Rizal

Jose Rizal is one of the noteworthy heroes in the Philippines. Though, his life story and written novels are at old aged; however it was still present as of these days in libraries, bookstore, and journals. That proves how Dr. Jose Rizal is meaningful to our lives. What if he did not fight for the Philippines right against Spaniards? The Philippines without him is nothing or worthless. Spaniards are stupid people who never want Filipino exceeds their level of intelligence. That’s why they killed Dr. Jose Rizal, because Rizal was against to Spanish absolute rule towards Filipino. Rizal is bright and intelligent hero and this is the great cause he was killed by Spanish. Spanish people don’t want Rizal to beat them. Like any country everywhere in the world has there own prehistoric records. It could be in country’s culture, national heroes, emblem, tradition, different kinds of people either ordinary or celebrated who contributed great honor to their country and etc. Those treasured recollections in the past will be noted as generations passed by and will be bring into play in schools as source of vast information’s for the students. Yes, they are now part of the set of courses in primary, secondary or even college schools. One of the most renowned national heroes in Philippines is Dr. Jose Rizal. His life and works are now widely published in all parts in the Philippines. You can find them at national bookstore or educational supplies. Dr. Jose Rizal’s life and history can be found in books, journals as well as booklet nationwide. However, because of his over all achievements, he is famous not only in Philippines but in most part of the world. Why Dr. Jose Rizal was one of the most renowned national heroes in the Philippines? What are his accomplishments to the country Philippines? Despite the fact that he was gone for a very long period of years, why he was still part of every people’s lives as well as to the students? The Philippines without Jose Rizal is not complete. He did contributed a lot to make Philippines overpower a success on the way to change the Philippines dictatorship against Spanish people with no grabbing a gun or else a sword that justly marked as impressive heritage to all people in Philippines or to other countries of the world like United States, Czech Republic as well as Singapore. He was died unfortunately at the young age of 35(June 19 1861-- December 30 1896). Even though, he died at 35 years old, he did much contribution in Philippine Revolution against Spanish Colonial Era; he also published novels like Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. This two novels are now use in high school students from third year to fourth year. The Philippines without Jose Rizal appears to be unclear. Without the leadership of Rizal against Spanish, Philippines will remains unsettled. Because Jose Rizal has great love to his country Philippines as well as the people, he defend his country no matter he died just for the country.

the greatest contribution of Dr.jose rizal in our country is the two novel he written; the noli me tangere and el filibusterismo, by this many filipinos awaken by the slavery of spaniards to the filipinos.. he used these two writings instead of holding a sword against the spaniards.. he proved to everybody that pen is mightier than a sword.

Dr. Jose Rizal as the Illuminator and Philippine history as incomplete

Three days from now, and we will be celebrating the birth of Jose Rizal. Do you know that Rizal is not officially our national hero? There is still no law that really establishes Rizal as our national hero.

And understandably so. Would you allow this present bunch of nincoompoops in Congress to specifically give you the standards for national heroes? Besides, we always say that we are a nation of heroes.

Dr. Jose Rizal gave his greatest contribution by being the literary force that illuminated the minds of Filipinos and led to the masses' fight for freedom. Rizal was the first to break the slavish system which ingrained itself in the psyche of the Filipino, among other things.

Rizal, to my mind, was a sly revolutionary who figured that weapons and modern arms were useless against a petty mob of rulers who think themselves as lords over a mass of dishevelled slavish-thinking people. When emissaries of Bonifacio went to Rizal for counselling and the doctor reportedly disagreed with them, Rizal did so because for him, the illumination process was still in its infancy. For Rizal, shoring arms against the Spaniards was an easy task, but nation-building wasn't.

Rizal was thinking ahead. He saw that the nation was still unprepared. Yes, the might of arms gave way to revolutionary victory, but without breaking the sociological chains that bind both the Lord and the Slave, the Slave would find it extremely hard to make his will a reality.

This explains why, for a century, we tried to give flesh to our theoretical constructs, trying to determine the true Pinoy, and attempted several times to deconstruct History and glean from the mass of disproportionate parts, lessons which we tried to fit into a boxed up reality of sorts.

Limited knowledge of the world, that was the problem of decades past.

Now that knowledge has broken from its prison, and its rays bursting from every single direction, the Filipino now has the great opportunity to construct his own model for progress without reconstructing someone's Idea.

The Filipino, himself, is the Idea.

CHAPTER Nine: THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF DR. JOSE RIZAL 24/7/2014 1 Comment

“ THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF DR.JOSE RIZAL” Martyrs are rare stars in the vast firmament of humanity. Every Instance of martyrdom is distinct in magnitude and direction. Indeed martyrs are the meteors of history, they flash across the sky and light the world and in the process consume themselves . They are the person who is put to death or made suffer greatly or other beliefs because of religion. Other elements of martyrdom are usefulness of life and dedication to a high purpose. Rizal’s death was an emotional event in our history as it produced A “martyr” and resulted in some form of social change or transformation in our lives as a people. Rizal was put to death for “subversion” by the dominant political forces. He presented a sector Of society which had begun to trouble and therefore constituted a real Threat to the existing social order. “ THE TRIAL OF DR. JOSE RIZAL” The spanish colonial government accused Rizal of three crimes: (a) The founding of La Liga Filipina, an “illegal organization” Whose single aim was to “Perpetrate the crime of rebellion”. (b) Rebellion which he promoted through his previous activities. (c)ILLegal association

-The penalty for for those accusation is life imprisonment to death And correctional imprisonment and a charge of 325 to 3,250 Pesetas.

The prosecution drew information from the dossier on Rizal which Detailed his” subervise activities” some of which are the following: 1.The writing and publication of “Noli me Tangere”, the Annotations to Morga’s History of the Philippines, “El Filibusterismo”, and the various articles which criticized the friars and suggested their expulsion in order to win independence. The El Filibusterismo was dedicated to the three martyr priests who were executed as traitors to the Fatherland in 1872 because they were the moving spirit of the uprising of that year. 2.The establishment of masonic lodges which became the propaganda and fund raising center to support subvervise activities and the establishment of centers in Madrithe ,Hongkong and Manila to propagate his ideas. After finishing as much evidence as possible on November 20, 1896 the preliminary on Rizal began. During the five-day investigation,Rizal was informed of the charges against him before Judge advocate Colonel Francisco Olive. ·Two kinds of Evidences Endorsed By Colonel Olive to Governor Ramon Blanco: 1.Documentary -fifteen exhibits 2.Testimonial -Provide by Martin Constantino, Aguedo del Rosario, Jose Reyes, Moises Salvador, Jose Dizon,Domingo Franco, Deodato Arellano, Pio Valenzuela , Antonio Salazar, Francisco Quison, and Timoteo Paez. The Judge Rafael Dominguez advocate assigned with the task of deciding what corresponding action should be done.After a brief Review transmitted the records to Don Nicolas de la Pena. Pena’s recommendations were as follows: - Rizal must be immediately sent to trial ·He must be held in prison under necessary security · His properties must be issued with order of attachment And as indemnity,Rizal had to pay one million pesos ·Instead of a civilian lawyer,only an army officer is allowed To defend Rizal. The lawyer of Rizal is Lt. Luis Taviel de Andrade Brother of Lt. Jose Traviel de Andrade who worked as Rizal’s personal body guard in Calamba in 1887.In the presence of his Spanish Counsel on December 11, 1896, charges against Rizal were read in the presence of his Spanish counsel. When they asked regarding his sentiments or reaction on the charges, Rizal replied that in his defense.

