B
blessedstar
Guest
My country is Great Britain.
Do you say that the worse a person, peoples and nations are we too then should match them with equal if not worse severity and mercilessness? Should we be as they are?
- Status
Do you say that the worse a person, peoples and nations are we too then should match them with equal if not worse severity and mercilessness? Should we be as they are?
S
Steve_M
Guest
No. Technically the first draft here was during the revolutionaly war, but what does the draft have to do with anything?
It was a great movie. What amazed me most was that Ted Turner let that much religion be in a move he made.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.
Lee could have tried to lead the south to free the slaves. He didn’t. Stonewall Jackson was much in the same situation. These were influentian men, and rather than give up slavery, and other states rights issues, they chose war. So the answer to your question is, they had chances, but they chose war.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
There was no general military draft in America until the Civil War.
Those who served in the Revolutionary War, were mostly volunteers and the draft was used by states, but it was not really enforcable. Washington had a hard time keeping them.
It has to do with the fact that many did not fight the war to end slavery or keep the union together. I
History has to be shown as it was, without political agenda’s. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case in today’s world.
So you’re saying that war was a choice and there could’ve been another way.
I agree.
Jim
S
Steve_M
Guest
I do agree with you on these points. Thus your differentiation between non-violence and pacifisism.
S
Steve_M
Guest
States were told to send X number of troups. They had to round up troops and force them to go. Many did not volunteer. That’s why they kept running off. They had better things to do, like raise their farm. It wasn’t a draft in the sense of what we think of it today, but it amounted to the same thing. People who wouldn’t have been fighting if they hadn’t been forced into it.
Absolutely, but there is a point where the choice is either watch the injustice continue unchecked or do something about it. Lincoln freed the slaves. The south seceded. At this point, as I explained somewhere earlier, you either go to war or allow the slaves to remain slaves. The leaders of the south had made their position clear, and Lee or no one else was going to change their mind, or if they could, they didn’t.
Jim
S
Steve_M
Guest
What???
B
blessedstar
Guest
If someone is violent does that mean we too must be equally or worse in violence? Is that just?
Should we be ‘forced’ into violence?
What we are failing to recognise is that as Mother Teresa said ‘It was never between you and them, it was between you and God’
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Steve
Also, the first draft was of those who were officers. But even then, they were called locally and they had the option of declining, although it may cost them, i.e. their house burnt to the ground or whatever. In the early days of the Revolution, not everyone supported it. Many chose to stay loyal to England.
Jim
Yes, I agree there was a draft( I edited my post before you posted this), but it really wasn’t all that enforceable.
Also, the first draft was of those who were officers. But even then, they were called locally and they had the option of declining, although it may cost them, i.e. their house burnt to the ground or whatever. In the early days of the Revolution, not everyone supported it. Many chose to stay loyal to England.
Jim
S
Steve_M
Guest
It depends on the context. If someone walks up and hits you in the face, are you going to turn the other cheek? Sorry, but I’m not. If you see someone attempting to rape a woman, would you use violence to stop it? Sometimes we can be forced into violence. Like Jim said, non-violence is not pacifist.
S
Steve_M
Guest
Then we agree on a couple of things. I’m off now. To all. Have a good weekend.
B
blessedstar
Guest
To be honest someone did walk up unprovoked, high on drink, and hit me in the face. I was so shocked I just stood there and after a minute I said ‘Why did you hit me, what did I do or say that made you do that?’ The person was shocked at themselves, they had no answer and walked away.
I am a woman, I cannot say I could fight a perpetrator of rape and I don’t think it would be wise. If I was the woman being attacked I would want someone to help me but I wouldn’t want the man harmed.
I have truly searched my soul in this thread and I cannot find justification for war and violence.
B
blessedstar
Guest
**Peace - the Work of Justice and the Tranquility of Order (2304-6)
Whether it is justice within society, or the interior justice of holiness, peace is its fruit. Righteous anger, and the means it employs, should not knowingly produce less justice and less peace than existed before evil intervened. Human prudence, however, is fallible. It cannot necessarily predict the ploys of the adversary, both human and demonic. In addition, fallen human nature is inclined to sin, and thus prone to respond with excess to provocation. Thus, even virtue and a well-formed conscience can fail to produce the desired result of justice and peace. Great restraint must be shown, therefore, in the use of violence to achieve justice. In addition to the efforts of those who work assiduously for peace, “the peacemakers”, society needs the example of those who renounce violence altogether. Their “witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death” should serve to restrain the use of even justified force. Such conscientious objection is a valuable service to society. As the Catechism makes clear, it must be accompanied by the willingness to serve in other capacities (cf. 2311), however. **
The above taken from:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm
**2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.[107] **
**2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.[103] **
A battle may be deemed just to fight in principle but how it is fought is equally important and I do not know of any battle where children and / or the innocent are spared from suffering mind or body, that is intrinsically unjust. The Just War Doctrine is at best a last resort to necessitate violence when under the threat or immediate threat of violence oneself or as a nation as a measure of defense. But at its worst it permits man to kill man supposing that the motive of each man involved in the killing is just and this cannot be assessed to the minute detail, thus it is inevitable that evil will be permitted even within the Just War Doctrine whether that evil is called to account after the war or not. Therefore it is not a perfect solution to war or violence, but the Doctrine we have presently, that is why I say that there has to be another way, beginning with prayer.
