NonViolence

[blessedstar]

asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9891&size=A

** “In these days of rest, - said the Pope - I feel even more intensely the painful impact of the news I receive about bloody conflicts and violent events happening in so many parts of the world. This leads me to reflect once again on the dramatic situation of human freedom in the world. The beauty of nature reminds us that we were instructed by God to cultivate and keep this garden that is the earth (Gen 2, 8-17). If men lived in peace with God and with each other, the earth really would look like a ‘heaven’”.

“Unfortunately sin has ruined this divine project – continued Benedict XVI – generating division and allowing death to enter this world. Thus men by succumbing to the temptations of Evil, make war with each other. The consequence is that in this stupendous garden which is the world, there is now room for hell. War, with its after effects of destruction and death, has always been rightly considered a calamity which contrasts God’s project, who created everything to give life and who wants to make mankind one family”.**

 

[Lou_F]

It seems as if we are to have true peace, we have to address our muslim brothers. Those muslims who believe that peace can only be achieved in an all muslim world, fail to recognize in their methods of violence, the contradictions they have toward their own faith. For example, muslims believe that anything that comes straight from Allah has an exceeding power beyond comprehension to that of man. Why then do they resort to using man made weapons to spread their faith? Can not Christians, Jews, and men of other religions make the same man made weapons? Why do they not use the Quran, the word from Allah himself, as their undefeatable weapon? Is not the word from Allah stronger than any man made weapon?

Good products carry a warranty, knowing the malfunctions of their products are slim. When a company tries to sell me an extended warranty, I tell them: “What’s a matter, you can’t stand behind your product?” If muslims believe so strongly in the Quran, should not the truth of the Quran, without the use of man made weapons, defeat the Truth of the Christian Bible simply through dialogue from the most knowledgeable muslims? Do muslims lack the courage to go up against the MOST knowledgable and well trained Catholics to discuss, compare, and discern matters of faith? Surely a muslim can maintain self-control and good manners throughout an entire disscussion knowing he has the truth of the Quran, or can’t Allah provide him the grace to do so?

Why does it seem that many muslims have more courage to die for their faith than to study their faith? Is studying too hard for muslims? Are they afraid to apply themselves? Are they afraid to have their most knowlegable stand and discern with the most knowledgable of other faiths? Most of all, are they afraid the exceedingly powerful word of the Quran will not prevail over the beliefs, discernment and wisdom of other religions?

Do you mean to tell me that Allah’s all powerful truth in the Quran cannot convert others as well as killing others? Muslims, let your battlefield move from the violent streets to the peaceful discussion table. Let the Quran be your most powerful weapon. Instead of muslim man made weapons getting in the way, let Allah fight His own battles with his word.

 

[Reynaud]

Hi Reyaud,
You really stirred things up here…good for you. :

Thanks Bennie for your response. I haven’t seen that much activity since I posted it. Maybe you shared my comments with your friends at Pax Christi and that was where the stirring up came in.

I am a member in spirit with Pax Christi.

I believe that even though people claim to be pro life, if they support death, they are choosing against life.

I believe that abortion is wrong, but I also do not believe that it is the Government’s right to decide how a person who choose abortion should be punished.

I feel that the Church is being divided on the “Pro life” issue. If the church can’t see that the choice is not just abortion then it’s definition of life is not broad enough.

I’ll stop now,I don’t want to ramble too much.

Peace!

 

[Amolibri]

Continuing with the non-violence thread, the following excerpt is from Fr. John Dear’s latest (7/24) column:

From his earliest days in London and South Africa, Gandhi was besieged by born-again Christians begging him to be baptized. But he was appalled by the behavior of most Christians. “I like your Christ, but not your Christians,” he wrote a friend. “They are so unlike your Christ.”

For over 50 years, in scores of letters, he quoted these verses to Christian friends. “Why do Christians go about saying ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do the will of Jesus?” he asked many times. “Why don’t they obey the Sermon on the Mount, reject war, practice nonviolence and love their enemies? Isn’t that what Jesus wants, more than the false adulation of ‘Lord, Lord?’”
…
“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise person who built her house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” (Mt. 7:24-27)

These are the last words of the Sermon on the Mount, so I consider this one of the most significant of all the Gospel’s parables. Notice that he does not say, “Whoever acts on these words will not suffer the rain, floods or winds.” In both cases, people are hit by a disastrous storm. The rains will fall, the floods will come, the winds will blow, and every one’s house will be shaken.

