We know the teaching about Jesus on turning the other cheek, and many Christian traditions (Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, etc.) oppose the use of violence for any reason--including wars against aggressor nations.

There are also Christian traditions (e.g. Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox) which acknowledge a right to use violence in self-defense as a last resort. They even extend this right to nations using violence against aggressors.

What do you think? Is non-violence a Christian absolute? Is it ever OK for a Christian or a nation to use violence?

Note: voting by registered users only: you can vote and not post a comment

Note that you can reply with comments even though you do not vote. Or, you can do both: vote and reply.

Enjoy this new service . . .

I personally believe those who accept violence as being acceptable at any time are "dealing with the Devil."

A key question is how you define "violence". I recently heard the following definition - "Violence is causing intentional harm against another for the furtherance of Ego needs."

To me, this definition would include self-defense that intentionally harmed an agressor. I believe harm can be understood to still allow a certain level of self-defense, but it is limited to a greater degree than our current laws.

Jesus condemned violent self-defense in the Garden at Gethsemane when he challenged his follower (identified as Peter only in John's Gospel) for cutting off the ear of the High Priest's servant. Jesus then healed the ear.

Jesus also said the he who saves his life shall lose it. If life is found in God, then there is no room for a fear-filled defense of one's life by violent means. We may not have the presence of mind or the trust in God to display love when being violently attacked, but that does not mean that we are not called to walk down such a path.

Let's look at the girl at Columbine who died for admitting her belief in God. What would her Christian witness have been if she somehow surprised the two gunmen with some martial arts move, grabbed one of the guns and killed both of the boys? Or let's say she recanted her faith and they let her live (although I doubt they would have). Both would have been seen as ways of defending oneself.

What if Jesus had headed for the hills, sneeking into some distant town, and discontinuing his ministry out of his fear of death? Jesus did not just speak about non-violence, he lived it to the end.

In the Middle-East, they raise the fact that there have been as many collateral deaths of innocent Afghan civilians as there were those who died on 9/11. Are we accessories to their deaths? Is it OK to write them off as the unfortunate "Cost of War?" Tell that to the parents who lost their children and to the children without parents. Ask the families of those who died on 9/11 if they feel any better.

John

John, what do you think, then, about aggressor individuals, nations, groups--whatever--who are willing to use violence to advance goals which subjugate people. E.g., Nazi Germany, various communist states, Osama bin Laden, etc. Should another nation just stand by and watch? Granted, these groups often come into power because of injustices. But once they are in power, they're often driven by ideologies that are basically impermeable to negotiation, nonviolent resistance, economic pressure, etc.

This is not to deny that the use of violence for any reasons opens all sorts of opportunities for greater evil to occur. But sometimes it seems to me to be the "lessor of two evils."

--------

A little exegesis, which you may know. Jesus didn't condemn self-defense at Gethsemane; he was ready to be arrested, and violent resistance would have frustrated. Also, it was others who were defending him, and he hadn't asked for that.

The early Church had no means whatsoever to exert any kind of political influence, much less military. Rome reigned supreme, and the thought of resisting Rome through violent means was unthinkable. It wasn't until Christianity became the state religion and Rome itself was being sacked by various tribes that the issue of Christians endorsing military action came to the front burner. And Augustine, watching the "barbarians" pillage, articulated the just war theory, which spells out very specific conditions for the use of violence.

-----------

As for "collateral damage," it's unfortunate, of course, and certainly to be minimized as much as possible. I do believe our military has made the effort. But war is ugly and dirty and imprecise, and collateral damage happens. The families who lost loved ones must surely grieve this. And yet, one must ask what was the greater good: to act knowing there would be collateral damage, or to not take action. It's a tough call, to be sure. My sense is that to not take action could have resulted in much greater loss of life--not just in the U.S., but around the world. Who can say for sure, however?

Phil

My understanding of Jesus' life is that we are to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. I am only accountable for my actions. Therefore, I must face aggression with love for the aggressor.

