It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting

It is popularly believed that it is more harmful to compromise beliefs than adhere to them. Although many of us support the claim, I cannot concur with it because in real world situations in particular in politics the implementation of the claim is dubious and even potentially dangerous. The reasons of my stance will be discussed in details below.

To begin with, in some cases, the claim is reasonable and sacrificing one's own beliefs leads to a disaster in personal and even international level. For the sake of the illustration, we may take a look at the beginning of the Second World War. AS we know, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and countries which pledged to help it disavowed from their promises, perhaps, because the UK and France hoped that Adolf Hitler will be satisfied with this obtaining. From my view point, this compromise has deteriorated the world of politics and makes it less safe place than it was before. Moreover, we may take an example on a personal level. We may imagine a person, who adheres to Christianity and deeply believes in Ten Commandments, in particular, one which prohibits killing. If the person breaches this God's law, the person may and, perhaps, will fell deep contrition which may finally lead to change of one’s personality and such disease as drug or alcohol addiction. So, because of obvious negative consequences of compromising one’s beliefs which were demonstrated, may we assert that the claim is completely correct?

The answer on this question, perhaps, is "no" because stubborn adherence to one's beliefs may lead to conflicts among individuals and even states. Perhaps, the best illustration of this idea may be found in our history, for instance, endless religious wars of the Middle ages. When crusaders who adhered to Christianity confronted with Muslims, both sides were unwilling to compromise their beliefs and, as a result, tens of thousands have been killed. In a personal level, a conflict between peoples' beliefs may lead to violence as well, in some cases, the cause may be ridiculous such as two adults may argue with each other about a parking lot because each of them believes that he or she has more right on it than the counterpart. Consequently, we have a paradox when standing or compromising one's beliefs leads to negative consequences. How can this riddle be tackled?

Perhaps, the answer on this question is that not all beliefs are equal to each other. For instance, we have a core values or beliefs which create our attitude to the world such equality of all humans, freedom of speech and religion. Those beliefs are so important that it is reasonable to fight for them because we determine ourselves via those principles and beliefs. However, other our beliefs are relative and may be sacrificed during the search of compromise. For instance, those are names of a few such beliefs: what nation is greater or what sport team is better. In fact, today's world of politics is working on this principle. Each country protects its own central beliefs and gives up superficial ones. Perhaps, an Iranian nuclear treaty which was recently signed is an example of such a practice.

In conclusion, when we have a deal with beliefs we should remember that they are not all equal to each other, and therefore we should relate to them differently. When we have a deal with core beliefs of our culture, we need to protect and do not compromise them; however, in order to co-exist in today world we need to sacrifice superficial beliefs for sake of peace and prosperity.