More handpicked essays just for you.
Difference between morals and justice
Examples of civil disobedience in the United States
Examples of civil disobedience in the United States
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Ever since the beginning of the United States, the people there have always fought for their beliefs. They believed in their freedom to religion, politics, second chances, etc., and they have always believed in fighting for them. These faiths kept the foundation of the country strong throughout its existence. It has inspired many noble causes with just as many noble heroes. Unfortunately, life is never so cut and clear. In reality, there are no sides of black nor white. The truth is that their righteous conviction is just another shade of gray. In “Friends and Enemies” by Louann Gaeddert, United States’ entry into WWII caused animosity between those who believe in fighting for their beliefs and those whose beliefs state no fighting. These two sides are mainly defined by two of the main characters, Jim Reimer and Clive Van Dyne. Jim is a Mennonite; his belief strictly demands no fighting of any kind even if it’s just. Clive is more of the typical American patriot; he is narrow-minded but is more than willing to help his country when needed. From the beginning to the end, both sides explains their reasoning, but I believed Jim’s side to be correct.
At first glance, Clive’s side is the reasonable reaction when one’s country is attacked. The U.S. citizens felt the need to stand up and defend themselves against Japan’s unprovoked attack. The U.S. decided to join in the name of self-defense. It sounds fair because it is. If citizens weren’t able to volunteer into military service, they would work in factories devoted to the war. They could also buy war bonds/stamps. This determination of putting all resources to the war is called total war. However, this is a shade of gray. An example of this is when racial prejudice occurred to t...
... middle of paper ...
...ne is wrong; therefore, everyone is technically right.
With all being said and done, I do believe Jim’s side to be correct, but I do not believe Clive’s side is wrong. The whole topic is a matter of opinion. There is one thing that is fact in the whole discussion. The fact is that hating others because of their beliefs is wrong. Many great deeds have been accomplished with much violence; however, let’s not forget the deeds done by pacifism. A prime exemplar of this was when Martin Luther King Jr. was able to lead the American civil rights movement that changed the way races interacted with each other. The United States has achieved many feats with or without the belief of violence. The beliefs, these shades of gray, have been tested through its existence, but it is safe to conclude that no matter how dire the situation may be, their hearts are in the right place.
Michael C. C. Adams' book, The Best War Ever: America and World War II, attempts to dispel the numerous misconceptions of the Second World War. As the title suggests, Americans came out of the war with a positive view of the preceding five turbulent years. This myth was born from several factors. Due to the overseas setting of both theaters of the war, intense government propaganda, Hollywood's glamorization, and widespread economic prosperity, Americans were largely sheltered form the brutal truth of World War II. Even to this day, the generation of World War II is viewed as being superior in morality and unity. The popular illusion held that 'there were no ethnic or gender problems, families were happy and united, and children worked hard in school and read a great number of books.' (115)
In James McPherson’s novel, What They Fought For, a variety of Civil War soldier documents are examined to show the diverse personal beliefs and motives for being involved in the war. McPherson’s sample, “is biased toward genuine fighting soldiers” (McPherson, 17) meaning he discusses what the ordinary soldier fought for. The Confederacy was often viewed as the favorable side because their life style relied on the war; Confederates surrounded their lives with practices like slavery and agriculture, and these practices were at stake during the war. On the other hand, Northerners fought to keep the country together. Although the Civil War was brutal, McPherson presents his research to show the dedication and patriotism of the soldiers that fought and died for a cause.
One of the most telling aspects of the antiwar sentiments was the effort made to avoid being drafted into the conflict. The popularized term of “draft dodgers” came into use for those individuals that used means, such as “fle[eing] to Canada to avoid the drafts.” Many of those actually drafted for the war were poor working class men, considering the fact that “a lot of draft-age men received deferments were from wealthy and educated families,” perpetuating the idea that “U.S. draft policies were unfair” (Bia). This belief was illustrated by public demonstrations, making it blatantly obvious of not only the dissatisfaction due to the draft itself, but also the underlying antiwar sentiments. Never before in American history had there been such disconnect between those requiring troops and those being enlisted in the army. This would further expand to encompass those that were originally deferred. Yet there was still distaste from all classes, furthering how the draft itself was just another way by which the delegation was not serving the preferences of the people. The draft was furiously opposed by a variety and majority of peoples, furthering the already present, and mounting principle-agent
“Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon without cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
Abortion, school prayer, gay rights, gun politics and many more are all a part of the list of controversies that divide our country. A culture war is a conflict between groups with different ideals, beliefs, and issues. James Davison Hunter’s book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, shows that these issues “are not isolated from one another but are part of a fabric of conflict which constitutes nothing short of a struggle over the meaning of America. Unlike the religious and cultural conflict that historically divided the nation, the contemporary culture war is fought along new and, in many ways, unfamiliar lines” (Hunter). Hunter argued that two definable polarities existed in the major issues of the war. The new shift in cultural acceptance of the times has changed the culture war. Many Americans argue that “there is a religious war going on in this country, a cultural war as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself, for this war is for the soul of America” (Fiorina). However, some argue that the culture war is only based on small differences between the Democrats and Republicans. The issue at hand is how divided the American public is today and how much time is focused on this polarization. This division is not just a small difference in parties, but more a difference in moral and religious issues.
A famous envelope shows ‘Quaker Jane’ handing ‘Quaker Jim’ a rifle, telling him to support the war. Though they were Quakers, they had a sense of obligation to fight. Even Robert E. Lee wrote a letter to his son saying, "As I am an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. "(Prentice). Robert E. Lee was a general in the Confederate army, and though he wasn’t on the Union’s side, he still felt a sense of pride for his country and what he was fighting for.