What might that look like? It might look like the March on Birmingham, AL by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Some words from Mahatma Gandhi might help:

"A living faith in non-violence is impossible without a living faith in God. A non-violent man can do nothing save by the power and grace of God. Without it he won't have the courage to die without anger, without fear and without retaliation. Such courage comes from the belief that God sits in the hearts of all and that there should be no fear in the presence of God. The knowledge of the omnipresence of God also means respect for the lives even of those who may be called opponents...."

"The fact is that non-violence does not work in the same way as violence. It works in the opposite way. An armed man naturally relies upon his arms. A man who is intentionally unarmed relies upon the Unseen Force called God by poets, but called the Unknown by scientists. But that which is unknown is not necessarily non-existent. God is the Force among all forces known and unknown. Non-violence without reliance upon that Force is poor stuff to be thrown in the dust.
Consciousness of the living presence of God within one is undoubtedly the first requisite."

"Non-violence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of non-violence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence. Translation from swordsmanship to non-violence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Non-violence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission. Forgiveness is higher still. Vengeance too is weakness. The desire for vengeance comes out of fear of harm, imaginary or real. A dog barks and bites when he fears. A man who fears no one on earth would consider it too troublesome even to summon up anger against one who is vainly trying to injure him. The sun does not wreak vengeance upon little children who throw dust at him. They only harm themselves in the act."

"Non-violence is a power which can be wielded equally by all--children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When non-violence is accepted as the law of life, it must pervade the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts. It is a profound error to suppose that, whilst the law is good enough for individuals, it is not for masses of mankind."

"Individuals or nations who would practice non-violence must be prepared to sacrifice (nations to last man) their all except honour. It is, therefore, inconsistent with the possession of other people's countries, i.e., modern imperialism, which is frankly based on force for its defense. "


"For the way of non-violence and truth is sharp as the razor's edge. Its practice is more than our daily food. Rightly taken, food sustains the body; rightly practiced non-violence sustains the soul. The body food we can only take in measured quantities and at stated intervals; non-violence, which is the spiritual food, we have to take in continually. There is no such thing as satiation. I have to be conscious every moment that I am pursuing the goal and have to examine myself in terms of that goal."

"My claim to Hinduism has been rejected by some, because I believe and advocate non-violence in its extreme form. They say that I am a Christian in disguise."

I could not say it any better.

In the Twentieth Century, these two men have accomplished more for the "Greater Good" than any war or violent defense.

John, there's no denying the good accomplished by M.L. King and Gahdhi. And I can certainly see the value in the approaches they took to overcoming injustice.

What needs to be recognized, however, is that King and Gahdhi succeeded as well as they did because they were working in places where the press covered their actions, and where a system of law was in place to work with, transform, and even protect them from unlawful harm. I wonder how well they'd succeed in Iraq, in Hitler's Germany, or in Bin Laden's Afghanistan. One brief protest and they'd have been wiped out; attempts to organize protests would have been squashed; no press coverage would have followed; no government would have intervened on their behalf for the sake of the law. This is not to discount what you wrote, nor to minimize the approaches of Gandhi and King--only to recognize that some kind of lawful context is required for non-violent protest to succeed.

My question also pertained to a national dimension, not simply an individual one. While I can say that I, personally, would opt for a non-violent response to problems in my personal life, I'm not sure I can support a government standing idly by and watching genocide take place, as in Yugoslavia or Nazi Germany.

Another question I have pertains to the manner in which war is conducted today. Gandhi and King used non-violent protests to show up the inhumanity of those who beat them (with the press watching), thus providing a catalyst to humanize the aggressor. In today's wars, there is often no contact with the enemy. Bombs are set off from a distance, and the human casualties are not seen or known. Hence, those who are killed or injured through non-violent resistance might not even be seen by the aggressor. I'm sure their peaceful intentions help the universe in some manner, but their pain goes unnoticed by the aggressor. In other words, this practical, humanizing dimension of non-violent resistance is lost once individual confrontations are replaced by long-distance aggression.

Looking at things from an entirely different angle, I see that violence has been an integral part of the creation. From the Big Bang to Supernovas to volcanos and the great dance of life, wherein life form devours life form to sustain itself--the creation has somehow advanced not only in spite of these violent phenomena, but because of them. It seems to me that evolution now proceeds along the level of ideas, which sometimes come to friction and even opposition--even violently so.

