Does non-violence include emotional?

[evangelicalhumanist]

We all recognize that there are multiple ways to abuse - physically and emotionally - and we disapprove of both.

However, I am coming to the belief that there is little hope or changing the vicious hatred for us that many fundamentalists have, with the possible exception of a very violent attack on their "dignity." That this would constitute emotional violence I will grant, but surely it is allowable, in the face of the emotional violence that they do to our community.

Remember when Joseph Welch (the army's AG) stood up and lambasted Joseph McCarthy: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

This was a mortal wound to McCarthy's dignity, and yet surely it was absolutely necessary.

I feel the same way about Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Dobson and Kennedy and all of their kind. Mel White has said that these people honestly believe the vile hatred they spew, and yet believing it cannot be excuse enough for their actions and message. They should know better. And in my view, we really need to bring them down by showing them, for all the world to see, in as convincing a way as possible, that they are ignorant men who are maligning the very principles of the faith they espouse.

(For the record, I am not a person of faith, but I disparage no faith that has no designs on me.)

[Zerbie]

Well, okay, I'll bite. ;)

But first, howdy and welcome. :)

'K, as to a mortal assault on dignity, as with the example you provided, I'm going to quibble with the term. I'd say that was a great and necessary blow to overweaning pride. Pride like that is not the same thing as dignity. Real human dignity, if it were operating, would prevent or stop those characters from going to such lenths of pride and cruelty. So in a case where someone is called out for such behavior, what's wounded is an inappropriate pride and desire to control. If anything, we should strive to call people out on that in such a way as to allow their own dignity, lying dormant perhaps, to wake up. Unfortunately, all too often they identify themselves with their pride and feel embarassed and "attacked" instead. sigh.

[Joe Brummer]

That this would constitute emotional violence I will grant, but surely it is allowable, in the face of the emotional violence that they do to our community.

While I can understand where this comes from in our hearts, we can never let their violence justify ours.......

If we have made the choice to be nonviolence, no violence is allowable under any reason.

Physical violence will just invite more physical violence
Structual violence will just invite more structual violence
emotional violence will surely invite more emotional violence.

There is no allowable violence is my eyes.

[Joe Brummer]

I guess I would ulitimately say what Gandhi said......

Nonviolence is not meant to bring men to their kness, but bring them to their senses.....

[scott snedeker]

I agree with you but I would not Equate holding a Homophobe ACCOUNTABLE with emotional violence. Accountability correctly identifies WHO has spiritually/emotionally transgressed.

The greater problem is not the content but how we internalize what a homophobic message contains.

below is an excerpt of a post of mine on the topic:

" In my emotional-spiritual journey I started with the belief imposed on me by homophobes that I was a worthless deviant that had no right to exist let alone access to joy or love---sound familiar?

To move up the emotional vibrational scale from fear and no self esteem (and depression) I had to redefine who was the "bad" one. At first I could not get past fear. Then after I started building self esteem with achievement I started to get angry at the past and continuing spiritual and emotional abuse imposed on me! But my sense of Identity was so undeveloped (like a child's) that I had to portray homophobes (even family members) as the hateful evil bastards they were----lumped in with child rapists! This helped my undeveloped sense of Identity swing the pendulum giving me a sense of moral indignation and justification. Black and white becomes white and black. (Again like a child learning right from wrong)

Now to stay at that stage would truly be hell on Earth; but for a while it was necessary for me until I could progress to the ecstasy of ........RAGE! which was possible now that I had swung the pendulum away from self loathing to seething righteousness.

One tires of rage pretty quickly but having been in it I developed more of a sense of entitlement to defend my personal boundaries. The burning out of rage lead to acceptance of what I don't like but with a new more intact identity, or in other words---- the exquisit relief of.....Frustration. Then being bored with frustration (which doesn't take long) I started to look for things to appreciate. With practice comes skill and finding things to appreciate becomes second nature (a little glib, took me years). "

My viewpoint is that if they have hate and feel the need to pronounce it then ....It sucks to be them! particularly since now they are appearing to be spiritually "coyote ugly" to more people every day. The history books of the future will likely be as kind to them as they are to Klan members.

