When, if ever, is violence justifiable?

[suzer1013]

I've perused past threads, and seen some discussion of this topic, but I'd really like to be more informed about it.

I have a very basic understanding of the principles of non-violence. But, it seems to me, there may be a point when non-violent efforts could be overcome by tyranny (hypothetical situation, but I of course am worried about this happening given the conduct of our Administration - marginalizing gays, Patriot Act, etc.). At what point, if ever, is violence an appropriate option?

Self defense is a case in point, and I read a bit about that in earlier posts.

Part of my questions regarding this come from a conversation on another board I read, in which some folks say they would never respond with violence, while others say "hell no! -- if an oppressor came to drag me out of my house into an internment camp or to kill me and my family, I'd fight with every bone in my body" (only, of course, after having taken appropriate non-violent steps in the past).

The non-violence movement obviously stresses non-violent change at all times, but what happens if/when that doesn't work? If, for example, we were in the middle of a large scale war (of WWII proportions), would you eventually resort to violence?

On this other board, Dietrich Bonhoeffer has come up as an example of someone who was previously committed to non-violence, but after years of the rise of Hitler, and seeing what was happening to the Jews, Bonhoeffer took part in a plot to kill Hitler.

I'd be interested in others' opinions on this subject. Thanks! :)

Susan

[Zerbie]

If folks come here to drag our loved-ones into camps, then they have brought violence TO us. Whether or not I respond with an attempt at physical violence, I am already IN violence. If violence is brought to you, you are trapped in "engage in physical violence or die for certain," and you respond with violence, all that does is morph certain death to possible death for you. But the violence is already there.

If you are out jogging along the bayou in Florida and an alligator grabs you and you don't fight, he drags you into the water and eats you. If you fight, he may decide this lunch isn't worth the effort. is a human assailant different? They are both living things. The choice is the same for you.

Tactics change with the circumstances and needs. If someone 3 times my size begins to drag me physically away to lock me up, yes, I fight. That has been established. Alas, I probably lose, but believe me, I fight. :mad: Philosophical tenets go out the window in a clear-cut case of assault/survival. I'm the most non-confrontational person I know. Confrontation scares me to death. But if you attack my survival, yeah, I fight back. It's what animals do.

There are other places this discussion can go, greyer and greyer areas, but they're not my particular passion. I leave those matters for Joe Brummer and others. ;)

[Mia14]

I think I believe that violence isn't justified unless absolutely necessary for survival - as in Zerbie's examples of alligators or strangers attacking.

[awediot]

If you've been backtracking through old threads, you've probably run into some of my tirade with revtj. Some of the definitions outlined are preposterous to me : Any thought that pre-disposes another to danger, being construed as violent is an insult to anyone who has just been beaten... It softens what real violence is...

That aside, self-defense is justifiable. Being successful at it, then kicking your attacker when they're down, is understandable, but not real holy. Coming to the defense of another as protector also is a noble thing to do. We are to protect each other as well... Now to make it sticky, where is pre-emptive violence justified? If you know a neighbor abuses their kid when they drink, and they just pulled in the drive, pissed off and stumble to the door like you've seen a thousand times before, what action and to what level should you take to stop them before they hurt again? We see abused people wait until their tormentor is asleep before defending themselves quite often because they are to weak to do anything about it in the middle of an onslaught... Justified?

The war we are in now has written pre-emptive strikes into policy. A shocking precedence to where this powerful country has never tread before. "Get them before they get us." Mixed bag of thoughts on that one...

[Daniel]

Physical violence, emotional violence, verbal violence, spiritual violence. Choose the form which suits your disposition.

In the Big View of things it may not be considered Moral, but in the Relative World we live in it may be Expedient. It's were these two spheres cease to touch that the problem arises.

[schoolboi]

Violence is used most often to get something you want or stop something you don’t want. In the case of the alligator its for food or survival. In a war in Iraq it’s political power. In a two year old who hits her brother it because she wants to play with the Barbie. Violence is a force to bring about desired results. Of course violence can be random, but I don’t think that is what we are talking about here.

Non-violence is also a force used to bring about desired results. As Dr. King said we must replace physical force (violence) with soul force (non-violence).

I think for the alligator to choose nonviolence would be very impractical. In that case violence is his only option. In the case of Dietrich Bonhoeffer he came to the conclusion along with others of like faith that they had reached a point where non-violence would not work to bring about change. Sit-ins, marches, protests, etc would have lead to certain death and only made matters much worse. Their only option was violence. I believe that if non-violence had been used much earlier in the rise of the Third Reich non-violence would have worked.

For me I choose violence only when non-violence is not an option. If an alligator is attaching me I don’t think non-violence is a valid way of dealing with it. If a person physically attacks me at home or in a dark alley nonviolence most likely would not be beneficial. Voluntary suffering is redemptive. Involuntary suffering is not.

[Daniel]

I think for the alligator to choose nonviolence would be very impractical. In that case violence is his only option. In the case of Dietrich Bonhoeffer he came to the conclusion along with others of like faith that they had reached a point where non-violence would not work to bring about change. Sit-ins, marches, protests, etc would have lead to certain death and only made matters much worse. Their only option was violence.

Thanks for the clarity of your statement schoolboi. Clarifies matters for me in a way that makes sense.

[morningrob]

I have debated about if I should throw in my thoughts- but now I will.

I should say that I disagree with the path this thread has taken. Please allow me to explain why.

I believe that what is being expressed is not true to the expression of non-violent force as understood by both Gandhi and King. As I am more familiar with King's thought I will keep my "proofs" to him.
By stating that non-violence works up until a point, seems to me that the use of violence is still considered a superior way of solving problems. In other words, it is saying that yes non-violence works but then when it really hits the fan- throw it out and use violence. Even if the line may different from, say the President, the line is still there. I believe that the alternative King teaches us is that we can never be truly non-violent unless we get rid of that line.

I would like to respond to the three examples given about non-violence- a "just" war- in this case WWII, self-defense, an the aligator. First, I will respond to the gator remark. In some ways, this example might not appropiate. A philosophy of non-violence presumes that the other has the capacity to reason. Animals do not have that capacity, so they are not in the same category as another person. In other words, I believe that violence can only be used against another person. In other words, an aligator without the ability to reason is only motivated by instinct and therefore the word violence is inappropiately used in this instance. However, one could also ask if aligator are attacking people while jogging should the person be jogging there?

Second, a Just war. There are a number of critiques if war is ever just, read those, I am not going to repeat here in interest of time. However, I would like to give one example of why I disagree with an understanding of just war. If you have ever been to any forum on domestic violence one of the catchphrases is love is never violent. In other words, for the attacker to claim love and still attack is inconsistent. A philosophy of non-violence presumes love for my attacker. In a similiar manner to the domestic abuser, to commit violence as an act of love is inconsistent.

Third, Bonhoeffer. He was wrong. He still died anyway. We can ask what would happen if he stood up to Hitler in Germany. What if he ... THere are many what ifs. By looking to Bonhoeffer and say well he changed his mind is presuming that he was right.

These are just some of my thoughts. Hope they are helpful.

[kimmyd]

I would not hesitate to use deadly force, if necessary, to save my loved-ones, if they were being threatened with violence.

I also would use violence as necessary, if I was under attack; i.e. rape, mugging.

[kimmyd]

In domestic abuse situations, an attacker does not believe he is using violence as a way to relay his or her love. Domestic violence is the act of a person who feels out of control (often linked to their childhood) and is unable to relate to those around him/her in any way but to inflict constant pain, both oral and physical. When their anger is spent and if their target has survived, they often express genuine remorse. But that feeling of remorse will only last until the next wave of anger surges. It is a vicious, snowball-effect cycle. It is also extremely dangerous and often deady. Those living in a home where DV is present are taking their lives in their own hands.


Most spousal abusers, when in the throes of attacking their partner, are in a blind rage in which they are thinking of or hearing very little but the rage screaming in their head, surging through them like an infero. At no point are they thinking that they love that person. They might be deaf to your cries, and in some cases unaware of their surroundings.

Spouses have been beaten long after they were dead, because the person attacking them is still in a rage. Others, when their spouse is dead or otherwise unable to respond, have gone after any children in the house, so strong and uncontrollable is their rage.


Unless you are an expert on the subject (I actually am, and am an author on the subject)don't come on here acting like you're an autority on the subject of Domestic Violence. Visiting a site on the subject doesn't make you an expert.

Also, violence most certainly CAN be committed as an act of love--if one is using it to defend/shield their loved ones from an attack. It is called protection, and is a part of love.

And while I have respect for both King and Ghandi, neither of them are present when your kids are in danger of being molested or kidnapped, or when a rapist is stalking you in a dark alley. Stop making those men your god, and using them as prime examples of what to do in every situation in your life.


You won't catch me quoting Ghandi and King to a guy who's threatening my kids.


