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. 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]

Originally Posted by schoolboi

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.

Originally Posted by 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]

Well said, Zerbie.

Originally Posted by 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. 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...&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



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, , 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. 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]

Originally Posted by morningrob

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]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by morningrob

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