Nothing is a more divisive issue in America currently than the War on Terror. From one side of the aisle you have those who defend it passionately condemning a regime that used torture, fear, and killed thousands of citizens to retain its power. From the other side you have those who maintain that our government’s motivations for this war were not just, but were in fact crooked; ranging from the eagerness to spread American imperialism to the motivation of “blood for oil”.
America is divided there is no question; but through reading James Childress’ “Just War Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities, and Functions of their Criteria”, and doing a bit of independent research of my own I hope to show that this war met the just war criteria with some provisions.
Let us first examine what Childress describes as “just war criteria”. In Just War Theories Childress explains that each of us as human beings have a Prima Facie (translated: at first sight, on the surface of) duty not to injure or kill any other human being. However this duty can be overridden if certain criteria are met hence the “just war criteria”. This does not mean that we discard completely the initial Prima Facie duty but rather do our best to honor it despite our new obligation. For example:
If I were to promise my best friend that I would throw him a bachelor party in honor of his recent engagement; but the week of this party in the middle of planning, my father in a different state dies suddenly of a heart attack and I am needed to attend the funeral. My promise to my friend would have to be broken, but that does not mean I would forget it entirely. I would most certainly apologize for not being able to keep the promise and perhaps I would also offer to throw him the party on another weekend when I return. (1)
Childress explains that this same concept applies to our initial Prima Facie obligation not to kill or injure another. If we must go to war then we must do everything in our power to honor the initial obligation rather than discard it. Childress also explains that our conduct is governed by three types of obligations; absolute, relative and (as described above) Prima Facie.(2) Absolute obligations are obligations that have priority over all other obligations and cannot be overridden in any circumstances (these are essentially our universal truths). Relative obligations are moreover maxims or “rules of thumb”; these obligations guide our decisions but do not prescribe any particular action. And of course Prima Facie, as described above is at face value a strong moral truth though it is not fully binding in determining a course of action. I will use an example from Childress on the difference between absolute obligations and Prima Facie obligations.
Ex. 1) The commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”
This commandment is at face value Prima Facie because it does not take into account the idea of just wars, capital punishment and so forth.
However, if this commandment was stated:
“Thou shalt not murder.”
This would be an absolute obligation because the definition of murder (as defined in the Princeton online dictionary) is: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being (3)
The just war criteria laid out in this article are, in no particular order, legitimate/competent authority, just cause, right intention, announcement of intention, last resort, reasonable hope of success, and proportionality.
Competent authority is described as “…a precondition for answering the others…” (4). It basically poses the question; is our leadership morally sound in judging our reasons for going to war? Once this is determined we can begin to ask ourselves if the other criteria are met to justify action. Just cause is simply to determine if the reason for going to war is significant enough to outweigh the initial obligation of not harming or killing others. Some just causes may include severe human rights abuses, to protect those who cannot defend themselves or to restore basic rights that have been denied. However, even if your cause is just it does not mean you are free to go to war so long as there is a way to achieve your goal short of it.(5)
Right intention comes into play when you consider the outcomes of the conflict you are determining. It involves the goals of peace, reconciliation, and avoidance of unnecessary destruction throughout the conflict. An announcement of intention is another method, though old somewhat old fashioned, of trying to avoid a conflict. When a nation declares a declaration of war it explains and attempts to justify a move towards forceful conflict.
Any nation that considers engaging in a just war must consider the reasonable hope of success as well. To engage in a never ending conflict without a reasonable goal to achieve is irresponsible and is not ethical. An excellent example of a war without reasonable hope of success was the Vietnam conflict in which America did not commit wholeheartedly to defending democracy in South Vietnam. As a result the conflict was long and drawn out and the American casualties died without a specific objective being fulfilled.
The principle of reasonable hope ties in with the principle of proportionality in which the cost is weighed against the outcome of the conflict. Here is an illustration of this principle:
Ex. 2) Key leaders of a terrorist group are cornered in an old apartment complex. They have taken over 50 civilians hostage and are executing them every half hour, their demands are simple, they want a safe passage out of the building and a rendezvous with their comrades back to the safety of their villages where they will be hidden by other citizens. If these leaders escape then they will continue to commit terrorist acts against other innocents and will inspire others to join their cause. You are the commanding officer.
Do you comply with their demands and hope to rescue the hostages, or do you blow up the building to prevent the terrorists from escaping?
