NonViolence

[Keikiolu]

Nowhere did I call anyone ignorant, narrow minded. Yes there are those who practice religion, but lack spirituality, this is a fact of life and it reflects in the way they treat people. I didn’t direct it at anyone specifically. Obviously not you.

But I was talking about people who attack reject nonviolence as a way of life and often attack the people who promote it. Look at all the people who promoted and lived lives of nonviolence and you’ll see that governments considered them dangerous, more dangerous than terrorist themselves.

Embracing the spirit of nonviolence is not a better than thou frame of mind, I’m sorry if you took it that way, it’s not the way I feel, because I have not come close to living a life of nonviolence, but in fact, I’ve just begun to walk down this path. I actually never realized that I had violent inclinations within me and serving in the Marine Corps, or studying martial arts, had nothing to do with it.

The reality is, for anyone to live in the spirit of nonviolence, they will have to be spiritually strong, because it will require wisdom
to overcome an oppressor who is physically more powerful than yourself. In fact, Gandhi said that those who lack the spiritual strength, probably should not attempt to be advoctes nonviolence. They will not succeed and will end up using violence inappropriately and thereby cause more harm than good.

I knew this would be a hard subject to talk about in an objective manor when I posted it. I’m amazed that it would be difficult in a Catholic Forum.

In Christ Jesus, The King of Peace
Jim
Jim

One of the big problems people have with “non-violence” is that violence can be confused with force.

Force is a necessary thing that is a tool of man. It allows us to “do” things.

Many people think that non-violent means non-forceful, and those people tend to be practitioners of “non-violence” as a philosophy.

Therefore, they consider any use of force as a use of violence.

To be an authentic follower of “non-violence” you have to specifically define what forms of force are and aren’t violent, and refrain from doing violent forms of force.

But, consider the case of a practitioner of non-violence interposing themself between a policeman and a murderer shooting people every .5 second.

Is the “interposition” itself a form of violence?

I would claim it is. One of the principles of real non-violence is to never, ever, impose any philosophy on others, as that would require violence.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Some people supported the US Civil War and even joined the Union Army in order to help free the slaves. That was an extremely violent war. Was it immoral for someone to support it?

600,000 people died in the civil war, and it was the cause of great suffering. There could be a good argument made that it was immoral.

Some say the south was already giving up on slavery, just before the war began. Others argue that it had nothing to do with slavery, a point I don’t agree with.

The question that should be asked in light of this discussion is whether there was another way?

Probably, but it’s easier to move towards violence than it is to move towards peace.

Jim

 

[Keikiolu]

Actions speak louder than words. I can see people supporting a war. War is violent. I don’t need to see into their hearts what they’re supporting.

You seem to have justified in your mind, the actions at Abu Ghraib.

I can’t and won’t.

Jim

Do you support eating other lifeforms?

You therefore support murder, under my definition of murder.

You seem to have justified in your mind, Hitler’s actions during WWII.

How should I treat you?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Steve_M]

I can look back and say slavery is wrong now as it was then, I can say now that to kill to end slavery is not just but if I was there at the time I cannot say.

Since you’d have left blacks as slaves, since it wasn’t ending soon, and you don’t believe killing was justified in order to free them, I’ll pose a second question. Without the the use of force, what would you suggest should have been done to end the Holocaust?

 

[Keikiolu]

600,000 people died in the civil war, and it was the cause of great suffering. There could be a good argument made that it was immoral.

Some say the south was already giving up on slavery, just before the war began. Others argue that it had nothing to do with slavery, a point I don’t agree with.

The question that should be asked in light of this discussion is whether there was another way?

They could always wait.

But how would you, as a N-V person, have prevented that war?

Could you do it without using violence yourself.

Probably, but it’s easier to move towards violence than it is to move towards peace.

Jim

Peace is not the absence of war.

What do you REALLY mean by “move toward peace”…?

Try not to be specious. Stop arguing in a vaccuum, as it just shows you to be “shallow”.

And arguing as a “utopian” is about as productive as arguing about the number of Angels who could dance on the head of a pin.

Please take reality into consideration when you’re talking about things that INVOLVE reality.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[blessedstar]

I would claim it is. One of the principles of real non-violence is to never, ever, impose any philosophy on others, as that would require violence.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

You say a very wise thing here.

Many wars begin with an imposition from one set of peoples upon another or a conflict of impositions. The impositions are usually a set of ideals. I often say do not put our own ideals before love of God and love of neighbour. This also speaks of peace.

You only have to watch children play to see the beginnings of violence where one child will try to impose on the other and unless someone intervenes it more often than not escalates into some form of violence be it a snatch, a push, or worse a strike.

