Non-violence and terrorism
I just downed a few fingers of Wild Turkey so I don't trust what I'm about to write, but let's have fun. It's Friday.
Two weeks ago my pastor gave a sermon whose point has totally escaped me. But he did touch on something that sort of bugged me. He was referred to that accidentally shot Brazilian guy in London. I don't know the details but it is tragic. Pastor, who I personally like immensely, went on a jag about non-resistance and non-violence and giving those a try instead of reacting with this sort of violence because violence begets violence, etc.
Granted, no violence is the preferred route in all things. I don't feel like a fight much - unless I'm drinking Wild Turkey - but to take that path is a dangerous one. The key here is that your suffering by using non-violent means depends on the rightness of your cause and the decency of your opponent.
For example, Martin Luther King advocated non-violence and it worked. Most Americans upon seeing the horrible treatment, even if they didn't want a black family in their neighborhood or a black man marrying their daughter thought that not being allowed to vote was not right and their treatment was horrible. But that was because we were a genuine decent society. America say the nobility of their struggle, the rightness of their cause, and the unjust way we were treating them. Things changed for the better.
Same may be said of Gandi and the British. The Brits may have behaved badly and criminally and imorally like the Americans, but their own decency (and some economics) won out. The Raj didn't stop until most Brits decided imperialism may be wrong.
To use non-violence against the terrorist is just stupid. Maybe it's the Christian way, but that kind of Christian isn't for me. The terrorist have no decency. Neither did the Nazi hence 6 million dead Jews.
If your opponent is lacking of any decency, then the path of non-violence makes you dead.
Plus when you think about it, who choses the path of non-violence? People without men and guns. Non-violence is their only choice.
Stay You.
Back to Main Page
Two weeks ago my pastor gave a sermon whose point has totally escaped me. But he did touch on something that sort of bugged me. He was referred to that accidentally shot Brazilian guy in London. I don't know the details but it is tragic. Pastor, who I personally like immensely, went on a jag about non-resistance and non-violence and giving those a try instead of reacting with this sort of violence because violence begets violence, etc.
Granted, no violence is the preferred route in all things. I don't feel like a fight much - unless I'm drinking Wild Turkey - but to take that path is a dangerous one. The key here is that your suffering by using non-violent means depends on the rightness of your cause and the decency of your opponent.
For example, Martin Luther King advocated non-violence and it worked. Most Americans upon seeing the horrible treatment, even if they didn't want a black family in their neighborhood or a black man marrying their daughter thought that not being allowed to vote was not right and their treatment was horrible. But that was because we were a genuine decent society. America say the nobility of their struggle, the rightness of their cause, and the unjust way we were treating them. Things changed for the better.
Same may be said of Gandi and the British. The Brits may have behaved badly and criminally and imorally like the Americans, but their own decency (and some economics) won out. The Raj didn't stop until most Brits decided imperialism may be wrong.
To use non-violence against the terrorist is just stupid. Maybe it's the Christian way, but that kind of Christian isn't for me. The terrorist have no decency. Neither did the Nazi hence 6 million dead Jews.
If your opponent is lacking of any decency, then the path of non-violence makes you dead.
Plus when you think about it, who choses the path of non-violence? People without men and guns. Non-violence is their only choice.
Stay You.
Back to Main Page
posted by Howard McEwen, CFA at Friday, August 05, 2005
<< Home