-He does not question the jurisdiction of the court. -He has nothing to amend except that during his exile in Dapitan in 1892, he had not dealt in political matters. -He has nothing to admit on the charges against him. -He had nothing to admit on the declarations of the witnesses,he had knew,against him.

not met nor

The Execution Of Dr.Jose Rizal Despite all valid pleadings the military court,vindictive as it was Unanimous voted for the sentence of death. Polavieja affirmed The decision of the court martial and ordered to be shot at 7:00 in the morning of December 30 1896 at Bagumbayan field. Rizal was heavily guarded and was accompanied by the Jesuits as He walked from Fort Santiago to Bagumbayan. He wore a black woolen suit and a derby hat and his arms were tied behind him. During the walked, he recalled his youth and his student days At the Ateneo. And in Bagumbayan itself, the Spanish troops held Back the crowd while the artillery group stood on alert to prevent any attempt to rescue Rizal. His brother Paciano who had joined the Revolution forces was said to have discouraged groups who might Want to save Rizal since thay would not be able to match Spanish Firepower. The captain in charge of the execution instructed Rizal Were to position himself, to turn his back against the squad and the Face the sea. However, Rizal requested to face the firing squad, as such position instructed was only taken by traitors and he was not one of them. The captain could not do anything for he was only following orders.Hence, failing to have his request granted, he asked to be shot at the back instead of the head so that he may, at the end , turn his head and body sidewise and fall with his face upward.The captain agreed,he also asked if he would like to kneek but Rizal refused nor did he agree to be blindfolded. A Jesuit priest now came running and Asked Rizal to kiss the cruffix that he held.Rizal turned his back on the cruffix and thus,against the firing squad. He was ready for the execution. “ DR.JOSE RIZAL LAST DAY AND HIS EXECUTION” Rizal spent his 24 hours in his death cell where he received members Of his family and writes his letter,the first one to his “second brother” Ferdinand Blumentritt. He gave his sisters,Trinidad and old petroleum lamp and whispered to her in English that there is something inside The lamp .Thus is Rizal’s famous Farewell poem. “Ultimo Adios”, (Last Farewell” was found. Rizal was said to have married his Irish girlfriend according to Catholic rited in the very last hours of his life, after living with her for sometime in Dapitan. They were previously married civilly. On the morning of December 30,1896.Rizal set on his walk from Fort Santiago to the Bagumbayan square, the same place where the three priest had been killed in 1872, now Luneta Park, in the center of Manila at 6:30 O’clock. And when the time to march to Bagumbayan Rizal he was ready to face his ultimate death came, he was seen as A man of peace and bravery. At exactly 7:03 am RIZAL shouted “Consummatum Est” before

the shot run out. The hero’s life ended. In In the background could be heard, “Viva Espna! Death to traitors!. Rizal’s Family was not able to take old of his body. The military had secretly buried the body of Rizal at the Paco cemetery. Her sister Narcisa looked for the cadaver everywhere but could not find it. She passed by the unused Paco cemetery and saw through the open Gate some civil guards. Finding this uncommon, she entered the cemetery and searched the place. She saw a grave with freshly turned earth and knew at once his was her brother’s body. With a little money,she asked the gravedigger to place a plaque on it with her brother’s initial reverse.That is R.P.J. for Protacio Jose.That afternoon the books, letter, and alcohol burner were delivered To Rizal’s family. At the base of the alcohol burner they found Rizal’s last masterpiece the MI ULTIMO ADIOS. The copies were given to each family member and some are to the Cavite insurgents. After the Americans had taken Manila, Narcisa requested the new government to grant her permission to exhume the body of his brother. They found out that the body was never placed in a coffin, nor even Wrapped by anything. Rizal’s family had possession of the body the remains were instituted at the base of the Rizal monument which was erected at the center of the Luneta.

MANILA, Philippines - The trial of Dr. Jose Rizal by a Spanish military court for sedition, rebellion and conspiracy, which would lead to his execution and martyrdom, began on December 6, 1896. Rizal, who was first imprisoned in Barcelona and later in Fort Santiago, was implicated in the revolt launched in August 1896 by the Katipunan led by Andres Bonifacio, and which aimed to liberate the Philippine islands from Spanish colonization. At the time of his arrest, Rizal was supposed to leave for Cuba, after gaining permission from Spanish Governor-General Ramon Blanco, who was sympathetic to him. Rizal had proposed to serve as a military surgeon in Cuba, where there was also a revolt against Spain. Before he left from his exile in Dapitan for Manila and then for Spain, Rizal had issued a manifesto disavowing the revolution, ostensibly subscribing to the argument that the education of Filipinos and their achievement of a national identity were prerequisites to freedom. Rizal was arrested while enroute to Spain, imprisoned in Barcelona, and sent back to Manila to stand trial. He was charged with being a traitor to Spain and the mastermind of the revolution. He pleaded his innocence but he was still convicted on all three charges of rebellion, sedition, and conspiracy and sentenced to death.

Earlier, Rizal was already considered an enemy of the state by the Spanish authorities, following the publication of his two novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. Rizal was executed on December 30, 1896 in Bagumbayan (Luneta), which was eventually known as Rizal Park.

Sorry, something has gone wrong.

Answers Relevance

Best Answer: Most remember Rizal for his writings, his determination, and of course his love for the Philippines. He didn't just write and speak of Spanish injustice in a non violent manner like Ghandi or Martin Luther King. Rizal was a major organizer and leader in the Katipunan Revolt of 1896. WHile he was arrested and exectuted on the Luneta after trial, he was first sent to Dapitan and agreed to agreed to his word to live out the revoluation. Keeping in mind he was place in a prison but was sent "hous arrest" under his honor. Rizal probably wasn't a true organizer of the revolt, as he had already been granted permission to travel to Cub (they revolted in 1895), and he wanted to serve as a physician there. But somehow he managed to get involved in the Revolt during the time he prepared to leave for Cuba. There are two version to what happened: 1. Rizal was framed for his involvement in the revolution by a new Governor sent to restore order... 2. Rizal was an active insurectionist who was executed for treason against the crown of Spain... I suspect the 1st, most widely accepted, hypothesis is untrue because Rizal is referred to as a patriot by Filipino's so that would make him a traitor to Spain. Just like it would be wrong to say that George Washington was framed by the British and then call him the father of America. Rizal was tried, and he was executed by a court under the laws of the nation in that period. While his death seems unfathomable by today's standards of democracy and free speech, in that time many a man was killed for speaking his mind. In fact, Rizal had been granted tremendous lieniency by the Spanish Goveror and given freedom for his treason (keep in mind I think of him as a patriot). In that time the Spanish rarely even tried a native Pinoy for revolting. But Rizal was considered a member of the elite, he was literally considered a Filipino (a citizen of the Philippines and a citizen of Spain) by the Spanish. THe

spanish did not recognize natives of the Philippines as Citizens except a small aristocratic circle of elite persons. Rizal's exection was fair by the circumstances of the time for these reasons. But it was an unjust execution because we belive the Spanish were unjust to the Philippines.