Violence begins in childhood and is perpetuated by learning, social norms and structure, psychological constructs learnt from others and re-enforced by trigger images such as violence on TV and peer groups even down to choice of dress.

It does no good to enforce peace , as I say that is no peace at all. Our language has to reflect the peace we desire and the peace we desire is for all hearts to be softened and find common ground. That is always possible if people will pursue dialogue and continue to pursue it never giving up, but moreover it is always possible with God as with God all things are possible and no situation is hopeless.

I hope that you understand Jim is truly seeking peace and seeking peace is a hard road to follow, we are all working it out and you have to admit you no more have the answer to peace than any other man, prayer and striving for peace learning from past mistakes is what leads us to hope God will gift that to the world.

Thank you for the thoughtful post

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Keikiolu

But how would you, as a N-V person, have prevented that war?

Could you do it without using violence yourself.

I don’t know if I have the wisdom to do what was necessary to have prevented that war, but I believe that God’s wisdom, would’ve prevailed.

Peace is not the absence of war.

I’ve rarely seen peace in the midst of war. Wars are usually the product of a society, group or person, who do not have peace in their hearts.

What do you REALLY mean by “move toward peace”…?

Peace in the heart. As I quoted Gandhi before, “you must become the change you want to see in the world.”

Try not to be specious. Stop arguing in a vaccuum, as it just shows you to be “shallow”.

OK

And arguing as a “utopian” is about as productive as arguing about the number of Angels who could dance on the head of a pin.

Please take reality into consideration when you’re talking about things that INVOLVE reality.

OK, I’ll take your advice.

Jim

 

[Steve_M]

Some say the south was already giving up on slavery, just before the war began. Others argue that it had nothing to do with slavery, a point I don’t agree with.

It would have taken at least another 50 years for slavery to completely die out, because the south would have had to completely change the way their economy worked, and that takes time.

The question that should be asked in light of this discussion is whether there was another way?

Probably, but it’s easier to move towards violence than it is to move towards peace.
Jim

Was there another way, not at the time. The southern states left the union. The north either had no more authority over them, or violence was going to have to be used. The south was now it’s own country, and you can’t change the policies of another country within any reasonable period of time, when that policy is the reason they broke off from the Union, without using force. If they were so set on having slavery that they would be willing to split the union, do you really think someone could have talked them into abolishing slavery?

 

[blessedstar]

Since you’d have left blacks as slaves, since it wasn’t ending soon, and you don’t believe killing was justified in order to free them, I’ll pose a second question. Without the the use of force, what would you suggest should have been done to end the Holocaust?

I wouldn’t have left black people or any people as slaves. I don’t know why you suggest that or are you my accuser accounting me as being cruel?

I don’t believe killing is just. I cannot justify it. I can only obey my conscience and you cannot call my conscience to account just as I cannot call yours to account and pronounce judgement upon it.

The wisdom of men dealt with things as they did and obeyed their consciences as they did, they could do no more. But I am not without hope that there is another way instead of all this killing and maiming; children dead and orphaned.

I turn on the news and I can hardly bear to look at the peoples faces, so much suffering, so much pain, so much destruction. The Good God rejoices in none of that. Our Blessed Mother asks for prayer and to pray for conversion to avoid all of these things (Fatima).

Why bay for blood in the wisdom of men, when we may pray and offer sacrifice and avoid everything like this?

Man does not run the world and the world does not belong to man, he is only a caretaker, God runs the world, it belongs to Him and He will prevail over it and there will be no more violence, that does suggest there is another way.

 

[Bennie_P]

Some people supported the US Civil War and even joined the Union Army in order to help free the slaves. That was an extremely violent war. Was it immoral for someone to support it?

But you are overlooking the fact that many that joined the Union could of cared less about slavery, they joined for other reason’s and many believed slavery was doomed as an institution and would be abolished within a decade or two without the massive lost of lives both whites and slaves inflicted by the war. The war most likely increased hatred violence by whites against blacks because of lives lost both by Northern and Southern soldiers. The first mass rioting against and killings of blacks happen in the North during the War.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It would have taken at least another 50 years for slavery to completely die out, because the south would have had to completely change the way their economy worked, and that takes time.

Was there another way, not at the time. The southern states left the union. The north either had no more authority over them, or violence was going to have to be used. The south was now it’s own country, and you can’t change the policies of another country within any reasonable period of time, when that policy is the reason they broke off from the Union, without using force. If they were so set on having slavery that they would be willing to split the union, do you really think someone could have talked them into abolishing slavery?

Of course we don’t have the alternative nonviolent course, to know whether it would’ve worked or not.

But then, we do have the example of Martin Luther King who used nonviolence to win civil rights. Many told him it wouldn’t work, would take too long etc.

Gandhi was told the same thing.

Jesus was abandoned.