Whether it is justice within society, or the interior justice of holiness, peace is its fruit. Righteous anger, and the means it employs, should not knowingly produce less justice and less peace than existed before evil intervened. Human prudence, however, is fallible. It cannot necessarily predict the ploys of the adversary, both human and demonic. In addition, fallen human nature is inclined to sin, and thus prone to respond with excess to provocation. Thus, even virtue and a well-formed conscience can fail to produce the desired result of justice and peace. Great restraint must be shown, therefore, in the use of violence to achieve justice. In addition to the efforts of those who work assiduously for peace, “the peacemakers”, society needs the example of those who renounce violence altogether. Their “witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death” should serve to restrain the use of even justified force. Such conscientious objection is a valuable service to society. As the Catechism makes clear, it must be accompanied by the willingness to serve in other capacities (cf. 2311), however. **
The above taken from:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm
**2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.[107] **
**2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.[103] **
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html
I thought people might like to read this and I do understand the ‘Just War’ doctrine.A battle may be deemed just to fight in principle but how it is fought is equally important and I do not know of any battle where children and / or the innocent are spared from suffering mind or body, that is intrinsically unjust. The Just War Doctrine is at best a last resort to necessitate violence when under the threat or immediate threat of violence oneself or as a nation as a measure of defense. But at its worst it permits man to kill man supposing that the motive of each man involved in the killing is just and this cannot be assessed to the minute detail, thus it is inevitable that evil will be permitted even within the Just War Doctrine whether that evil is called to account after the war or not. Therefore it is not a perfect solution to war or violence, but the Doctrine we have presently, that is why I say that there has to be another way, beginning with prayer.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
Actually during that time they probaly would have had it better, then the reactionary racist violence that was inflicted upon them and the extreme poverty that followed the war. I really have doubts that slavery could of lasted another 50 years, the rest of the Western world had already rejected slavery. One of the lasting affects of the Civil War has been the crippling effect on states’ rights that actually make it harder for local citizens to pass just or laws based on local standards which are overturned in the courts by the Federal court system. This is a on-going battle we are facing in the areas of abortion laws and the SSM issue and expression of religion.
As for breaking up the Union, lately I have doubts about the justification of the Revolutionary War, don’t get me wrong, I’m an US Army veteran and loyal to my country. But slavery was abolished by the British in 1833. England had alot more to learn, but it is something to think about. What would happen if some wars could have been avoided?
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
Violence, as a means of expression of contrary opinion, or as a means to impose the ideology of one individual or group onto another individual or group, is generally counterproductive, in that it seems to inspire continued violence in the same or other contexts. So, even if there is a feeling by someone that violence might solve situation x, it generally will only worsen situation x, and/OR inspire a retaliatory situation y. There is logical or satisfactory end to this cycle, until on of the parties involved unilaterally and voluntarily offers no violent response. So therefore the only end to a given violence cycle is the eventual willingness of one party to be cease violence. Violence itself will not end vilolence.
Violence in the expression of Nationalism or as a political medium, (war), has been perpetrated and tolerated for so long, by so many civilisations that it is nearly impossible to imagine an end to this endless nightmare. But it IS possible to stop it. There are societies enlightened enough to refuse to participate. So far this has been very small countries. It’s very difficult to imagine Russia/USA/UK/India/China/or any number of middle eastern nations saying no thanks, and taking a pass on war if provoked, but I have faith in Christ, and he says that this will happen in the fullness of time.
I believe the way this will happen is by an eventual erosion of Nationalism. For the citizenry itself to begin to think of themselves as children of God, and citizens of His world, as opposed to being citizens of whatever political construct within imaginary dotted lines they find themselves living in as an accident of birth. I see this happening already. Some are VERY resistant to it, and it will be many many generations down the road before we’re there. But people are slowly losing their stomache for war. Whle people in two separate nations, with night and day governments and cultures are having internet chats with each other about their favorite singers, actors, foods, activities etc. it becomes harder and harder to envision sending someone to drag them out of their house and kill them.