Is the price worth the potential future outcome? That is the proportionality principle in action. And the final criterion that needs to be met in order to justify a conflict is the last resort principle defined simply as; the course of action when all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted.
To apply these criterion Childress, in his article, gives us five different methods. (6)
A war is considered just if:
1) It meets all the criterion listed above
2) If it meets several criterion (though no particular criteria are specified)
3) Certain fundamental criterion must be met before others are considered
4) Considers criterion as Prima Facie
5) Considers criterion as maxims ( to illuminate but not to prescribe course of action)
Any of these methods are acceptable according to Childress in deciding if a war is just but the most commonly used application is the second point.
Now that I have discussed the definition of just war, the criterion that needs to be met and the situations in which you can apply the criterion, it is essential to, point out as Childress does in this essay, that just because we have determined when it is acceptable to go to war, even if justly, we should exercise this very carefully.
“Just because we have the right to do something doesn’t mean we ought to do it.” (7)
In regards to the War on Terror we have to examine two different facets of this conflict the first being was it a “just war” to begin with and does our cause remain just almost a decade into it. On September 11, 2001 three commercial airliners full of civilians were driven into the World Trade Center and Pentagon another crash landed in a field due to the efforts of the American patriots on board who would not let their plane be the fourth to hit an important landmark in America. This day defined terror in a whole new way for the average American. We saw the ugly face of fundamentalist religion rear its head and consume close to 3,000 innocent civilians. This attack was years in planning and the men felt no remorse killing the innocents but rather felt it an honor to die in the service of their God.
Across the world in the countries of the Middle East Palestinians and Iraqis and many others danced for joy in the streets upon hearing the news of this tragedy. Our retaliation was against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan for supporting and harboring those responsible.
America’s focus shifted to Iraq soon after Afghanistan for similar reasons such as the suspicion of aiding terrorist networks and the development of weapons of mass destruction. The three main reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq were presented by the Bush administration preceding the invasion.
Firstly the argument of preemption was presented. The main argument here was that the use of force was necessary and justified in order to keep Saddam Hussein from using the chemical and biological weapons his country had and to also keep him from developing nuclear capabilities which he continued to pursue vigorously despite the sanctions placed on Iraq after their invasion of Kuwait in the first gulf war. This does fall into the categories of just cause and right intention though preemption is hotly debated. The cause is however just in the regard that the United States wanted to keep weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capabilities out of the hands of a ruthless and unpredictable dictator and the intention is right because the goal is a peaceful and safer world as the outcome. President Bush addressed the security council on this point saying:
“Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and friends, it would be wreckless to accept the status quo.”
The second argument for action against Iraq was the enforcement of International Law. The United Nations took a passive approach to Iraq despite the continual violations of the 1991 truce after the first Gulf War. The sanctions required that Iraq pull out of Kuwait, pay reparations and disband its chemical weapons program. Saddam Hussein continued to pursue chemical and nuclear capabilities hence breaking the sanctions enacted by the U.N. In regards to international law when a sanction is violated hostilities are opened again, a violation of a truce is seen as a deliberate act of deception and conflicts with the intentions of the sanctions which are to establish a safer more peaceful world (hence the cause of a just war).
The third and most compelling reason for the conflict in Iraq was to remove a dictator who has committed grossly sadistic human rights violations. From the ordered killings of members of congress (without any trial) when he took power, to the Kurdish genocide in which over 5,000 innocent people were killed by chemical weapons, to the torture of prisoners of war during the Iran-Iraq conflict in which acid baths and electric drills were used mercilessly on defenseless prisoners. This argument alone is the basis for a just war, it fulfills just cause (to protect the innocent civilians from human rights abuses), right intention (to keep the weapons out of the hands of a brutal dictator with terrorist sympathies, making the world a safer place to live), announcement of intention and last resort (Saddam had repeated chances over a decade to comply with U.N. inspectors and he did not).
The United Nations and the world turned its head for over a decade while these atrocities were being committed. Removing Saddam as a dictator was an ethical course of action for the sake of a safer world.
From the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom our goals have been to remove Saddam from power (which we have done), to establish and rebuild the economy of Iraq (which is in progress), to create a free society where the leaders are elected (which is also in the beginning stages), and to disrupt terrorist networks that were sheltered in Iraq (which we have done). The same goals we began with are as just as they were in 2003. So long as we stay the course we have a reasonable hope of success and the prospect of a democratic and free society where there used to be an opressive regime built on fear and torture is certainly, in the proportionality principle, worth the price. I believe that Abraham Lincoln not only spoke to leaders such as Saddam Hussein when he said;
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”
But he was also speaking directly to the free citizens of America to remind us that while there are people who are oppressed in other societies that it is our moral and ethical duty as Americans to work toward spreading the freedom we have been blessed with in our great country to other nations around the world.