Jim

 

[blessedstar]

Of course we don’t have the alternative nonviolent course, to know whether it would’ve worked or not.

But then, we do have the example of Martin Luther King who used nonviolence to win civil rights. Many told him it wouldn’t work, would take too long etc.

Gandhi was told the same thing.

Jesus was abandoned.

Jim

Jim

I once read a quote from Ghandi and it touched my heart. I can’t remember the exact words but it went along these lines…

‘I love the Jesus of the Gospel and if all men, especially the Christians followed what He asked of them then the world would be perfect and if the Christians were like their Christ I would become one.’

That was an amount of God’s grace in Ghandi. I don’t think he fully understood the Christian faith, but he saw in Jesus the peace we hope for and I thank God for that.

 

[Steve_M]

But you are overlooking the fact that many that joined the Union could of cared less about slavery, they joined for other reason’s and many believed slavery was doomed as an institution and would be abolished within a decade or two without the massive lost of lives both whites and slaves inflicted by the war. The war most likely increased hatred violence by whites against blacks because of lives lost both by Northern and Southern soldiers. The first mass rioting against and killings of blacks happen in the North during the War.

I’m not overlooking that fact. I’m saying that many did join for the very reason I stated. Many also didn’t believe that slavery was going away in the south anytime soon. The war was to preserve the Union, in the process, it freed the slaves in the south. There were freed blacks who fought on the side of the south, because that was their home. Also, I know the war was not overly popular in the north. It could even be said to be unpopular. What I’m saying is, everyone who says violence shouldn’t have been used, is by default saying that blacks should have been left slaves until the south decided to free them. There’s really no other way to phrase it. I’m not saying those people support slavery, I’m just looking at the reality of the situation. If there was no war, there would have remained slaves for some time in the future.

 

[Steve_M]

Of course we don’t have the alternative nonviolent course, to know whether it would’ve worked or not.

But then, we do have the example of Martin Luther King who used nonviolence to win civil rights. Many told him it wouldn’t work, would take too long etc.

Gandhi was told the same thing.

Jesus was abandoned.

Jim

Becuase Martin Luther King was dealing with the United States, and Gandhi was dealing with Great Brittian. Like I said earlier, try that with someone like Stalin and you’ll be killed very quickly. When you see an injustice such as slavery or the Holocaust, in the real world, you have to act. Do you really think that someone who believed humans were property, or someone who believed Jews were subhuman, could be reasoned with? This is the kind of stuff that bothers me, like I mentioned in my first post. The early Christians weren’t only non-violent, using your earlier definition, they were complete pacifist. The later saints, Augustine and Thomas to name two, didn’t believe in the same pacificism. I know part of that comes from being an oppressed minority, versus being the religion of the Empire, but still, it bothers me.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Steve

I’m not overlooking that fact. I’m saying that many did join for the very reason I stated.

Didn’t Lincoln institute the first military draft?

What I’m saying is, everyone who says violence shouldn’t have been used, is by default saying that blacks should have been left slaves until the south decided to free them.

Not true. Some of us are merely asking the question, could there have been a nonviolent way?

There’s really no other way to phrase it. I’m not saying those people support slavery, I’m just looking at the reality of the situation. If there was no war, there would have remained slaves for some time in the future.

Maybe, maybe not.

If you see the movie, “Gods and Generals” it amazes me to see how religious Lee and Grant were. The mindset of those days was centered around Christianity. Do you suppose such people could’ve possibly have found an alternative to war? But then, maybe they were religious, but not spiritual. They certainly were not predisposed to nonviolence.

In the end however, the 600,000 dead, left widows, fatherless children, and sorrowing brothers and sisters behind. Then of course there were the maimed soldiers who starved on the streets in the North, after the war, because they were unable to work.

Jim

 

[blessedstar]

Becuase Martin Luther King was dealing with the United States, and Gandhi was dealing with Great Brittian. Like I said earlier, try that with someone like Stalin and you’ll be killed very quickly. When you see an injustice such as slavery or the Holocaust, in the real world, you have to act. Do you really think that someone who believed humans were property, or someone who believed Jews were subhuman, could be reasoned with? This is the kind of stuff that bothers me, like I mentioned in my first post. The early Christians weren’t only non-violent, using your earlier definition, they were complete pacifist. The later saints, Augustine and Thomas to name two, didn’t believe in the same pacificism. I know part of that comes from being an oppressed minority, versus being the religion of the Empire, but still, it bothers me.

I don’t know why you think Great Britain is any better than the USA. Great Britain was involved in the worst persecution of the Catholic Church in history. I don’t have the same certitude that Great Britain is better than any other country and I am from this nation. I see many terrible things about both countries. I know I am in a minority in my faith in this country, I see the approaching persecution of my faith sliding in through the back door in the bill recently passed which will result in Catholic Childrens homes closing down and possibly in the imprisonment of my brothers and sisters who work in those establishments.