You'll find me doing my quoting with a baseball bat.












I have debated about if I should throw in my thoughts- but now I will.

I should say that I disagree with the path this thread has taken. Please allow me to explain why.

I believe that what is being expressed is not true to the expression of non-violent force as understood by both Gandhi and King. As I am more familiar with King's thought I will keep my "proofs" to him.
By stating that non-violence works up until a point, seems to me that the use of violence is still considered a superior way of solving problems. In other words, it is saying that yes non-violence works but then when it really hits the fan- throw it out and use violence. Even if the line may different from, say the President, the line is still there. I believe that the alternative King teaches us is that we can never be truly non-violent unless we get rid of that line.

I would like to respond to the three examples given about non-violence- a "just" war- in this case WWII, self-defense, an the aligator. First, I will respond to the gator remark. In some ways, this example might not appropiate. A philosophy of non-violence presumes that the other has the capacity to reason. Animals do not have that capacity, so they are not in the same category as another person. In other words, I believe that violence can only be used against another person. In other words, an aligator without the ability to reason is only motivated by instinct and therefore the word violence is inappropiately used in this instance. However, one could also ask if aligator are attacking people while jogging should the person be jogging there?

Second, a Just war. There are a number of critiques if war is ever just, read those, I am not going to repeat here in interest of time. However, I would like to give one example of why I disagree with an understanding of just war. If you have ever been to any forum on domestic violence one of the catchphrases is love is never violent. In other words, for the attacker to claim love and still attack is inconsistent. A philosophy of non-violence presumes love for my attacker. In a similiar manner to the domestic abuser, to commit violence as an act of love is inconsistent.

Third, Bonhoeffer. He was wrong. He still died anyway. We can ask what would happen if he stood up to Hitler in Germany. What if he ... THere are many what ifs. By looking to Bonhoeffer and say well he changed his mind is presuming that he was right.

These are just some of my thoughts. Hope they are helpful.

[kimmyd]

Well said, Zerbie.

If folks come here to drag our loved-ones into camps, then they have brought violence TO us. Whether or not I respond with an attempt at physical violence, I am already IN violence. If violence is brought to you, you are trapped in "engage in physical violence or die for certain," and you respond with violence, all that does is morph certain death to possible death for you. But the violence is already there.

If you are out jogging along the bayou in Florida and an alligator grabs you and you don't fight, he drags you into the water and eats you. If you fight, he may decide this lunch isn't worth the effort. is a human assailant different? They are both living things. The choice is the same for you.

Tactics change with the circumstances and needs. If someone 3 times my size begins to drag me physically away to lock me up, yes, I fight. That has been established. Alas, I probably lose, but believe me, I fight. :mad: Philosophical tenets go out the window in a clear-cut case of assault/survival. I'm the most non-confrontational person I know. Confrontation scares me to death. But if you attack my survival, yeah, I fight back. It's what animals do.

There are other places this discussion can go, greyer and greyer areas, but they're not my particular passion. I leave those matters for Joe Brummer and others. ;)

[Daniel]

An excerpt from a CBC intereview at:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:wLEYWp4x_SEJ:www.cbc.ca/news/background/dalailama/interview.html+dalai+lama+non-violence+self+defense&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari



Hana Gartner: But this is extraordinary. The Dalai Lama said violence under certain circumstances you could see as justified?

Dalai Lama: Possible. Look, First World War, Second World War. I think Second World War, at least, although millions of people killed, suffer, immense, but really I was against war because war is some kind of legalized maximum violence. I'm always against. However, and like Second World War and Korean War, at least to protect the rest of the democratic civilization, and Korea, South Korea protected. As a result, more prosperity and democracy, freedom, these things. So sometimes... But then I think the difficult thing is when violence is started, eventually there's always a danger the situation become out of control, chain reaction, chain violence like Vietnam. All those same motivations, same strategy, same goal, but fail. Therefore, I always believe right from the beginning, must avoid violence.

Hana Gartner: But while you can concede that sometimes it's necessary, there are those in Tibet who believe there is justification that if you do not stand up, if you just are a pacifist, you empower the person who is oppressing you.

Dalai Lama: Individual case? For example, if mad dog coming, almost certain now bite you. Then if you say, non-violence, non-violence and compassion…

Hana Gartner: You get bitten!

Dalai Lama: That's kind of foolish! You have to take use of self-defence. But without harming, without serious harming another, I think that's the way I feel. If someone try to shoot on you, then there is no possibility to run away, then you have to hit back. Then possibly not on head, but leg or something like that. So that's not serious hit back, but more lenient way, more gentle way.

Looks like Batgirl aka Zerbie has great company re the dogs.....er....alligators.

[Joe Brummer]

Vision of world peace (http://www.siue.edu/ALESTLE/library/spring99/apr.13.99/vision.html)



By Tony Watt
News Reporter



Arun Gandhi, the grandson of famed pacifist M. K. 'Mahatma' Gandhi, promoted nonviolence at SIUE.

Gandhi spoke at 7:30 p.m. Thursday in the Meridian Ballroom in the Morris University Center and answered questions from an audience of approximately 450 people.

His speech, "Hitler, Malcom X and Gandhi: The Strange Connection," used the three men's lives as examples of what to do and what not to do to affect change in society.

Gandhi said that his grandfather used nonviolence and "inclusiveness" to help make peace between Great Britain and India. Instead of fighting the British, he embraced them and showed them that the two countries did not have to hate each other.

Arun Gandhi said that in Hitler's case, the idea was the exact opposite and World War II resulted. Sixty-eight million people died because of Hitler or trying to defeat him. However, the Nazi party and, more importantly, its message of hatred survive around the world today.

A member of the audience asked if the current dilemma in Kosovo actually warranted the use of force.

" There is no violence that is justified," Gandhi said. " But there is some that is necessary. We have become excellent crisis managers. We let something go until it blows up in our faces and then we use violence to solve the problem. If we were good situation managers, we could solve the problem with out violence."

Gandhi also pointed out that there are different kinds of violence. His grandfather once sent Gandhi out at night to find a pencil he had thrown away. After he had found the pencil, his grandfather explained that by just throwing away a pencil, Gandhi had committed an act of violence by wasting resources which was violence against nature, and he had also committed violence against humanity by wasting a perfectly good pencil that someone else did not have.

These are forms of what Gandhi called passive violence. Passive violence is any kind of oppression, verbal abuse, mental abuse, or prejudice.

"Passive violence leads to anger," he said " And anger leads to physical violence."

Someone in the audience asked how followers of nonviolence could protect themselves from people who were violent.

" You would be right to use some violence to protect yourself or someone you love," Gandhi said. " The trick is to know how much violence to use."

In 1991, Arun Gandhi founded the Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence in honor of his grandfather. Since the institute's founding, it has been responsible for the creation of educational programs aimed at conflict prevention, anger management, and relationship- and community-building.

Gandhi's visit was made possible by the efforts of 25 campus and student organizations including Kimmel Leadership Center and the Indian Student Organization.

Suzanne Kutterer-Siburt, assistant director of Kimmel Leadership Center said that this was the largest group of student organizations to ever come together for one event.

" I hope this effort will not stop here," Gandhi said. " I hope SIUE will continue to work towards peace and harmony."

[Zerbie]

SU-per Zerbie aka Batgirl begins: first, to Daniel, :lol: , thanks for the props!

Now, back to the issue, several things:

1. the alligator (M.R., I purposely mentioned jogging along the bayou b/c obviously humans ARE encroaching on alligator habitat, thus leaving alligators little other choice for hunting/survival - I put it out there for you to run with as much or as little as ya like!) My real point, however, in making the alligator analogy is to put into relief What Is The Choice For You? in a situation. Not what choice WOULD you make, but what choices do you HAVE. The alligator or dog scenario is far simpler than a WWII scenario. Simple: don't fight=die, fight=a chance of survival.

2. domestic violence, I read the first few lines of Kimmy's post and immediately assumed she has some knowledge/expertise on the subject. Kimmy, it's clear that you have authority on the subject. :cool: Thank you for sharing what you know! I've never seen it so clearly defined before, but yes, that IS what abuse-rage is like, exactly. Meanwhile, K., I would suggest that you needn't be harsh with M.R. for making reference to the same issues - he didn't claim to be an expert, just to have visited a few websites.

I hafta say after glancing thru this thread again, I agree with Mr. Dalai Lama. You can simplify (the dog or the gator) and we all (mostly anyway) can agree it's clear-cut. The more complex the situation, well, haha, the more complex the situation! We could argue for days about justifying WWII and find myriad valid arguments to support any perspective at all.

When it comes down to it, as human beings we simply don't have enough information to know at some times (like with WWII) what was the best/most efficient/most effective/most spiritual course of action. We just pick one, with the best understanding we have at the moment.