Accountability yes! But defending your personal boundaries does not constitute emotional violence

Scotty :cowboy:

[Vortex]

While I can understand where this comes from in our hearts, we can never let their violence justify ours.......

If we have made the choice to be nonviolence, no violence is allowable under any reason.

Physical violence will just invite more physical violence
Structual violence will just invite more structual violence
emotional violence will surely invite more emotional violence.

There is no allowable violence is my eyes.

I think Joe has got it right.

This is the nature of the beast. Fear, hatred, and violence, they are all apart of this vicious cycle, that if you allow it to, will become apart of your own life. We must not let the hatred of others be our own. As Zerbie is always saying, ‘there can be no their group and our group. Humanity has always something to lose when violence, whether emotional or otherwise is used. As with many things there is a balance. When we seek to defame the dignity of others (however obscure it may be) we lose a bit of our own.

The goal here is not to destroy our opponents, to throw their stones back at them. It is to enlighten and inspire, and be the light that guides us all out of darkness.

I thought this was a great quote, from awhile back.

Don't be angry with them ... you should feel bad for them... they don't understand the love we have to offer...



Vortex

[scott snedeker]

I agree that attraction with love is the Ultimate best destiny and people who hate make their own world hell.

But some of us had to transition from fear and self-loathing to self-righteosness and rage before we could move on to seeing the good in the world and everyone. As long as One recognizes that it is a transition, I believe it is healthy and perhaps essential. I see it as an emotional/spiritual debridement of internalized poison.

But afterward, like an infected wound, one must allow healing. During my healing I must actively direct my thoughts to focus on things that emotionally feel good. My world is my perception of reality. (All we truly possess) By focussing on love, joy and beauty I create a better world for me If I share this perception with another he may become attracted and start to perceive reality in the same way. And when this barrier to love evaporates the joy I feel is immense!

Affirmation of another's right to defend personal boundaries may help them make the next step. The message of nonviolence that does not contain this affirmation may be perceived as betrayal. However Life in rage is no life; just as unending debridement will not heal an infected wound.

love, scotty:cowboy:

[marutidas]

There are three kinds of persons in this world,
1. friends( people whom you like for verious reason, either benefit or commonality)
2. neutral persons( people you don't know and do not affect you life directly)
and finally
3. enemies( people who have harmed you or you friends)

Because nothing is permanent, and everything in the coarse of human life is constantly changing,
Neutral persons becoming friends or enemies
friends becoming enemies and enemies becoming friends.

My second thought is to forgiveness,
If you are always willing to forgive, the harsh things said to you, you will be more open to accepting them when they finally come to their senses.

does forgiving them mean that you forget the past, no,
does that mean you give in to them, no,
but tomorrow is alway the possiblity that our enemies could become our greatest friends.
and being non-violent means that we control OUR actions, and not seek to control another, that means you can always provide a counter argument, but in such a way that will protect their dignity, but at the same time delflate their pride.

---:pray: Maruti Das

[singer]

I agree with Zerbie, that it isn't emotional violence to call someone on their pride/arrogance--to speak the truth to power. I think the distinction is a vital one if we're going to get anywhere with public figures.

But here's another distinction to throw into the mix: When Welch confronted McCarthy, he was doing it in the name of hundreds of other people; it was a public affair, not a personal one. The response of McCarthy wasn't really the point--the point was that the thing was public, it was being shown on TV. Welch voiced what people were secretly thinking, and his statement was the beginning of the end for McCarthy and HUAC. But it wasn't personal for him.

To me, the real dilemma comes when I'm dealing with my family. I'm straight, btw, but I've long since left fundamentalism. I was sexually abused, and beyond that my family did emotional violence to me over the years; like Scott, I've gone through years of reaction and process, from fear to rage to frustration. In the last few years I've reached that stage of entitlement Scott's talking about--and from that position it's at least possible to talk to leaders, people I don't know, and to call them on their arrogance.