At best someone who commits such acts as you mention is mentally ill (and probably not culpable) or at worse they are oppressed by evil which has hardened their heart. Either way they need the Divine Healer, infact we all do. You know Hitler was a Catholic, brought up as such and practised his faith. Tell me how does this happen? Men do not turn to God, this is how this happens. They do not pray, they rely on their own judgements trusting the ‘self’ and do not pray with their lives for peace.

 

[Steve_M]

I wouldn’t have left black people or any people as slaves. I don’t know why you suggest that or are you my accuser accounting me as being cruel?

Not of being cruel, just unrealistic. The south left the union to form their own country. Being their own country, they weren’t going to get rid of slavery until they decided to. If you say violence shouldn’t have been used, then you’re saying they should have been left slaves until the south decided to free them. Like I said in another post, if someone views humans as property, do you think that’s the kind of person you can reason with? Eventually the slaves would have been freed, but in the meantime, what happens to them? They remain slaves. I mentioned in another post more explanation why this kind of discussion bothers me. I don’t want to retype it here. I think you really believe what you say, but I also believe it’s unrealistic, not bad, but just not practical, for lack of a better word…

 

[blessedstar]

Not of being cruel, just unrealistic. The south left the union to form their own country. Being their own country, they weren’t going to get rid of slavery until they decided to. If you say violence shouldn’t have been used, then you’re saying they should have been left slaves until the south decided to free them. Like I said in another post, if someone views humans as property, do you think that’s the kind of person you can reason with? Eventually the slaves would have been freed, but in the meantime, what happens to them? They remain slaves. I mentioned in another post more explanation why this kind of discussion bothers me. I don’t want to retype it here. I think you really believe what you say, but I also believe it’s unrealistic, not bad, but just not practical, for lack of a better word…

The only realistic thing in life is Christ Jesus, He is true reality. We have our own perception of reality and reality for us is indeed a perception. Each persons reality is not the reality of others, so where do we look for reality? There has to be the truth of reality, this truth is Jesus. He tore back the veil. You know that here we see all things only dimly.

If I say that Jesus is reality and if I say that Jesus was non-violent, then am I looking at my own reality? Yes I am looking at the perfection of my own reality in Him and I know that I am not perfect but I must strive to be, so striving to be Christ-like and however unrealistic that seems in this world I must not lose hope in that.

It only appears to be unrealistic because everything opposes it.

If you say therefore that I am unrealisitic I am happy to be.

 

[Steve_M]

I don’t know why you think Great Britain is any better than the USA. Great Britain was involved in the worst persecution of the Catholic Church in history. I don’t have the same certitude that Great Britain is better than any other country and I am from this nation. I see many terrible things about both countries. I know I am in a minority in my faith in this country, I see the approaching persecution of my faith sliding in through the back door in the bill recently passed which will result in Catholic Childrens homes closing down and possibly in the imprisonment of my brothers and sisters who work in those establishments.

I wasn’t saying that Great Britain was better then the US. I was making the point that both are liberal democracies, and Democracies generally deal with dissenters in much milder maner than do tyranies. What is your country?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Becuase Martin Luther King was dealing with the United States, and Gandhi was dealing with Great Brittian. Like I said earlier, try that with someone like Stalin and you’ll be killed very quickly. When you see an injustice such as slavery or the Holocaust, in the real world, you have to act. Do you really think that someone who believed humans were property, or someone who believed Jews were subhuman, could be reasoned with? This is the kind of stuff that bothers me, like I mentioned in my first post. The early Christians weren’t only non-violent, using your earlier definition, they were complete pacifist. The later saints, Augustine and Thomas to name two, didn’t believe in the same pacificism. I know part of that comes from being an oppressed minority, versus being the religion of the Empire, but still, it bothers me.

True, nonviolence was tried in China as well, but then, China has come a long way since then with regards to opening up their system.

Also keep in mind, Stalin came into power through the violence of the revolution.

Also, it is argued that the systematic slaughter of the Jews didn’t begin until the war was in full swing and that the war accelerated the killing of the Jews. Also, I read in Mark Kurlansky’s book, that more people were saved during WWII through nonviolent means than violent one’s. Not sure I buy it, but he does give examples and I don’t remember all of them, but I think Netherlands, was an example.

I also said earlier that sometimes not to use violence, when it could mean saving the life of another innocent human being, would be immoral.

Consider the horrible killing at V.Tech. Violence to take this man out certainly would’ve been justified and moral.

Just as living in the spirit of poverty does not mean living in destitution, living in the spirit of nonviolence does not mean turning a blind eye towards injustice.

Jim