GENIUS FORUMS

I do not consider Israel nor Rome sacred, because there is nothing sacriligious about faking being a missionary, and just wandering those countries in a touristy daze.

Rather, I consider Rwanda sacred: the one country in the world where I honestly fear the consequences of going there. The white man has done enough damage; even were I to go there to help, I would feel like I was doing something wrong.

Brief recap: in 1994, over the course of 3 months, almost a million people were hacked apart with machetes under the watchful but ineffective supervision of the United Nation Peacekeepers. Apparently, some bureaucrats had been by during the start of the massacre, and had said, "oh, there's nothing of value here; there's only of people... therefore we'll recommend our governments do nothing".

I call this the failure to hold a land and its people sacred, and say that by holding Rwanda sacred (in place of Rome and Israel), I am punching most people in the Western world in the face. It is a way to blame apathy for death. I personally avoid this punch only because I was in grade 4 when this happened. Nobody told me shit.

Now, the philosophy: should the word "sacred" be used as a tool in such a manner?

"Sacred" doesn't mean anything to me, so it wouldn't work on me.

I don't think the word "sacred" ever means anything to the people who use it. That could be why priests have no problems going into the inner sanctums of temples: to them, it's nothing more than a glorified "employees only" sign.

I guess since you don't hold the word sacred to be sacred, it's perfectly ethical for a philosopher to use it to manipulate people?

I don't see why a tool, like a word, would be important in considering what's ethical or not. I would think it's the end that's important. As well as one's intent because that does more to determine the end than anything.