“Violence never really deals with the basic evil of the situation. Violence may murder the murderer, but it doesn’t murder murder. Violence may murder the liar, but it doesn’t murder lie; it doesn’t establish truth. Violence may even murder the dishonest man, but it doesn’t murder dishonesty. Violence may go to the point of murdering the hater, but it doesn’t murder hate.
Snay, Mitchell, Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, and Charles Reagan Wilson. "Religion and the American Civil War." The American Historical Review 105.1 (2000): 217. Print.
In attempts to truthfully learn from our past and make progress towards a peaceful world with equality for all, the topic of war, and the effects of war, is an importance issue. Many people believe that war, although obviously destructive, does lead to social cohesion within the particular nation-state at war. The Senate of Canada defines social cohesion as the capacity of citizens living under different social or economic circumstances to live together in harmony, with a sense of mutual commitment. (Culturelink, par. 2) The idea that war leads to social cohesion is based upon the assumption that during a time of crisis, such as a war, people will come together out of the necessity to survive. This belief that the masses unite, neglecting prior dispositions towards one another while opposing a common enemy, has been fairly prominent throughout history. The Second World War, the Cold War, and the Gulf War will be used as examples to research the assumption that social cohesion is a result of warfare. I will argue that warfare, opposed to popular belief, causes large-scale discrimination, which in turn creates social division, not cohesion. Once an understanding of the discriminatory effects war causes is expressed, the backbone derived from the research is that we must valiantly oppose military action to uphold our freedom and equality for all, rather than trying to fight for freedom.
F. Stone: “Too many throats have been cut in God’s name through the ages, and God has enlisted in too many wars. War for sport or plunder has never been as bad as war waged because one man’s belief was theoretically ‘irreconcilable’ with another” (Albright, 2010, p.35). People use their beliefs to bring wars, and for centuries leaders used religion as a weapon to set up wars. America invaded Iraq, and the government addressed that the purpose of the war was against Weapon with Massive Destruction (WMD); however, people from Iraq might believe America fought against Iraq for the oil, since Iraq is a country with massive oil resources and America needed huge amount of oil every year. From different aspects, people see problems in different ways. People who live in America might believe they are good people who are against Iraq and terrorism. However, people in Iraq might believe that America invaded the country for revenge and oil. There is no right or wrong answer to this question because people share different interpretations of the definition of integrity. “The first is that there are people who are willing to die-and kill-for their faith” (Albright, 2010, p.37). In the first story, Albright shows the reader that if a person has faith, he or she can give up everything to uphold his or her beliefs. It is remarkable to have such strong faith, by devoting their lives to religion and beliefs. For
Argument: The main focus of this book is to bring religion back into politics. For various reasons, the religion factor has been removed from policy making around the world, to the detriment of international relations. Johnston conveys the importance of religion when dealing with international policy, especially when one of the parties has a worldview that is deeply rooted in religion. Seven examples of how religious involvement positively affected international relations and eventually brought about reconciliation are used: the role of the Moral Re-Armament Movement in Franco-German Reconciliation, the role of religious groups, especially the Quakers, in restoring peace between the Sandinistas and the East Coast Indians, the role of the Quakers in the Nigerian civil war, the role of the churches in East Germany during the break down of the Berlin wall and the events leading up to that even, the role of the Catholic Church and the 1968 revolution in the Philippines, the role of the church during apartheid in South Africa, and the role of religious actors in the transformation of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe.
Hudson, D. W. (2008). Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Being a non pacifist believer can result as a good thing. Being a non pacifist had a lot of political and military support, compared to believing in pacifism where violence and war in unnecessary, showed the two differences in both beliefs. Oddly enough being a non pacifist has led to the security of this country as well as its stableness. There have been so many historical events in history that have showed us the pros and cons about each belief. “You must not confound pacifism with opposition to a particular war, or even opposition to the whole thrust of American foreign policy. They are two separate issues.” stated in the article, describes how we are not the only ones who are non pacifism believer.
Pauline E. Hopkins’s novel Contending Forces: A Romance Illustrative of Negro Life North and South is considered to be one of the most prominent works of African American literature. Throughout her life, Hopkins created literary works that captured the pain, frustration, and hopelessness African Americans felt at that time.
In her book, Terror in the Name of God, Jessica Stern writes about religious terrorism, how terrorist organizations form by using charismatic leaders, opportunistic and ambitious people who recruit the oppressed by using religion as justification and motivation for their acts. In March of 1998, Stern met with religious terrorist Kenny Noble, an American who belonged to a cult in the 80s, and had her first extended conversation with a religious terrorist, “Although I had been studying and working on terrorism for many years by that time, none of what I had read or heard prepared me for that conversation, which was about faith at least as much as it was about violence.” (Stern XIV). Stern pointed out that there was small difference between what Nobel’s cult wanted and what big name terrorist groups like Al Qaeda wanted; they targeted the same institutions, had the same enemy, the only difference was religion. Noble explained how all who refused the word of the lord (liberals, jews, etc.) were enemies and they they would have to be taken care of, “‘They were the enemy. And so they would have to die. . . . We wanted peace, but if purging had to precede peace, then let the purge begin.’” (Stern XV) Terrorist groups believe that their killings are moral because it is to protect the greater good of the world when it comes to their beliefs. Of course where Nobel thought he was in the moral lane to commit such heinous acts, people who didn’t follow his beliefs and his faith saw him as a terrorist with no morals, everything that has to do with morality is relative depending on the individual. Stern talked about how Lesbians in South African faced abuse and violence just because they didn’t fit social expectations of how woman should act and look. Where as in certain counties