Sources:
“Just War Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities, and Functions of their Criteria”
By: James F. Childress
(1) pg.431-432 (2) 430-431 (3) 431 (4) 435 (5) 436 (6) 441-442 (7) 444
“How Saddam Happened”
By: Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas
(from: Inside Iraq- A series of essays)
“Behind the War on Terror”
By: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
“Operation Iraqi Freedom”
By: Thomas Donnelly
“The War to Oust Saddam”
By: James Turner Johnson
Internet Sources:
The Iraq War- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Saddam Hussein- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
Reasons for War- http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
A Note on Oversensitivity
In America right now we encounter many different belief systems,
values, moral codes lifestyles, orientations and what have you.
It is imperative to then be sensitive to others
because your code may not coincide with another person's way of life.
Who are we to stereotype or to tell others how to believe?
This is a pluralistic nation and we only have the right to speak
if it aligns with the tolerant views our society has set forth.
So the lie goes.
I believe that we are in a dangerous state
when a citizen cannot voice their opinions
without being scrutinized or labeled by others.
We have lost the ability to critically read and examine the form of art that we know as language.
And it is in tolerance that we lose our freedom.
Our right to dissent.
The things the writer may say may be unpopular to many,
however we must refrain from making judgments too quickly,
and look deeper into the meaning of the article being presented.
As an example of this I will break down a recent article line for line to determine if it is, in fact, a stereotypical or sexist commentary.
To all the sensitive guys out there,
This statement is addressed to the target audience, in this case the guys who tend to be more artistic, soft-spoken, or are just all around nicer.
I want to say that I extend my sincerest sympathies to you for having been born the way you are. For feeling things deeply, for caring about people beyond their surface value, for being trusting and naive. You truly are an incredible and unbelievable creation.
A sarcastic statement aimed at the root of the problem with sensitive guys, and that is their feelings. Because they are made this way they are more prone to heartbreak and believing lies.
Let me also apologize to you in this letter.
You will never be understood or appreciated for the times you bring your girlfriend flowers or tell her she is beautiful. Or how bout the times when you are there for her to listen to her problems? Don't expect a thank you or respect for the man you are, because sadly you are not edgy enough for the new American woman.
This statement makes reference to the new mentality that is common on campuses and in high schools today. Society has told girls that it is their turn to turn around and to get what they can out of the guys who have used them and treated them badly. Girls owe it to themselves to avoid the heartbreak of being used by becoming the "users" if you will. Sadly enough oftentimes in this situation it is the sensitive caring guys who end up being taken advantage of rather than the jerks. Why? Because they are more prone to do what they can to make their lady feel like a princess. The jerks could care less about a girl's feelings.
You see because you appreciate things like art or musicals or shopping somehow this makes you less of a man than the stereotypical weightlifting, car-fixing, brainless jock.
A statement of disdain towards the American mentality thrust upon guys in society today. The artsy guys are told that unless they let their muscles (and other body members) do their thinking rather than their brains then they are somehow deemed less manly than other guys.
Just because you don't treat a woman poorly and expect them to worship you this becomes a basis to rule you out. Just because you aren't obsessed with the idea of casual sex and the idea of hooking up with women while drunk; and just because you do not enjoy strip clubs as a recreational activity does not make you any less of a man, no in fact it makes you more of a man!
Again another commentary on the "jock" mentality of guys in America today. It is calling out the guys who do these things to women. It is wrong for a guy to treat a woman poorly. It is wrong for a guy to hook up just because the crowd says its OK. This is the author's opinion. The bottom line on this statement is that the sexualization and objectification of women in today's society is completely uncalled for and that guys who go against the flow have more character than guys who conform.
But let me tell you this right now sensitive guys, if that is what women are truly looking for in this life then I say let them have it and settle for nothing substantial. Your road will be a lonely and dark one in search of love but it is better to be alone than to be manipulated, used and take for granted by a woman who does not appreciate your gifts and talents and your caring nature.
