The book's position

• Blog – Agree or disagree on this book’s position about war.

I disagree with the book’s position about war that war is inherently evil. Because while war is an evil, it is a necessary evil for the survival of peaceful civilizations. There is, at least in my opinon, such a thing as just war a war that is fought to preserve and protect what is good in the world, instead of one intending to conquer and destroy it for the gain of an elite few. That being said the book presents a good reason why war should be used only when it is just or unavoidable. I think the book points out the value of human life and how it is too often squandered by politicians for special interests or abstract concepts like freedom and liberty.

Trapped in Joe's Mind

Blog about something you found interesting in the text.

One of the things that I found particularly interesting about the book Johnny got his gun was that the book used no commas whatsoever, none, nada, zilch. This gives the reading a terse shortness that makes it almost unique among books. Some places polysyndeton is used to replace the commas, other places the reader is left to figure out the meanings of the sentences on their own. I found this book powerful because I felt like I was trapped in Joe’s head. As a result I viewed the book from Joe’s perspective. This was extremely unsettling, I had to think what I would do if I were in Joe’s situation, and I realized that there was nothing I would do, because their was nothing I could do. This freaked me out because the loss of control over the one thing I have control over in my universe would be unbearable.

march of the flag and manifest destiny

This article contrasted sharply with the ideas presented in Johnny Got His Gun. The ideas of Americans making sacrifices for liberty and freedom was not present, instead the ideas of Manifest destiny and American infallibility were in their place. The view presented by the author of this article was that it was Americans flag was unstoppable as it expanded and encompassed the world. The view presented was also one of patriotic persuasion because the author calls people who would vote against the Spanish American War “infidels”. The aurthor is clearly one of the people who would send people to war over concepts like the “inevitable” spread of American democracy. Joe’s would clearly not agree with theses as justifications for going to war if he would even view anything as a justification for going to war. The article contrasts very strongly with the ideas presented in Johnny got his gun.

Views on just war between Johnny Got His Gun and America the Beautiful

• Blog – discuss this essay in relationship to the book

The book, Johnny Got His Gun and the essay, America the Beautiful are polar opposites. For me Johnny Got His Gun is probably the most powerful anti-war book I have ever read because it traps you in the mind of Joe, a disfigured WWI solider. This book was a powerful enough emotionally to put me in a depressed stupor. The book Johnny Got His Gun Joe realizes that there are no virtues worth dying for because you will not be there to experience them. Joe says that he can say this because he is the closest thing that there is to a dead man and because nobody will ever be able to refute this because he cannot voice his view since he has no means of communicating. On the other side of the spectrum says that there is a concept of a just war and that America wins wars not by strength of arms but rather by confidence in the morality of the grounds on which the war is waged. This article also argues that freedom and democracy is essentially morally superior to an Eastern style theocracy. This is because people are not made to right but most people choose to do right of their own free will.

Civil Disobedience

• Blog – Think of the Declaration of Independence. What is the role of resistance in democracy?

Resistance in a democratic society is pivotal, it allows for protest and dissent, testing whether a democratic society’s ideals and ideas actually hold water. The proof of this is that the United States still exists today. Because the United States was born out of civil disobedience “When in the course of human events” it became necessary do dissolve the bonds between the United States and Britain. Confrontation through civil disobedience and rebellion becomes necessary to prevent more abuse from what is perceived as unjust rule. The United States has also been shaped by many other acts of civil disobedience, most notably during the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail was the Civil Rights Movement’s equivalent to Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government. Societies that cannot tolerate Civil Disobedience will suffer from it Orwell’s Allegory of communism, Animal Farm is an example of this, it shows how in Napoleon’s (the pig representing Joseph Stalin) crushing of resistance turns him into the farmers (czars) that he was rebelling against.

gender

An event that has been in the media recently is denial of two lesbian students to go to prom together or wear a tuxedo to prom. I find it interesting how blown out of proportion the whole case has gotten blown out of proportion for both sides because the banning caused the teens to take the school to court, where they won. This caused the school to cancel the prom. Personally I think that the teens should have worked around this by being subtle (the tux made it less subtle). However, the school is clearly in the wrong for canceling the prom. Moderate tweaking of dress regulations would have sufficed, and providing that this did not disrupt school it would have remained well within the girls rights to go to prom.

What is marriage? i'd tell you but then you'd hate me.

Engaging the text #2

Wolfson begins this reading with an extended definition of marriage to make it seem like marriage should apply to any people who are in love. He makes this his first task because his emotional appeals build off this. He intentionally does not portray marriage as being between a man and a woman, despite his references to the word marriage in cultures that only recognize marriage as the unity of a man and a woman. As a result his definition is at best slanted and at worst dishonest. Based on the ambiguity and lack of any actual evidence, to support his point that marriage is about love regardless of who is involved. I will take the position of devils advocate to prove him wrong.

I agree that marriage laws in the US are unfair; the definition of marriage confines it to being between a man and a woman. Thousands of people who want to marry are not allowed to because of this. That is why the US should legalize polygamy because current laws restricts the legal right of 3 or more people, engaged in a loving relationship, to marry. If these people love each other obviously it doesn’t matter what their genders are, or how many of them there are. In Islam the Koran says that a man may have as many as 4 wives. In Africa having multiple spouses is not unusual. Thousands of loving couples in Utah are forbidden from the benefits of marriage solely on the basis of numbers. As a result I believe that the definition of marriage should be changed to include polygamy as a legitimate way for people to have a loving relationship.

You will note that the first 12 paragraphs of Wolfson’s argument support this. So don’t be a polyphobic, allow polygamy to be a legal form of marriage.

Q.E.D.