rcado y Alonzo, was accused of being the leader of the revolution, I came to ask myself, were there really two leaders of th

cost.

hich contains his sentiments of the deportations to be vital in the encouragement of the people to hate tyrann

and friars had treated the Filipinos like sub-human species of the animal kingdom. Thus depriving them of their rights as , I, you, and Rizal knows that being a Filipino experiencing all those Spanish injustices at that time, you would say " this is onialization but he only requests through his connection to the Filipino Reform movement in Spain that Filipinos, as ng informed by Rizal what is really going on inside the Philippines as a colony of Spain. Nothing more and nothing less. How Filipino colony here. I was against it" And with this letter, we could furthermore prove that Rizal no longer had any conne

mmittee, which could be the Masons, for his patriotic works. And the last was the recommendation of the establishment of eded is a special organ designed specifically for the Philippine cause. Its members, or some of them, may be Masons, but

untry.

o could back him up in his cause. He knew that this committee could help him in his undertakings in whatever way they ca

t here in the Philippines, they were wrong. This was true for most of the members of the Freemasonry in Spain were Span

was attached in this plot was that because the only person the Spanish government could only pinpoint someone who was

taining verses and lines emphasizing of the liberty and the liberator of the motherland and teaching the Dapita

le were tortured as well as treated like lower classes of mammals in the genus Mamalia. It was true that in everything he

anish friars and government officials, thinking that they were more superior to the natives, let their pride rise to the heave

n give her liberty!"Spaniards who may read this may think of this as another writing that would instigate the revolution. O out in all of Rizals writing that the Philippines would be set free once all her children would be educated and could find a pe

ldren, yes, but nothing daunts us, neither wave nor storm nor thunder. With strong right arm and unclouded brow we sha

out the prudence of the Filipinos, "The Filipinos are all very prudent, and that is why our country is going on the way she is nothing very revolutionary about it, unless you as a reader have a malicious interpretation of it in your mind.

n!" It only shows that these people have finally realized and that they have finally opened their eyes to the truth of what w er of the revolutionary group. It is obvious that they cry out his name in pure devotion, that is because it is the only way th

shment of Doroteo Cortes and Ambrosio Salvador.

"New Calamba". Although there were some who objected to this idea like Hidalgo, one of Rizals brothers-in-law.

rder to avoid anymore trouble with the government.

portation to the friars who see as the two mentioned latter as "friends" of Rizal. Does this also imply to the brothers-in-law

here in the accusations published against the customs of the religious orders were found? That the novel, El Filibusterismo

u think it would be against his own principles if he was anti-Spain but dont want to separate from it?

beauty of the Catholic religion. This would only help the people synthesize what they really see if these are really for God

s. And he also dedicated this novel to them because it was his promise to avenge their unlawful execution. He didnt aveng

ds name in order to have the power and the finances, " the treasures from the Filipino breasts in which Rizals writings and

e cultures of multiple nations including Spain. And he would have known in his numerous travels the best war strategy tha

GUILTY. The defense rests.

RIZAL AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM by MW Bro. Reynato S. Puno, PGM

I have been asked to deliver a paper on Rizal and the Justice System. I accepted the task as a true Mason and as a true Knight of Rizal. Little did I realize the immensity of the job and the efforts required to research on the topic. Our history has been written and rewritten from different perspectives but it appears that our scholars have not sufficiently plumbed the legal aspects of our history during the 300 years we were under the political dominion of Spain. The scarcity of legal materials on our judicial system under the Spanish rule thus impairs the exhaustiveness or the intellectual breadth of this paper. With this caveat and with your dispensation, allow me to proceed. The family members of Rizal contended with the faulty system of justice at their time. The confrontation was destined to happen considering their unique social, economic and political chemistry. The Rizals were never awed by the arrogance of the powers that be who ruled with near absolute despotism. In a land where illiteracy reigned, they refused to submit to the darkness of ignorance. The Rizals were highly educated and they never felt any sense of inferiority from the Spanlards as did the multitude of indios. Francisco, Rizal's father, attended Latin school at Biñan and the College of San Jose in Manila. Francisco's father and grandfather had served as chief town officials -- captain -- of Biñan.1 Teodora Alonzo, Rizal's mother, was more than a bearer of children. She attended the Dominican College of Santa Rosa in Manila. Rizal spoke of her mother as "...acquianted with literature and speaks better Spamish than I do; she used to correct my poems and give me wise advice when I was studying rhetoric; she is a mathematician and has read a great many books.2 For a Filipina to be extremely literate in the mid-1800's is a phenomenon for

in many parts of the world, women's rights yet unheard of. Teodora Alonzo was likewise no stranger to political power. Her father was a municipal captain.3 From the start, Rizal's parents demonstrated their courage to stand and stand steadfastly for what is right and righteous. In his biography of Rizal, Palma relates how Francisco incurred the ire of the powerful alferez (or lieutenant) of the Spanish civil guards. The alferez was typical of the abusive guardia civil of the time. He used to demand fodder for his horse from Francisco as a matter of right. The kind man that he was, Francisco always accomodated the alferez. One day, however, Francisco's ration of fodder failed to come and did not have enough for his own horses. Francisco was caught in a dilemma when a civil guard came and demanded fodder to feed the horses of the alferez. Francisco refused the request and explained his predicament. The alferez would not listen to his explanation. The alferez thought that in the heat of the confrontation Francisco would melt like a marshmallow. He was mistaken about the bent of Francisco's backbone. Bristling with righteous indignation, Francisco thundered to the guard : "Tell the alferez that I voluntarily give when I have more than I need, but I cannot give when I need for myself what I have. He can go and buy his fodder anywhere." 4The blood pressure of the aiferez shot to stratospheric height for he had never received a rebuff from an indio. He swore to get even at the proper time. Thus, Francisco demonstrated that a Rizal would not allow himself to be a doormat even of powerful foreigners in his own land. As perceptively observed by Palma, "The officer of the civil guard was a little sovereign within each town and his power was feared by the residents. He not only could catch and apprehend criminals but could also give confidential reports on any person suspected of being opposed to the Spaniards. To qurrel with him was equivalent to being on bad terms with the Spanish regime." 5 The harassments of the Rizals were not long to come. The first victim was Rizal's mother herself, courtesy of the secular authorities. It appears that her first cousin, Jose Alberto, was ahandoned by his wife. He decided to divorce her but Rizal's mother would not hear of it. She exerted efforts to patch up their quarrel. Her good intention proved to be her undoing. Her cousin's wife resented her intervention. She alleged to the authorities that her husband was trying to poison her. And worse, she implicated Rizal's mother as an accomplice. The charge against Rizal's mother was clearly the result of an imagination running riot. But the alcalde received the accusation as the incarnation of truth. He did not bother to hear the side of Rizal's mother. With inordinate speed, he adjudged her guilty. He ordered her to be imprisoned. The order was carried out by the alferez whose power had been previously defied by Francisco. The alferez forced Rizal's mother to walk all the way to the prison house, a distance of 20 miles. 6 Undeniably, the incarceration of his mother without any tinge of due process and the cruelty with which her order of arrest was carried out left an indelible imprint on the mind of Rizal.If secular injustice was bad, sectarian injustice was worse. The Rizals were Catholics but they were not of the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil variety. While in Spain, Rizal realized that the friars were the problem and not the solution to the problem in the Philippines. He wrote the Noli Me Tangere exposing the abuses of the friars. The shaft of Noli shattered the once sacred halo of the friars. Noli provided the powerful friars the casus belliagainst Rizal. Their rage escalated to an inferno when Rizal again denounced the corruption of the Dominicans in the Calamba estate affair. The Calamba estate originally belonged to the Jesuits. Initially,

