When Social Gatherings Go Wrong... Yet So Right (pg. 794 #3)

I was baptized a Christian when I was young and I have believed in the Christian faith my entire life, as it runs in the family and I have been supported all the way. I’ve always believed that I can be completely open with my family about our religion and have open, unstructured discussion about the Bible; the whole thing was a learning process for all of us. This is what was normal to me; I was comfortable in this environment and felt that it was okay to do this.

Being so comfortable with my religion and how my family handles it, being put into an environment where the rules of the game changed was very difficult for me. I was dating a guy who was living with his friend’s family. I grew very close to them and completely overlooked the fact that they were Jehovah Witnesses; this meant nothing to me, seeing as we never openly discussed religion. One night, however, I went to go see my boyfriend at the house after work and he told me they were waiting for me to begin their Bible study to introduce me to their faith. I openly and respectfully declined, yet they insisted I stay. I did stay, however, it was very uncomfortable as it seemed like we were in school, having to raise our hands to ask questions since I am accustomed to just being open and asking them for discussion sake. It was very structured and I did partake in some of their activities, but certain things I did draw the line and respectfully declined. I had no problem with their way of studying the Bible; I did think their structured environment worked for them and they seemed to be getting more out of it this way, but I felt uncomfortable seeing as religion is something I hold near and dear to me and I feel it should be openly discussed as a family with no limitations-as long as you’re learning about the Bible from one another and growing religiously.

There have been many situations I’m sure we’ve all been in, but in this situation, I learned a lot about myself. When we are placed in situations that we aren’t accustomed to being in, I think that’s the best opportunity, as uncomfortable as it may seem, for us to grow and gain a better understanding of our own identity. In my situation, I appreciated that my family was more open about religion and that I had my family there to push me to learn what I could and encourage me to grow in that aspect. This situation is just one that we can be placed in; there are so many others that we can and probably have been placed in that show us who we really are through observing who those around us are and how they live their lives. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that we can be true to ourselves; it’s a sure-fire way for us to find out who we are first-hand, rather than turning to others to tell us who they think we are or how they want us to be.

Contemporary vs. Old-Fashioned Marriages

There is a saying that my parents live by as it pertains to finding someone for me to spend the rest of my life with: “You always marry someone who is exactly like your father”. In that aspect, there are various kinds of people my parents would reject as my spouse. My father is someone who covers many parts of a personality spectrum: he has a professional side as he is holding down a job at a title company, and he has a completely different rebellious side as he is a member of a motorcycle gang. My parents obviously want me to find someone who fits my dad’s professional aspect; however, I have lost tremendous respect for my father over the past month or so and this has made me completely turn against this idea, seeing the person her really is deep down inside. I think there are many of us, myself included, that have been in several relationships that my parents didn’t approve of for one reason or another, and looking back, I see that they were right. My parents, as does any parent out there, want the very best for their children, and more often than not, no one is ever “good enough” for their child; however, they grow to approve of their child’s happiness. Although, we do tend to see issues, not with accepting the person, but the rejection of the relationship altogether. Young people seem to be “falling in love” at ages that seem to be getting smaller and smaller, which causes them to become too serious in a relationship and leading to many problems down the road. This is partially responsible for the increase rate of young teenage pregnancies and even failing marriages. With the 50% divorce rate in the country, young romance may be the culprit; people are looking for their high school sweetheart, thinking they’re going to spend the rest of their lives together and live the fairy tale “happily ever after”, when in reality, they have a greater risk of seeing their marriage end in divorce.

The story, “Marriage is a Private Affair” sheds light on the disapproval of a marriage between two people from different tribes. I related this idea to the, now seemingly old-fashioned, interracial relationships. Personally, I have dated outside my ethnicity and see no problem; I don’t see a difference in another human being due to the color of their skin or their cultural background. Some members of my family frown on my belief, maintaining the idea that it’s wrong to date outside your ethnicity, and, especially in my family, outside my religious beliefs. I personally hold true to my religious beliefs and if my spouse doesn’t agree, I don’t see that as a reason not to marry him. Now in our society, interracial relationships are very common and are often accepted, which is completely different than the perspective portrayed in this short story. As a society, we seem to become more accepting to these changes in the content of what makes up a proper marriage, which I think just might be a step toward complete ethnic equality.

Government Esablishment

With the current tragedies that have impacted the world, such as chaos in the Middle East and the recent earthquake in Haiti, the United States seem to have shifted the focus onto those who need our help rebuilding their sense of overall stability. Knowing that our military is out in these Middle Eastern countries for the purpose of bringing the new idea of democracy, there is a chance that they may choose to be a democracy or they may just look the other way. The media seems to portray that we’re still out there for other reasons, such as fear of future attacks on the United States and one that may be less current, the fear of the possibility of nuclear warfare. In any case, if these countries choose to become to undertake a democracy as their chosen form of government, then we can safely assume that we have made a powerful difference in these countries, thus making the time spent out there, to some extent, worthwhile. These countries will be able to experience the chance of obtaining their individual freedom, which may hopefully bring peace and stability. The only thing that’s difficult for me to grasp is the fact that our troops are out there and still losing their lives, yet the idea that we’re staying out there to help them establish democracy. If we’re only there to help, why is it still necessary to hurt and even kill?