This is going to happen to us all. The question is whether or not we will be able to withstand the world’s violent, destructive storms. The only way to survive these stormy times is by practicing the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Ender]

“Why do Christians go about saying ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do the will of Jesus?” {Ghandi} asked many times. "Why don’t they obey the Sermon on the Mount, reject war, practice nonviolence and love their enemies?

I don’t think Ghandi is someone I would use to explain the tenets of Christianity. The Church has been pretty clear that Catholics are not required either to be non-violent nor to reject war - otherwise there would be no sense in her just war doctrine.

I can perhaps understand Ghandi’s confusion - after all, a lot of Catholics believe the same thing - but he is nonetheless mistaken. 2264: “Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”

Personally, I am comforted that there are people who are willing to confront violence with more than words of approbation.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

I don’t challenge the issue of “self-defense” Ender. But when that idea comes into play to defend the Invasion of Iraq, then I have a problem…and so do many (increasingly) others.

Your constantly having to defend and explain the just-war doctrine … is frankly getting a bit old. It doesn’t apply in all cases— in our present world violence and escalation of same. :nope:

 

[Ender]

I don’t challenge the issue of “self-defense” Ender. But when that idea comes into play to defend the Invasion of Iraq, then I have a problem…and so do many (increasingly) others.

I have no problem with someone who claims the Iraq war didn’t meet the just war doctrine - I would disagree with him but it is at least a credible argument. I do have a problem with the argument that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq because Catholics are called to be non-violent and should necessarily reject all wars because that is not a credible argument.

Your constantly having to defend and explain the just-war doctrine … is frankly getting a bit old. It doesn’t apply in all cases— in our present world violence and escalation of same. :nope:

I neither explained nor defended the just war doctrine, nor, since the topic of this thread is non-violence, did I say anything about Iraq. I only stated that since the Church has a just war doctrine and since she specifically allows killing where necessary in self defense, the argument that Ghandi made regarding Christians and non-violence was, as a matter of fact, incorrect.

Ender

 

[Bennie_P]

Thanks Bennie for your response. I haven’t seen that much activity since I posted it. Maybe you shared my comments with your friends at Pax Christi and that was where the stirring up came in.

I am a member in spirit with Pax Christi.

I believe that even though people claim to be pro life, if they support death, they are choosing against life.

I believe that abortion is wrong, but I also do not believe that it is the Government’s right to decide how a person who choose abortion should be punished.

I feel that the Church is being divided on the “Pro life” issue. If the church can’t see that the choice is not just abortion then it’s definition of life is not broad enough.

I’ll stop now,I don’t want to ramble too much.

Peace!

I believe you have addressed this post to the wrong person, for I’m am not a PAX CHRISTI supporter, in fact I believe them to borderline heretics. I’m 100% pro-life and believe that abortion should be outlawed, except by the one exception that is allowed by the Church. Though I’m a non-violent person, I’m opposed to the so-called theory of “non-violence” as outline in the theroies proposed on this thread and by Ghandi, for IMHO and in my eyes it is actually another form of violence, because it is based on envoking violence by your opponent inorder to make false matyrs, for political ends.This is not an example of Christ. Plus Ghandi is not the saint many make him out to be, he was a racist that was a supporter of the cast system which is ingrained in his religion of Hinduism as he practiced it and the reason he rejected Christianity is more likely not from the failure of Chirstians to live a life reflecting Christ, but that himself couldn’t accept the idea of saving Grace for for he rejected the concept of sin.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Gandhi must be understood in the context from which he was living.

First off, Gandhi’s protest through non-violence could only work, in a society where in Judeo/Christian values were held, in this case that of the British and the West who watched and condemned British actions that were unjust. In other words, Gandhi would’ve failed in Stalin’s Soviet Union or in Mau’s China. Gandhi knew who his enemy was and knew how to use their culture to achieve his goal.

At the same time however, to take the action of nonviolence like Gandhi took, requires a person to be strong spiritually. In fact, Gandhi himself said that a person who is not spiritually strong, can not take the action of non-violence, because he will not have the words necessary to over come a strong opponent.

Jesus, is even better than Gandhi on this position. Jesus, unlike Gandhi, knew what the end result was going to be for him. He knew, he was heading for the cross. Gandhi on the other hand, did not know to what degree he would be forced into, in order to accomplish is mission. Also, Jesus knew his mission and foretold what it would be. Gandhi had to learn what his mission was.

Either way, to down play Gandhi, because he was not a Christian, really shows a lack of spiritual depth, by anyone who would throw out such rhetoric. His undertaking would not have succeeded without the strength he received from God. If you doubt this, then your creating a God according to your own image, and this is idolatry in itself.

Peace Always
Jim

 

[Ender]

Either way, to down play Gandhi, because he was not a Christian, really shows a lack of spiritual depth, by anyone who would throw out such rhetoric.