I DO still maintain that failure to defend self in the face of an onslaught is foolish. Would it not be violence to one's own self not to fight for survival against a raging, irrational (at least for the moment) attacker? I'm with the Lama too when he says to disable the attack while causing the least possible harm to the attacker. I would do that if I were a weaponry or combat expert. Since I'm not, if it ever comes to it, I would try whatever I could to protect myself. NOT doing so is a loss to me, to my husband, to the rest of my family, and anyone else who might want me in this world.

[suzer1013]

Third, Bonhoeffer. He was wrong. He still died anyway. We can ask what would happen if he stood up to Hitler in Germany. What if he ... THere are many what ifs. By looking to Bonhoeffer and say well he changed his mind is presuming that he was right.



This is where I get confused with the theory of non-violent change. I'm not assuming violence is the ultimate way to solve a problem. I'm not saying -- try non-violence, and if it doesn't work right away, resort to violence. However, I do wonder if there are circumstances where non-violent action simply doesn't work. And then, what are you left with?

It would have been a huge task to ask anyone to love Hitler, or love Stalin, or Pol Pot. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it takes an incredibly enlightened human being to do that in those extreme circumstances. And there are those of you here who are much further along that path than I am. I don't know if I can embrace non-violence 100% -- I just don't know.

In my fairly limited understanding of Bonhoeffer, I believe he did work for non-violent change in Germany for years before he took part in the conspiracy to kill Hitler. He finally felt the evil being done was so overwhelming, that he was compelled to try to end that evil at the source. (He is even quoted on this very website, I believe.) Is violence against one man justified in order to possibly save millions of innocent lives? (I know, that's a whole kettle of fish!)

In hindsight, it's easy to see Hitler was committing atrocities and needed to be stopped. Trouble is, people (like Dubya) will take that reasoning, twist it to his own ends, and start a war in Iraq, pretending he's liberating people.

I believe Bonhoeffer was actually scheduled to go to India to meet Ghandi just before he made the decision to return to Germany to try to effect change there. I'm not sure I can imagine that any number of letter writing campaigns, sit down protests, or other non-violent efforts would have stopped Hitler. He simply rounded up those people, silenced any dissention, and slaughtered those who were "undesirable" in his warped view of the world. How can non-violence work against such an aggressor?

Finally, do you mean that Bonhoeffer was wrong just because he "died anyway?" Or do you mean he was wrong because violence is always a wrong choice? Not sure I'm understanding you there.

Susan

[suzer1013]

There is no violence that is justified," Gandhi said. " But there is some that is necessary.

Now THAT makes sense to me -- justified versus necessary. A little light bulb went off for me just now. :) I'll have to mull that over for a while. Thanks!

Susan

[morningrob]

In domestic abuse situations, an attacker does not believe he is using violence as a way to relay his or her love. Domestic violence is the act of a person who feels out of control (often linked to their childhood) and is unable to relate to those around him/her in any way but to inflict constant pain, both oral and physical. When their anger is spent and if their target has survived, they often express genuine remorse. But that feeling of remorse will only last until the next wave of anger surges. It is a vicious, snowball-effect cycle. It is also extremely dangerous and often deady. Those living in a home where DV is present are taking their lives in their own hands.


Most spousal abusers, when in the throes of attacking their partner, are in a blind rage in which they are thinking of or hearing very little but the rage screaming in their head, surging through them like an infero. At no point are they thinking that they love that person. They might be deaf to your cries, and in some cases unaware of their surroundings.

Spouses have been beaten long after they were dead, because the person attacking them is still in a rage. Others, when their spouse is dead or otherwise unable to respond, have gone after any children in the house, so strong and uncontrollable is their rage.


Unless you are an expert on the subject (I actually am, and am an author on the subject)don't come on here acting like you're an autority on the subject of Domestic Violence. Visiting a site on the subject doesn't make you an expert.

Also, violence most certainly CAN be committed as an act of love--if one is using it to defend/shield their loved ones from an attack. It is called protection, and is a part of love.

And while I have respect for both King and Ghandi, neither of them are present when your kids are in danger of being molested or kidnapped, or when a rapist is stalking you in a dark alley. Stop making those men your god, and using them as prime examples of what to do in every situation in your life.


You won't catch me quoting Ghandi and King to a guy who's threatening my kids.


You'll find me doing my quoting with a baseball bat.


As you admit you know nothing about me, therefore do not presume what I know or do not know.

All you have proven is your love of violence. If you would like to solve issues that way, ok- but you will be the victim of the violence in which you preach. Your words to my response only show hate and violence. Or at least that is how I interpret it.

I should mention by forum- I did not mean website. I meant conference, workshop or somehting like that.

Again, if you want to claim violence as a means of solving problems, go for it. Just do not call yourself non-violent- you are not.

[morningrob]

Responding mostly to Suzer's post, however there is some for Zerbie at the end.

Let me clarify about the aligator. I am saying it is impossible to be violent against an aligator. Violence is an act commited by people and toward people who have the ability to reason. Gators do not have that ability. Therefore, we are talking about a whole other area of conversation.

To respond about violence in protecting one's children, self. One is presuming again that violence is going to make things better. There is nothing to say that it is.

As I mentioned in my first post, I cannot claim much familiarity with Gandhi. However, I do not think that using Gandhi's grandchild as being a better interpreted for Gandhi works is correct. I shall use an analogy from King and homosexuality. First, I do not believe that King himself said anything about homosexuality. There is his complicated relationship with Rustin, but I am talking publicly. Second, as many of us know Coretta Scott King was in favor of gay rights. Third, one of his daughters (sorry, cannot remember which one) has said that King would not say that gay people should have civil rights and to equate gay rights with African-American rights is disservice to her father. So my question, which family member is correct in their interpretation?
I would also like to point out that as generations go by the messengers radical message tends to lose its force. Just a general observation.

You mentioned that it would be a huge task to love Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. The answer is yes it would. And that's the whole point.

About Bonhoeffer. I should say I have the highest respect for Bonhoeffer and that his writing have been inspirational for me. Furthermore, I believe from all of his writings that I have read that he made a decision that he beleived was correct and necessary.
To clarify about what I meant when I said he died anyway is that the use of violence did not change anything. Violence still went on, nothing changed. Also, the whole nature of the attempt to kill Hitler presumes that Hitler's death would have changed anything. In other words, who would have taken over from Hitler- what if they were crazier? What if Hitler's death hardened the will of Germany and the war went on longer? Again there are all these what ifs in asking this question the biggest one being that Hitler's death by other German's would have changed something. None of us can be sure of that, therefore to make the presumption that Hitler's death would have changed anything is incorrect.

The question about what to do in the face of violence that is as massive as Hitler's is a good question. In other words, what does non-violence do in that circumstance. In my response, I am presuming that we are talking about a situation in which in which one is personally confronting massive, systemic violence. In other words, you are a German in 1930's. I should say I smiled (maybe grinned might be a better word) when I read that. Yes, a letter to the editor is useless (like it would be published anyway) in the face of that kind of violence. I believe that one of the most haunting images from our history is the scene in China of the young protestor standing in front of a tank. That is the response of non-violence to massive violence.
Now I believe he was later killed by the government, so I am sure that some nay-sayer is going to say how wrong I am in mentioning this. But whose fault is that? Well I will answer- mine. I did not do enough to convince my government to stop supporting a violent regime and also to stop being a violent regime. I did not (and am not) doing enough. I believe that the reason why I am incapable of doing more is based on my own sins and violent tendencies. I pray for the strength to overcome that which can lead me to ruin and maybe one day I will reach that place, but I know I am not there yet. I hope I react non-violently in the little ways that happen in my life so that if I ever have to confront a Hitler, I would be able to act non-violently in the big ways. (This last sentence is also a paraphrase of King in a section of either Why We Can't Wait or from Chaos or Community).

What I am saying is that my own death may happen. If so I hope I am willing to stand in the face of violence and confront it with love. I hope I have done that already. I realize that this may not be the answer in which you are looking for, I am not saying sacrifice is not a part of non-violence. All I am saying is that if I am going to have to sacrifice myself I want to make sure that I am doing it in the right way.

I hope this clarified some of your points that you had for me. If not- I will try better next time.

Now some points about Zerbie's post

True I do not claim to be an expert about domestic violence. However, my experience is that I do not like to claim to be an expert at anything. The fruits will show if I am right. I should say after reading the post responding to me my gut response was- I am being proved correct. My statement is not whether violence is used in various circumstance, but rather if one can claim to be non-violent with the belief that swinging a baseball bat solves anything. Again, I am presuming that the refernce to the baseball bat is to be used physically against someone.

When you mentioned that failure to defend one's self would be violence to one's self. Good point, my question is whether a physical defense would necessarily presume that you would still be alive. You are presuming the answer is yes, again at least that is how I understand your post. If that is incorrect please let me know and I will try to answer you better. I am saying that one cannot make that presumption.

