Self Defense

[awediot]

Where does self defensive, counter violence fit in with the desire to turn the other cheek? I would like to imagine that if confronted with a thug bent on nothing but harming me, the lack of will to fight back would inspire a bit of degrading name calling about my doll collection and daintiness of my unmentionables, they would be (preferably moved, but likely...) disgusted enough to give up and move on... What if they are not? What if they will kill me, with or without defending myself? Does God want me to take it?

Political and social sufferring has nothing to do with a cretin out to bash our brains in.

If we could (should?) endure such abuse on ourselves, could we when its directed on another? If defensive violence could be used to stop an attack on a child or elderly person, is it justified? And to what level can one act to stop a planned attak on an innocent person or group?

Dont mean to beat a dead horse (sorry), as this vein of thought is foreign to me, thus the focus. I run the risk of appearring a tad obsessed to you. Please humour me awhile longer as this site implies some thought has been put in to this topic and I am truley curious, and a little confused as to how far Jesus intended passivity to go.

[Venari]

Where does self defensive, counter violence fit in with the desire to turn the other cheek?

...

Please humour me awhile longer as this site implies some thought has been put in to this topic and I am truley curious, and a little confused as to how far Jesus intended passivity to go.

I think you first need to understand that distinction between Passivity and Pacifism. But I guess this is my understanding and interpretation.

Passivity is where you take no action. Pacifism is where you take action to prevent further violence, oppression or injustice. I have been in several situations where an "aggressive" response was necessary but a "violent" response would have been a different matter. For example I was going though down town on my rollerblades one night and when I was at a "shadowy" corner a man approached me and demanded my wallet. So told him I don’t have one and all I had was my student ID and noted how I was only wearing "gym shorts" and had no place to keep a wallet or any money, at which point he grabbed me and tried to knock me down ... needless to say I am used to grinding some rails and jumping off some stairs so I didn’t go down at that point he sucker punched me to the face. Now I know I could have smeared this guy, I should note I am a brown belt kick-box and spar several times a week, but instead I dropped him to the ground and landed a chest blow to knock the wind out of him and since it was a Friday the local police were out in force so I flagged a squad down and they took him into custody.

Or in the case of another would be mugger he pulled a knife on me and asked my money ... I told him I didn’t have any but all I have is my check card he asked for that and I told him it would only take me 45 seconds to have it deactivated. I took the moment he began to ponder the situation to offered to walk with him over to the market and buy him some groceries and then we could go our separate ways... the great thing is I was able to share my love of God with him and why I would do this because I believe Jesus would do this. I saw him a few weeks later walking into a local mission and when I asked the director I learned a he, or a man fitting his description has a regular attendee and volunteer.

The point is when we are faced violence, oppression or injustice directed at us how will we respond? Will we return the violence, the oppression or the injustice or will we turn the other cheek where if the person persists in action they will be knowing we first offered them love and compassion.

But to discuss the issue of "gay bashing,” I will share a story only a few people know. At my high school there were a group of jocks who would play what they called the "brick game." The game involved driving past a gay establishment and throwing a brick and if you didn’t hit something you had to go pick it up. I was with my boyfriend at the time at a coffee shop where gay students from the local schools would come on a Friday night as we were too young to go to the bars or clubs... suddenly I there was a "vroom" or a engine and the squeal of tires, next think I know I was looking at an EMT holding my head still, I had taken a rock to the head.

A few days later I was back at school and a few of the jocks made the connection I was the one who was hit and a few of them began to make fag comments. But later that day I was tutoring the diver who had been a friend of mine since I was young and he said "I'm sorry if I and know it was you I wouldn’t have let them throw the rock." How should I respond to that ... should I turn him it, should I fight him, should I throw a rock next time I had a chance? I looked him in the eye and said "I know you threw the rock at a 'fag' but remember the next time you throw one you may not him me but you will hit someone like me who someone to someone like you." They never played their game again.

Now I am not trying to elevate myself. But I use that as an example, I could have completely wiped the street with the guy yet I choose the path of least continued violence. This is at the essence of turning the other cheek. But the key is how do you respond, does your response cause more of what you suffered or does it create more?