Anyway, thanks for your post. This is a very relevant issue, and it seems to me there are many sides to it.

Phil

Phil
You have covered the topic with your comments so well that there seems little need to add more. Yet I will make my own small contribution, which in fact is only a repetition. I found the essay 'Reflections on Gandhi' by George Orwell (1949) brilliant. I suggest that every Christian read it - especially those who follow non-violence as a principle blindly, in an attempt to avoid emotional turmoil, conflict and greater issues at stake. Gandhi was no doubt a better Christian than most professed Christians and achieved his goals through non-violent means. But the issue of using violence in order to avoid greater violence is a serious and urgent one. A few consciously planned deaths to prevent the death of millions of innocent people seems to be inevitable - the lesser of the two evils. We saw that in Hitler's Germany, we saw that in Kosovo. So in my opinion, pacificism followed blindly, can be well be disguised indifference and a lack of real human compassion for the innocent who are suffering and helplessly trapped in their situation - hardly Christian! We are called to be our brother's keeper and that could well involve leaving our comfort zones into the gray world of emotional conflict and action that demands some kind of compromise and sacrifice in the name of real love. It is one thing to forgive the person who is after my life, but quite another to stand by and watch the innocent and helpless being mercilessly slaughtered. Sometimes it is necessary to resort to Casear's methods in a Casear's world, when loving your enemies doesn't stop them from slaughtering the innocent and helpless. God bless and reward those persons and countries who are willing to take on the thankless task of helping the helpless, get blamed on the grounds that no perfection could be achieved while doing so!

Hi,

Just wanted to add my two cents to this interesting discussion.....

jwb, in order to have a discussion about violence, I think a common definition of violence is necessary. Thanks for providing one way of defining it. In addition to obvious acts of physical violence, there are also the more subtle acts of psychological and emotional violence that need to be taken into account.
Our actions, words, and thoughts all need to be considered.

I also think that, by far, the most violence is directed towards women and children so that fact must also be noted and taken into account in any discussion about violence.

Thanks for the information about King and Gandhi.
I also think that Gandhi was a great Christian.

Phil, I don't think success in this area necessarily means success as we would define it in the way of the world. In other words, I don't think it takes the media to make non-violence a success. I think it has an impact, even done anonymously, that is far greater than we shall ever realize. God's ways aren't our ways....eh?
The way our egos see success is not necessarily the way God sees success.

Just adding my two cents worth....

tee

quote:

Originally posted by jwb1410:
[qb]My understanding of Jesus' life is that we are to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. I am only accountable for my actions. Therefore, I must face aggression with love for the aggressor.

What might that look like? It might look like the March on Birmingham, AL by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Some words from Mahatma Gandhi might help:

"A living faith in non-violence is impossible without a living faith in God. A non-violent man can do nothing save by the power and grace of God. Without it he won't have the courage to die without anger, without fear and without retaliation. Such courage comes from the belief that God sits in the hearts of all and that there should be no fear in the presence of God. The knowledge of the omnipresence of God also means respect for the lives even of those who may be called opponents...."

"The fact is that non-violence does not work in the same way as violence. It works in the opposite way. An armed man naturally relies upon his arms. A man who is intentionally unarmed relies upon the Unseen Force called God by poets, but called the Unknown by scientists. But that which is unknown is not necessarily non-existent. God is the Force among all forces known and unknown. Non-violence without reliance upon that Force is poor stuff to be thrown in the dust.
Consciousness of the living presence of God within one is undoubtedly the first requisite."

"Non-violence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of non-violence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence. Translation from swordsmanship to non-violence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Non-violence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission. Forgiveness is higher still. Vengeance too is weakness. The desire for vengeance comes out of fear of harm, imaginary or real. A dog barks and bites when he fears. A man who fears no one on earth would consider it too troublesome even to summon up anger against one who is vainly trying to injure him. The sun does not wreak vengeance upon little children who throw dust at him. They only harm themselves in the act."