By the way somebody in another thread asked why not so many people talked in the forums. After reading I thought maybe I should write more. See what you get when you ask for something. :p

[Joe Brummer]

Morning Rob,
I sadly fing more passive violence in your repsonses to your adversaries than the violence you deplore so much. I ask that you take a moment to choose your words more carefully and not make such assumptions about your adversary. Choose words that are those of a friend giving advice as opoose to making accusations and assumptions.

None of us will ever be truly nonviolent, but in our stride to be as nonviolent as we can be,we must see are adversary as our friend and future ally and your posts lack that quality.

I hope you will take my words as loving advice. I know you mean well, but the means must be justified with the end.

[suzer1013]

I realize that this may not be the answer in which you are looking for

I'm completely brain dead after a long day at work, and too much thinking about this subject! But I wanted to be sure you know I appreciate your answer, and please know I am not looking for any particular answer. I just want to be more educated about this, to understand it better. I have a pretty good handle intellectually of the principles of non-violence. It's applying it to my life that's the hard part. I also have to desire to apply it to my life -- I'm still not entirely convinced that non-violence is much more than an ideal that may work sometimes, but may not other times. Thus, the reason why I like this discussion! :)

Thanks for your well thought out answer, and for everyone else who has posted so far -- every opinion helps me see things in a different light. (I'm such a Libra, always seeing the other side of things!)

Blessings,

Susan

[Zerbie]

When you mentioned that failure to defend one's self would be violence to one's self. Good point, my question is whether a physical defense would necessarily presume that you would still be alive. You are presuming the answer is yes, again at least that is how I understand your post. If that is incorrect please let me know and I will try to answer you better. I am saying that one cannot make that presumption.

mhen you ask for something. :p


Hey Rob, I'm saying (or meaning to say) roughly the same thing here. No, you don't KNOW that responding with physical struggle will lead to survival. But say the situation is such that it looks clear that failure to struggle = certain death. In that case struggle = possible survival. I say by all means! You don't know the outcome, but if from the info you have it looks necessary, you do it. Fight for yourself if you must. Better if it never becomes necessary.

As for the disagreements, it is okay to disagree. And to express disagreements. Friends do disagree sometimes, perhaps even often, and that is okay. What matters is how we treat one another in expressing disagreement. So I say, don't bow out of the conversations, it's always okay to express an opinion. For instance, I disagree with your point about gators, but hubby is waitin' fer me right now 'n I gotta go. So I'll address it later.;) Ya may hafta remind me. :p

[Lydia]

At what point, if ever, is violence an appropriate option?
The non-violence movement obviously stresses non-violent change at all times, but what happens if/when that doesn't work? If, for example, we were in the middle of a large scale war (of WWII proportions), would you eventually resort to violence?

My commitment to nonviolence stems from religious convictions. I'm not convinced that it should (or even could) be extended into secular, governmental issues. And even if it could, I don't think it's wise to blur the lines between church and state. Those boundaries are there for a reason.

In an ideal world, I would never resort of violence. If I was attacked by something sentient in this ideal world, (I was too weirded out by the thought of alligators wandering the streets of downtown Toronto to think of a good reply to Zerbie's question :lol:) the authorities would be close by. Or I'd run away very quickly. Or I'd be witty enough to verbally disarm them.

Realistically? I'd fight for myself or my family as long and as hard as I had to. I'd do everything I could to prevent the assailant from being critically wounded, but I'd pick my life over his or her life in a heartbeat.

Once the crisis was finished I'd feel guilty for doing so, and if the other person I'd probably feel as though I need to repent of what, IMO, was a sin. But in the meantime I'd fight.

Conflicts like WWII could have been successfully approached nonviolently, but they really would needed to have begun in the 20's to be effective. Or better yet, there should have been a more nonviolent approach in '18 when WWI ended to help avoid some of the blaming and shaming of the German people that happened during that time period.

[kimmyd]

I DON'T call myself non-violent. Nor would I refer to myself as violent.

What I am is a person who will, at all times, defend those she loves by whatever means necessary.

You don't have to approve of that or like it, nor do I care whether you do or not.

While it is unfortunate, violence is part of our world; there are and always will be people who insure that we face it one way or another.

If, God forbid, it touches myself or my children, I will do all in my power to make sure myself and my kids are not harmed.






As you admit you know nothing about me, therefore do not presume what I know or do not know.

All you have proven is your love of violence. If you would like to solve issues that way, ok- but you will be the victim of the violence in which you preach. Your words to my response only show hate and violence. Or at least that is how I interpret it.

I should mention by forum- I did not mean website. I meant conference, workshop or somehting like that.

Again, if you want to claim violence as a means of solving problems, go for it. Just do not call yourself non-violent- you are not.

[kimmyd]

Lydia, what a great post.

I'm not sure why I'm being labled 'violent' for stating that I'd fight for myself and my kids. Nor do I really care.

But seeing so many others on here saying the same things means that I'm not in the minority.

But even if I was--those kids are mine. In the end, it comes down to how I'm going to protect them--and standing there being passive and kind because someone dictates to me that that's the right thing to do while they're in danger just doesn't cut it.

BTW, I loved you WWII view. Very interesting and well thought out.



My commitment to nonviolence stems from religious convictions. I'm not convinced that it should (or even could) be extended into secular, governmental issues. And even if it could, I don't think it's wise to blur the lines between church and state. Those boundaries are there for a reason.

In an ideal world, I would never resort of violence. If I was attacked by something sentient in this ideal world, (I was too weirded out by the thought of alligators wandering the streets of downtown Toronto to think of a good reply to Zerbie's question :lol:) the authorities would be close by. Or I'd run away very quickly. Or I'd be witty enough to verbally disarm them.

Realistically? I'd fight for myself or my family as long and as hard as I had to. I'd do everything I could to prevent the assailant from being critically wounded, but I'd pick my life over his or her life in a heartbeat.

Once the crisis was finished I'd feel guilty for doing so, and if the other person I'd probably feel as though I need to repent of what, IMO, was a sin. But in the meantime I'd fight.

Conflicts like WWII could have been successfully approached nonviolently, but they really would needed to have begun in the 20's to be effective. Or better yet, there should have been a more nonviolent approach in '18 when WWI ended to help avoid some of the blaming and shaming of the German people that happened during that time period.

[Zerbie]

Excellent!

Lydia raises an utterly critical point, which is that non-violent means need to be used to diffuse a situation BEFORE it escalates into violence. That means having the forethought to avoid getting into circumstances to begin with that will lead to "violent" situations.

What I was gonna say about gators: Not much of a point, but just that violence certainly CAN be committed against gators. When they are tied up, trapped, euthanized, etc. just for being inconvenient to human beings, that is violence to the gator. Hey, if the gator's lunch fights back and you could ask the gator about it and hear his answer, he might even call that violence.

[Lydia]

Lydia, what a great post.

I'm not sure why I'm being labled 'violent' for stating that I'd fight for myself and my kids. Nor do I really care.

Thank you.

I can only speak for myself, but I label self-defense as (a form of) violence because IMO it can be. When you're defending yourself you may have to do some pretty injurious things to the other party.

If I was violently attacked by someone, I may have to resort to some pretty violent behaviors to escape. I'd probably draw blood, and if it was an even match I might even injury that person severely. Self defense isn't a pretty thing, it isn't a nice thing. But it's sometimes a necessary thing, unfortunate as that may be.

Many pacifists won't agree with me on that point, and I think that's where the "violent" label on self-defense comes into play. I have extended family members whose nonviolence runs so deeply inside of them that they wouldn't physically defend themselves if they were attacked, partially because if their assailant were to die they wouldn't know if he or she would make it into heaven. And they would rather die themselves than risk "sending" someone else to that other place.

Anyway, I know you said that you weren't interested in the reasoning behing this but I thought other people might be interested. :)

(edited because I can't seem to spell properly today)

[Vortex]

From reading the posts on this topic, for me the issue comes down to our own morals and principles and the sacrificing of those morals and principles. I don’t think anyone here is advocating violence as the method for solving our problems, we all see nonviolence as the ideal resolution to conflict. Where we differ is whether or not these morals and principles of nonviolence should be sacrificed when faced with a true threat to our own survival. To which I pose the following questions.


What are our principles without us?

If the dog, the alligator, or the person with the gun kills us and we die willingly for a principle does it mean anything? If we’re dead what good are our principles?


What are we without our principles?

Is the use of nonviolence really about outcome? We all hope that through the use of nonviolence we can resolve our conflicts without violence, but what if we fail? Does that devalue the principle of nonviolence? Are our principles really about success, or are they about who we are as a people?

I like to believe that being in the right on an issue no matter the outcome carries with it its on success.



P.S. I notice this topic getting a little testy to which I say to you all, we should not beat each other up over this issue, considering the fact that most people will not put nearly as much thought into this issue their entire lifetime as many of you have just in these post. I see the discussion itself of this issue despite its contentions as success in it of it self.