I charged Gandhi with either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the Christian position on non-violence; Benny P pointed out that he supported India’s racist caste system. Neither of us dismissed him because he was not Christian.

His undertaking would not have succeeded without the strength he received from God.

As to whether he succeeded due to the strength he received from God or from his own efforts and the circumstances of the moment I am not prepared to say, although it does make one pause to wonder how it was that Lenin and Hitler succeeded. I doubt that it was because of God weighing in on their side.

If you doubt this, then your creating a God according to your own image, and this is idolatry in itself.

I am an idolater for doubting that God intervened on Gandhi’s behalf? That’s an unusual definition of the word if you can apply it to someone who admits to not knowing God’s mind. Just because you have this remarkable gift don’t dismiss those of us who lack such certainty.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender

I charged Gandhi with either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the Christian position on non-violence; Benny P pointed out that he supported India’s racist caste system.

And of course this was false. Gandhi fought to remove untouchability in India. He even rebuked his wife for refusing to serve a guest who was of the untouchable class.

Neither of us dismissed him because he was not Christian. As to whether he succeeded due to the strength he received from God or from his own efforts and the circumstances of the moment I am not prepared to say, although it does make one pause to wonder how it was that Lenin and Hitler succeeded.

You’re comparing Gandhi’s achievements to Lenin and Hitler?

I am an idolater for doubting that God intervened on Gandhi’s behalf?

You’d be an idolater if you create a God in your mind, who only helps Catholics. You’d be creating a God according to your image.

Jim

 

[Amolibri]

Ender

And of course this was false. Gandhi fought to remove untouchability in India. He even rebuked his wife for refusing to serve a guest who was of the untouchable class.

You’re comparing Gandhi’s achievements to Lenin and Hitler?

You’d be an idolater if you create a God in your mind, who only helps Catholics. You’d be creating a God according to your image.

Jim

Bravo, Jim…for not letting misinformation/ignorance go unchallenged.

 

[Bennie_P]

Bravo, Jim…for not letting misinformation/ignorance go unchallenged.

Not totally true, The problem with raising any politcal leader to the level of sainthood it is hard to take a honest look at them and recieve any criticism made upon them and their ideas. Gandhi was a “formative” leader for India, but he is not the Saint he has been made out to be. His “ideas” of equality would have denied a voice for the “Untouchables” - Dalits in the shaping of India’s future. It is sort of like wiping out slavery but not allowing the ex-slave to have a say in his future by denying equal representation. I’m not a fan of Ambedker, but he spoke for his people, Gandhi used one of his famous fast to try to shut down his voice, which if Gandhi would of died it would created a violent, bloody and murderous Hindu outlash against the Dalits. This is the type of “non-violence” he practiced.

Gandhi & the black Untouchables

As opposed to the popular perceptions, here you will see Gandhi’s image from the eyes of a very famous untouchable leader, named, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1893-1956).

Says Mr. Gandhi:

(1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.

(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole…

(3) *A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization. *

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe… Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes. More

QOTD: Gandhi vs Ambedkar

**Thursday , December 07, 2006 **

New Delhi: As the nation commemorated the 50th death anniversary of Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar on Wednesday, over eight lakh Dalits paid homage to their great leader at Chaityabhumi in Mumbai.

Most Dalits see Ambedkar as their true leader—someone who challenged the very basis of the caste system unlike other national leaders—notably Gandhi—who they claim followed a middle path. ambedkar.org/
tag QOTD Gandhi Vs Ambedker

 

[Amolibri]

Look, Bennie, if you wish to discredit Ghandi, that’s your business…but no one ever (not I anyway) said he was a saint, in your definition. Your efforts and time in this pursuit, to me, are better spent otherwise. You’ll never change my vision of him.

Just my opinion.

 

[Bennie_P]

Look, Bennie, if you wish to discredit Ghandi, that’s your business…but no one ever (not I anyway) said he was a saint, in your definition. Your efforts and time in this pursuit, to me, are better spent otherwise. You’ll never change my vision of him.

Just my opinion.

Your vision is your vision, my post was aimed toward those that have not yet been pulled into what my I see as a dangerous ideology of violence disguised as peace.

 

[Amolibri]

Your vision is your vision, my post was aimed toward those that have not yet been pulled into what my I see as a dangerous ideology of violence disguised as peace.

HUH???

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Bennie P
as usual, you copy and paste from a biased website with misinformation. Ambedker, was a Buddhist who had an ax to grind against Gandhi, for what ever reason. This is akin to Jewish sites who post quoted words of Pius XII, taken out of context, to show how he helped the Hitler. Of course both cases are nothing more than propaganda campaigns.

