I just wrote half of a paragraph complaining about how someone annoyed me. I couldn't finish the story, though. Even though the annoying event occurred about fifteen minutes ago, I just couldn't be mad at my friend anymore.
What is unconditional love? Loving someone no matter what happens, right? Does this kind of relationship actually exist? Is it rational?
Shouldn't there always be something that is enough to cross a line? Do you have to be vulnerable and allow people to walk all over you in order to have an unconditional love? Think of the person you love most in your life. Is there anything that person could do that would make you stop loving them? Most of you will say yes, that there are some things that just can not be forgiven, but once you love someone, is it possible to ever stop loving him/her?
These are tough questions, that may not have answers, or at least have answers that vary greatly among individuals.
I think unconditional love does exist. It sometimes may not be healthy, though. How could you subject yourself to an unpleasant situation and accept it while it keeps hurting you? If you remove yourself from the situation, unconditional love means that as soon as that person calls on you again, you will be there. Are you doing it because you miss the person that you love(d) so much or are you doing it because you feel sorry for that person?
Before I present more questions, let me try to answer those that have already been posed. I do believe that I experience the strongest form of unconditional love. If my best friend were to bust every window of my car but had a reason for it, I would forgive her. If she were to stand up at my wedding and cuss me out in front of everyone, I would forgive her. I would give my life for her without much thought, because I might not be here and would definitely not be the same person without her impact on my life. Since she has saved my life before, I would put my life in her hands. I trust her completely, which is just a part of unconditional love. I know that my friend would not do anything with the intention of hurting me. I have known her inside and out for years. "Ah, but people change," someone will say. I believe that personality sticks and is hard to change. It does change, but something drastic or traumatic must happen before it can change significantly. I suppose if I thought my friend's personality changed that it might be time to re-evaluate the relationship, but struggling through hard times together strengthens the love and loyalty in a relationship usually. It has for us.
So is unconditional love rational? Love of any type usually is not rational. I pride myself on being a rational person and feel that my justification of owing my life to my friend makes my devotion to her rational. By "owing my life" to her, I mean being loyal to her unconditionally; the always being there when he/she calls part of a relationship. It is only one piece of unconditional love. So what are all the pieces of unconditional love then? They include pieces of love applied unconditionally: caring, trust, loyalty, respect, support, sharing and confidence, attachment, and advice. Is unconditional love only for husbands and wives? What is the difference between a marriage and close friendship? Primarily, just the romance. Notice there is nothing physical in the pieces of love listed. Therefore, unconditional love can exist in a relationship between friends, not just romantic partners.
"Do you have to be vulnerable and allow people to walk all over you in order to have an unconditional love?" No, you don't. One of the pieces of love, and therefore of unconditional love, is respect. Mutual respect would not allow any abuse or taking advantage of one of the people in the relationship. If someone were being taken advantage of then the pieces of love, especially the respect and support, should make this person comfortable enough to discuss it and for the two people to resolve it.
"Once you love someone, is it ever possible to stop loving him/her?" I've already said that unconditional love is possible. The definition of it is love that does not end. So if the love is unconditional, then it is not possible for it to end. There is definitely love that is conditional, which is in most relationships. In this case, it is possible for the love to end. Eternity is not a piece of love listed above.
"Are you doing it [continuing to love someone who hurts you] because you miss the person that you love(d) so much or are you doing it because you feel sorry for that person?" If the love is unconditional, then you could be doing it for either or both of these reasons. If the relationship is conditional then no matter which reason it is, the decision is irrational.
This writing should have made you think about your opinions on the matter. Post your answers to the questions and your feedback on my responses.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
More to Come
The reason I created this site is to release my anger and frustration about different things. I have no doubt had much that I could have written about in the past few months, but I have not had the time to do so. Hopefully there will be more entries soon. When a public/societal situation upsets me, there is not much that I can do except spread awareness of it and share a viewpoint that others may not see. I encourage everyone to do the same.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Rover Morning Show
On 92.3 FM there is the Rover Morning Show. The host of the show is Rover. Today's topic of discussion is a situation in Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn has a large Muslim community (more than 11%).