Vortex

[Lydia]

P.S. I notice this topic getting a little testy

It is:confused:

[kimmyd]

Actually, thanks for that explanation, lydia. I appreciated reading it.

I have very religious family members who do the same thing, live by the 'Turn the other cheek' attitude. I find that...well...lame.:rolleyes:



Thank you.

I can only speak for myself, but I label self-defense as (a form of) violence because IMO it can be. When you're defending yourself you may have to do some pretty injurious things to the other party.

If I was violently attacked by someone, I may have to resort to some pretty violent behaviors to escape. I'd probably draw blood, and if it was an even match I might even injury that person severely. Self defense isn't a pretty thing, it isn't a nice thing. But it's sometimes a necessary thing, unfortunate as that may be.

Many pacifists won't agree with me on that point, and I think that's where the "violent" label on self-defense comes into play. I have extended family members whose nonviolence runs so deeply inside of them that they wouldn't physically defend themselves if they were attacked, partially because if their assailant were to die they wouldn't know if he or she would make it into heaven. And they would rather die themselves than risk "sending" someone else to that other place.

Anyway, I know you said that you weren't interested in the reasoning behing this but I thought other people might be interested. :)

(edited because I can't seem to spell properly today)

[morningrob]

A couple of responses.
To Kimmyd.
I made the presumption as this is a website about a group which uses non-violent means for change, that the responses would be with a goal of people who are attempting to have a non-violent lifestyle. I apologize for presuming something different. Please do not understand that I mean that you are bat-toting lunatic either. Only that you believe that violence might be appropiate in certain (shall I also say limited?) circumstances.
However, I should say that I misread one major part of your first post. In essence, I did not read the line (or skipped over, or something) the part where it said where you said If somebody was attacking my kids you would not be quoting Gandhi or King. Basically I skipped that line in my reading. If you read your post without that line, then you could see the context in which I was making my reply. While not an excuse, an explanation. In other words, I thought you wanted to whack me with a bat.
Let me, if I may, make a better response. First, I believe it seems that we are coming at the word "reason" from two different viewpoints. I believe, that you were using the word "reason" in a psychological sense. In other words, the attacker is an altered state of mind and is not in control of themselves. I was using the word "reason" in a philosophical sense. In other words, as humans we all have the capacity to make decisions. I have no disagreements with the way you described the attacker, as I mentioned in another post, it seemed to me that you were proving my point.
Second, it was inappropiate of me to say that you loved violence. I should have made a distinction between a person who uses violence and a violent person. Therefore, please accept my apology for my words, they were wrong. However, the part of my post in which I say that those who use violent means will eventually have violence visited upon them, that I am not taking back. I do not mean to say that violence will specifically directed towards you by this. Perhaps, an analogy might be helpful. Imagine an empty glass. Each violent act (and I am including self defense that resorts to violence in this) fills the glass with water. If people do not act in a way in which the glass gets empty again, eventually the glass will fill up and overflow. Once it overflows, all people get wet, no matter their personal choices throughout their life. This is my point, in that individual acts of violence, even those acts nobody else knows about, will eventually cause violence to visit all of us.
Third, you made what I thought is a common but incorrect presumption. That is that non-violence is passive. This was in your post at 10:24 pm. I would disagree with the statement that non-violence is passive. I would not agree with that.
However, examples would have to go back to King, and you believe that he is my God (yeah, still a bit ticked off about that one, which will be point four). Furthermore, a personal example would mean me breaking confedentialty (did I spell that right) and I am not going to do that.
Fourth, I would say that a group who says that King and Gandhi are their examples of non-violence and then for me to make a reference to one of them is appropiate and not making gods out of them.

To Joe:
In essence I am insulted by your response. Was I being forceful, yes. Was I stating some truths as I understand them, yes. Could I have been clearer, yes. However, as you never quoted me directly and only threw out generalities, I really cannot respond beyond this. This point, about people throwing around generalities, has already been made before in another thread- I think it was awediot who brought it up (I might be wrong). Furthermore, if you read my next post after my response to kimmyd, I fully admitted to having my own demons and needing to work on them. I understood your post, in light of both of my posts, as rubbing my nose in my own failures.

To Vortex:
IS it getting testy, one way of seeing it. Is it passionate, yes and thank God for that. Personally I do not understand why there are not more posts about this subject- it seems most are interested in people's favorite flower (I used a question I asked). Please, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that post, only that does not this question go to the heart of this website?

To Lydia:
I am in agreement with you about my reasons for non-violence, in other words religious principles. However, is this to say that non-violence is a purely religious/spiritual conviction? In other words, can anybody imagine what it would look like for a government to pursue non-violent strategies?

[morningrob]

I have very religious family members who do the same thing, live by the 'Turn the other cheek' attitude. I find that...well...lame.:rolleyes:

One other thing. I would like to mention that there is some good scholarship that says "Turn the Other Cheek," as understood within the context of Jesus' time is actually a form of protest and resistance. I could go into this in greater detail if you would like, but it would have to wait until I can go home and get my sources out. In other words, don't expect a better explanation until tomorrow, if you would desire it.

[suzer1013]

One other thing. I would like to mention that there is some good scholarship that says "Turn the Other Cheek," as understood within the context of Jesus' time is actually a form of protest and resistance. I could go into this in greater detail if you would like, but it would have to wait until I can go home and get my sources out. In other words, don't expect a better explanation until tomorrow, if you would desire it.

Rob -- I, for one, would love to hear the scholarship on that. That has always been of interest to me. I agree with "turn the other cheek," but my question is -- for how long? How long does one continue to "take it" before hitting back, so to speak? Perhaps the info. you have can shed some light on that for me, give the story a different perspective. I'd love to see what you have on that subject. Thanks!

Susan :)

[suzer1013]

Here's an anecdote from my life. I'm wondering what I can learn from this regarding non-violence.

When I was in the 5th grade, I was one of the kids who was bullied. This was because I was sort of chunky, and was an emotionally sensitive child who was ripe for the picking for some of the more bullying types. I was picked on mercilessly by one particular girl and her "pack" of friends who accompanied her. There was one girl, Kristin, who was the only person in 5th grade who was nice to me that year. It was an awful year.

Anyway, I came home crying day after day, after being called every name in the book, having dirt thrown at me, etc. Needless to say, being called "fatso" and "blubber" and every other derogatory name for overweight kids didn't help my self esteem any.

My mom tried to console me, to tell me those other kids were just mean, and I was so much better than them because I was nice and sweet and didn't resort to name calling, that I didn't want them as friends anyway. But the teasing and bullying went on and on -- I don't even know for exactly how long. I was miserable and unhappy and hated to go to school. I was in fear constantly. This was the 70's, and anti-bullying programs in schools was unheard of. I had tried asking them to stop, I had tried avoiding them, I had tried calling them names back -- all of which made them laugh at me harder and intensify the bullying.

Finally, after months of this, my mother had had it. She shook her head and said "Susan, the next time Jeannine bullies you, I want you to punch her in the nose, as hard as you can."

I was stunned. My mom had NEVER advocated any kind of physical retaliation -- in fact, always taught us that hitting was wrong. I wasn't sure, but she said that at that point, it might be the only thing that would stop Jeannine.

So, I did. The next time it happened, I punched that little girl. Got her in the stomach (not the nose), and her posse proceeded to jump on me, kicking me and pulling my hair, spitting on me, etc. Jeannine and I were dragged to the principal's office by a teacher, where I sat crying and explaining what had happened. Jeannine sat rather sullen and angry, not crying, but calm. The principal somehow got her to say she would stop bullying me, and she would stop encouraging her friends to do so. And she did! It all ended.

I know this story deals with children, but frankly, alot of disputes in our world seem to occur at a 5th grade level mindset. I learned that sometimes, to stop abuse, I had to stand up for myself in an aggressive way. I had to show them I wouldn't take their bullying any more. Had I gone to the principal first, I believe the taunting would have continued, probably at an increased level (then I would have been a "tattletale").

Anyway, I can't help but think about that when I think about non-violence. I wonder what, if anything, I could have done that would not have been physically attacking my opponent.

Maybe bullying on the playground is not a good analogy to use, but I guess it has informed my way of thinking, so I thought it was worth sharing.

I've never again used physical violence to solve a problem, as I did in the 5th grade. And I'm not sure that Jeannine ever bullied anyone again -- I don't remember her doing so (we went through school and graduated the same year), so perhaps she learned something from it and changed her ways, I don't know. She seemed genuinely remorseful after that, and was always polite to me, though we were certainly never "friends."

Susan

[kimmyd]

YOU GO GIRL!

I loved that story.


I'm sure it was scary and horrible and the last thing you wanted to do...but sometimes, what else works???

I am very, very sorry you got called those names though...been there, and they really do leave their scars.