For a guy who tries to act with character and integrity our sexualized society is an extremely lonely place. Many women conform to the status quo because they do not believe there is any alternative. Many of them step on sensitive guys because in this society we have promoted a survival of the fittest mentality. As a result those who are sensitive are trod upon whether intentionally or unintentionally. Sadly.
A sensitive guy is, in fact, much better without love if the relationship is that of manipulation and the sensitive guys should realize this fact.
Be a true man.
Pursue things that interest you and that you find happiness in doing because when you give up everything to try to change into something that the person you are dating wants you to be you will end up living a lie, and you will be used until you are not of use anymore. You will be kicked aside when your significant other pursues new and more exciting endeavors and you are left alone, a hollow shell of a person who has tried to put on a new mask.
Many sensitive guys try to change for the person they love out of the principle of love itself. Unfortunately they deny their true selves by doing this and in that process become less appealing to the woman they are in fact changing for. When the woman finally leaves them they will be left realizing how fake they truly have become by trying to be something they are not. Admittedly it was out of good intention, however;
"The highway to hell is paved with good intentions."
The sensitive man will be ok in the end if he pursues his interests, unashamedly and the right woman who will appreciate this guy for who he is will come. But it is up to the guy to take the first step of being confident and proud of who he is.
You are worth more than that.
The saying is that it is better to have loved and lost than never loved at all....
I say that whoever wrote that had no concept of what they were saying.
I cannot think of one productive thing that has come from lost love other than you learn to handle and cope with more pain than you can ever imagine feeling before.
This statement has bias in it. The author perhaps has personal experience in the matter that has warped and molded his views, bias is not bad in an article. It gives us strong feelings and opinions towards a certain issue. However the critical reader must look for the important information, discern bias, and make their assesment based on their conclusion.
Take my advice guys:
In this life always be hesitant to love and always look for hidden motives.
Live your life by these principles and you will spare yourself heartbreak and root out the fake and the insincere.
A cautionary note to guys who haven't yet had their hearts broken. This statement warns against putting their heart first and wearing it on their sleeve. Once you give another your heart they can do with it what they want and you will be on the recieving end of whatever they give. Being skeptical of love helps discern what is true love and what is temporary.
Love is thrown around casually in our society today, oftentimes it is used to achieve an end. Some guys/girls use it to get sex or things or status, a sensitive guy by his very nature is going to believe what he is told without question. To avoid this he must be skeptical and questioning.
I wish you well in this life. Lord knows that society has made it hard enough for you.
Signed,
Another Sensitive Guy
Now ask yourself:
When you read this did you read it critically?
Did you break it down and contemplate the actual meanings behind the writing?
Or did you only read and percieve what you wanted to percieve?
Did you place bias there in your mind purely because you did not agree with the ideas presented here?
Is this article really truly a basis to take offense?
Is the author writing the article to be deliberately malicious, or is it just an opinion?
Ask yourself questions like these more often and you may be surprised that your initial impressions are not at all what is communicated.
There will be many things placed online that have deeper meanings than the first read, and if you are not in the habit of carefully analyzing what the author's intent is behind certain articles then you might just be taken for a ride.
values, moral codes lifestyles, orientations and what have you.
It is imperative to then be sensitive to others
because your code may not coincide with another person's way of life.
Who are we to stereotype or to tell others how to believe?
This is a pluralistic nation and we only have the right to speak
if it aligns with the tolerant views our society has set forth.
So the lie goes.
I believe that we are in a dangerous state
when a citizen cannot voice their opinions
without being scrutinized or labeled by others.
We have lost the ability to critically read and examine the form of art that we know as language.
And it is in tolerance that we lose our freedom.
Our right to dissent.
The things the writer may say may be unpopular to many,
however we must refrain from making judgments too quickly,
and look deeper into the meaning of the article being presented.
As an example of this I will break down a recent article line for line to determine if it is, in fact, a stereotypical or sexist commentary.
To all the sensitive guys out there,
This statement is addressed to the target audience, in this case the guys who tend to be more artistic, soft-spoken, or are just all around nicer.
I want to say that I extend my sincerest sympathies to you for having been born the way you are. For feeling things deeply, for caring about people beyond their surface value, for being trusting and naive. You truly are an incredible and unbelievable creation.
A sarcastic statement aimed at the root of the problem with sensitive guys, and that is their feelings. Because they are made this way they are more prone to heartbreak and believing lies.
Let me also apologize to you in this letter.