But when it comes to my family, I'm at a loss. I know intimately what they believe, and how far I am from it; I even know why they are as narrow as they are--their own family histories offer an explanation, if not a justification, for it. In spite of everything, I love them. They know who I am, I have an un-fundamentalist identity that they struggle with in private, but the unspoken agreement we have is that we "don't talk about that." I want to be able to have an honest relationship, where I am free to be myself without filters or translations or silences.

If it were just me, I might let it stand as it is. But I have a lesbian daughter who isn't able to have an honest relationship with them, either. They know about her, but "we don't talk about that." Sigh. So she, like me, has a frustratingly limited relationship with them. I'm stymied. If I did open the conversation, and break the silence, I'd crack open a pretty big can of worms for a couple of elderly people whose entire lives have been built on fundamentalism. They aren't in great health, which only makes this more complicated.

I don't want revenge--I don't want to zing them with emotional violence. I do want to wake them up, as Welch did to McCarthy, so that at least Joanna can have a better relationship with them than I do, before they die and the possibilities are lost forever. But the stakes are pretty high, on both sides.

What do you guys think?

[mtatum4496]

...I feel the same way about Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Dobson and Kennedy and all of their kind. Mel White has said that these people honestly believe the vile hatred they spew, and yet believing it cannot be excuse enough for their actions and message...

I would agree. If I assume they honestly believe what they are preaching, then that helps me see the reason they say what they say - but it does not provide an excuse for their choice to say what they say.

It is one thing to understand that someone is spreading falshoods because they believe them to be true. It is quite another to excuse the articulation of falsehoods simply because the speaker believes the falsehoods to be true.

Just about all of us at one time or another has had to abandon or re-think something that we held to tightly as truth. Most often that journey began because somebody was willing to say to us "This just is not right" and then proceed to outline what is not right about the situation.

Now, how sharp does the verbiage have to be? I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer to that. Sometimes the words will need to be pretty sharp and extremely direct; at other times, they may be less so. I think time, place, and the willingness of both parties to dialogue will impact just what words can be used effectively.

[scott snedeker]

Dear Singer,

Broaching difficult issues with family can be tricky. The position of trying to be the active seeker of communication with older conservative parents may be one of disadvantage. Parents may feel entitled to obsequious appeals that they now become empowered to cast aside. If one of them was your abuser he may use this to justify his past crimes against you.

Perhaps another approach would be to turn your attention away from any concern for their problems and your emotional scars from the past. Cut way back on time spent with them drastically. Live your life fully and extravagantly. Focus on your joy in living free and full to the extent that you have no time to waste on pain. Their acceptance becomes a smaller and smaller part of your life. Your life becomes too big for you to sublimate it in any way to avoid offending them.

Then if they want to be invovled, it is on your terms. Time is on your side not theirs. They will come to respect you for being youself unapologetically. If they ask why you haven't come by lately, offer that you have been sooooo busy with: [ fill in with things affirming your distinct identity] If they press further reply that you are soo busy right now but if they want to participate they are welcome to join in , now they are appealing to you!

If they inquire if anything is wrong then Reply with "well I'm nearly through my forgiveness of your past transgressions against me but I am giving myself a bit more space right now" If they ask (perhaps indignantly) what transgression? Reply with "It's really no longer very important to me but if you need to get someting off your chest I will listen." Their stuttering starts and then You may be surprised at what you hear! To which you can respond that you are proud of them that they felt released from their guilt enough to finally admit their accountabilty and have come a long way.
At that point mending may begin but on your terms

Love and affirmation.
Scotty:cowboy:

[dewdrop_world]

I think a key word is "effective" here. What is it to be effective? We might assume that to be effective means to change the adversary's mind, but that is exactly how our adversaries approach us, and we don't like it much, do we?