Pacifism does not demand justice … Pacifism creates peace …

-Venari

[awediot]

Wow. I am sorry to hear you have had so many opprotunities to test such a principle... Have you considered moving to (who knows? ya take the good with the bad. Does safety=boredom?)

You make sense, particularly : "where if the person persists in action they will be knowing we first offered them love and compassion."
That is a wonderful way to put it.

Self defense, or defense of another is the only violence I have ever thought of as justifiable. And that only to the least degree needed to stop it. Revenge is a justice best left to God.

To push the topic to another (please don't let me actually face) level, what do you think about a pre-emptive "effort" to stop violence? If you had overheard those rock throwing creeps in the planning stage, or the classic quandry, would/could/should one have been able to kill Hitler, had they foreseen the horror he caused (as some probably did), what extent of stoppage power do you think is justified? (assuming you haven't persuaded them out of it)...

[SolInvictus]

Just to comment - having recently completed self-defense training; it is possible to defend oneself w/out taking violent action. For example, pressure points and certain techniques can divert violent action without injury to both parties.

[Joe Brummer]

There seems to be a misunderstanding that non-violence is a paficism. It is not. When someone is going to rob or bash you, there is no point this. It is not part of a movement. To avoid fighting back is good, but even gandhi and King agreed that self-defense is necessary at times, but not in the context of direct action. It comes down to the first prinicple of non-violence. It is a way of life for courageous people, not cowards.

Nonviolence is not passive, but requires courage

Nonviolence doesn't require one to be a doormat, and it doesn't mean you just passively let people walk all over you. Nonviolence demands that you stand up for your rights and the rights of those who are being oppressed. It is not passive, but an active resistance to evil actions.


From this article:http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/nonviolent_direct_action/
Pacifism is a philosophy which, in its absolutist form, proposes that "all forms of violence, war, and/or killing are unconditionally wrong. The proposed ideal is that social intercourse should be completely nonviolent and peaceful..."[1] In conditional pacifism, nonviolence is still the ideal, but violence may be justified under certain, typically extreme, circumstances. Self-defense in the face of attack may be justified, but one should nonetheless do what one can to minimize the harm inflicted on the perpetrator.

[Venari]

Joe,

I think you may have missed what I wad getting at. And what the post was about... you seem to be applying it to "mass movements" while what is being discussed is on the individual level.

But there will always be an argument over how far pacifism extends... but I wrote what it means to me.

I believe all Christians are called to be pacifists, that being peacemakers. We respond to violence, injustice and oppression only to the point where it stops. We do not demand justice for the wrongs we have suffered, I firmly believe when we demand justice we more often then not commit an injustice to another person. Also where are we ever given an example of where Jesus or any or the Apostles demanded justice for the wrongs they suffered?

So on the personal level we respond only with the amount of "force" to counter and stop any further acts.

I hope this clarifies my position.

-Venari

[awediot]

Appreciate the input. The conclusive agreement seems that force is not used beyond what may be needed. No angry kickin' 'em when they're down....Makes perfect sense.

I had not thought of Christ or the apostles not seeking justice (vengence?) for the wrongs done to them. I wonder if that speaks to their faith that it was in God's hands, or utter lack of faith in any system of law available to them.

Venari, I also am curious as to why you didn't turn in the man that robbed you? I am tempted to speculate, but will simply hope for an answer...

One more point neither of you elaborated on, is pre-emptive violence. Not only since it started this war, but at those opprotune moments in life where we are given the chance to sideline violence before it happens... Any thoughts?

[Joe Brummer]

In my training to become of non-violence trainer we addressed this issue of self-defense. The difference lies in "the cause". It is different to suffer for a cause than to suffer at the hands of an attacker.

Non-violence is about a cause, not neccesarily big social change, could be personal and small. It doesn't mean you are a door matt.

[awediot]

Thanks guys. I get it. but I remain curious about pre-emptive violence as described earlier. (don't make me start a new post now)

[Venari]

Thanks guys. I get it. but I remain curious about pre-emptive violence as described earlier. (don't make me start a new post now)

I best answer is there is never a need for pre-emptive violence. I guess the way I see it is as a person of faith "striking first" acts only as an example of not living by faith, which is to say I did not trust God to bring His will so I imposed mine into the situation.

Short answer I know, but it feels concise. :cool:

-Venari