The only good thing is, those scars can make us stronger and teach us compassion.


Here's an anecdote from my life. I'm wondering what I can learn from this regarding non-violence.

When I was in the 5th grade, I was one of the kids who was bullied. This was because I was sort of chunky, and was an emotionally sensitive child who was ripe for the picking for some of the more bullying types. I was picked on mercilessly by one particular girl and her "pack" of friends who accompanied her. There was one girl, Kristin, who was the only person in 5th grade who was nice to me that year. It was an awful year.

Anyway, I came home crying day after day, after being called every name in the book, having dirt thrown at me, etc. Needless to say, being called "fatso" and "blubber" and every other derogatory name for overweight kids didn't help my self esteem any.

My mom tried to console me, to tell me those other kids were just mean, and I was so much better than them because I was nice and sweet and didn't resort to name calling, that I didn't want them as friends anyway. But the teasing and bullying went on and on -- I don't even know for exactly how long. I was miserable and unhappy and hated to go to school. I was in fear constantly. This was the 70's, and anti-bullying programs in schools was unheard of. I had tried asking them to stop, I had tried avoiding them, I had tried calling them names back -- all of which made them laugh at me harder and intensify the bullying.

Finally, after months of this, my mother had had it. She shook her head and said "Susan, the next time Jeannine bullies you, I want you to punch her in the nose, as hard as you can."

I was stunned. My mom had NEVER advocated any kind of physical retaliation -- in fact, always taught us that hitting was wrong. I wasn't sure, but she said that at that point, it might be the only thing that would stop Jeannine.

So, I did. The next time it happened, I punched that little girl. Got her in the stomach (not the nose), and her posse proceeded to jump on me, kicking me and pulling my hair, spitting on me, etc. Jeannine and I were dragged to the principal's office by a teacher, where I sat crying and explaining what had happened. Jeannine sat rather sullen and angry, not crying, but calm. The principal somehow got her to say she would stop bullying me, and she would stop encouraging her friends to do so. And she did! It all ended.

I know this story deals with children, but frankly, alot of disputes in our world seem to occur at a 5th grade level mindset. I learned that sometimes, to stop abuse, I had to stand up for myself in an aggressive way. I had to show them I wouldn't take their bullying any more. Had I gone to the principal first, I believe the taunting would have continued, probably at an increased level (then I would have been a "tattletale").

Anyway, I can't help but think about that when I think about non-violence. I wonder what, if anything, I could have done that would not have been physically attacking my opponent.

Maybe bullying on the playground is not a good analogy to use, but I guess it has informed my way of thinking, so I thought it was worth sharing.

I've never again used physical violence to solve a problem, as I did in the 5th grade. And I'm not sure that Jeannine ever bullied anyone again -- I don't remember her doing so (we went through school and graduated the same year), so perhaps she learned something from it and changed her ways, I don't know. She seemed genuinely remorseful after that, and was always polite to me, though we were certainly never "friends."

Susan

[kimmyd]

MB,

I was out of line saying King and Ghandi are your gods. I'm sorry. It was really rude.

I would also VERY much like to see this scholarship.

Something else interesting I just learned: I've always had a hard time believing that Jesus, obviously a human, could be born from a 'virgin'. It defies...well...reality. Can't happen.

One day about two weeks ago, I mentioned this to the judge I work for (we were having a heated discussion about the whole Divinchi Code thing), and he said that the term 'Virgin' back then meant not having given birth to any children yet.

So in that sense, she was indeed a virgin.

IMAGINE!

It comforted me to know that the Bible isn't the pack of lies I've come to think of it as.

Sorry--the whole 666 date made me say that just now.:eek:

Anyway..sorry MB and love ya.

Kimmyd

One other thing. I would like to mention that there is some good scholarship that says "Turn the Other Cheek," as understood within the context of Jesus' time is actually a form of protest and resistance. I could go into this in greater detail if you would like, but it would have to wait until I can go home and get my sources out. In other words, don't expect a better explanation until tomorrow, if you would desire it.

[suzer1013]

YOU GO GIRL!

I loved that story.


I'm sure it was scary and horrible and the last thing you wanted to do...but sometimes, what else works???

I am very, very sorry you got called those names though...been there, and they really do leave their scars.

The only good thing is, those scars can make us stronger and teach us compassion.

LOL! Yeah, the scars can make you stronger, and I hope and pray that what happened also taught Jeannine some compassion. I think it did, but I really have no way of knowing.

My question has always been, though -- was it the RIGHT thing to do? It was obviously not the non-violent thing to do (as a 9/10 year old, I didn't have a good grasp of non-violence, though I had been taught pretty well at home and in Sunday School).

Perhaps it's a bit off subject. I mean, I understand the schoolyard situation isn't really talking about non-violent social change in the way Soulforce is, but I do think it correlates in a larger picture sort of way. If we can teach our children peaceful means of resolving problems, perhaps the world would be a better place. I've always wondered, could I have changed their abusive behavior toward me in any other way? I don't know -- can't go back in time and find out.

Susan

[kimmyd]

That's just it--NONE of us are truly non-violent.

It's just that we pray we'll never be in a situation to have to choose whether or not to be.


Morning Rob,
I sadly fing more passive violence in your repsonses to your adversaries than the violence you deplore so much. I ask that you take a moment to choose your words more carefully and not make such assumptions about your adversary. Choose words that are those of a friend giving advice as opoose to making accusations and assumptions.

None of us will ever be truly nonviolent, but in our stride to be as nonviolent as we can be,we must see are adversary as our friend and future ally and your posts lack that quality.

I hope you will take my words as loving advice. I know you mean well, but the means must be justified with the end.

[kimmyd]

It was right and wrong: sure, fighting is 'wrong'...but what you did stopped her torment dead in it's tracks. It gave you a break from the abuse and confidence in your ability to control your life a little better.

So measuring right versus wrong on the scales?

Right has it.

I hope her nose was sore for a good long time.

You want to talk about violence: once, my sister got mad at me all b/c I gave her this really terrible haircut (we were playing barber). I kept trying to even everything out, and she ended up with no hair but for a tuft on the left side and a few strands on top.

In retaliation, she shaved off the hair of all my dolls!!!

So I took scissors and poked out all the eyes of HER dolls.

Then we got into a huge rolling-on-floor brawl that ended with my dad pulling us apart. He took in my sister's hair (or lack of it), the shaved and eyeless dolls...and gasped, "My GOD! What kind of girls ARE you???" This was when the old Damien movies were out, and I think he was actually scared of us.

We cried and begged for new dolls but he said no way would he subject any more dolls to the likes of us.

So all we had were blind, bald dolls until next Chrismas, when my parents finally thought we were good enough to get new ones.

Like I said, I've since moved on to baseball bats.

I think she uses taser guns, but I'll have to check....:lol:

What can I say...I'll be a tomboy for life.:rolleyes:


LOL! Yeah, the scars can make you stronger, and I hope and pray that what happened also taught Jeannine some compassion. I think it did, but I really have no way of knowing.

My question has always been, though -- was it the RIGHT thing to do? It was obviously not the non-violent thing to do (as a 9/10 year old, I didn't have a good grasp of non-violence, though I had been taught pretty well at home and in Sunday School).

Perhaps it's a bit off subject. I mean, I understand the schoolyard situation isn't really talking about non-violent social change in the way Soulforce is, but I do think it correlates in a larger picture sort of way. If we can teach our children peaceful means of resolving problems, perhaps the world would be a better place. I've always wondered, could I have changed their abusive behavior toward me in any other way? I don't know -- can't go back in time and find out.

Susan

[Zerbie]

I don't think Suze's story is off topic at all. It's one example, and a smaller, simpler one to discuss than, say, WWII. It is one look at what one can do in a nearly powerless situation. As adults, we can stand up and walk out of the room if we are in an intolerable situation - even at work, though with the understanding we may be jeopardizing our jobs. But a 9 year old can't get away with walking out of school and not going back. She has to be there every day.

I dealt with constant problems at school of a similar nature. K through second grade it was an escalating series of physical attacks. A group of boys once picked me up, held me upside down, and dropped me on my head in the middle of the 2nd grade classroom. Teacher was in the hallway chatting with another teacher at the time. When I was able to move, I ran to her and said " (names) tried to kill me." She literally WAVED me off with her hand. Things of this nature continued the entire year.

Towards late spring, the class bully accosted me when the teacher was out of the room. He put his hands over my mouth and nose, firmly, and left them there. I waited, sure that no 9 year old wanted to actually kill an innocent kid in his class. Shortly, I needed to breathe. Desperately. I struggled, he kept his hands clamped down. Did I keep waiting? *&^$, no. I kicked him in the package AS HARD AS I POSSIBLY COULD. And immediately became able to breathe. While he writhed on the ground I stood over him, lowered my voice about an octave and sneered, "Good." As it turned out, IT ENDED his bullying career forever.