"Non-violence is a power which can be wielded equally by all--children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When non-violence is accepted as the law of life, it must pervade the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts. It is a profound error to suppose that, whilst the law is good enough for individuals, it is not for masses of mankind."

"Individuals or nations who would practice non-violence must be prepared to sacrifice (nations to last man) their all except honour. It is, therefore, inconsistent with the possession of other people's countries, i.e., modern imperialism, which is frankly based on force for its defense. "


"For the way of non-violence and truth is sharp as the razor's edge. Its practice is more than our daily food. Rightly taken, food sustains the body; rightly practiced non-violence sustains the soul. The body food we can only take in measured quantities and at stated intervals; non-violence, which is the spiritual food, we have to take in continually. There is no such thing as satiation. I have to be conscious every moment that I am pursuing the goal and have to examine myself in terms of that goal."

"My claim to Hinduism has been rejected by some, because I believe and advocate non-violence in its extreme form. They say that I am a Christian in disguise."

I could not say it any better.

In the Twentieth Century, these two men have accomplished more for the "Greater Good" than any war or violent defense.[/qb]

Let's be clear that there are powerful differences between pacifism and passiveness and non-violence as a means of resistance and non-violence as acquiescence. I am opposed to acquiescence and passiveness in the face of evil -- that is clearly un-Christian. We should never ever avoid protecting the weak or powerless. At the same time to utilize violence and willingly and consciously take a life (lives) to protect or preserve my own "special" group/nationality/family seems also anti-Christian, if we are following Christ's example.

So, to take an active stand against aggression and violence utilizing non-violence takes a major act of courage, but in the end is far more moral (and in my mind holy or sacred.) Our weakness is that we have studied war and invested so much in war and violence as a solution for so long that it far out-distances our knowledge, understanding, and FAITH in non-violence resistance strategies and techniques.

Mark, thanks for posting your thoughtful reflection on the forum. I hope we'll be hearing more from you.

I agree on the distinctions you make about pacifism and passiveness, and that non-violent resistance ought to always be the first priority. Agreed, too, that a warring mentality frustrates this much in our culture, and that it takes courage to stand for non-violence in such a culture.

At the same time to utilize violence and willingly and consciously take a life (lives) to protect or preserve my own "special" group/nationality/family seems also anti-Christian, if we are following Christ's example.

I'm not sure why the quotes around special. It almost sounds like you think there's something wrong with preferring to preserve the lives of one's group/nationality/family than that of an aggressor who would be willing to take them. What's wrong with one's group/nationality/family being "special," or certainly "more special" than the lives of violent aggressors?

Invoking the example of Jesus is somewhat problemmatic, in my opinion. Jesus' mission was to come and die, so what good would it have done him to "put up a fight"? As he noted, he could have called for legions of angels to come to his defense, but he didn't. I don't think the example of Jesus during his passion should necessarily be taken as a mandate for all Christians in all circumstances to avoid using violence in self-defense. St. Augustine certainly didn't see things that way either, as I explain in a post above.

Just disagreeing . . . and hoping that this thread will help to demonstrate that there isn't just one correct or authentic response in Christianity to the problem of the violent aggressor.

Phil

These kinds of discussions always help sharpen one's thinking and I appreciate the forum. Thank you Phil.

"At the same time to utilize violence and willingly and consciously take a life (lives) to protect or preserve my own "special" group/nationality/family seems also anti-Christian, if we are following Christ's example."

I put "special" in quotes because it seems to me that special is very much in the eyes of the beholder. We run a dangerous game when, in the name of Christianity, we start defining who is special, i.e. worthy, and who is not. I do not see Jesus drawing the tight distinctions between Jew and Samaritan or Gentile that would have been completely normal for his religion and culture. I think this is what I meant by being unChristian. We must be exceedingly cautious when it comes to saying it's o.k. to use violence against "them" cuz they're not "like us." Sept 11 is a sterling example in my mind. 3-4,000 Americans (good guys) died... how many have died (or will die) from "collateral damage" before we feel secure? What makes the loss of their thousands less grievous than our own thousands? So, I don't see the violent response getting us anywhere, except more of the same.