it covered only a small part of the town. Its ownership passed to the Dominicans. Soon, the Dominicans expanded its area and the estate covered almost the whole of Calamba. But while the estate was growing more and more in size, the Dominicans were paying less and less in taxes. The stink was picked up by the nose of the authorities and the civil governor of Laguna was instructed by Governor-General Terrero to start an inquiry. The tenants of the estate, which included the Rizal clan, sought the assistance of Rizal. Rizal painstakingly investigated the facts about the hacienda and revealed the misdeeds of the Dominicans in a public meeting. Some 60 families were emboldened by the courage of Rizal and they petitioned the Governor-General to draw up more equitable lease agreement between them and the Dominicans.7 Historian 0.D. Corpuz observed that this was the "...first agrarian reform proposal in Filipinas.8 But Coates observed that it was the beginning of the end for Rizal for "he was attacking the friars on their most sensitive point --- money. 9 Predictably, the Dominicans struck back hard. They castigated the alcalde for not placing the town under martial law. In response, the alcalde sought permission to arm the militia. He used the dreaded guardia civil to monit6r the movements of the people. The people were also warned by the Dominicans that "if they were not obedient, the dire chastisement of God would fall upon them within not many days." 10 The show and use of force did not break the will of the tenants. The wily Dorninicans then shifted their strategy. They decided to use the courts of law to eject the tenants. They filed ejectment cases in the court of Laguna. They won as expected. Rizal's brother, Paciano, and his brother-in-law, Manuel Hidalgo, did not easily give up the fight. They led the tenants appeal to the Real Audiencia in Manila. Again, they lost their appeal but they continued knocking at the door of justice. Paciano prepared the final appeal to the Tribunal Supremo in Madrid. He requested Rizal to fly to Madrid to assist in the appeal. They expected the highest court of Spain to be less biased against the Filipino tenants. The Dominicans shattered their last remaining hope. They jumped the gun on the high tribunal. They forced the eviction of the tenants before their appeal could be decided. Governor-General Weyler sent a detachment of artillery to Calamba. The tenants were given 24 hours to leave or their houses would be either destroyed or burned. The Dominicans themselves chose which house to destroy and which house to burn. The quick wrecking operation rendered some 300 families landless and homeless. Among the victims, the family of Rizal was hardest hit. Rizal's parents had to take refuge in the house of their daughter Narcisa. Paciano was forcibly deported to Mindoro. Manuel Hidalgo was arrested as a filibustero and then deported to Bohol. Other brothers-in-law were hunted and driven to live the lives of outlaws. Rizal's mother bore the ire of the friars. She was arrested and for the second time was slapped a false charge. The charge was for improperly using the surname Alonzo.11 She was ordered to be imprisoned at Santa Cruz, which could be reached more convenienfly by boat via Laguna de Bay. She offered to pay her boat fare and that of her escort. She was refused. They compelled her to walk the long distance. She did though she was then 64 years old and almost blind. It took her four days to complete her journey to jail. Upon seeing her pitiable state, the civil governor of Sta. Cruz immediately ordered her release. She then fled to Hongkong where her husband Francisco and son Paciano had earlier escaped. The experience shattered the faith of Rizal's mother. In a letter to Bluementritt, Rizal wrote: "It is a lamentable consequence of Dominican hatred that my aged mother, who was so pious and religious, now herself says

that she can believe no more. She says everything is a fraud." failed the Rizals.

12

Again, the justice system

The legal rigmarole did not dampen the indomitable spirit of Rizal for justice. He fastracked his efforts to secure reforms from Spain though his views were undergoing radicalization. The volume of his criticisms against frailocracy reached a new decibel. He rushed the writing of El Filibusterismo, the sequel toNoli Me Tangere. He also joined Freemasonry by affiliating with Acasia Lodge No. 9 of the Gran Orientede España.13 His affiliation with Freemasons was not without significance. As accurately observed by Coates, "...in the light of the bitter opposition of the Spanish Church to Freemasonry, this move on his part cannot but suggest the adoption of more extreme position in respect of the church; and remembering that the political problem of the Philippines was predominantly an ecclesiastical one, the move may in part reflect his diminished faith in the policy of assimilation." 14 Rizal's alliance with freemasons and freemasonry which was then growing by leaps and bounds15 in the Philippines influenced his future course of action. In a radical move, he wrote the By-Laws of La Liga Flilpina while in Hongkong. He patterned its structure after masonic lodges. lts aim was to organize Filipinos as one, viz, to unite the whole archipelago into a compact body, vigorous and homogeneous. 16 He returned to the Philippines and among his first acts was to formally organize the Liga Filipina at a house in Tondo on July 3, l892.17 Rizal appeared to have metamorphosed from a theorist to action man. GovernorGeneral Despujol saw the danger sign and ordered Rizal's arrest on July 6, 1892, or three days after he inaugurated Liga Filipina. Several untenable grounds were used to justify his arrest. Essentially, he was arrested for smuggling anti-clerical leaflets which were allegedly discovered at his hotel in Binondo. Rizal was whisked to Fort Santiago and held incommunicado for eight days. He was later transferred secrefly to the warship Alba and deported to Dapitan. Palma viewed Rizal's arrest as "another proof of how despotic and arbitrary the Spanish regime was." 18 It was a foretaste of the worst injustice to come. The news of Rizal's deportation spread like fire and it raised the revolutionary temperature of the people. In August of 1896, the Katipunan was discovered and the premature discovery forced Bonifacio et al. to start the uprising. Initially, Gov. General Blanco did not suspect any involvement of Rizal in the uprising. In his August 3 letter to Manuel de Azcarraga, Minister of War and for Overseas Territories in Madrid, he vouchsafed the conduct of Rizal thus: His conduct during the four years he remained in Dapitan as a deportee has been exemplary; and he is, in my opinion, the more worthy of pardon and benevolence in that he is in no way involved in the ill-advised action which these days we are deploring neither in any of the secret socities that have been formed. 19 On the basis of this certification of good conduct issued by no less than the GovernorGeneral, Rizal was issued a safe conduct pass to go to Cuba as a volunteer physician to help Spain put down the Cuban revolution. He sailed to Manila on boatr España but he had to wait for a month for the next boat going to Europe. In the meanwhile, he was transferred to the cruiser Castilla stationed at Cavite where he was detained but not as a prisoner. Finally, he got on board Isla de Panay going to Barcelona. The Filipino rebels initially scored