I had a big wakeup call on this over on the umc.org forum. One conservative pastor said that I, and others like me, were a waste of time because no matter how much he proclaimed (what he called) the Truth, we were just too hard-hearted to hear and follow. I still think that what was really going on was that he believed that his effectiveness as a pastor would be proven by convincing me of his position -- AND, that nothing else would prove it. By "defying" him, I was calling into question his power as a minister -- so he had no further use for me, at which point the archaic language of "shaking the dust off the feet" gets trotted out.

My response was to point out that as a result of the discussions on the board, I had begun to reexamine some aspects of my life (true! I am certainly not free from all forms of wrongdoing), and that even though I had/have reservations about his views and don't wish to follow his doctrine, I was grateful for what I had learned.

He seemed to be stuck believing that his time was wasted UNLESS I was willing to learn the lessons he wanted to teach. He was not content to serve as a catalyst and let God do the work -- this pastor had to see the results for himself, NOW, or he would not believe it.

I've really come to feel more and more that our task is to show love first, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how hopeless it seems. Show love first, and have faith that the rest will follow. Love won't reach everybody. We know we won't change Jerry Falwell's mind. But if WE carry ourselves with gentleness and integrity, some people will notice and through that, they will see hate for what it is. (Dr. King did not change the KKK's minds, but over time, the hatred of the white supremacists began first to seem unpalatable where it had been a societal norm. Then it became shameful to more and more people, to the present day where it is socially unacceptable in most places to express outright racism.)

Will it be "soon enough" for me to be "satisfied"? Probably not. But my satisfaction is not the point. The point is to do what is right. We can't control all aspects of this struggle. What is the point where we let go of the future and trust that, by doing right, we will invite rightness into the world?

I would say that point is where we want to force "them" to see it our way. That is not easy, but after some of the comments I endured at umc.org (far worse than what I just described), I can no longer join them in the desire to force a certain outcome. I can no longer try to beat them at their own game. Speaking for myself here, I have to change the rules :dove: of how I behave, even if they don't

James

[evangelicalhumanist]

The goal here is not to destroy our opponents, to throw their stones back at them. It is to enlighten and inspire, and be the light that guides us all out of darkness.
Vortex
I don't disagree with you, Vortex. I am not a person who delights in hurting others. Still, not wanting to hurt others doesn't mean that I am the more willing to sit back and be hurt -- I will defend myself.

Now, I find your notion of being "the light" that guides the ignorant out of their darkness interesting, but you know, if you've been sitting in the dark long enough, a strong light is bound to be very painful at first!

It is to this notion that I was referring. I rather suspect that what Joseph Welch did to McCarthy was to shine that bright light of truth (that McCarthy was behaving in a shameful and ultimately dishonest fashion) to bear, and it was -- if you've ever seen the footage -- extremely painful for McCarthy.

Where I'm hoping that this goes is that eventually, we will find that light that penetrates the deep miasma surrounding these fundamentalist, literalist Christians, and shines it on them in such a way as the rest of the world, which most often doesn't really know which way to turn, can see them for what they truly are. That's what we must do to make them stop their relentless assault on our dignity and our right to equal treatment, and it will be painful for them.

Probably as painful as it was for Ted Haggard to have the spotlight shone upon him. The difference, of course, is that he did it to himself, and now that he has been damaged, he deserves our forgiveness, our sympathy and our support, provided he acknowledges the truth.

I would offer that same sympathy, support and forgiveness to Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and Kennedy, once they had seen the light and accepted it. But first comes that painful light...

[Joe Brummer]

I don't disagree with you, Vortex. I am not a person who delights in hurting others. Still, not wanting to hurt others doesn't mean that I am the more willing to sit back and be hurt -- I will defend myself.

While I can understand this statement, in light of the question about nonviolence this statement is just against the philosophy of nonviolence.