Muslims pray five times each day, and wash up before they pray. Part of this preparation requires washing of the feet. Muslims at a Dearborn school, like many other places, wash up using the sinks in public restrooms. Supposedly, due to the stress of students trying to wash their feet in the sink, sinks are being damaged (like being pulled away from the wall). A lot of money has been spent repairing sinks.
An idea was born that involved the installation of foot-washing stations, which would cost $250,000. This is less than the money being spent repairing sinks. Rover decided to broadcast his opinion that these stations should not be built, that the Muslims should have to pay for repairing the sinks, that they should not be allowed to wash their feet in the sinks, and that they should not even be allowed to pray. Rover has two co-hosts. The female co-host was defending the Muslims while Rover disrespected them, but the male co-host just disrespected Muslims even further.
Rover and his co-hosts are entitled to their opinions, but they should be held accountable for expressing their opinions in a respectable way without attacking any people. It is the duty of a responsible citizen to not be ignorant, respect others' views, and to have an open mind. While the female co-host tried to present a different opinion than Rover's, he talked over her, interrupted her, dismissed her statements, and continued to make more uneducated comments.
Rover stated that the students who are trying to wash their feet in the sink should pay for the "damage" done to the sinks. The female co-host stated that it should not be considered damage, but it should be considered normal "wear and tear." The negative effect on the property of the school is not being caused intentionally. This is not an instance of vandalism. Students use school property daily (like tables, chairs, pencil sharpeners, etc.) so if something breaks during regular use, should the student who happens to be using it when it breaks be responsible for the cost of replacing that equipment?
Muslims should not be allowed to wash their feet in the sinks? Well then where else should they wash them when they are in a public place? The suggestion of Rover's male co-host: If all they need is water, then why don't they just stick their feet in the toilet and flush it? That is an unreasonable comment. It is also an offensive comment. Muslims are not worthy of clean water to wash themselves? They only deserve toilet water?
Muslims should not be allowed to take a break to pray. This is another opinion that should not be broadcast to influence more ignorant people. Rover compared a Muslim taking a break for prayer to himself taking a break to surf the Internet because he is addicted to it. The right to practice religion is protected by law. The privilege to surf the Internet is not. Religion should not be compared to an addiction.
Rover even went as far as saying that no person, regardless of religion, should be allowed to pray. He specifically mentioned Christians. It is not obligatory for Christians to pray five times each day. Therefore, it would not affect Christians as much as Muslims to disallow breaks for prayer. Muslims are obliged to perform five daily prayers.
Rover makes his statements in a condescending and raised tone of voice, indicating hatred. He is spreading his hatred to ignorant people. He will also incite hatred from listeners who disagree with him. If he wants to discuss any topic, he should do it in a professional manner. Otherwise, he should be taken off the air.
Muslims pray five times each day, and wash up before they pray. Part of this preparation requires washing of the feet. Muslims at a Dearborn school, like many other places, wash up using the sinks in public restrooms. Supposedly, due to the stress of students trying to wash their feet in the sink, sinks are being damaged (like being pulled away from the wall). A lot of money has been spent repairing sinks.
An idea was born that involved the installation of foot-washing stations, which would cost $250,000. This is less than the money being spent repairing sinks. Rover decided to broadcast his opinion that these stations should not be built, that the Muslims should have to pay for repairing the sinks, that they should not be allowed to wash their feet in the sinks, and that they should not even be allowed to pray. Rover has two co-hosts. The female co-host was defending the Muslims while Rover disrespected them, but the male co-host just disrespected Muslims even further.