stunning successes against the Spaniards. The Spanish authorities, however, resorted to mass arbitrary arrests as panic swept them. Prominent Filipinos were arrested at the slightest of suspicion. With Rizal in the boat Isla de Panay was Don Pedro Roxas, a filibustero suspect. Fearful of an arrest, Roxas got off in Singapore. The friends of Rizal advised him to follow Roxas. He refused saying: "No, a fugitive, no. They would consider me an accomplice in the uprising. 20 His show of innocence was of no help to Rizal. On September 27, when the boat left Port Said going to the Mediterranean, the captain of the ship received a telegraphic order to arrest Rizal. He arrived in Barcelona on October 3 and was brought to the Castle of Montjuich. Irony of ironies, he was welcomed there by General Despujol, the man who deported him to Dapitan. On October 6, he was shipped back to the Philippines on board the SS Colon. He reached Manila on November 3. The secular and sectarian authorities were ready to inflict the supreme injustice on Rizal. They were prepared to charge him as leader of the rebellion then spreading in the country. They had rounded up suspects and extracted confessions from them by force and fraud. Rizal's brother, Paciano, was one of their worst victims. Coates narrates the barbaric means employed to break the will of Paciano: "He was submitted to torture. First, pins were driven between his nail and fingers, while seated before him the investigators repeated their demands. He kept silent. Next, irons were placed between his fingers and the clamp tightened repeatedly. He remained silent. After this, he was flogged by Spaniards with one inch rattan till he became unconscious. He was revived, and was then, with his hands behind his back, suspended by his wrists from the ceiling by a rope which, adjusted to leave him hanging, a foot or so above the ground, could be suddenly released causing him to drop defenseless upon the stone floor. The intervals at which he was dropped varied; there was no means of knowing when the rope would next be released. Still he kept silent. The prisoner was released and delivered home on a stretcher. He left Fort Santiago totally paralyzed from head to foot, only a faint movement of the pulse showin that there was still life. He remained incapable of movement for several days. 21 The worst of his torturers did not destroy the best of Paciano. He resisted the crudest attempts to extract lies from his lips. Unfortunately, others were not so faithful to the altar of truth. Their spirit succumbed to the punishment of their physical part. They signed documents which the authorities fraudulently used to link Rizal with the ongoing rebellion. The preliminary investigation of Rizal started. It was conducted by a Colonel Francisco Olive, Judge Advocate. The procedure was totally inquisitorial. He was informed of the accusation against him but had no right to confront and cross-examine his accusers and the witnesses against him. He was able to give a statement but without the assistance of counsel. Col. Olive interrogated Rizal for five continuous days. He then transmitted the proceedings to Governor Blanco so the latter could appoint a special judge to file the charge against Rizal. Blanco appointed Rafael Dominguez, a captain of the infantry. Dominguez concluded that Rizal "... is the principal organizer and living soul of the insurrection ... the principal chief of the filibusterismo of the country." 22 The opinion was concurred by Nicolas Peña, the Judge Advocate General.23 He recommended that Rizal be immediately tried; that he be kept behind bars (without bail) while on trial; that his properties be atttached up to one million pesos; and that his defense counsel be an army officer. In a critical move the Dominicans were able to instigate the replacenent of Governor-Bianco by Governor General Polavieja.

Governor Polavieja at once ordeted a court martial to try Rizal. 24 The charge was founding illegal associations 25 and promoting and inciting rebellion, the first being a necessary means of committing the second. 26 The fact that it was committed by a native was considered as an aggravating circumstance. The penalty for the crirnes as charged was mandatory death. The prosecutor, Enrique de Alcocer, asked for its imposition. Rizal was defended by 1st Lt. Luis Taviel de Andrade.27 On Christmas day, December 25, Rizal was gifted with the information that he would be tried the next day. At 10 o'clock in the morning of December 26, 1896, the court martial convened in the building called Cuartel de España. Alcocer read the Brief for the Prosecution. Retana described the Brief as "rich in rhetoric, poor in logic ... excessive in impetuoisity and ... empty of reason." After him, 1st Lt. Luis Taviel de Andrade read the Brief of Rizal. Retana described it as "a reasoned and in spite of its simplicity, a brilitant defense." Then Rizal read the "Supplement to My Defense" which he himself prepared and where he rebutted point by point the factual bases of the charges against him. No member of the court martial dared contradict him. The case was considered submitted for decision without any question from the members of the court martial. The court martial made a short deliberation and condemned Rizal as guilty. He was sentenced to death. It further ordered: "... in case of pardon the penalty, unless specifically remitted, shall carry with it the accessories of absolute, perpetual disqualification and subjection of the accused to the surveillance of authorities during his whole life, to pay as imdemnity to the State the sum of P1,000,000.oo with the obligation of transmitting the satisfaction of its indemnity to his heirs. 28 There was to be no pardon for Rizal. Within two days or on December 28, 1896, GovernorGeneral Polavieja approved the sentence and ordered that the sentence be carried out by "means of execution by a firing squad at seven o'clock in the morning of the 30th of the present month in Bagumbayan Field..." 29 Rizal was transferred to his solitary cell and awaited the footsteps of death with the peace that passeth understanding. The question has been asked whether Rizal was given justice in his trial. Commentators have ventured the view that his trial was unfair and unjust. I humbly join this view for various reasons. First. The hostility at the time precluded an impartial trial. The Spanish colonial authorities would not tolerate a successful rebellion of the Filipinos. Cuba had already revolted and they could not lose two colonies. The Philippine revolution had to be smashed and we know that when the guns sound, the laws are silent. Second. Rizal had to be eliminated at all costs. His educational credentials were impressive. His love for the Philippines was unadultered. Of all Filipinos, he had the potential to unite the people against the Spaniards. He led the movement for reforms in the Philippines and he was relentless in his efforts. He was fast metamorphosing to a revolutionary. He posed a real danger. Third. There was an extra special reason to destroy Rizal. He was anti-clerical. His novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismoand his numerous critical essays irreparably damaged the Catholic priests in the Philippines. Undeniably, they co-ruled the Philippines and they could not continue their reign with Rizal disputing their authority. Rizal was too