In nonviolence, if that is what one seeks to follow, we take on the suffering so our opponets do not suffer. It is through our suffering that redemption, freedom and justice will prevail.

Gandhi explained that once you agree to suffer in the name of love, it is no longer suffering, but joy. I didn't understand this until I had seen footage of the lunch counter sit ins where nonviolence resisters were beaten, harrassed, had food thrown on them in the name of love and justice. They were willing to suffer so their opponetts and the world would see and correct the injustice of segregation. They were willing to give their lives to bring the truth to light.

We saw such willing suffering the story of the montgomery bus boycotts were black folks walked in the rain, snow and heat rather than take the bus for 381 days. Some had to walk 10 miles a day, but they walked anyway. The suffering was redemptive.

Nonviolence, if we truly choose to live it, doesn't start with the dobsons or falwell's of the world, it starts with in us. If we truly plan to use nonviolence to end homophobic practices, we must be willing to take on the suffering for our opponets.

As Gandhi would say, be the change you wish to see in the world. It must start within us. If we want a world of peace, we must be that peace in the world. If we want a world devoid of violence, then we must reject all violence in ourselves and in others. If we want to end the homophobia, we need to be that change we wish to see in the world.

[andrewlittle]

I'm putting in my two cents worth and, if all goes as it normally does, I'll probably get change back.

The concept of non-violence is often, I think, confused with non-assertiveness. I would beg to differ. I think the best understanding of non-violence is "to do no harm."

Now, harm is somewhat dependent on your outlook. I may feel I have been harmed if you catch me and expose me in a lie. If perpetuating that lie, however, negatively affects many others, you are left with something of a conundrum. If you do not expose me, are you not complicit in the harm being done to other people?

Gandhi was, among other things, a consummate politician (not in the negative sense). He knew how to summon the "polis" into action and energize civil disobedience. He did it by espousing truth. There comes a time when the damage done by misinformation and hatred has to be compared to the damage by exposing the truth.

Yes, in exposing truth someone's pride, reputation, financial well-being or whatever may be negatively affected, but does that constitute either violence or harm? To allow that person to go on unexposed not only allows for more people to be harmed, but could indeed increase the harm that the perpetrator will suffer in the long run.

If significant numbers of people had the balls - scratch that, gonads (is that generic) - to call Dobson, et al, on their lies and manipulations early on, to really tackle their tactics in the beginning (I know, easy to say), their fall would not have been as personally damaging as it would now be if that were to occur. The longer the lie is perpetrated, the harder the fall from grace (ours not God's).

It would be kinder, and I think less harmful, to pull Falwell's plug now, than it will be in another five or ten years. The crash will more extreme.

As to forgiveness. Many Christians mistake "excusing" with forgiving. To excuse someone's behavior is to disempower them as humans. It is to assume responsibility on some level for their misbehavior. It is inherently deceitful.

To forgive takes truth. The transgression has to be named before it can be forgiven. Exposure is the opportunity to repent - to "turn away from" (literal meaning) behavior that is not only damaging to others, but to themselves. Repentance can only occur when our sins are honestly shown to us. This, of course, opens up quite the can of worms. Who gets to define "sin"?

And, not being shy about my own ego, I will simply end by saying, "show me victims who are damaged, and I'll gladly call it sin." There are myriad victims of Dobson, Falwell, Robinson, etc. It's not just LGBT folks, but straight folks who go along believing they are acting righteously only to find later that they have been manipulated into sinful attitudes and actions by others. Take a look at the national sense of shame shared by the majority of middle-age to elderly Germans, for an example.

Even the perpetrators themselves are victims of their own hatred mongering. Is it non-violent to allow them to go on victimizing themselves along with so many other people?

[Daniel]

But when it comes to my family, I'm at a loss. I know intimately what they believe, and how far I am from it; I even know why they are as narrow as they are--their own family histories offer an explanation, if not a justification, for it. In spite of everything, I love them. They know who I am, I have an un-fundamentalist identity that they struggle with in private, but the unspoken agreement we have is that we "don't talk about that." I want to be able to have an honest relationship, where I am free to be myself without filters or translations or silences.