You will never be understood or appreciated for the times you bring your girlfriend flowers or tell her she is beautiful. Or how bout the times when you are there for her to listen to her problems? Don't expect a thank you or respect for the man you are, because sadly you are not edgy enough for the new American woman.
This statement makes reference to the new mentality that is common on campuses and in high schools today. Society has told girls that it is their turn to turn around and to get what they can out of the guys who have used them and treated them badly. Girls owe it to themselves to avoid the heartbreak of being used by becoming the "users" if you will. Sadly enough oftentimes in this situation it is the sensitive caring guys who end up being taken advantage of rather than the jerks. Why? Because they are more prone to do what they can to make their lady feel like a princess. The jerks could care less about a girl's feelings.
You see because you appreciate things like art or musicals or shopping somehow this makes you less of a man than the stereotypical weightlifting, car-fixing, brainless jock.
A statement of disdain towards the American mentality thrust upon guys in society today. The artsy guys are told that unless they let their muscles (and other body members) do their thinking rather than their brains then they are somehow deemed less manly than other guys.
Just because you don't treat a woman poorly and expect them to worship you this becomes a basis to rule you out. Just because you aren't obsessed with the idea of casual sex and the idea of hooking up with women while drunk; and just because you do not enjoy strip clubs as a recreational activity does not make you any less of a man, no in fact it makes you more of a man!
Again another commentary on the "jock" mentality of guys in America today. It is calling out the guys who do these things to women. It is wrong for a guy to treat a woman poorly. It is wrong for a guy to hook up just because the crowd says its OK. This is the author's opinion. The bottom line on this statement is that the sexualization and objectification of women in today's society is completely uncalled for and that guys who go against the flow have more character than guys who conform.
But let me tell you this right now sensitive guys, if that is what women are truly looking for in this life then I say let them have it and settle for nothing substantial. Your road will be a lonely and dark one in search of love but it is better to be alone than to be manipulated, used and take for granted by a woman who does not appreciate your gifts and talents and your caring nature.
For a guy who tries to act with character and integrity our sexualized society is an extremely lonely place. Many women conform to the status quo because they do not believe there is any alternative. Many of them step on sensitive guys because in this society we have promoted a survival of the fittest mentality. As a result those who are sensitive are trod upon whether intentionally or unintentionally. Sadly.
A sensitive guy is, in fact, much better without love if the relationship is that of manipulation and the sensitive guys should realize this fact.
Be a true man.
Pursue things that interest you and that you find happiness in doing because when you give up everything to try to change into something that the person you are dating wants you to be you will end up living a lie, and you will be used until you are not of use anymore. You will be kicked aside when your significant other pursues new and more exciting endeavors and you are left alone, a hollow shell of a person who has tried to put on a new mask.
Many sensitive guys try to change for the person they love out of the principle of love itself. Unfortunately they deny their true selves by doing this and in that process become less appealing to the woman they are in fact changing for. When the woman finally leaves them they will be left realizing how fake they truly have become by trying to be something they are not. Admittedly it was out of good intention, however;
"The highway to hell is paved with good intentions."
The sensitive man will be ok in the end if he pursues his interests, unashamedly and the right woman who will appreciate this guy for who he is will come. But it is up to the guy to take the first step of being confident and proud of who he is.
You are worth more than that.
The saying is that it is better to have loved and lost than never loved at all....
I say that whoever wrote that had no concept of what they were saying.
I cannot think of one productive thing that has come from lost love other than you learn to handle and cope with more pain than you can ever imagine feeling before.
This statement has bias in it. The author perhaps has personal experience in the matter that has warped and molded his views, bias is not bad in an article. It gives us strong feelings and opinions towards a certain issue. However the critical reader must look for the important information, discern bias, and make their assesment based on their conclusion.
Take my advice guys:
In this life always be hesitant to love and always look for hidden motives.
Live your life by these principles and you will spare yourself heartbreak and root out the fake and the insincere.
A cautionary note to guys who haven't yet had their hearts broken. This statement warns against putting their heart first and wearing it on their sleeve. Once you give another your heart they can do with it what they want and you will be on the recieving end of whatever they give. Being skeptical of love helps discern what is true love and what is temporary.
Love is thrown around casually in our society today, oftentimes it is used to achieve an end. Some guys/girls use it to get sex or things or status, a sensitive guy by his very nature is going to believe what he is told without question. To avoid this he must be skeptical and questioning.
I wish you well in this life. Lord knows that society has made it hard enough for you.