much of a heretic and he did not show any indication he would go soft or slow with his attacks against the religious. They marked him as enemy number one. Fourth. Rizal was charged and tried as the leader of the revolution. At the time of his trial, the revolution was succeeding to the consternation of the Spaniards who thought it could be stumped out with ease. If the revolution succeeded, the Spanish authorities knew they would be dead. It was their neck or Rizal's neck. They had to save their own neck. Fifth. The preliminary investigation of Rizal was a mere show. It was an inquisition. A nonlawyer, Rizal defended himself and he defended himself against accusers whom he could not confront nor cross-examine. The investigation was held only to comply with the formality required by law. As soon as it was finished, the charges against Rizal were readied as preconceived by the authorities. Sixth. The records do not show how the members of the court martial were chosen by Governor Polavieja. Polavieja was not a symphatizer of Rizal. Indeed, the Dominicans exerted their influence to replace Blanco with Polavieja. The Dominicans did not trust BIanco whom they thought was using velvet gloves against Rizal. Blanco was a known Freemason.30 Blanco is quoted as having informed Retana that had he continued as governor he would have never condemned Rizal to death. 31 Seventh. The records do not show the background or the personality profile of the members of the court martial. They were all Spaniards. It does not appear that Rizal was given any opportunity to study their impartiality. In court martial proceedings, an accused is usually accorded the right to challenge and disqualify a prospective juror. Rizal was denied that fundamental right. Eight. The records do not show that the members of the court martial actively participated in the proceedings. They merely listened to the prosecutor and the defense counsel read their respective Briefs. Despite the fugitive facts, not one asked any question to the prosecutor or to the defense counsel. Not one challenged Rizal when he read his Supplemental Defense. They were all as silent as a sphinx during the trial. Ninth. The records do not show how the members of the court martial deliberated on the case. After the arguments closed, they retired and after a short while returned a verdict of guilty. There was no way to find out how they appreciated the evidence against Rizal. Tenth. The various pieces of evidence against Rizal were not only weak but were also not admissible under the law of evidence at that time. The counsel of Rizal correctly invoked Rule 52. Pursuant to this rule, the testimonies of those with participation in the rebellion is inadmissible. The documentary evidence were out and out hearsay. Others were extracted by force. Even if they were adniissible, these testimonies and documentary evidence lacked reliability. Worthy to note, the members of the court did not rule on the admissibility of the prosecution evidence. Indeed, they were all admitted and given weight and their weight crushed Rizal. In addition, the counsel of Rizal raised the issue that the atmosphere against Rizal was so poisoned with prejudice he could not be judged with fairness. His plea did not even raise any quizzical eyebrow. Elevent. Rizal adequately explained why the factual evidence against him cannot result in his conviction. The judges completely brushed him aside. Worse, there were acts within

their notice providing the innocence of Rizal but on which they turned a blind eye. Among them are: a. In May 1895, Rizai wrote a letter to Governor Blanco to be able to go to Spain to recover his health.32 Rizal was in Dapitan as a deportee at that time. The rebellion then was starting to percolate and it was obvious Rizal was not its active leader. b. Rizal left Dapitan and arrived in Manila Bay on August 6, 1896, the day after the boat which would take him to Spain had left. He had to wait for the next boat which was scheduled to arrive September 3. He spent the days on board the Spanish cruiser "Castilla" and he sent words to Governor Blanco that he did not want to communicate with anybody except his family. 33 By that time the Katipuneros had openly attacked the Spaniards. Rizal avoided any contact with them. He could not have been their leader. c. On August 30, 1896, Governor Blanco wrote letters to the Minister of War and the Overseas in favor of Rizal. The letter to the Minister of War categorically cleared Rizal from any involvement in the rebellion. It stated that Rizal is ... "in no way involved in the chimerical attempt we are now deploring neither in the conspiracy nor in any of the secret socities that have been fromed." The letter to the Minister of the Overseas had the same tenor.34 d. When Rizal's boat arrived in Singapore, he could have disembarked and escaped. This was easily done by Don Pedro Roxas who was also suspected as a rebel. Rizal refused to do a Roxas. He said : "No, a fligitive, no! They would consider an accomplice in the uprising." 35 At that time, the rebels were winning pitch battles in Cavite. e. The inquisitive press knew before hand that Rizal would be convicted. They were aware that his trial was a farce. Before the court martial came out with its guilty verdict the correspondent of El Heraldo cabled the following story to Madrid, viz: xxxxxxxxxxxx The deliberation that followed the trial are still not known to the public. Neverthereless, it is considered that the sentence of death against the accused is certain. 36 Rizal never had any chance to be acquitted. Indeed up to the end, Governor Polavieja flaunted his bias against Rizal. He received the reconmendati6n of the Judge Advocate General to confirm the death sentence of Rizal on December 27, a Sunday. The next day, a Monday, the day of Innocents, he approved the killing of Rizal. He did not think twice about the execution of Rizal. Looking back, the manuever of the Dominicans to replace Governor Blanco with Polavieja was a masterstroke. They foresaw the possibility that Blanco, a mason, would pardon Rizal. They foreclosed that possibility by eliminating Blanco and installing Polavieja as Governor General. The tragedy of the Spanish authorities is that they thought by giving his execution a legal veneer the people would forget and foresake Rizal but murder does not cease to be murder simply because it is ordered by a court of justice. Indeed, the worse kind of murder is murder by the government, the worst kind of injustice is injustice by the judiciary.

Rizal knew the mystical quality of injusjice that the last act that brings down tyrants from their pedestals of power is injustice. History tells us that tyrants can commit political abuses and for a time get away with them; they can engage in economic exploitations, and for a time succeed; but they can neither trample the liberties or take the lives of innocent people for long without tumbling down from their pedestals in a short time. The Spaniards forgot that immutable lesson. For threehundred years, the friars and guardia civil abused the Filipinos. They immensely succeeded until they committed the mistake of misusing the laws and the courts to crush the liberty and the lives of Filipinos. They who use law for lawlessness will never last. Rizal's life validated this all-time truism. The authorities who condemned Rizal before their courts of justice also convicted themselves before the tribunal of the people. Within two years after decreeing that Rizal should die, their reign was ended by the people who exercised their right of revolution. This is one of the enduring lessons in the life of Rizal which we ought to memorialize. We forgot it in the 1970's and our amnesia compelled Benigno Aquino and others to walk the path of Rizal and the EDSA revolution became an inevitability. There will still be more Cries of Balintawak, more EDSAs as long as we perpetuate and remain unconcerned with injustices in the country. Today, our system of justice is again under hostile examination and cross-examamination by concerned sectors of society. Rizal showed us how important a pillar is our system of justice. After a hundred years, Rizal continues to be relevant to Filipinos. Our finest tribute to Rizal is to make him "irrelevant" by fulfilling his dreams about the Filipino.

Would you Die for your Country? Posted on November 5, 2011 · 73 Comments

I’m not a particularly unpatriotic person. I love India – not just because I’m born into it, but because it has so much potential. There are plenty of flaws, but I believe that things will get better. I love its democracyand I more or less like the direction its taking.

Can you Blindly Obey?

But would I give up my life for it? After some thought, I’ve decided the answer is…No. A “nation” is too vague an idea for me sacrifice something so precious. I can imagine giving my life to protect someone close to me – someone, or some people I love. Such as a family for instance if the threat is serious enough. But I can’t imagine dying to protect man made borders to which I have no real close connection. In short, I would make a poor soldier. It’s because I’m unable to blindly follow anything. I can never fully submerge myself in a larger entity, a larger cause, and will myself to shut my eyes to everything else. My core individualism simply doesn’t allow that to happen. I’m glad there are some people who can do that – put their lives at risk in unquestioning obedience to their superior officers. But there shouldn’t be too many. After all, that’s what fanatics are made of.

Just Following Orders?

I view my life as too precious a gift to squander away without a tangible benefit. I get one shot at living and will dissolve into nothingness when I die. It’s so brief a spark after all. We’re all born alone, essentially die alone – and that’s the end. Sometimes tactical sacrifices are needed in war. Maybe a contingent to delay the enemy for a while. They’re expected to fail. And often, only the superior officers know the expected outcome. Only they know the

overall strategy. The rest of the soldiers are pawns. Pawns who don’t question why they’re asked to do whatever they’re asked to do. I could never be that pawn. To relinquish my grip on life just to serve a higher cause under someone else for purposes I don’t fully understand…not for me. What does this mean as an Indian? I know it’s patriotic to say that you’ll give your life for your country. I know there’s no law saying that you must want to give up your life. And that’s one of the reasons why I love India. But how much is it expected informally? Are Indians expected to lay down their lives to protect their borders? How many people are like me? Would you give up your life for your country in the manner outlined above?