If it were just me, I might let it stand as it is. But I have a lesbian daughter who isn't able to have an honest relationship with them, either. They know about her, but "we don't talk about that." Sigh. So she, like me, has a frustratingly limited relationship with them. I'm stymied. If I did open the conversation, and break the silence, I'd crack open a pretty big can of worms for a couple of elderly people whose entire lives have been built on fundamentalism. They aren't in great health, which only makes this more complicated.

I don't want revenge--I don't want to zing them with emotional violence. I do want to wake them up, as Welch did to McCarthy, so that at least Joanna can have a better relationship with them than I do, before they die and the possibilities are lost forever. But the stakes are pretty high, on both sides.

What do you guys think?

Singer- I hear you loud and clear on this issue and join you in your frustration seeing that we share the same concern.

My own family (my parents are in their 70's) has something of a "we don't talk about that" policy. I've been out to them for a long time (and have a husband) and while there has been some movement in discussing matters of faith and sexuality with my father, my siblings (they are quite conservative) by and large don't show any sign of understanding how to deal with the matter.

The silences are awkward, that's for sure. But you know what? I'm less worried about my relationship with them as I once was. I guess I'm learning at the ripe age of 48 that I don't need their validation or approval. On the contrary, being kind to them has it's own message. It may be just me and my own family dynamic, but I was the one who had to start telling my parents I loved them. Based on that change in the dynamic, this is what I think:

Love is a force. Use it wisely and without thinking you are going to get anything out of it- and interesting changes can take place.

And then there is the role of humor. I've found that a lot of weird situations can be diffused with a liberal amount of it.

For me, that's meant keeping things gay with no apology. ;) I talk about my guy when he's not there, I bring my life to every discussion. I don't let myself be left out.

Question: how does your daughter feel about the matter? You know, she undoubtedly has her own way of approaching her grandparents.

Emotional force, I have to say, CAN be useful. In my case, it meant telling my parents that I wouldn't be coming home for Thanksgiving unless I could bring my boyfriend. It was a risk to make such a demand (and one has to be clear about living up to the consequences of such a demand). But it was the first time I threw down the gauntlet.

May I digress an moment?

The situation- though not the same- reminds me of when I taught school.

That first week, a smart 4th grade teacher said to me: "Be hard on them for the first month or you won't be able to get a handle on things until after Christmas." Nice guy that I was, I didn't listen to her and paid the price for it. She was right!

Same thing is true in relationships: If one barters aways one's dignity and self-respect, it is very hard to get it back.

All things considered: are the stakes as high as you think they are? Or are you just describing the level of fear you are feeling?

You know, you could always tell them: "Joanna would like to have a better relationship with you but is afraid you are going to reject her." That's true, right? "And no matter how you feel about things, she doesn't deserve that." That's true too.

This puts the ball squarely in their court.

If you deal with your worst fears you can deal with anything.

[Joe Brummer]

being kind to them has it's own message.


The most pround sentence I have read today!

[scott snedeker]

Daniel, I like your style! ;)

I think you eloquently articulate what I feel, but with a homo sapien evolvement-- in contrast to my neanderthal grunting! :lol: (I usually speak directly but often with the fine gentle touch of a sumo wrestler):eek:

I perceive that the support of our entitlement to defend our personal boundaries is too insufficiently emphasized in many of the posts I read.

Point blank, I would like to see more sensitivity to those of us who are learning to defend our boundaries with active affirmation of our entitlement to defend them. With a little practice, I feel this can be done without compromising the spirit of nonviolence.

Love and affirmation,
Scotty:cowboy:

[Daniel]

Daniel, I like your style! ;)

I think you eloquently articulate what I feel, but with a homo sapien evolvement-- in contrast to my neanderthal grunting! :lol: (I usually speak directly but often with the fine gentle touch of a sumo wrestler):eek:

But I like a guy with a strong hand. :o :D

I perceive that the support of our entitlement to defend our personal boundaries is too insufficiently emphasized in many of the posts I read.

