Social traditions are not the only issue that can be worth challenging.

There is also the matter of

two groups that would normally stay away from one another; deciding to cooperate with each

other. In Taylor Lucks article, A Jordanian City Offers Lessons of Peace Among Christians

and Muslims, it shows how the two religious groups thrive together as a community. Under

normal circumstances, both groups would limit communication or not interact at all, yet the

situation in Karak is different, We have a unique situation in Karak, where community comes

first and religion is second (Luck). Unlike most situations involving two religious groups, both

sides have decided to put their differences aside and get along, despite what religious traditions

would state otherwise. Some people will claim that these two groups are only interacting out of

economic necessity. As Luck puts it in his article, Muslims and Christians, whether merchants

or Bedouin herders, would rely on each other for access to markets and the trade of their

livestock (Luck). Yes, those who would argue this point would be correct in pointing this out

but they did not consider the difference in a place such as Karak, For centuries, both groups in

the area have come to one anothers aid, Mediate disputes and have represented one another in

rites of passage (Luck). So, not only have both groups grown to work together as a community,

they have also thrived on their path for many years in the past. Returning to the matter of

religious doctrines prohibiting interactions between two different religious groups, those of

Karak have mixed up their traditions by practicing the other partys beliefs. As Luck states in his

article, Many Christians still fast during the holy month of Ramadan, and older generations of

Muslims had their children baptized as an extra blessing (Luck). Rather than outright denying

the other group or criticizing the other, they have not only come together as a one community,

they have also mixed both of their religious traditions together, causing progress similar to that

of Harts story, how one person tried to mix two separate groups onto participating in the same
practice of obtaining water.

Some people would argue that changing the way of practicing a tradition is wrong. That

was the case for National Public Radio in Ilene Aleshires article, Life, Liberty, Happiness:

Declaration of Independence Provokes controversy. In the article, NPR had a tradition: to have

various people read out a section of the Declaration of Independence on the air every fourth of

July (Aleshire). They decided to change up their tradition once by tweeting the document itself

on Twitter. The idea sounded great in theory, however, in practice, the result if this ended up in

backlash against NPR. In one instance, one person who decried NPRs decision stated, So NPR

is calling for revolution. Interesting way to condone violence while trying to sound Patriotic.

Your implications are clear (Alshire). On one hand, a person understandably went against what

NPR did, similar to how the boys in Harts short story were against girls going to obtain the

water. On the other hand, Aleshire later went on to say that some people who decried NPRs

decision to change how they handled their annual event, Did not recognize the source of the

tweets (Aleshire). The problem there was that some of the people who went against NPR took

the situation out of context, whereas the boys in Harts story were in context:

Because all the boys knew, from the moment Miss Ralston had spoken, that

something of theirs was being threatened and that, as long as there was the

remotest chance that any girl might get to carry the water, they had to do

everything in their power to stop it. (Hart)

Despite it being a fictional example of a possible backlash, the boys knew where to aim their

anger at, whereas the people who decried NPR did not. The result of that backlash toward NPR

made it likely that the people came across as mindless drones. Another point that Aleshire covers

that further disproved the claim of those who cried out was when people called for the immediate
punishment of NPR. Some of those who demanded for the immediate defunding of NPR, in the

mistaken belief that it is federally financed, this is not the case since she immediately points out

that most of their fundings are from donations received (Aleshire). Those who lashed out were

mistakenly taking out their anger in the wrong way instead of looking at the situation more

closely before coming to their conclusion. This shows that when a tradition is set aside, or in this

case, changed as a part of an experiment, there is a possibility that some will lash out in blind

aggression.