We as a society give government the authority to protect us. With that authority, the government sets up rules for us to live by and enforces those rules. People argue about how much the government should get into things that are not in the realm of protecting people. Under it all, governments are set up to prevent chaos among civilization. Over time governments have bonded and created friendships amongst one another, with goals of protecting weaker nations from bullies and preserving humanity.
Imagine a life without consequences or law. People would be beaten and put to death, rape would be rampant and you would have to look over your shoulder constantly. Some parts of the world are like this and people cannot help where they are born. If you read about how people lived under some of the emperors after Christ in Rome it's enough to turn your stomach - 2,000 years later. History has a way of preserving the good and the bad. We want the good to continue and we want the bad to never happen again.
Hitler was removed by force. Without that force the world would be a different place. Today, we have suicide bombers and even young children being trained to wreak havoc on others. One thing we are forgetting in our prayers is that we are 1 nation of many. A lot of nations have laws and citizens. It is important to think outside your bubble. Don't just pray for our troops, pray for our allies and even our enemies – that peace will prevail and love is the goal.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Jihad
According to John Stuart Mill, a philosopher, the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. An example of this would be using force to prevent a murder. If you think about or subscribe to the theory it makes sense. Within government it points to a laissez-faire system. With religion, most would argue that a person’s beliefs should be left alone unless it harms another or others.
What I do not understand is how some justify mass killings by using suicide bombers as a jihad. The victims, dubbed infidels, are killed. This enrages families of the victims and draws them against the institution that attempts to make a change in peoples’ beliefs in the favor of the institution. To the world, the act creates bitterness against those who are trying to make a change. Instead of gaining new members or believers by being noble or righteous, it comes off as an infamous dastardly attack.
Attempting to change a person’s belief by force and aggressive means is not a lasting way of going about it. Also, suppressing one by force without justification, to prevent them from harming others, is generally frowned upon. This is true if done with the sword by the tongue. Instead of mocking, verbally attacking or beating people with clubs in the name of religion - people should lead by example. Perhaps this is my western mindset, but it seems history has proven it works.
What I do not understand is how some justify mass killings by using suicide bombers as a jihad. The victims, dubbed infidels, are killed. This enrages families of the victims and draws them against the institution that attempts to make a change in peoples’ beliefs in the favor of the institution. To the world, the act creates bitterness against those who are trying to make a change. Instead of gaining new members or believers by being noble or righteous, it comes off as an infamous dastardly attack.
Attempting to change a person’s belief by force and aggressive means is not a lasting way of going about it. Also, suppressing one by force without justification, to prevent them from harming others, is generally frowned upon. This is true if done with the sword by the tongue. Instead of mocking, verbally attacking or beating people with clubs in the name of religion - people should lead by example. Perhaps this is my western mindset, but it seems history has proven it works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)