion summarizing your steps and argument.
·      Religion, Violence, and
Non-Violence:
o  
Using
texts from this section of our course, write an essay arguing whether certain
religious thinkers can work together to assess and determine if martial action is
just or unjust in a given situation.
§ 
After
stating your thesis, this essay should first (1) define just war theory and
give the reader a brief introduction to the concept; second (2) it should
introduce the parties[2]
you have chosen to analyze and their positions regarding the just war debate (for
example, are you comparing Christian pacifists—like Yoder and Hauerwas—with
advocates of just war theory—like Kelsay—or are you comparing Kelsay & the
writers of the open Letter to ISIS?); then (3) you should bring these two
groups into conversation with one another and provide compelling evidence
through comparison that reinforces your thesis. You should then provide a
conclusion that summarizes your steps and argument.
III.        
Grading Criteria
·     
Do you follow directions? Does the essay respond to the prompt? Do
you write on what I am asking for? Are there in-text citations, and is there a work
cited page?
·     
Is the thesis clear? This is the most essential part of any essay.
Please, God almighty, don’t make me find your thesis. It should be
painfully obvious where and what it is. 
·     
Does your argument support your thesis? Is it logically consistent?
Each section of your essay should buttress the previous part and prime the
reader for the next section.
·     
Grammar and syntax. If I am the first person to read your essay
(other than yourself), you’re doing college wrong. Find a friend that you trust
to give your paper a once over. You’d be surprised by how much your peers can
help you with this.
·     
Does the essay display a mastery of the material you are writing on?
Does the essay feel clunky? Or does the writer feel completely comfortable with
the ideas they are wielding?
o  
For each of these criteria/questions, choose the following answer
§ 
100% Yesà
“A”
§ 
Yes, with only a few exceptionsà “B.”
§ 
For the most part, yesà “C”
§ 
Not really…à
“D”
§ 
Nope. Not even closeà “F”
[1] (For example, you could argue that
Tonstad understands the importance of difference for the sake of change, which
is why in her Queer Theology, she argues queer theology must not merely
be about the inclusion of queer people into heteronormative spaces. Or you
could say that MLK Jr’s Letter rejects the master tools as the only
means for creating change in his critique of the white moderate pastors who
disagreed and denounced his acts of civil disobedience.)
[2] Since this is a comparative argument,
there must be at least two groups or thinkers you are working with. I suggest
you only do two groups due to the word limit. 
Readings to use:
1. The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House
Audre Lorde
https://collectiveliberation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Lorde_The_Masters_Tools.pdf
2.  Jones, Feminist Theory, Ch. 2, Women’s Nature

3. Womanist Theology EMILIE M. TOWNES
https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/bitstream/handle/1803/8226/Townes-WomanistTheology.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1