Anyway, only love, abandonment of Nationalism and fear will end the cycle of violence. It will never be ended with more violence.
DEFEND if attacked at or within your OWN borders. Send help elsewhere IF ASKED, and only in the amount necessary, and in ratio to other help being given by other governments.
Don’t EVER BE the attacker.
Jesus taught this:
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
You have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not commit murder” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.”
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, “You good-for-nothing,” shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, “You fool,” shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt,** let him have your coat also.** Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Yours in Christ,
Steven
Violence in the expression of Nationalism or as a political medium, (war), has been perpetrated and tolerated for so long, by so many civilisations that it is nearly impossible to imagine an end to this endless nightmare. But it IS possible to stop it. There are societies enlightened enough to refuse to participate. So far this has been very small countries. It’s very difficult to imagine Russia/USA/UK/India/China/or any number of middle eastern nations saying no thanks, and taking a pass on war if provoked, but I have faith in Christ, and he says that this will happen in the fullness of time.
I believe the way this will happen is by an eventual erosion of Nationalism. For the citizenry itself to begin to think of themselves as children of God, and citizens of His world, as opposed to being citizens of whatever political construct within imaginary dotted lines they find themselves living in as an accident of birth. I see this happening already. Some are VERY resistant to it, and it will be many many generations down the road before we’re there. But people are slowly losing their stomache for war. Whle people in two separate nations, with night and day governments and cultures are having internet chats with each other about their favorite singers, actors, foods, activities etc. it becomes harder and harder to envision sending someone to drag them out of their house and kill them.
Anyway, only love, abandonment of Nationalism and fear will end the cycle of violence. It will never be ended with more violence.
DEFEND if attacked at or within your OWN borders. Send help elsewhere IF ASKED, and only in the amount necessary, and in ratio to other help being given by other governments.
Don’t EVER BE the attacker.
Jesus taught this:
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
You have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not commit murder” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.”
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, “You good-for-nothing,” shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, “You fool,” shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt,** let him have your coat also.** Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Yours in Christ,
Steven
B
blessedstar
Guest
Beautiful. We are first citizens of the Kingdom of God and this is not usurped by nationalism.
We must be aware that a false peace will come before the end ‘While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape’. I cannot say peace in its true sense will come before Christ Jesus comes, when Christ Jesus comes peace will come in totality too, as Christ is peace, but until then we pray and offer sacrifice for His Peace in the world and in the Living Prayer of our lives we live out this peace striving for peace and making every possible effort for peace.
If we pray for peace we enter into direct non-violent spiritual combat with evil before it may manifest in violence and war and evil cannot fight against prayer because the One we pray to is greater and has already won Victory by His Cross.
’they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.'
K
Keikiolu
Guest
God’s overriding wisdom is that which happens, as He respects our free will, and since we are prone to mangle things quite nicely, we get to pay for our stupidity, so His wisdom did prevail.
It would be nice if more people were like you and simply wouldn’t be so idiotic in the first place, but things MUST take their course, such that suffering (like “poop”) will happen.
In other words,… not “forgiving” your enemies, those who “didn’t do as you would have done”, is just as much a sin as your “enemies” exhibited in “doing war”.
Not going to argue with you on those points!
My point was that an imposed peace is not the equivalent of peace, or the antithesis of war.
Imposed peace is war without the warfare.
Very good. And how do you “force” people to have “peace in the heart” and “become the change YOU want to see in the world”?
The answer is obvious but hard… darn it…!
I get a little tired of utopians who don’t realize they’re utopians.Quote:
Try not to be specious. Stop arguing in a vaccuum, as it just shows you to be “shallow”.
OK
Quote:
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.
Then again,… I get tired of ME for saying stupid things on a VERY regular and high frequency basis that I would complain about vehemently if someone else said them!
But,… that’s why we have each other, ain’t it…?
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
Kristopher
Guest
Dear Jim,
Code:
I am reading Mark Kurlansky’s book “Nonviolence”. I am half-way through it. I have found nothing “anti-religious” as you say, in whatever way, that you meant it; though, I have not verified his claim, that the Church did in fact bastardize St. Augustine’s Just War Theory, but it does seem plainly apparent strictly in the sense of what is public, common knowledge, i.e. the papal invasion of Istanbul, now Constantinople, etc. Additionally, I have found that his work has refrained from losing focus on the historical facts, as they concern nonviolence, that being said, you are asking what others, myself included, think and feel about nonviolence.