Mark, I know what you're saying, but let's think through this some more.

I put "special" in quotes because it seems to me that special is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

Beholders is what we all are, though. One's family is surely more special to one than, say, a thief who breaks into one's home and threatens family members. I still don't see what's wrong with that.

We run a dangerous game when, in the name of Christianity, we start defining who is special, i.e. worthy, and who is not. I do not see Jesus drawing the tight distinctions between Jew and Samaritan or Gentile that would have been completely normal for his religion and culture.

Understood, but in most situations where self-defense is undertaken, it's not done in the name of Christianity. We don't even have a religious state capable of doing this any more.

We must be exceedingly cautious when it comes to saying it's o.k. to use violence against "them" cuz they're not "like us."

You're absolutely right about that one! No one should have to suffer violence because they're different. But what if they have used violence and done harm against a group, and promise to do it again. It doesn't matter what their race or creed might be; it's their past actions and present intentions that are the issue.

What makes the loss of their thousands less grievous than our own thousands? So, I don't see the violent response getting us anywhere, except more of the same.

I agree again. Those thousands of innocents who were killed in U.S./Allied bombings didn't deserve that, and it is a grievous situation.

I would disagree that it hasn't gotten us anywhere, however. The Taliban are finished, Al Qaeda's Afghanistan resort is no more, Afghanistan has a chance to make a new start, and the violence is lessening, not increasing. Violence doesn't always lead to more violence--not forever, at least. Witness the end of wars and new world orders emerging. E.g., there's been no violence between Germany or Japan and their former enemies for decades; quite the contrary.

Phil

Hi...

What a great topic for Holy Week!
The scripture for today is the story of the dinner at Lazareth's house where Mary, according to Judas, wastes money that could have been used for the poor by anointing Jesus' feet with costly oil.
Judas however was not truly concerned that the money spent was being taken from the poor, but from the purse which he was dipping into. His concerns were not for the other but for himself.
Christ refused to allow others to interfer in his arrest. Did he do this because he was concerned for himself or for each of us?
Ghandi and M.L did not look to gain acclaim and recognition for themselves and their actions actually showed a great lack of concern for themselves.
I agree that we hold our families and friends in greater regard as the "thief" on the corner but is that not a part of our brokenness.. our sin? Christ asks that we love God first and then that we love our neighbor as ourselves... all of our neighbors. Not so easy to do.
Tee makes a very good point in noting that violence is not limited to the physical. Is not the destruction of another's self-worth also a form of murder... a killing of the soul if you will?
We call ourselves a Christian nation, but do we act like one? Does it matter if the state calls itself Christian? Can the organization and the people who form it act independently out of a different set of beliefs? Isn't the idea that since Christianity is not an official religion we, as a state can act independently of our profesion?
Are we acting now, out of a concern for others or out of a concern for self, both individually and as a nation?
Good topic... lots and lots of questions but unfortunately few answers.
Peace,
Wanda

Phil,

I have been struggling with this question since you raised it and we started discussing it.

For me, I cannot picture myself or another standing over someone (anyone) and saying "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I now kill you as your just punishment for your sins."

I can imagine myself, or some other Christian offering up the prayer, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

I just cannot reconcile an act of violence with Christian faith. I do not care what Augustine said, or how anyone else has rationalized it.

How do you harm another in love? Violence is born out of fear, and fear is not found in love.

I can stand up in the name of Christ and oppose Evil, but if I then turn around and use violence in the hope of ending violence, of securing peace, I believe I would be acting out of a delusional position. It is an insane premise, but one being used today in our "War against Terrorism" and in Israel.

I guess we can say we agree to disagree...

John

How do you harm another in love? Violence is born out of fear, and fear is not found in love.

Although that's usually the case, it's not always necessarily so. Violence can be born out of justice as well, and can be informed by reason for the sake of justice. I think Augustine's reflection is coming more from that line than out of fear. E.g., it is less just to allow an aggressor to prevail not just because they're an aggressor, but for the sake of those who will have to live with the consequences. We don't resist the Hitlers and terrorists because we fear them so much as we don't want to live in the world they have in store for us. Same goes for resistance in self-defense to someone who's out to kill me for whatever reason; what good would that be for my wife and children? In all these cases, non-violent resistance must be attempted until all options run out.