Signed,
Another Sensitive Guy
Now ask yourself:
When you read this did you read it critically?
Did you break it down and contemplate the actual meanings behind the writing?
Or did you only read and percieve what you wanted to percieve?
Did you place bias there in your mind purely because you did not agree with the ideas presented here?
Is this article really truly a basis to take offense?
Is the author writing the article to be deliberately malicious, or is it just an opinion?
Ask yourself questions like these more often and you may be surprised that your initial impressions are not at all what is communicated.
There will be many things placed online that have deeper meanings than the first read, and if you are not in the habit of carefully analyzing what the author's intent is behind certain articles then you might just be taken for a ride.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
A Letter to a Sensitive Guy
To all the sensitive guys out there,
I want to say that I extend my sincerest sympathies to you for having been born the way you are. For feeling things deeply, for caring about people beyond their surface value, for being trusting and naive. You truly are an incredible and unbelievable creation.
Let me also apologize to you in this letter.
You will never be understood or appreciated for the times you bring your girlfriend flowers or tell her she is beautiful. Or how bout the times when you are there for her to listen to her problems? Don't expect a thank you or respect for the man you are, because sadly you are not edgy enough for the new American woman.
You see because you appreciate things like art or musicals or shopping somehow this makes you less of a man than the stereotypical weightlifting, car-fixing, brainless jock.
Just because you don't treat a woman poorly and expect them to worship you this becomes a basis to rule you out. Just because you aren't obsessed with the idea of casual sex and the idea of hooking up with women while drunk; and just because you do not enjoy strip clubs as a recreational activity does not make you any less of a man, no in fact it makes you more of a man!
But let me tell you this right now sensitive guys, if that is what women are truly looking for in this life then I say let them have it and settle for nothing substantial. Your road will be a lonely and dark one in search of love but it is better to be alone than to be manipulated, used and take for granted by a woman who does not appreciate your gifts and talents and your caring nature.
Be a true man.
Pursue things that interest you and that you find happiness in doing because when you give up everything to try to change into something that the person you are dating wants you to be you will end up living a lie, and you will be used until you are not of use anymore. You will be kicked aside when your significant other pursues new and more exciting endeavors and you are left alone, a hollow shell of a person who has tried to put on a new mask.
You are worth more than that.
The saying is that it is better to have loved and lost than never loved at all....
I say that whoever wrote that had no concept of what they were saying.
I cannot think of one productive thing that has come from lost love other than you learn to handle and cope with more pain than you can ever imagine feeling before.
Take my advice guys:
In this life always be hesitant to love and always look for hidden motives.
Live your life by these principles and you will spare yourself heartbreak and root out the fake and the insincere.
I wish you well in this life. Lord knows that society has made it hard enough for you.
Signed,
Another Sensitive Guy
I want to say that I extend my sincerest sympathies to you for having been born the way you are. For feeling things deeply, for caring about people beyond their surface value, for being trusting and naive. You truly are an incredible and unbelievable creation.
Let me also apologize to you in this letter.
You will never be understood or appreciated for the times you bring your girlfriend flowers or tell her she is beautiful. Or how bout the times when you are there for her to listen to her problems? Don't expect a thank you or respect for the man you are, because sadly you are not edgy enough for the new American woman.
You see because you appreciate things like art or musicals or shopping somehow this makes you less of a man than the stereotypical weightlifting, car-fixing, brainless jock.
Just because you don't treat a woman poorly and expect them to worship you this becomes a basis to rule you out. Just because you aren't obsessed with the idea of casual sex and the idea of hooking up with women while drunk; and just because you do not enjoy strip clubs as a recreational activity does not make you any less of a man, no in fact it makes you more of a man!
But let me tell you this right now sensitive guys, if that is what women are truly looking for in this life then I say let them have it and settle for nothing substantial. Your road will be a lonely and dark one in search of love but it is better to be alone than to be manipulated, used and take for granted by a woman who does not appreciate your gifts and talents and your caring nature.
Be a true man.
Pursue things that interest you and that you find happiness in doing because when you give up everything to try to change into something that the person you are dating wants you to be you will end up living a lie, and you will be used until you are not of use anymore. You will be kicked aside when your significant other pursues new and more exciting endeavors and you are left alone, a hollow shell of a person who has tried to put on a new mask.
You are worth more than that.
The saying is that it is better to have loved and lost than never loved at all....