Rover and his co-hosts are entitled to their opinions, but they should be held accountable for expressing their opinions in a respectable way without attacking any people. It is the duty of a responsible citizen to not be ignorant, respect others' views, and to have an open mind. While the female co-host tried to present a different opinion than Rover's, he talked over her, interrupted her, dismissed her statements, and continued to make more uneducated comments.
Rover stated that the students who are trying to wash their feet in the sink should pay for the "damage" done to the sinks. The female co-host stated that it should not be considered damage, but it should be considered normal "wear and tear." The negative effect on the property of the school is not being caused intentionally. This is not an instance of vandalism. Students use school property daily (like tables, chairs, pencil sharpeners, etc.) so if something breaks during regular use, should the student who happens to be using it when it breaks be responsible for the cost of replacing that equipment?
Muslims should not be allowed to wash their feet in the sinks? Well then where else should they wash them when they are in a public place? The suggestion of Rover's male co-host: If all they need is water, then why don't they just stick their feet in the toilet and flush it? That is an unreasonable comment. It is also an offensive comment. Muslims are not worthy of clean water to wash themselves? They only deserve toilet water?
Muslims should not be allowed to take a break to pray. This is another opinion that should not be broadcast to influence more ignorant people. Rover compared a Muslim taking a break for prayer to himself taking a break to surf the Internet because he is addicted to it. The right to practice religion is protected by law. The privilege to surf the Internet is not. Religion should not be compared to an addiction.
Rover even went as far as saying that no person, regardless of religion, should be allowed to pray. He specifically mentioned Christians. It is not obligatory for Christians to pray five times each day. Therefore, it would not affect Christians as much as Muslims to disallow breaks for prayer. Muslims are obliged to perform five daily prayers.
Rover makes his statements in a condescending and raised tone of voice, indicating hatred. He is spreading his hatred to ignorant people. He will also incite hatred from listeners who disagree with him. If he wants to discuss any topic, he should do it in a professional manner. Otherwise, he should be taken off the air.
Friday, August 3, 2007
There are about 240,000 Holocaust survivors in Israel. There is concern that they are living in poverty. The Israeli government planned to give the survivors $20 a month. The survivors laughed in their faces, and now the government will revise their plan.
The survivors undoubtedly experienced much trauma and hardship during the Holocaust, but the purpose of the Israeli plan is to help with the poverty, not give reparations for all of the hurt caused to Jews.
$20 is equivalent to about 83 shekels (Israeli currency). Palestinians in the occupied territories also use shekels. What can a shekel buy you? Just a few shekels can buy you a whole hot meal. 83 shekels can buy a meal a day for an entire month. There are Palestinian families, including children, passing each day with just one meal. Some don't eat every day.
The rate of poverty among the Palestinians outweighs that of the Israelis. Most Holocaust survivors are senior citizens now. For an elder Israeli who does not have children to support, saying the 83 shekels a month isn't good enough is a slap in the face to Palestinians struggling to feed their children. How can the Israelis be so selfish?
The Israelis should appreciate the effort being made to help them, and should remember that things can always be worse... Think about the families that have NO money and the children that are starving, while you ask for MORE money.
The survivors undoubtedly experienced much trauma and hardship during the Holocaust, but the purpose of the Israeli plan is to help with the poverty, not give reparations for all of the hurt caused to Jews.
$20 is equivalent to about 83 shekels (Israeli currency). Palestinians in the occupied territories also use shekels. What can a shekel buy you? Just a few shekels can buy you a whole hot meal. 83 shekels can buy a meal a day for an entire month. There are Palestinian families, including children, passing each day with just one meal. Some don't eat every day.
The rate of poverty among the Palestinians outweighs that of the Israelis. Most Holocaust survivors are senior citizens now. For an elder Israeli who does not have children to support, saying the 83 shekels a month isn't good enough is a slap in the face to Palestinians struggling to feed their children. How can the Israelis be so selfish?
The Israelis should appreciate the effort being made to help them, and should remember that things can always be worse... Think about the families that have NO money and the children that are starving, while you ask for MORE money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