From my understanding, a theocratic authoritarian government is one where the citizens follow some form of higher power, and on the surface level of the spectrum, their government is run by unelected officials. If these countries do reject a democratic government for this one, some may say that it was a waste of our time to be out there. However, in an optimistic view, we can still say the United States has still made a difference in their countries. In a way, we have given them the freedom within their country to vote for exactly what they want for their lives. In this case, I don’t see any reason for the United States to continue to be involved in the development of their country, seeing as our nation doesn’t have that form of government, thus we would have a very different influence on their growth and development. The only reason I can see that we should get involved in the future is if there is another threat on our country. The justification of helping to form a functioning government can no longer be used once they are established to be a healthy functioning society. Although I do feel that the need to reach out to other countries that need our help, seeing that being the main way that will help our nations stick together rather than be at constant odds with each other, I do feel that our primary obligation should be our own country; we should be working to attempt to stabilize our own economic situation before going deeper and deeper into debt, digging a deeper hole that we may never be able to get out of.

Invisibility

The idea of being invisible is one that we sometimes entertain as an unrealistic quality that could never truly come about in our lives; no matter how much we would want to be invisible at any given moment. Although we have those embarrassing moments where we want to disappear, in some ways, we are invisible ourselves. Some people are invisible in a sense that they don’t reveal their true selves, who hide behind the person that people want them to be rather than letting their true colors shine. We do this out of fear of rejection or even our own rejection of ourselves and in doing so, some tend not to feel the desire to be invisible because they have a sense of security in the idea of putting on a front of someone who they consciously believe that they aren’t.

Along with being guilty of being invisible ourselves, we are also guilty of not seeing other people through their sense of invisibility or lack thereof. There are times where some, myself included, don’t see someone who has either made themselves completely invisible only to deceive or has removed that sense of invisibility to reveal their true selves and the deception seemed better than the genuine truth. We see stories all the time on talk shows about people who are obviously led by deception, women and men staying with their spouse because they refuse to open their eyes and see what is really there: not love, but pain and suffering on their part due to the actions of someone they trusted. Another example of this is everyday misjudgments on a parent’s part regarding their children. There are many new trends that teenagers are starting to engage in that many parents are oblivious to. They refuse to believe that their children would partake in such reckless activities when in reality; they are going behind their back and doing these things and more.

The removal of this invisibility can also be deceiving since we aren’t accustomed to change and the deception is more comfortable than dealing with the truth. In this sense, we’re guilty of not seeing someone for who they really are under a negative perspective. We choose to believe that these negative aspects or actions weren’t done in order to maintain peace of mind within ourselves, especially when these changes have a strong enough impact that can destroy our outlook on our situation. One perspective of this is seen in many people who suffer from drug or alcohol abuse. Even thought those around them can obviously see the implications of their loved one’s addiction, the addict refuses to see and acknowledge that they have a serious problem that needs to be addressed promptly to avoid further consequences that rise in danger levels as time passes.

Although being invisible may seem to be a good idea to many people in their individual situations dealing with embarrassment or stress, we all have our own security blanket in having some kind of sense of invisibility to defend us, and even hinder us, from a harsh reality.

Moral Debate: Collateral Damage

The definition that I got from an online dictionary defined “collateral damage” as it pertains to armed conflict as “the killing of civilians in a military attack”. Determining circumstances where this is justified and immoral is a tough call for me; I have seen and heard of both sides of the spectrum because, as many of the readers out there, I have family serving in the U.S. military; my uncle was active in the Army and my brother recently returned home from his second tour in Iraq. I think there are certain circumstances where collateral damage is morally just; for example, if a country is completely against another, often times the civilians are also involved in combative warfare. Soldiers have died under the fire power of a civilian, but then again, the other side of it is that there are always a very select few that aren’t involved in said warfare and want nothing more than the violence out of their country so they can return to their normal lives. However, in this perspective, the members of our military are in the frontlines bravely fighting, and some losing their lives, to protect their country and in a way, citizens may live with a similar situation, whether they chose to or not. An example of this is the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11th; many citizens lost their lives due to a form of collateral damage. This is an obvious example of an unjust distinction, with the loss of innocent lives through terrorist actions against our country.

Another perspective that argues that collateral damage is immoral is what is commonly used to appeal to one’s emotional integrity: children. As I mentioned above, some do engage in violent behavior out of hatred for the opposing party, but young children also make up that percentage of the civilians who don’t partake in any kind of active warfare that innocently die for a cause they felt they wanted nothing to do with. And looking at our society and the various views on the war on Iraq and now Afghanistan, there are many people for the war, but just as many against it. However, I think in a way, whether one is for or against a particular war, the entire country is seen to be for the war seeing as their country is actively fighting. Each individual isn’t really given a distinct voice to be for or against the war. As it pertains to children, however, many are too young to understand the implications of the reasoning for the violence going on around them and sadly lose the lives of their loved ones or even their own lives with this misunderstanding.

I feel like I didn’t exactly hit the nail on the head with this blog topic this week and I’ve been sloppily jumping from topic to topic to argue both sides of my ideas, I’ve been contemplating this all week and could never come up with a straight distinction between what would be morally just and what wouldn’t be. I think there are many sides to consider, perhaps many more than I shed light on in this blog. Even though it may seem unclear in my blog, I do think that when looking at a specific situation, it could be distinguished whether the collateral damage is moral or not, but I also believe that there is a rather thin line between morally just and downright wrong.