I can stand up in the name of Christ and oppose Evil, but if I then turn around and use violence in the hope of ending violence, of securing peace, I believe I would be acting out of a delusional position. It is an insane premise, but one being used today in our "War against Terrorism" and in Israel.

I don't see the "delusional" part, except that many like to say that violence "only makes things worse" or that "violence breeds more violence." That's true for a short time, but eventually there is a victor and a settlement for peace, and sometimes a new and just order emerges from the old situation.

I guess we can say we agree to disagree...

Well, for sure, only let's be clear about what, precisely, we're disagreeing about. It seems we're together on the need to resist evil, but that you don't think violence is ever an acceptable way to do that. That's how I understand the disagreement, which is basically the one which exists between pacifist Christians and most Catholics and mainline Protestants. Obviously, this is a very relevant topic for these times.

Here's a true story told on NPR in the context of a discussion on interrogating terrorists.

On a tip from a very reliable source, British police arrested three men whom the source said had planted a bomb in a train station. The three were questioned and warned of dire future consequences, but refused to say a word. Finally, the interrogator said, "If you don't talk, I will kill you, one at a time." No one talked. He pulled out his pistol and shot one of the men in the head, killing him. The other two talked. The bomb was found and defused. It was estimated that hundreds of lives could have been lost had the bomb blown.

And the moral of the story is . . . ?

quote:

And the moral of the story is . . . ?

I can hear some of my Catholic friends on this one--"you can never do evil to accomplish good." But this example stands that one on its head. The interrogator really needed to be sure that he had the right men to commit that act, and so it was clearly the lessor of two evils.

Life is sometimes complicated, isn't it?

Chris

Interestingly enough, those times when non-violent resistance WAS used against the Nazis, it invariably worked!

Kiwimac

Ray, I'd be very interested in learning more about those efficacious non-violent efforts against the Nazis. Could you give us some examples, or links to web pages?

Thanks!

Phil

I'm glad you asked Ray that question, to provide proof that non-violence worked with the Nazis. The glaring proof of the contradiction of Ray's claim is that the 6 million Jews who died were ALL innocent and were ALL practising non-violence. The present day Germans who are taught and warned about their shameful past are not aware of Ray's claim. Of course anyone can claim or make-believe anything - aren't there some who claim that the Holocaust never happened and manage to find people who believe them?

Priya,

Going about your own business isn't "practicing non-violence," and certainly cooperation with the enemy is not "non-violence." A non-violent action is a deliberate, confrontation with an opponent using means other than violence, although strength can be an ingredient.

The most dramatic example from World War II, In Denmark, after the Nazis took over and mandated Jews to wear the yelllow star, King Christian addressed the country, wearing a yellow star, and asking all Danes, and all good Christians to wear the star.
The action completely frustrated the Nazis in rounding up Jews, while they were relocated to other countries. The number of Danish Jews lost in the Holocaust was virtually zero.

I can't answer the poll, because I think my position is between the two points. I do think that there is a point in time in which a violent response can always be avoided.

By looking at justice issues, and always attempting to make peace with our brothers, we can diffuse conflicts before they escalate. If we had had the interest in creating a Palestinian state 20 years ago which we do now, I doubt there would ever have been an attack on the twin towers, or the Cole, or even on US troops in Beirut.

However, once violence has reached dramatic levels, such as WTC, sometimes it has to play itself out.

Pope Paul IV said, "if you want peace, work for justice." There is no conflict we Americans encounter (in my understanding) which isn't related to justice issues or the perception of injustice, rightly or wrongly. Hitler wouldn't have risen in Germany, if Allied sanctions after WWI hadn't reduced Germany to desperation. . Bin Laden wouldn't have avenged the deaths of a million-and-a-half children in Iraq from the effects of the sanctions if we had either committed to ending them, or before that, saw the war against Iraq to a victory, desposing Saddam,(violent resolution "playing itself out") or, before that, prevented Saddam from attacking Kuwait by letting him know that we wouldn't tolerate it, instead of gambling on the hope he was only going to grab the northern oilfields. (non-violent resolution, requiring more foresight and communication and effort, but saving close to two million lives).