Would I have gone out of my way to engage in that "violence."? Oh heck no. I had to be desperate to breathe before I even considered it, but once the need became apparent, I didn't think twice. I gained from that experience a sense that I can probably protect myself from future attackers, and he never tried to harm me again. To this day, i don't know what would have happened if I had NOT fought back. Would he have let go? or would he have become a 9 year old murderer? I don't know. I wasn't going to trust a guy whose hands were over my nose and mouth to be the one to decide whether or not I get to breathe. I couldn't risk that. And I wouldn't expect anyone else to.

[Vortex]

I notice this topic getting a little testy to which I say to you all, we should not beat each other up over this issue, considering the fact that most people will not put nearly as much thought into this issue their entire lifetime as many of you have just in these post. I see the discussion itself of this issue despite its contentions as success in it of it self.

To Vortex:
IS it getting testy, one way of seeing it. Is it passionate, yes and thank God for that. Personally I do not understand why there are not more posts about this subject- it seems most are interested in people's favorite flower (I used a question I asked). Please, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that post, only that does not this question go to the heart of this website?


I'm not sure exactly how it was infered from my post that I was suggesting that this discussion isn't warrented, but perhaps further clariffication is necessary. I was only pointing out that in taking up this discussion we are taking a step that many will never even explore, it is my hope though that in the process of which that we not make enemies out of eachother.

My apologies for any confusion.

[Zerbie]

Hey V - I didn't find any confusion whatsoever in your earlier post. Quite the contrary, I was whistling out loud in admiration when I read it. Utterly brilliant, and I thank you for it.

I'm glad you posted. Your remarks are always gems.

[kimmyd]

suze's story is right on topic.:love:

I don't think Suze's story is off topic at all. It's one example, and a smaller, simpler one to discuss than, say, WWII. It is one look at what one can do in a nearly powerless situation. As adults, we can stand up and walk out of the room if we are in an intolerable situation - even at work, though with the understanding we may be jeopardizing our jobs. But a 9 year old can't get away with walking out of school and not going back. She has to be there every day.

I dealt with constant problems at school of a similar nature. K through second grade it was an escalating series of physical attacks. A group of boys once picked me up, held me upside down, and dropped me on my head in the middle of the 2nd grade classroom. Teacher was in the hallway chatting with another teacher at the time. When I was able to move, I ran to her and said " (names) tried to kill me." She literally WAVED me off with her hand. Things of this nature continued the entire year.

Towards late spring, the class bully accosted me when the teacher was out of the room. He put his hands over my mouth and nose, firmly, and left them there. I waited, sure that no 9 year old wanted to actually kill an innocent kid in his class. Shortly, I needed to breathe. Desperately. I struggled, he kept his hands clamped down. Did I keep waiting? *&^$, no. I kicked him in the package AS HARD AS I POSSIBLY COULD. And immediately became able to breathe. While he writhed on the ground I stood over him, lowered my voice about an octave and sneered, "Good." As it turned out, IT ENDED his bullying career forever.

Would I have gone out of my way to engage in that "violence."? Oh heck no. I had to be desperate to breathe before I even considered it, but once the need became apparent, I didn't think twice. I gained from that experience a sense that I can probably protect myself from future attackers, and he never tried to harm me again. To this day, i don't know what would have happened if I had NOT fought back. Would he have let go? or would he have become a 9 year old murderer? I don't know. I wasn't going to trust a guy whose hands were over my nose and mouth to be the one to decide whether or not I get to breathe. I couldn't risk that. And I wouldn't expect anyone else to.

[morningrob]

I'm not sure exactly how it was infered from my post that I was suggesting that this discussion isn't warrented, but perhaps further clariffication is necessary. I was only pointing out that in taking up this discussion we are taking a step that many will never even explore, it is my hope though that in the process of which that we not make enemies out of eachother.


I should say my comments were limited to the part of the post where you said the thread is getting testy, not to any other part of the post. I did not understand you to say that the conversation was not important.

However, I do wonder why many of the people who are regular posters in the forum as are rather silent now? And on the same vein, this might answer a previous thread why this topic brought out a number of new voices.

[morningrob]

Sorry for the delay. Rather then tell you what I think the author wrote- I thought I would just give some highligts from the section of the book I was talking about. THis comes from Walter Wink's Engaging the Powers, p. 175-177.

"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. … The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. …A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would invite retribution. The only normal response would be cowering submission.
Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three ofthe examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims.
Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me."
Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle of nonviolent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating." …This very type of action had already been performed by Jesus' own contemporaries.

Hope this is helpful.
Rob

[kimmyd]

Oh, wierd!

I had no idea!

It amazes me how much we don't understand things written in biblical times because we try to interpret it using our understand of the world today. I'm wathcing a lot show on the theory of how we are actually misinterpreting most of the stories/quotes in the Bible for that very reason.

Thanks for all the work, Rob!

I'm going to pass that along.

God bless, see you in the forums.:love:

Kim



Sorry for the delay. Rather then tell you what I think the author wrote- I thought I would just give some highligts from the section of the book I was talking about. THis comes from Walter Wink's Engaging the Powers, p. 175-177.

"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. … The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. …A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would invite retribution. The only normal response would be cowering submission.
Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three ofthe examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims.
Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me."
Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle of nonviolent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating." …This very type of action had already been performed by Jesus' own contemporaries.

Hope this is helpful.
Rob

[Emproph]

Definition of violence. Decision making.

Violence is decision making.
Decision making is violence.

The pithiness of this post is violent.

[Zerbie]

What?! Sorry E, ya lost me this time.

:(

[Emproph]

quoting with a baseball bat.
That is one of THE funniest things I have ever read in my entire life and I will never forget it.

[Emproph]

What?! Sorry E, ya lost me this time.It’s all about making decisions. The whole of the life process is saying yes to one thing and no to another, and every possible variation on that.

We justify growing and killing and eating chickens (as an example) because chickens can’t save the world, but we CAN. There is evil and harm in every decision we make. Something, someone, somewhere is always getting less, if not none.

This is violence. We cannot escape it. Furthermore I think that in trying to escape it, as opposed to embracing and defining the necessary parts of it, we find ourselves mired in the unnecessary parts of it.

If we recognize that violence is necessary for life to be, and all the minutia thoughts required in the process, the confusion of the idea of non-violence is annulled.

In other words, the nature of Violence must be understood before the nature of non-violence can be understood.

[Lydia]

I have very religious family members who do the same thing, live by the 'Turn the other cheek' attitude. I find that...well...lame.:rolleyes:

Interesting, I have the opposite reaction. I think that people who not only believe but live out those sorts of ideals are heroic.

[Lydia]

To Lydia:
I am in agreement with you about my reasons for non-violence, in other words religious principles. However, is this to say that non-violence is a purely religious/spiritual conviction? In other words, can anybody imagine what it would look like for a government to pursue non-violent strategies?

I've been stewing over this question for a few days now. My first reaction would have been to say "Heck, no. Not in this lifetime." But it would been more of a reaction to the war in Iraq than a true response to the question. So I stewed for a few days.

I don't know if non-violence is a purely religious/spiritual conviction. My gut tells me that the "natural" thing to do for many of us would not be pacifism. Kids are a good example of this. Older toddlers and preschoolers can get pretty nasty if they think Sarah got a bigger piece of cake or more time with a favourite toy.

Then again, if humans only did what came naturally we'd probably all still live in tropical climates and walk around nude. ;)

I'm trying to imagine a government pursuing non-violent strategies, but I keep coming back to issues like national security. Or the criminal justice system. What do you think would be some ways that a government could use nonviolent strategies to protect their borders or to protect the general public from dangerous offenders?

[Dash]

Definition of violence. Decision making.

Violence is decision making.
Decision making is violence.

The pithiness of this post is violent.

Oh, thou Emproph, so pithy, yet violent... :love: :love:

Then again, if humans only did what came naturally we'd probably all still live in tropical climates and walk around nude.

I WISH!!!!!:pray: :lol:

Non-violent government...maybe "less violent" would be a viable step. I'm thinking of British cops with their billy clubs. I don't know though...non-violence does seem to be a deeply spiritual path, and while it can influence a secular culture, I doubt we could ever expect a society to follow it.

Non-violence seems to head one direction...toward the acceptance of ultimate violence...death....at the hands of the oppressor. A non-violent society would, i think, be swallowed up by the violent. That would not diminish their spiritual impact or the value of their choices. I just don't know how one would convince an entire people to live and die so beautifully.

(btw...I don't think of this as a cynical perspective on non-violence. Please don't take it as such. Death doesn't bother me so much. I don't think of it as a negative. )

[Jamie McDaniel]

I made the presumption as this is a website about a group which uses non-violent means for change, that the responses would be with a goal of people who are attempting to have a non-violent lifestyle.
I've spent the last hour reading through this thread (I'm a slow reader, unfortunately - a slight hinderance to being a forum admin) and I have to say that I find this discussion very rich. I expecially appreciate morningrob's desire to see nonviolence embraced more fully. I can also certainly understand the questions of others, as they are my own. I really value Susan's personal story.