I say that whoever wrote that had no concept of what they were saying.
I cannot think of one productive thing that has come from lost love other than you learn to handle and cope with more pain than you can ever imagine feeling before.
Take my advice guys:
In this life always be hesitant to love and always look for hidden motives.
Live your life by these principles and you will spare yourself heartbreak and root out the fake and the insincere.
I wish you well in this life. Lord knows that society has made it hard enough for you.
Signed,
Another Sensitive Guy
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Death of God
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." -Freidrich Nietzsche
The words of Nietzsche echo eerily in my mind as I reflect on this bold claim. Clearly it was just the work of a philosopher who was only a critic of Christianity and morality, something that those of faith can easily discard as false.
But is it?
In the 21st century American culture, I cannot think of a place in which the concept of God and religion and morality has been more stagnant and dead. Three things have killed God in our society and they are; prosperity, science, and tolerance. Think of this:
1) In our current society we are safe.
Therefore we have no need of a protector or a shelter. We have no need of the good shepherd, the one who the sheep (or people as the analogy goes) follow and depend on for protection from the wolves. But it is in our safety that the "wolves" have been able to come into our midst and slaughter the sheep spiritually.
Let me clarify.
We are a safe and prosperous nation. Why is there any need for God or a belief system based on morality when we can have anything and everything we want in our nation? Why do we need God when we have no worries about how men will provide food for their families or how we will travel safely to another town, city, or state without being attacked by aggressors? Why do we need God when we have big fancy cars, quality education, big spacious houses, high paying jobs, ect., etc., etc. The list continues to grow each day.
Our safety and prosperity has eliminated a need for dependence.
2) Modern science has killed God in our society.
We have in essence begun to make ourselves gods because of advances in medical technology. If you are not happy with your face or your gender it can be altered to your liking. If you are overweight a simple operation can change that. People are living longer and longer with each century that passes and medical scientists continue to look for ways to make us immortals.
Philosophers for so long have done everything in their power to disprove the existence of a higher power that the people of America have begun to believe it! Though their logic is terribly flawed we accept the lies because this enables us to live our lives in the fast lane with no consequences, and no higher power to be held accountable to in the end of all things.
How frightening is it that in our society we have begun to look for guidance, not in the possibility of a higher power that gives purpose to our lives, but rather propagandists such as Richard Dawkins who crows about his atheistic "faith" without even thinking of the absurdity of the claim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg
How can Richard Dawkins say that there is no God without himself possessing the knowledge of the universe. I do not deny that he may be a smart man with a degree or two, but does this mean that he can tell America as a fact that there is no God and that we on this earth happened as a mere chance and coincidence?
Apparently he can.
Plato said that;
"Ignorance is the root and stem of every evil."
And I am inclined to believe him; maybe Mr. Dawkins should as well.
3) We are a tolerant nation.
I should change this statement to; "We are a tolerant nation, except when it comes to those of the Judeo-Christian faith."
Over and over the church has had special interest groups go over its head and shout it down. Legislation that should have been opposed by churches and moral leaders in this country has been passed. Why is this?
If your moral belief is that abortion is wrong why don't you stand up and fight?
If you believe that homosexuality is wrong why do you not stand up and fight for your moral convictions?
If you truly believe that this country was founded on the principles of God and morality then why do you allow him to be taken out of our courtrooms and our public buildings, and our schools?
The special interest groups that campaign for these issues do not hesitate to fight for what they believe in! I believe in an America where all groups, even the Christians have a right to be heard and not shouted down in the name of tolerance; because just by the very act of shouting down another in the name of tolerance is intolerance in its most belligerant, bigoted form!
But the church remains silent and useless for anything other than Sunday's support group. And America's moralist philosophical voices are drowned out. If there is anything more dangerous in America right now it is this simple fact.
I believe that William Young's character in the movie Boondock Saints states drives the point home when he states;
"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."
America!
It seems as though Friedrich Nietzche was correct when he asserted that God was dead. Our churches are full of people who believe that they know God but really truly do not grasp the concept of sacrifice, grace, or standing up for moral convictions.
We have fallen into apathy and have traded conviction for safety, science and tolerance!
Ask yourself; are you going to church or claiming to be a moralist because you truly believe the concept or because you have been told you need to?
As Paul said in his letter to James;
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
-James 2:14-17
Will you stand up for your beliefs before its too late? Or will you wait till your right to speak up is taken from you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