Point blank, I would like to see more sensitivity to those of us who are learning to defend our boundaries with active affirmation of our entitlement to defend them. With a little practice, I feel this can be done without compromising the spirit of nonviolence.


I think about this kind of thing a lot. We obviously have bodies, right? We have egos, right? Yet the major point of spiritual practice (not belief- but practice) seems to be to lead one to the realization (I can't think of a better word at the moment), if not the actual experience, that does away with boundaries of all kinds. What a paradox. Love thy neighbor as thy self is about the most radical thing possible.

If the tantics among us are correct, we already have some idea what this kind of thing looks/feels like.

When you are making love and you momentarily can't figure out if that is your elbow or his, you are there.

I think you are on to something very important here. Dash alludes to this in his own way too: we have to know our own worth- as it were. Burying one's gold is the same as throwing it away. Likewise, being nice is not the same thing as being kind (thank you Joe for you kindness). And gay people can be oh-so-nice. Obviously, that doesn't cut it anymore.

Maybe it's as simple as you have to learn to stand up for yourself before you can stand up for someone/something else (a restatement of the Golden Rule?).

Without this, our actions are as sound brass and clanging symbol...oh... I meant cymbal.

(That was a literary Freudian-slip..hmmmmm)

[scott snedeker]

Again Well Put Daniel!





I think you are on to something very important here. Dash alludes to this in his own way too: we have to know our own worth.......

Maybe it's as simple as you have to learn to stand up for yourself before you can stand up for someone/something else (a restatement of the Golden Rule?

I like this message!

Translated for my gay neanderthal brain:

"What makes the muskrat guard his musk?----Courage!"
"What put the Ape in apricot?-------Courage"
"What have they got that I ain't Got?------Courage"

Oh but we do! We had it all along. We just need to summon it and use it to avoid neglecting affirmation of our entitlement to be, in our messages of "love thy neighbor" .

love, affirmation, peace and courage,

Scotty:cowboy:

[BronzDragon]

...I am coming to the belief that there is little hope or changing the vicious hatred for us that many fundamentalists have, with the possible exception of a very violent attack on their "dignity." That this would constitute emotional violence I will grant, but surely it is allowable, in the face of the emotional violence that they do to our community.

¡Think … Feel … Breathe — while it is still Legal!
» Thom says: ☛ I hear and understand your concern on this issue. I have my own reservations with regards to nonviolent civil disidence. While I will use it with regards to those in civil authority, I am not likely to use it with a mugger. That is just me, though.



The question you might ask yourself, though is this; in doing what you are doing, are you willing to commit an offence? if so, would that not simply add to the pain you are trying to heal? Remember, Joe was never really removed from office, only censured and made impotent.

The I Ching has something to say on this under the Fourth Chapter, The Young Student.

How does it help to commit evil when punishing The Young Student? Discipline must prevent such transgressions. We must, high and low, conform to Natural Law. ~«


Rev Thomas Potter; Warlock, ReiKi;

❝ When I hear somebody sigh, “Life is hard,” I am always tempted to ask, “Compared to what?”
Sydney Harris ❞

[RainbowL'elly]

it's interesting to me that we wind up here, asking how far we will let ourselves be pushed before we push back.