I'm not sure I should be answering on this poll either, Jon, because I suppose I straddle a fence somewhat. It seems to me that non-violence can be a personal choice as to how to respond in a situation. However, to stand and not defend someone (for example, a child being abducted, a person being robbed, etc) can also be considered to be as much a partaker of the oppression as the true oppressor is.

When it comes to a national level, then there's not a pat answer always. Some leaders of other countries are indeed under the influence of madness or disease or completely corrupted by power.....normal reasoning would help nothing.
It would seem to me that turning our heads when we see atrocities being committed against the innocent is not the same as turning our cheek.
Apparently Jesus had his moments too, as shown in these two verses:

Joh 2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
Joh 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

I have no idea if He actually hit any of the money changers with that scourge, but at the very least He threatened them. And yes, this has to do with His Father's house..the temple. But if we take that to a deeper meaning, doesn't scripture tell us the human body of the believer is also the temple?

As I said,I'm not sure I should even be partaking in this conversation, but one thing I know for sure, great wisdom is needed when considering violence on a national level....while on a personal level it is more clear cut.

quote:

There is no conflict we Americans encounter (in my understanding) which isn't related to justice issues or the perception of injustice, rightly or wrongly. Hitler wouldn't have risen in Germany, if Allied sanctions after WWI hadn't reduced Germany to desperation. . Bin Laden wouldn't have avenged the deaths of a million-and-a-half children in Iraq from the effects of the sanctions if we had either committed to ending them, or before that, saw the war against Iraq to a victory, desposing Saddam,(violent resolution "playing itself out") or, before that, prevented Saddam from attacking Kuwait by letting him know that we wouldn't tolerate it, instead of gambling on the hope he was only going to grab the northern oilfields. (non-violent resolution, requiring more foresight and communication and effort, but saving close to two million lives).

Jon, all those "ifs"! How about if Adam and Even hadn't fallen from grace . . . ?

I would like to reply to some of your points, however. I think you're right about Germany, and you can even point to a few other issues that could have prevented the rise of Hitler.

I don't think you're understanding Bin Laden and Al Qaeda right, however. That's more about Islamic fundamentalist ideology than avenging an injustice. Also, any friend of Israel is an avowed enemy of some of those groups.

I'm sure S. Hussein knew his actions would be condemned. He also had plenty of opportunity to withdraw AFTER his invasion of Kuwait, when virtually the whole world denounced his actions and armed resistance was amassing.

While I'm all for non-violent resistance, what should be done when a violent aggressor doesn't get the hint or become contained? I've put some options up in the poll which seemed to express the most common responses, but you and Terri and I guess others say you can't quite go with any of them. What other options would you recommend? I'm open to adding them.

From Terri, As I said,I'm not sure I should even be partaking in this conversation, but one thing I know for sure, great wisdom is needed when considering violence on a national level....while on a personal level it is more clear cut.

Terri, I'm glad you decided to join the conversation. Your point about "great wisdom is needed" is a very good one, I believe, and that calls for good leadership. It also suggests the need for some kind of principles to help sort things out, and that's where I find the "Just War Theory" helpful. Check out this link from the Catholic Encyclopedia which explains the theory, which derives from natural law. Also, this web page has a good summary of just war principles.

Perhaps the question this thread is also asking is if one thinks the just war theory still has validity, and if not, what should take its place?

Phil

Thanks for the gracious welcome, Phil. I believe, that really, I would fit in the "last resort" category on the poll. In looking over the pages you recommended, that seems to be the central theme of them too.

