What exactly is violence?

[awediot]

Fair enough. I respect your efforts and see their sucess would lead to a kinder world. The ideas of cruelty, abuse, exploitation, simple meanness and thoughtlessness I wiil continue to emphasize as causes of pain,and sinful, but steps to becoming violent. Hopefully we can meet in the middle of a more loving and peaceful place.

Though I have no intentions of being contrary for its own sake, I am quite inquisitive as to peoples' logic behind thier conclusions. I am a Christian, but not because the Bible tells me so. It tells me some pretty nonsensical things I've been forced to ask Why. Ironically, Scripture is a pointless argument to those who need it most, as they believe it the least... and I have yet begun to stump.

[revtj]

I want to work some more on this thread because it still interests me what others think. I think Soulforce folks should spend a lot of time considering what violence is to them since we take a clear stand for relentless nonviolence.

Today there is a great cartoon in the gay paper here by David Brady. I wish I could upload it but it's not online yet.

It shows a poster of "The Ayatollah" with the caption "Kill the Homosexuals" (referring to the report of Ali al-Sistani, the Iraqui religious leader who called for death to gays.)

It shows an assistant to the Ayatollah fielding a phone call, saying, "It's Ayatollah Dobson. He wants you to be the keynote speaker at their next 'Justice Sunday'..."

I loved it because it points out that hatespeech is hatespeech no matter who it's coming from. We Americans have gotten into an awful habit of thinking all the 'bad guys' are 'over there' when in fact some of America's best christians could be considered terrorists.

[awediot]

Could that cartoon be construed as violent?

[Joe Brummer]

Yes! Non-violence asks us to attack the evil, not the person's doing the evil. The cartoon attacks Dobson not what dobson does. So yes, it could be considered violence.

In the training of trainers to be a non-violence trainer, actually last night, we split into groups and defined violence and then defined non-violence. It would be a cool excercise to try here.

Each person who wants to respond, please define violence. Give us your definition, don't search the internet for it. Speak from your heart.

Then define non-violence. Again, give us your definition. Remember there are no right or wrong answers. This is really just to think about what these words mean to you. Try not to reply to others definitions, just give us yours.

I will post my defintions in a few posts.

[revtj]

Could that cartoon be construed as violent?

Yes, awe, it is in my opinion. tj

[Joe Brummer]

As promised, here are my definitions of violence and non-violence. I look forward to reading all of your defintions.


Violence:
Any physical or internal "act of power" that puts others on differing levels or claims that anyone is better than anyone else.


Non-violence:
Nonviolence is simply love in action. It is not the opposite of violence but the cure for violence. It seeks to bring love in the form of truth.

[revtj]

Joe, I really like your definition of nonviolence, it is great, because it is a way of life, not the not-doing of something violent only.

Question for you on your definition of violence...is classism violence to your way of thinking? (Classism meaning there are levels of privilege, power and material goods which only a certain few have access to because that's the way everyone thinks it's supposed to be...)

[Joe Brummer]

For the sake of my mission, which is getting others to think about the defintions of violence and non-violence and hoping they will post their own definitions. I will PM my thoughts to you. I won't post them because I think your question is really good and I hope others will answer you.

[awediot]

I see Violence as:

1. Unwelcome
2. Unproductive
3. Painful
4. Physical
5. Unjustifiable
6. Visible

If it doesn't meet those conditions, it may be just as evil, viscious, hurtful, destructive and black. But to myself, it is abuse, cruelty, harmful, neglectful or just meanness. Some of which I consider worse than violent.

The idea of exposing another to danger, unfairness and mere thoughts as equivent violence, and the desire to paint them as such in order to make them less acceptable, spurring on self-censorship and a healthier mind, is not lost on me. It is a worthy goal. However, I find the means to achieve it naive and overly idealistic.

I know this definition falls short of the more encompassing belief held by the majority on this site. But the goal to end injustice and pointless sufferring is one I share... The semantics may or may not make a difference.

[revtj]

If it doesn't meet those conditions, it may be just as evil, viscious, hurtful, destructive and black.

Awe, I need to ask you to re-consider this statement as I am sure you did not mean to equate evil with race or skin color. Since the not-so-distant past of this country (and still to this day a surprising number of people) includes a cultural norm that black = evil, I think it's worth re-considering.

JoAnne M. Terrell, whose definition of violence I build on, is a womanist theologian and scholar who studied under James Cone and Emilie Townes at Union Seminary NYC. When she was 5, she saw her mother murdered and has a permanent impression of her mother's bloody hand smearing down the wall. It is this experience which caused her to examine violence and write some foundational material on the subject.

I highly recommend her book, Power in the Blood?: The Cross in the African American Experience.

[awediot]

No, no no, never even imagined the inference. By black I meant Rolling Stones "Paint it Black"... Thats all.

[revtj]

ok got your intent, thanks for clarifying

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

JoAnne M. Terrell, whose definition of violence I build on, is a womanist theologian and scholar who studied under James Cone and Emilie Townes at Union Seminary NYC. When she was 5, she saw her mother murdered and has a permanent impression of her mother's bloody hand smearing down the wall. It is this experience which caused her to examine violence and write some foundational material on the subject.

I highly recommend her book, Power in the Blood?: The Cross in the African American Experience.

I'll have to check out that book, revtj. The first guy I fell for was a friend from my Southern Baptist church. His mom was one of the ones who led the church in its anti-gay drive and she subscribed to the theory of total depravity. A year after I eventually came out and left the church, I met her at the wedding of a friend. After the ceremony, she invited me over to her house and we talked for quite a while. She shared her story and it included seeing her father murder her mother with a gun when she was very young. I could sense that that horrible experience greatly influenced her views of humanity, possibly being what drove her to fundamentalism. So I would really be interested in hearing an alternate ending. Can you share some of JoAnne M. Terrell's conclusions or would that give away the book?

p.s. My friend eventually married one of his girl friends in case you were wondering. His mom and dad said Hi to me while I was with Soulforce passing out literature at last year's Southern Baptist Convention.

[revtj]

Interesting experience with your friend's mom, Jaime. I agree, it is the sort of thing that could drive one to fundamentalism. It can have other outcomes too, thank goodness! It also sounds like she was accepting of you in her own way.

Well, just an amateur synopsis of the book...Terrell looks at the violence done to African Americans and asks why they so readily accepted the white man's violent model of redemption in the crucifixion of Christ. They witnessed so many beatings as slaves, and the lynchings, it would seem to drive one away from any idea that 'lynching' includes any redemption. Malcom X and playwright August Wilson both asked these same questions of their people and came up with non-christian positions.

The notion she suggests is that African Americans identified with Christ on the cross and could easily see themeselves in his place. It was also easy to accept substitutionary atonement because many times they knew their innocent own had died for them, in their place, to keep the Negro in their socially assigned place.

There is a very moving scene in Amistad where the leader of the kidnapped Africans is given a Bible and he turns to a page where there is a drawing of the crucifixion. He can't speak English, but he points to the picture and nods affirmatively and tears begin to flow from his eyes. He knew what it was without knowing Christianity because it was a regular part of his experience.

Of course there's a lot more. But my angle in this forum is to ask 1) how the violence (hatespeech, gaybashing, acting str8 to be acceptable to the majority, etc.) deforms us as a community? and 2) how does the crucifixion get interpreted by gay christians in ways that is contextually unique to our experience?

I know I sound like an academic egghead (and I am!) but I am fascinated by this subject and am happy to be in a forum where I meet others interested in it also.