to me, nonviolence isnt about being passive- sometimes it is about agression, it's just not about reinacting the stonewall riots everytime we get slighted. i think it's fine to be angry and it's fine to act on it, as long as we take a moment to ask ourselves what we are doing to somebody else and what effect our doing is going to have on that somebody else. sometimes standing up and telling somebody you arent going to take it anymore and reclaiming your power is good- sometimes just walking out is good, and sometimes yelling can be good- as long as we watch where it carries us. in my mind, i ask this- what if the folks hadnt fought back at stonewall? what if theyd all just said they werent going to fight and let things keep happening the way they had been all along? what if somebody hadnt decided to make a rebel yell that moved people to finally notice that we ARE here, we ARE queer, and they had better bloody well get used to it? i'm not saying we should go out and riot, i am just asking, how far do we go? when does nonviolence cease to work anymore? is it when our physical safety and the safety of our families are at stake and nonviolence isnt going to be an adequate defense? seriously, i'm asking this question- when do our pacifist pleas need to have a little edge to them to gain our security? i respect nonviolence as a method, i agree that it is the best way to go and that dr king and ghandi were awesome in their organisation of peaceful protest and that they were effective...but i also agree that sometimes we might have to follow malcom x a little here and acknowledge that 'any means necessary' sometimes might go beyond nonviolence....

i dont know-
that's why i am asking you.

[BronzDragon]

but i also agree that sometimes we might have to follow malcom x a little here and acknowledge that 'any means necessary' sometimes might go beyond nonviolence...

» Thom says: ☛ We must answer this question really in a personal level. How far are you willing to go before striking back? With regards to violence, no group is ever the recipient of such violence (well, sometimes we might hear of a gang lynching of some black teenager who wolf-whistled a pretty white girl). But a gang of them can sure show their balls by beating up on some isolated Queen. Yes, they fear us; there is only one thing more frightening than an angry Queen with nothing left to lose, and that is a Mother protecting her cubs. And yet, you can’t meet us in a fair fight, one on one, man to Queen. They have to gang up on us, four, ten, twenty at a time against one. And the Queen might have nothing except maybe a nail file to protect herself. How is that a fair fight!?

And yet, in the end, we only have authority over our own actions; we are responsible only for our own Karma. Karma-no Karma-desu, and blood will only shed blood, violence will only give birth to violence, hate will never teach love. I agree with whoever developed an article in the mid-60's giving advice on self-defense. Maybe the best nonviolent self-defense is to stay together. They fight us twenty to one. I wonder if they would do that if there were three of us, and we each studied some sort of martial art that is designed to be … reactive. I am talking about Tai Chi Chuan and Hap-kido. Just enough to keep them from hurting anyone, while at the same time not being the bad guy ourselves. Yes, retribution can feel so good, but what does it really gain us? If we beat them into a bloody pulp will they give? become our friends? lighten up and let us live as experience leads us to live? No, they will just take our violence as justification for theirs, and when they sober up they will come at us with something legal.

[tpdncr4christ]

So I've read this thread, and then reread this thread, and I think I understand what its talking about.

Its talking about how nonviolence can happen emotionally as well as physically. This is true. Now, I also hear that we (pertaining to everyone who responded to this thread) agree that the fundamentalists continually abuse us (glbt people) emotionally. This is true, as well.

What I am afraid of, is the response.

Fire begets fire, violence begets violence. There is a garunteed failure if we fight back. If so much as one person bites back, the entire fundamentalist group gets a foothold by which they can bring us down and continue to discriminate. If just one man proclaims himself gay, then is convicted of child molestation, that is proof enough to convince people that gay's are pedophiles. Is it true? Of course not. Is it right? Never. Is it possible? Very.

Have you ever witnessed what happens when someone actually, physically, turns the other cheeck? During the last sixth months, I was in a usual loud verbal disagreement (fight) with my parents. Harsh words were exchanged, both sides said words we regret. In the heat of the argument my mother lost herself, and hit me across the face. I looked at the ground, and fought back every instinct to hit back. What happened next was amazing. I turned my cheeck, and exposed the side of my face she hadn't touched, and looked into the ground. The silence that filled the room broke the argument. That night my mother and I grew closer than we had in a long time.

That is what Christ was talking about. Turn the other cheeck. When you are abused, whether physically, or emotionally, turn the other cheeck. Its hard, and it hurts, but it is the right thing. I promise you, if you turn the other cheeck you will see what God can do for you.