"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."

Thich Quang-Duc



     Defending one’s principles and beliefs is an honourable act, and should be considered a worthy cause. However, to go to the point of dying for that cause is simply worthless. If you perish fighting for your cause, you can no longer speak out for your principles. Defending one’s values and beliefs is a noble act and signifies strong character. But once you kill yourself in the name of your beliefs, you can no longer defend your voice, because you don’t have one. You are silenced, which is exactly what people of opposing opinions seek. For example, Thich Quang-Duc was a Buddhist monk who set himself on fire protesting against religious oppression. He was no longer able to argue against the corruption of the South Vietnam president and the religious oppression that was taking place. 

"Tank Man"

Standing firmly, rooted in place by your beliefs, is a commendable cause. Father Damien, who devoted himself to spread the word of God among a leprosy community, is a person I look up to as a noble, strong person. The Chinese man that stood in front of a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square is revered in terms of courage and honour for what he did to defend his beliefs. He put his life in danger to publicize his opposition to the government’s actions. There was a chance he would live and a chance he would die; when it comes to lighting oneself on fire, or going on a suicide bomb mission as Japan’s kamikaze pilots did, there is no chance of surviving.




            Furthermore, ultranationalist acts and defending your ideology haphazardly can turn into a detrimental 

Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima

 act for not just the party defending, but also the one in opposition. For some nations, defending a belief means attacking others whose values contrast their own. For example, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 were not about defending the United States’ values; the injurious act was about annihilating the opposition—in this case, Japan. Another instance that led to harm of opposers was the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. Defending an ideology becomes unprincipled and dishonourable when the consequences harm many more of the opposers than those defending their opinion. It is a personal choice; one should be able to go to any length to defend their own ideology if the consequences of their actions affect only him (for example, setting yourself on fire for your cause). But it is not right to defend your ideology by attacking those with dissimilar values; harming others is not acceptable when protecting one’s own beliefs.