The Iraq War and the Patriot Act - Assignment Example

Step One Make a list of 10 issues that call for resistance or protest Vietnam War 2. Iraq War 3. Patriot Act 4. Military Draft 5. Seal Hunting 6. The use of animals in chemical testing. 7. Nuclear weapons 8. Racial profiling 9. Death penalty or capital punishment 10. Mistreatment of prisoners of war and enemy combatants Pick two of the 10 issues you listed above. What are ways people can wage non-violent protests against these issues 1. Iraq War 2. Patriot Act I picked out these two examples because they are related to one another. Both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act are the Bush Administration's response to 9/11. Many Americans object to both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act because they are unjustified, unjust, immoral and unconstitutional. To effectively protest against both, the protests should be non-violent so that the protests themselves are moral, just and constitutional. Two examples of non-violent protests include sit-ins and petitions and letters to the government and media What is the merit of non-violent resistance over violent resistance In your opinion which form of resistance is more effective Non-violent resistance is preferable to violent resistance because it is moral. Generally, protests are carried out against immoral and unjust actions. If protests are violent, they could be immoral themselves or a source of injustice. Therefore, they will not be effective because they are like the very thing that they are protesting against. Due to this, non-violent protests are more effective than violent protests. Can you think of concrete examples from history when violence was the only answer Explain your examples. The first historical example which comes to mind is the British colonialism of the United States. The Americans could not peacefully protest against this because the British had an army behind them and violently opposed any protests to their presence in the United States. Therefore, the only form of protest which could achieve the removal of the British from America was violence. The second historical example which comes to mind is the secession of the Confederate States. The North and all Americans who opposed the division of their country into two could not protest against this in a non-violent way. The confederate states had gathered their armies and had declared their secession from the United States of America. The only way that this development could be reversed was through violence, which means that protest had to take the form of military confrontation. Step Two 1. During which period in history was Thoreau writing Henry David Thoreau was writing during the era of slavery. 2. Against what government acts did Thoreau wage protest Thoreau waged protest against corrupt, unjust and immoral government acts such as the enslavement of a race. 3. What type of direct action did Thoreau's essay call for The type of direct action Thoreau called for was civil disobedience. 4. What type of direct action did Martin Luther King, Jr.'s letter call for The type of direct action which martin Luther King called for was peaceful protest in the form of sit-ins and marches. Reverend Ling emphasised that protestors should be prepared to obey the rules of non-violence regardless of the violence which they may be subjected to. 5. To whom was King's letter addressed Reverend King addressed his letter to his fellow clergymen and, more specifically, to eight Alabama clergymen. 6. In whom did King express his deep disappointment Reverend King expressed disappointment in Alabama's economy community and white moderates but, he reserved his deepest disappointment for the white church and its leadership. Step Three: Making Connections Although Henry David Thoreau and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. were the products of different historical eras, separated by close to a century, their philosophy of non-violent resistance was inspired by the same reason. This reason was the treatment of blacks in the United States: slavery and segregation. Not only was racial injustice the inspiration for both these men but their views on protest were similar as both Thoreau and King advocated non-violence. Although Thoreau and King similarly advocated non-violence and emphasised that opposition should have a moral justification, they had different views on the form of non-violent protest which people should adopt. Among the more striking of the similarities between Thoreau and King are their attitudes towards the moral basis and framework of protests. In essence, Thoreau's essay may be described as an argument for adherence to one's conscience and the importance of upholding the basic moral principle of justice. As he writes, "unjust laws exist" and it is the duty of men and citizens with conscience to "transgress them at once," although non-violently. The implication here is that citizens should not blindly obey laws and governments but must use their moral judgement to determine whether or not the laws in question are just and moral. Only if they are, can a citizens obey them but, if they are not he should exercise civil disobedience. This particular aspect of Thoreau's philosophy of non-violence is very similar to Martin Luther King's as he also emphasised the duty to non-violently protest against unjust laws and immoral practices. Explaining the reason for his presence in Alabama, Reverend King writes, "I am in Birmingham because injustice is here." Like Thoreau, King believes that men have a moral duty to fight injustice and like Thoreau he also believes that protests and opposition to law have to be moral, as in non-violent. He thus asks protestors "are we able to accept blows without retaliating" In other words, regardless of the violence which protestors may be subjected to, they are morally obliged to abide by a philosophy of non-violence. Morality and justice, therefore, entailing non-violent resistance to injustice, are the primary characteristic of both King and Thoreau's philosophies. While there are fundamental similarities between Thoreau and King, there are also significant differences. Thoreau did not call for united action, while King did. Thoreau did not call for direct confrontation, while King did. It is interesting in this regard to quote Thoreau's view that "government is best which governs least." This does not appear to be King's view whereby it is evident from his letter that h supports strong governments; he wants a federal government which would step in and address the injustices committed by state governments. Indeed, as he writes, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." The point here is that rather than confront injustice by disobeying the laws, such as refusal to pay taxes as recommended by Thoreau, men had to take such action as would alert both the religious and the political authorities to the presence and depth of injustice. In other words, while Thoreau appears to identify the government as the primary opponent, King seems t regard it as a potential ally, but only if protestor are able effectively expose the depth of injustice. From a personal point of view, the philosophy of non-violent resistance, as preached by both King and Thoreau has enormous potential. We are currently living in a world which is full of injustice and violence. Governments are not only failing to act against injustice but, more often than not, they are at the root of these injustices. Among the injustices which Americans are currently confronting due to the actions of their government, is the War in Iraq. This war has cost the country countless of billions of dollars and the death of thousands of American soldiers. There is no moral purpose to this war. The American people have to take a stand against it but, they must take a non-violent stand, especially that they are protesting violence. Sit-ins and marches could be very effective, and are forms of non-violent protest which would grab the attention of the media and send a strong message to Washington: the American people are against violence and injustice; they are against death and destruction and they want their soldiers home. Read More