I also find it strange that you would post from a Buddhist website, and take what it says as truth, being your distaste for Eastern Religions, and how you used this as a means to attack Thomas Merton, for his involvement with them. Its become apparent, that you’ll use whatever means, even those you oppose, if it supports your argument.

Anyway, it is a historical fact that Gandhi fought against untouchability.

“Apart from recording Gandhi’s critique as well as his praxis against what was the most decadent and exploitative in the traditional Indian social reality, these accounts from the Raj’s own secret official reports provide irrefutable evidence of Gandhi’s heroic struggle and at the same time of the failure of his contemporaries to take up the challenge of the time–during the years of the depression.”

Read the book. vedamsbooks.com/no12086.htm

Jim

 

[Amolibri]

Bennie P
as usual, you copy and paste from a biased website with misinformation. Ambedker, was a Buddhist who had an ax to grind against Gandhi, for what ever reason. This is akin to Jewish sites who post quoted words of Pius XII, taken out of context, to show how he helped the Hitler. Of course both cases are nothing more than propaganda campaigns.

I also find it strange that you would post from a Buddhist website, and take what it says as truth, being your distaste for Eastern Religions, and how you used this as a means to attack Thomas Merton, for his involvement with them. Its become apparent, that you’ll use whatever means, even those you oppose, if it supports your argument.

Anyway, it is a historical fact that Gandhi fought against untouchability.

Read the book. vedamsbooks.com/no12086.htm

Jim

Thank you, Jim. You are awesome.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

I charged Gandhi with either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the Christian position on non-violence; Benny P pointed out that he supported India’s racist caste system.

And of course this was false. Gandhi fought to remove untouchability in India. He even rebuked his wife for refusing to serve a guest who was of the untouchable class.

Your response may or may not satisfy Benny P but it is no response at all to my charge that Gandhi’s claim that Christians have a duty to be non-violent was wrong.

You’re comparing Gandhi’s achievements to Lenin and Hitler?

A more charitable interpretation would be that I am pointing out that remarkable success alone is clearly insufficient to claim that God had a hand in the work.

You’d be an idolater if you create a God in your mind, who only helps Catholics. You’d be creating a God according to your image.

I said that I could not know that God intervened to assist Gandhi; it is an intemperate leap on your part to suggest that I believe God only aids Catholics.

Ender

 

[Bennie_P]

Bennie P
as usual, you copy and paste from a biased website with misinformation. Ambedker, was a Buddhist who had an ax to grind against Gandhi, for what ever reason. This is akin to Jewish sites who post quoted words of Pius XII, taken out of context, to show how he helped the Hitler. Of course both cases are nothing more than propaganda campaigns.

I also find it strange that you would post from a Buddhist website, and take what it says as truth, being your distaste for Eastern Religions, and how you used this as a means to attack Thomas Merton, for his involvement with them. Its become apparent, that you’ll use whatever means, even those you oppose, if it supports your argument.
Jim

Jim, one thing you got to realize all information, pro or con, from any source is progaganda when it deals with politics and opinions on politics. I do not have a distaste to people following thier own religion, nor participating in the governing of thier nations. What I have is a distaste for religious indifferentism, that is were people try to pick a piece of a religion here and another piece from there and throw Christ’s name on it and call it Christianity. So me using a proper critic of Gandhi, one of the "untouchables’ which was one of Gandhi’s comtempories and drafter of the Constitution of India, seems very approprite. The anology of concerning critics of Pope Pius XII and Hitler just doesn’t fit. Ambedker being a Buddhist should give him some weight, for the fact why he turned to Buddhism as opposed to staying a Hindu. (Buddhism is actually a sect which grew out of Hinduism) one of the main factors that he did was because Hinduism, even as Gandhi practiced it, promotes a class system based on the color of one’s skin, something dispite the propaganda you tend to adhere to tries to hide. Gandhi’s fight against “untouchabilty” was not a fight to end the caste system as we are to believe in popular myth. He promoted mutual respect between the members of the different castes, while still adhereing to the “sacredness” of the caste system as outline in the varnas concept of society and him being one of the Brahmins, he alone knew what was best for India.
This web site ambedkar.org/ is a DALITS Web site promoting thier cause against the caste system in India (in the present) and givng honour to the man who was thier spokesman - Ambedker. So may I ask, who are the better critics of Gandhi and what he did for or ‘not’ do for them?- the “untouchables” ?or the popular myth makers of the West? And how are we that are from the west to tell them who is thier proper champion? That sounds a little elitist to me?