I'm not sure if it's fair to ask this question as broadly and as plainly as it is asked. I mean, one could say that every last person in the armed forces is willing to "die for their country", even if the likelihood of that happening is debatable. I am not in the armed forces. My willingness to die for my country would have to be highly situationally specific. There are causes and outcomes that I believe are worth my life, and causes that I believe are not. I would also extend that there are many causes and outcomes worth my life that have no effect on my country...a little like saying, "would you die to cure cancer?" or some other such hypothetical. I'm not in as much of a hurry to die for my country as others, but I'm willing to identify that there are things out there that are more important than me.

thevenerablerob Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced Rebuttal I think, as DKTurner put it, I'd fight for what is right and thus against what is wrong possibly faster than I would 'for my country'. However, I would be much more pleased if I could fight with my flag waving proudly behind me. If it were behind me, I would 'die for my country' and, ultimately, for my family, friends and what is right. But if my country fights for the wrong reasons, similar to the German Army in WWII, it would grieve me, but I would fight for another country.

As stated, propagandic hype puts a spin on who is right and wrong. In WWII, the Allies did some things that they later regretted. Frankly, it's too bad, but the greater evil would have to have been Hitler and the Nazi Party. I'd fight for Canada in a second if a situation where my homeland is threatened arose, or if a similar evil tyrant rose up in a similar situation, against us. If the country takes a wrong turn, I may fight in a rebellion 'for my country', its old beliefs, morals and rights. I care for the country and the people in it, so I would support it as long as it retains the apparent 'right'. If it doesn't, I would fight to make it right again, and this could be said that that's fighting for the country, as well - it's greater good.

thoughtprocess Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced Rebuttal Like the others are saying, it would depend on the situation. It would take a very specific situation to get me to die for a cause. I certainly wouldn't do it for "my country". The word country reminds me of government and I pretty much hate the f**king government. I just think about all the soldiers that have been lied into wars by my government and it makes me sick. It would take a miracle for me to fight with a machine like that.

frankiej4189 Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

accipiter Show

Show some respect. Millions of men and women have died fighting for their country, they didn't feel it was so "ridiculous".

wwwdontpushmenet Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal of course i would if it meant to keep my children and my childrens children and so on safe! i would definatly without a doubt in my mind!

blackkodiak Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

dkturner Show

That's a much better way of putting it than I did.

frankiej4189 Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

accipiter Show

You become disrespectful when you presume to know the intentions of the people who fought and died while in uniform, more so when you, with your presumptions, call it ridiculous.

thevenerablerob Jul 30, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

andre2552 Show

What wars are you referring to? :P I'd like to know. I can think of a couple, perhaps, but in many wars, the soldiers fight and die willingly with little or no delusions as to the situation. Which wars should a country have maintained a neutrality when it actually deemed necessary to invade? I dearly hope you're not referring to either World War, or even the War in Afghanistan.

frankiej4189 Jul 31, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

accipiter Show

Well for myself, and i'd imagine most other people, the most important principle in my life is that family is the most important thing in the world and for you to be willing to sacrifice (allegedly) your family's lives simply to fullfill your desire to "stick to your guns" seems like one of the most selfish things i can imagine. I guess you'd be right, letting your family die just so you can say to yourself "I stuck by what i believed in" is something so selfish and so brutal that it must be the most ultimate sacrifice. While a person dying for a loved one or a total stranger carries a sense of nobility that goes along with it, your "sacrifice" is just a pathetic attempt to feel good about yourself and it borders on sociopathical insanity IMO. I'm very curious to know atleast SOME of the principles you'd be willing to let your family die

for. If you wouldn't mind sharing a few, seeing as how i've never heard anyone say what you have.

jkgamz Aug 01, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal The government and land and states and such are not a worthy price for anyone's life. However, to die for your country is more than that. When a soldier fights, he doesn't fight for the cause. Of course some do, but not most. They fight for the man next to them, each man fallen a son, a grandson, a brother, a father, a friend. If I had the opportunity to give my life for just one of them I would do it in a heartbeat. America isn't a government or a "patch of dirt". America is the soldiers, men and women, who fight to protect what they have come to love: the people of the United States of America.

processing Aug 01, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

accipiter Show

You're right that is a sick and twisted scenario.I would have to sacrifice my family in that case. There is no way I could torture and kill a child. So in this case the ultimate sacrifice for principles would be to let my family die for my principles.

thevenerablerob Aug 01, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

andre2552 Show

At the time of World War I, Australia was a distinct part of the Commonwealth. Its Government was not really independant and it relied on Great Britain for trade etcetera. As one of the colonies, it, as well as any other, was relied upon to come to aid the home country if such problems arose. In return, England would protect Australia and perform many services for the commonwelath country. Australians, being patriotic and deeming that the Kaizer was evil, fought for their motherland and their country. In WWII, Japan controlled most of the Pacific. Japan would have invaded Australia no matter what, simply because it was in the way and a Commonwealth nation. As it was, it touched the shores of Australia before the United States managed to halt japanese progress.

whateverx245 Aug 06, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal yes, if any country decides to declare war on America, and attacks us, I will fight to defend my country, and if i die, so be it. I like to think that I am patriotic.

whateverx245 Aug 13, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

akulakhan Show

whatever american may be, it is the best country to live in. You have a chance to become a

better person, to rise in society. People from China and India come here and become doctors, lawyers, highly successful people due to hard work and an education. They couldn't do that in their society. America is the most free country to live in. You have a chance even if you are not white, as long as you work hard, conform, and have an education, the sky is the limit. literally. In India, only Indians or Indian decent will have a chance. English, at heart are racist. French? you need to have all french grandparents and parents in order to become a citizen. i doubt they are pro-others. China? I like my freedom. Japan? same as france. No other country is like America. America is great if you are willing to work hard, conform, and get an education. It is not the same elsewhere. If this is not worth protecting, what is? Your money? It'll be worthless if the enemy wins, and you will be opressed. The battle my great great great grandfather fought in the revolutionary war would have been for nothing. He did to give freedom for all, to give all an opportunity. These ideals still are the basis for american society. These ideals are still true, and if i have to fight to keep these ideals, and i died, so be it. If i died to ensure that the freedom my great great great grandfather died for remains true, so be it. It is a cause worth dying for.

shaykh Aug 16, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal Rebuttal to:

hydar Show

Your country = your identity, your race, your history, how you were brought about on this planet, how your ancestors gave up their lives for your freedom. Dying for your country might even make you live forever. That is how heroes are born, and are remembered until man walks this earth. Oh, and is not your family a part of your country ?

melonchollylife Oct 01, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal I wouldn't die for my COUNTRY, I would die for my country's PEOPLE though. Even though I don't even particularly like the average US person. Patriotism is just (in my opinion) BS, but to use my life for a real purpose - to save someone else's - then that would have real value.