In some ways, Soulforce is really only flirting with nonviolence. We require that everyone who participates in a demonstration sign a pledge to nonviolence, but we've never been put to such tests as high pressure water from fire hoses, police batons, or fists during a protest. The longest a demonstrator has been confined to a jail cell from participating in a Soulforce action is about 36 hours. Futhermore, the resources being put into studying and teaching nonviolence is... well, limited I think. And King did not confine his nonviolence to fighting discrimination against African Americans. He eventually came to see racism as only one corner of the triangle of evil. Economic injustice and war were the two others.

Here recently we had an absolutely huge disagreement among the Soulforce staff over an issue surrounding nonviolence - and I was one of the dissenters. I mailed everyone a CD of one of King's more radical speeches in an attempt to make my case.

After conflicts such as that, I contemplate whether I am self-righteous with nonviolence, hypocritical, or perhaps both. When I eventually decide that I am, my mental scales shift and I start to consider whether I actually do not speak out enough!

I think the questions surronding violence and nonviolence are some of the most difficult questions this life brings to the hearts and minds of men and women. If only we were aloof gods observing humanity's ongoing struggles while engaging in intellectual diliberation over what the poor creatures ought to do in each situation.

Anyway, all that to say that I hope this discussion continues either in this thread or in future ones. We may not come to a consensus on what is violence and what is nonviolence, but hopefully we can find ways to, as morningrob said, take water out of the glass before it overflows. Violence multiples violence, Dr. King told us.

[Joe Brummer]

I am happy to hear you say that Soulforce only flirts with nonviolence. My only complaint about soulforce is how Mel White talks a good game about nonviolence, but doesn't embrace the first principle with the same vigor I would hope to see from him. Nonviolence is a "way of life" for courageous people. I so wish Soulforce, as you Jaime already know, would embrace nonviolence. Teach its principles as the "heart and soul" of this organization.

I back what you do, but have I have also pulled back with my wish to grow with Soulforce because it seems to lack the passion for nonviolence that I have. Perhaps that will change and perhaps you will be the one who makes that happen!

Please feel free to share my thought with Mel and know that I so wish you guys would teach and train others in nonviolence as a soul principle not just an idea. Nonviolence is the most powerful way to re-energize the gay rights movement to what it was 30 years ago when we marched in the streets in peaceful protest without the coporate sponsors. We didn't need them, we had truth and that was all we needed. We need that again.

[Jamie McDaniel]

I am happy to hear you say that Soulforce only flirts with nonviolence.

In some ways, Soulforce is really only flirting with nonviolence.

In this instance, Joe, I feel there is a enough difference between what I originally wrote and what you repeated to necessitate my calling attention to it.

[schoolboi]

My only complaint about soulforce is how Mel White talks a good game about nonviolence, but doesn't embrace the first principle with the same vigor I would hope to see from him.

Joe,

You don't know Mel White. You do not know his vigor, his heart, or commitment. If you want to complain about Soulforce that is fine with me, but hold your complaints about Mel until you truly know him.

[morningrob]

I'm trying to imagine a government pursuing non-violent strategies, but I keep coming back to issues like national security. Or the criminal justice system. What do you think would be some ways that a government could use nonviolent strategies to protect their borders or to protect the general public from dangerous offenders?

Sorry this took so long to reply- work became rather crazy. I guess that is part of what I am working out myself. I do not know what a some policies would look like without an army to back up statements. For example, do I think we spenmd too much on the military- YES! But how much do we cut- 25%, 50%- where is the line.

Perhaps my inability to see to see beyond the current military structure is part of the problem. In other words, I cannot begin to imagine what a world without weapons looks like that to imagine alternative is beyond me. It is something I would have to think about more.

[Jamie McDaniel]

My only complaint about soulforce is how Mel White talks a good game about nonviolence, but doesn't embrace the first principle with the same vigor I would hope to see from him.


You don't know Mel White. You do not know his vigor, his heart, or commitment. If you want to complain about Soulforce that is fine with me, but hold your complaints about Mel until you truly know him.

Living in Lynchburg, schoolboi likely knows Mel better than I do as a staff member. However three things come to mind:


Mel is a speaker, preacher, activist, and author, so he is in the public arena.
It is sometimes difficult to comment on organizations apart from the founders.
Soulforce was born out of someone calling Mel out regarding "rules" of nonviolence.
(reference: Soulforce History (http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/aboutsoulforce.pdf) page 1 [pdf])

The thing about the last one, however, is that Lynn Cothren was more specific than you were in your post, Joe, so I would ask you to add more to your critique.

Interesting enough, the action that I felt strongly violated the idea of nonviolence, Joe praised (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=7295#post7295). So that tells me there must be a lot of difference of opinion regarding nonviolence. Hopefully we can all figure this out together and eventually get this nonviolence thing right. :pray:

[suzer1013]

Interesting enough, the action that I felt strongly violated the idea of nonviolence, Joe praised (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=7295#post7295). So that tells me there must be a lot of difference of opinion regarding nonviolence. Hopefully we can all figure this out together and eventually get this nonviolence thing right. :pray:

Jamie -- I'm curious as to why you feel that the action being taken to test the "don't ask, don't tell" policy violates the idea of nonviolence. What is it about this action that violates nonviolent principles? I would liken it to Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus - - challenging an unjust law. But perhaps there is something I'm not seeing here, or that I'm just not educated enough about (I know you're much more educated about nonviolence than I am).

I'd love to know what your thoughts are on that, if you care to share them. Thanks! :)

Susan

[Jamie McDaniel]

I'm curious as to why you feel that the action being taken to test the "don't ask, don't tell" policy violates the idea of nonviolence. What is it about this action that violates nonviolent principles? I would liken it to Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus - - challenging an unjust law.

Supporters of the action point to our mission statement, "Freedom for LGBT people from religious and political oppression." "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," they rightly argue, is government sanctioned discrimination. Believing that discrimination must be addressed wherever it exists, they see DODT as the prime candidate for a Soulforce action. Futhermore, they connect the dots between religious anti-gay teachings and the military's resulting policy that bans openly GLBT people from serving. Having heard the stories of closeted cadets on three of the stops along the Equality Ride route, they argue that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cannot be ignored as service members continue to be discharged over their sexual orientation.

Additionally, supporters of the action pointed to Soulforce's Anti-War Stance (http://www.soulforce.org/article/734) as being clear evidence of the organization's position while engaging in the military recruitment action.

Those who dissented with the decision felt strongly that any Soulforce action that involved participants enlisting or seeking to enlist in the U.S. military in the midst of an unjust war was in direct violation of the larger spirit of nonviolence, regardless if the methods used during the action were nonviolent.

While supporters of the action argued that the discrimination of DADT and current U.S. Military policy are independent of one another, dissenters could not make that disassociation. We pointed to Dr. King's "Beyond Vietnam" speech of 1967 [pdf (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Beyond_Vietnam.pdf)] where he strongly condemned the Vietnam war, proclaimed that his own government was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today," and urged on progressive leaders saying, "As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation’s role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection." In the end, Dr. King was telling young people to go to jail rather than go to Vietnam.

I personally felt that after delivering that speech, Dr. King would have said that any racial discrimination in the military is wrong, however he would have added that a black soldier in Vietnam was every bit as much as a problem as a white soldier in Vietnam.

I took the position that, with regard to the war in Iraq, Soulforce should stand in solidarity with the peace activists and the conscientious objectors -- not in solidarity with people who want to participate but can not because they are gay. I was deeply disturbed by the thought of history recording Soulforce activists as saying to the U.S. Military in the midst of an unjust war, “Here am I, send me.”

[suzer1013]

Thanks Jamie! That explains it better for me. It's a way of looking at it that I hadn't even thought of.

I recently saw the documentary "Sir, No Sir!" about the soldiers in Vietnam and stateside who opposed the war. They fought from within the system itself to end the war. At times, they simply refused to fight or be deployed, others wrote and distributed anti-war newspapers, even the men who spied on the VietCong's telephone and radio calls would translate incorrectly, to keep civilians from being bombed and subvert the military's plans. It was interesting, and it was a movement I knew nothing about. (It was also pretty cool that Jane Fonda came to speak after the movie, with a couple of Vietnam vets and recent Iraq vets!)

Perhaps those enlisting could be seen more as wanting to serve their country, but opposing an unjust war? Perhaps they, too, (supposing they are even accepted into the military despite don't ask don't tell could work from within with other soldiers who are against the war?

I definitely see both viewpoints, and being the Libra that I am, I find merit in both sides of the argument. Thanks for the further explanation.

Susan :)