I am a combat veteran of Desert Shield, and Desert Storm (US-Army), and I did see “action”, as people tend to call it. I am, like yourself, I believe; very struck by this book, and its history, and it has truly filled some frighteningly empty gaps in history; related to me from books, the classroom, and hearsay. I loved reading the bit about the cross being a symbol completely rejected by early Christians, that it was abhorrent as a symbol: only representing violence, degradation, and humiliation—truly it does this. The fish represented Christians. To this day, it does mostly among Protestants—where I now stand. I loved learning, that Judaism has been, extant to this day, the only religion, which has given little, or no place at all to battles within its history, or holidays for millennia at a time, and when it accounted for it within its history; it did so from the side of those who lost, as opposed to glorifying it on the side, which won.
I did very much enjoy considering Mark’s question: does a “just war” in fact, exist? Self-preservation, and the parasympathetic nervous system only dictate our capacity to kill in self-defense; though, religion does advocate mortification; rather than we gratify our senses. I think, that a religious point-of-view, even a philosophical point-of-view on the matter of nonviolence—will demonstrate, that nonviolence is both more effective and efficient to the preservation both of culture, and of society; though, this only is an assumption.
I feel joy, that I am reading this book, that I am finding a considerable amount of sense to be found in it; nonetheless, I have to criticize certain, perhaps “provocative”, statements, which could be alarming. Ideas about our culture substantiating only loyalty on the basis of income, of employment; though this is attested to by staff, which campaigned for “W” some yrs. ago, inclusive of Nancy Pelosi’s daughter as a journalist: she admitted, that her position on his staff was a belief, that he would win, that it would provide her with a lucrative career move, and income, and prestige undoubtedly is part of this—a nice looking resume, especially on the part of a journalist whose family has been—well, as I think about it: her mother is Democrat, and I believe that her father is Republican: not a matter for me to be quoted.
Maybe I lost the thrust of this, I enjoy the book. It does raise some concerns, that seem not necessarily advocated by the author, but certainly they simply exist as elements of nonviolence, that certainly must be regarded with a certain intrepid nature. I value the history of nonviolence being traced as it has been in this book. The Buddhists are a proper origin of nonviolence, though Judaism does seem to have a greater history in its past, that does predate Buddhism; Buddhism certainly does predate Christianity, and given those acts of violence on the part of Buddhists—whether in terms of punishment against aggressors, or enemies—they have a very nonviolent way of life. Impressive on many grounds, even to the extent of exile; forced upon them by Chinese Communists, with respect to Tibet.Kristopher
S
Steve_M
Guest
I wondered if that might be the case after I left Friday, and thought the situation I mentioned might not be a good example if that were the case. Anyway. I’m having surgery on my elbow Friday, I almost tore my arm off in a car wreck last July, and will be out next week, so I have to get a lot done this week. Because of that, I won’t be able to continue my part of this discussion for a while. It’s been insteresting, until then, God bless.
V
Vaclav
Guest
An excellent point Blessed Star. Stalin came from an Orthodox family (though his father was an extremely abusive alcoholic) and he went through an Orthodox School and attended a seminary. He was actually noted for his singing ability in the choir and his Goergian poetry.
He was no stranger to violence from a young age, the beatings he and his mother recieved were notably severe. In fact, Hitler was also beaten as a young child. He later claimed to a friend that he “learned how to not cry.”
I’ve had difficulty with this issue as well. Honestly, I cannot see Christ justifying violence.
To answer the hypothetical questions, no I wouldn’t sit by and allow someone to be raped (or hurt). Though that doesn’t necessarily mean my reaction will be right either, especially if I seriously harm the assailant.
Could I turn the other cheek? I think the better question is, should one turn the other cheek? Should we love our enemies?As was said, it is easy to love one’s brothers.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
**Seems to me we should look at the Church for its teachings on peace and the use of non-violence etc. I have trouble now adays with the teaching of non-violence from others from outside of the Church(the tend to think it is the only solution, when in some situations it will not work.), for use of non-violence is a force that is to be used to make change, but I think we fool ourselves to believe it is appropriate in all occassions, same as we would be fooling ourselves to reject it as an option. Peace has to go along with justice and Justice should produce peace. **
**Here from USCCB is **The Harvest of Justice
is Sown in Peace
A Reflection of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
on the Tenth Anniversary of The Challenge of Peace
November 17, 1993
usccb.org/sdwp/harvestexr.htm
**Here from USCCB is **The Harvest of Justice
is Sown in Peace
A Reflection of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
on the Tenth Anniversary of The Challenge of Peace
November 17, 1993
usccb.org/sdwp/harvestexr.htm
- Status