Even if it took generations, the product they made, weather it be a child that becomes an influential and important world leader, or even a great-great-grandchild that finds a cure to a disease, than it would be infinitely worth it. Life is a temporary thing. If my death were to help the future in any way, then I would gladly die.

+ Add Argument 16 no

accipiter Jul 28, 2009

6 convinced Rebuttal Die for a piece of dirt? Don't be ridiculous. If you were talking about people of personal interest to me is a different question. I have no patriotism in me at all. It's over hyped crap.

accipiter Jul 29, 2009

4 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

That is the beauty of freedom of choice. The simple fact that they made the choice they made really has nothing to do with me. They did what they did for their own reasons. Don't you think some soldiers went to war for the glory or the fame or whatever other reasons they had? Somehow dying with a uniform on doesn't make it a better decision. The standard line from the government is that they died for their country or the cause. That

doesn't make it true. Most government decisions to get involved in a war are ridiculous and have nothing to do with my life.

dkturner Jul 28, 2009

3 convinced Rebuttal There's a difference between patriotism and jingoism. The former is pride in one's country, and is generally a good thing (otherwise you're probably living in the wrong country). Jingoism, on the other hand, is "my country, right or wrong". That's just stupid. Wrong is wrong. I'd have fought against Hitler in WW2, but the point is that it would be *against* Hitler rather than *for* Britain. I would die in service to my principles, but not in service to my country. Since the two generally go hand in hand, it's an easy but horrific mistake to make.

accipiter Jul 29, 2009

2 convinced Rebuttal If there is an expectation for me to risk my life, it would only happen for something I thought was important.

accipiter Jul 30, 2009

2 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

While I have no intention of discussing my personal principles in public and what they

happen to be is irrelevant to the discussion. Principles are what you hold most precious in your life and are very personal. It has been said in here and echoed by others that laying down your life is the ultimate sacrifice but judging by your reaction to the statement that you could sacrifice your family speaks volumes to the power of the statement. People seem to speak rather casually about laying down their lives in defense of what they believe but when it comes to sacrificing your family; it takes the conversation to a new level. This is a decision you live with after the deed. So between the two, which is the Ultimate Sacrifice?

accipiter Jul 30, 2009

2 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

How is it any more disrespectful for me to presume the intentions of those who fought and died in uniform than it is for you to also make a presumption on the opposite side? Since neither of us have first hand experience our assumptions are equally valid. My assumptions are based on the huge array of opinions within any group of people and yet you want to apply the same virtues to them all. Dying for patriotism is a ridiculous concept. If you feel the need to die for something, it should be for something real.

accipiter Jul 31, 2009

2 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

People risk their own lives on a daily basis but balk at allowing their loved ones to engage in

the same behavior. Simply by engaging in such behavior is by definition, diminishing the importance of your own life. Your principles are never truly tested in real life until the ultimate sacrifice is made. Judging by your response and that of other people this has really struck a nerve; and so it should. You are proving that the ultimate sacrifice is not giving your own life but that of your family. It is shocking and disgusting to even imagine that anyone would do it. Sociopathic insanity is an interesting term you used to attack without even hearing the scenario. Your revulsion was both expected and understood. If you were not repulsed by this notion then there would truly be a problem. The following scenario is sick and twisted but it does put the example before you and I would love to hear your honest response. “Your family is about to be killed. The ONLY WAY you can prevent their deaths is to torture and kill a child that you have never met and do not know.” Would you torture and kill that child? (Taking your own life is not an option) I invite everyone who is truly repulsed by this notion to think about and answer the question.

jonjax71 Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced Rebuttal Back in the late 1960s when I was a revolutionary and radical activitist I was willing to die for a cause, now although I have matured beyond the perspective of thinking a molotov cocktail or shooting of an official of the oppostion is the way to make change, I am still willing to die for a cause, a belief-however that cause and belief is a lot of differetn now then it used to be. I will not lay my life down for a country or nation, here, there or anwyhere, yet I would not hesitate to fight to the death protecting my family, my ideals, my property, civil rights and for the greater good of humanity

akulakhan Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced Rebuttal Everyone wants something good to die for, as opposed to dying for nothing. However, I am strongly opposed to nationalism. I do not think that one should hope for their own country to prosper, but instead hope that all people from any division, whether it be land or whatever, would prosper simultaneously. I definetly wouldn't die for an isolated group, that would then benefit them only.

teachme Aug 01, 2009

1 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

It's true, Frankie...but Accipiter has the right to his feelings and opinions too...regardless of the choices others have made.

akulakhan Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal Keep in mind that the strongest form of nationalism to date was the Nazi party.

marcopolo Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal I wouldnt even fight for the my country let alone die for it. Politicians have their own power grab going on and it doesnt have anything to do with right or wrong or justice. My battles are my own. Not some flag.

andre2552 Jul 30, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

This is often a lie. Where the country could have just stayed neutral in wars their country had nothing to do with, many of them chose to join in. Many of those millions died for the idiocy of their government.

slasheron Jul 30, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal I would not die for my country(Philippines) at thsi current state. Our country as of now looks like it is dead right now. Unless there's a reason to die for it in this current time I am not willing to die for my country.

akulakhan Jul 30, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal I took last years data in America for poverty rates per capita and military enrollment rates per capita, plotted them, and got an r value of .6, which is respectfully correlated. This means that poor people, whom don't own land, are dying for rich people, whom do own the land. I wouldn't exactly call that dying for ones country.

andre2552 Jul 31, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

thevenerablerob Show

For one thing, Australia in both World Wars. We were under no direct threat in WWI, and in WWII, we were under threat only because we participated in the war. We went to war in WWI as a slave to Britain. Was there a reason to let our citizens die? For freedoms that were under threat from...who? No, there was none. The US, though perhaps as a superpower they should've helped out anyway, acted well keeping neutral, and wouldn't have gone to war unless they were attacked, which is reasonable, unlike Australia's reaction. In Vietnam, Australia and USA acted wrongly, many would not disagree. There are many examples.

mrphilosophy Aug 02, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal i choose to live for my country

akulakhan Aug 07, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

whateverx245 Show

May I ask why you would fight for your country?

hydar Aug 15, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal die for your country this is the most insane thing ive heard to die for your family that is anather when i hear on the t.v that anather british troop has died i think to my self that man or woman has just given up his life so that many more innocent iraqi or afgahn civilion can die

akulakhan Aug 17, 2009

0 convinced Rebuttal Rebuttal to:

shaykh Show

Didnt that one guy, (oh what's his face), say something once about defining someone not by their tan, or something similar to it, or where they come from, but instead by "the context of their character."? Oh yeah, his name was MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR; the greatest American martyr to grace the world with his presence. Please note that my sarcasm is not intended to belittle the message of MLK Jr., for I've lived my life by such wise words as his.

praachijatar Mar 27, 2010

0 convinced Rebuttal In a time like today, no. Simply because it's not worth it. Today, people are killing eachother everyday. Soldiers are dying for the country at war everyday. Does anybody benefit? Does anybody even care? It's a viscious circle. Why die for a country where nobody cares. Whichever country it may be, the patriotism that we used to see in the previous centuries has definitely dminished, if not faded away. It may be an act of heroism, but the entire country is way to busy in their daily life, to realize that you just died for them.