While I'm all for non-violent resistance, what should be done when a violent aggressor doesn't get the hint or become contained?
Truthfully, I think this is where we have to step in and say...okay, all tactics have failed and you were given a non-violent chance, now it's time to settle this. Unfortunately that DOES mean violence. The people mentioned in here...Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden...these folks 1) don't/didn't CARE who is killed as long as they wield the power 2) have no interest in the good of the people, but rather the good of their own agenda 3) would give/take no less than violence. It's been said that Hitler had syphillis and that it was destroying his brain, but to my knowledge, his body was never recovered and made available for autopsy to prove this (though, I most definitely could be wrong about that part). My childhood neighbor grew up in Nazi Germany. Her take on it was that Hitler truly did have a good idea to begin with, but after experiencing the power his popularity brought, he simply decided that this power was absolute and must not be taken from him, nor be questioned, leading to the "superior race" theory he had. It's much the same with the White Supremicists or Neo-nazis of today. In fact, there was a documentary on HBO today that was about hate crimes. A fella on there actually said right on camera that if a white person dies they mourn, but if they are a minority then noone should care because they are garbage. My mind can't even wrap itself around that kind of thinking..there is NO justification in any way for that mindset...yet it lives. Non-violence won't mean diddly to those folks unless it is a situation where it is one on one and then possibly it could make a difference with that one person. I think that's what I was getting at earlier. I can see non-violence in a one on one situation where only "me" is the one affected. But, if some guy storms in my house and starts shooting my children...he's gonna get blown back out the door. Am I wrong in doing that? I don't think so. If he comes in shooting at me....THEN I have the choice to say...I forgive you and pray that the Lord touches you. Though I may actually forgive someone who harms my family, in my thinking, I would be just as guilty as them if I didn't intervene to stop the harm. My understanding on part of the page about the Just War is that it involves this line of thinking as well. When innocents are oppressed and have no way to defend themselves against attackers then we cannot stand by and watch it....that's just a heinous thing to me. And, of course, there is where the great wisdom of National leaders comes in. And to be honest, I'm not sure we have that great wisdom in all of our leaders...some, perhaps, but I would question it in the majority.

This also brings us up to corruption within the governments of nations. Noone can deny that it exists, there's way too much proof of it. An example on a smaller scale is capital punishment. I don't believe in the death penalty. This is not because I have some deep seeded religious or philosophical aversion to it, it's much more simple...check out death row, how many rich people do you see there? How about the DNA tests that have freed some? Money buys a way out for killers. Is the justice system corrupt?...perhaps not the system itself, but some of the individuals within it...absolutely! It seems that governments are the same way and poses a great problem on how to answer the question....do we go to war..do we use violence?

Phil asked if there still existed such a thing as a Just War....honestly?...I don't know. I would hope so, but I guess I'm a bit jaded by the wars that I've seen in my lifetime. People like Bin Laden WANT war to perpetuate their "holy" agenda. I honestly think he might've even thought that the US would begin killing all the muslims here and prove his point. Thankfully, he greatly underestimated the Freedom of Religion we have here and the acceptance of those of different ethnic/religious backgrounds.

Okay...so I got carried away...lol. I hope this clarifies my standing just a bit.

Jon

Did I give the impression of being a militant Christian in suggesting every read the essay 'Reflections on Gandhi' by George Orwell before giving pat answers about non-violence at all costs? Did I imply 'violence first and only violence' as answer to all agressors and agression? Well, if that is the way it came across, my only excuse is that English is not my mother tongue!

I was referring to resorting to the lesser of the two evils WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS. Note that I refer to all violence as evil, even the violence used to achieve good, but I refer to it as the lesser of the two evils.

I was touched by your reference to what the Danish king Christian and other Danes did in order to protect the Jews who lived there. But we know for certain that no German got such an idea, nor did any Pole or any other European country which was invaded by Germany during WW II. In fact from what I gathered most Germans (that is except those who were directly involved) didn't even know what was happening to the Jews in the concentration camps because none of them came back to the Germans to tell their tale. The average German suffering from hunger, humiliation and unemployment supported the short, brown eyed, brown haired, smooth talker from the neighbouring country, because he promised them jobs, success and pride in their national identity, that is all. Yet we know only too well what unforseeable consequences such blind support led to. You must admit that the Allied forces didn't fight the war just for the fun of it, knowing they could have easily stopped what was going on with non-violent means.