Ship of Fools: Purification through violence

Thread: Purification through violence Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026066

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

After a discussion with one of my children who is starting a political science class this fall, I was persuaded that some of this is sadly and probably true....

Does the mythology of western countries contain the right to "purify" the world through violence, war and recasting other countries after an mini-apocalypse we create for them? Thinking Iraq, Afghanistan, with Syria and Iran waiting in the wings. With partial fulfilment and reinforcement from the tribulations in Libya and Egypt.

Have we perverted some weird form of gospel to create a mythology of ourselves as agents of the God of Israel? Is the problem our mythology of who and what we are?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

It seems to me there are two questions.

One has to do with whether the military approach can have the desired outcome. That is, if country X has a nasty dictator who mistreats the population, and the well-armed rich country Y invades X, deposing the dictator, destroying infrastructure and existing institutions and killing a good many of the people, can this actually lead to country X being better off within a reasonable period of time?

The other question assumes the answer to the first question is Yes and asks whether Y has the right and/or duty to invade X.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

You're probably looking for this.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

YES! I was going to post that very concept.

Even Tolkien and Lewis couldn't transcend it.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It doesn't seem to me as if there's any such thing going on.

Rather, the gods of democracy, capitalism, a desire for human rights, and economic interest conspire together with habit to power the drive to zap any perceived threat.

The words 'With God on our side' have surely fallen to the floor by now in connection to war, as here.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
After a discussion with one of my children who is starting a political science class this fall, I was persuaded that some of this is sadly and probably true....

Does the mythology of western countries contain the right to "purify" the world through violence, war and recasting other countries after an mini-apocalypse we create for them? Thinking Iraq, Afghanistan, with Syria and Iran waiting in the wings. With partial fulfilment and reinforcement from the tribulations in Libya and Egypt.

Have we perverted some weird form of gospel to create a mythology of ourselves as agents of the God of Israel? Is the problem our mythology of who and what we are?

If you are interested in reading a well-argued jeremiad on the evils of post-enlightenment self-delusion, capitalism and the persistent concept of the secular utopia (of which your OP topics would be a part) then I can thoroughly recommend reading John Gray. Probably the best one to read would be "Black Mass", where he develops the idea that much of this spun out of (aberrant) religious thought, where it was heterodox, and became mainstream once secularised.

You may wish to slit your wrists after reading it, so be warned.

[ 12. September 2013, 20:09: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're probably looking for this.

That's probably not saying a great deal, though, interesting as it sounds.

I thought it was generally agreed that creation myths arise in answer to wide-ranging difficult problems like "how did we get here?", "why are things persistently in a mess?", "what's the point?" and so on. Given human nature, is it really surprising that they legitimate violence? That's what genuinely makes the creation narrative of Genesis so different - it suggests that nobody screws up quite like humans, and here we are having to live with the consequences.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Whence do wars come from among us?

Christendom lost by winning and may win by having lost, there is a counter-cultural vacuum for it to fill with the message of purification through non-violence, non-coercion, non-consumerism.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Naturally I agree Martin.

Add in René Girard's ideas on the mimetic source of desire and violence, and you'll have enough to keep you going till long after this thread subsides into oblivion, whenever that may be.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I think this is a prevalent and pernicious lie. When my children were small, there was a popular imported television series, for children (!), called 'The A Team'. It featured a group of men in a van, with lots of medium heavy duty ex-military hardware, who went round sorting out problem communities. It seemed to be based on the premise that somehow, there was something good and clean about a gun. If you were a good person, you could and should administer violence, and it wouldn't destroy your integrity.

That is a very serious delusion, which turns up in a lot of other films. There are traces of it in the book version of Lord of the Rings but the makers of the film version let it totally corrupt the third film.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Well, of course, Girard was bound to come into this at some point...

Going back to something which was said in the OP, Girard's point was that the myth of redemptive violence built into the scapegoat mechanism was absolutely *not* what the Gospel was about, and in fact the Gospel was the antithesis and antidote to that mechanism.

I would say that from wherever this tendency arises it is not the Gospel! The book of Joshua perhaps...

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

To be fair to the 'A-Team' they weren't averse to firing automatic weaponry but usually ended up punching the lights out of the baddies and then letting the sheriff's department haul them off. (I pity the fool who disses the A-Team). To this extent they were the anti-Doctor Who who generally spends 75% of his time complaining that violence solves nothing and the rest of the time blowing stuff up.

I think that we may paraphrase Chesterton's verdict on polygamy for the myth of redemptive violence. The myth of redemptive violence is always being started up because of its obvious advantages. It has only one disadvantage. It is intolerable.

[Aberrant apostrophe smitten dead in moment of apolcalyptic and purificationary fury. I pity the aberrant apostrophe that gets into my post.]

[ 12. September 2013, 21:39: Message edited by: Gildas ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I agree, it absolutely isn't from the gospel.

The thought that it has spun out of a heterodox religious context needs a quite a bit more explaining than I have the time for tonight, but it is an interesting one worth some further thought at least - John Gray would agree that it is not the orthodox understanding of Christianity to blame.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
To be fair to the 'A-Team' they weren't averse to firing automatic weaponry but usually ended up punching the lights out of the baddies and then letting the sheriff's department haul them off.

The A-team always used special non-lethal bullets that didn't kill people but instead threw them into the air out of the way to land unconscious, or at least unarmed, on the ground.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I wonder if World War Two set up a "model" idea in some people's minds that if you go in and kick out the bad guy, the country will gladly accept your form of government (and elect only "good guys") and become our best friends.

Which would reflect a superficial understanding of what went on in World War 2 and its aftermath.

I read an article that said war does not end terrorism, it increases terrorism.

Which, come to think of it, was likely to happen in USA after the Civil War - some Southerners wanted to continue after surrender as a guerilla war. Lee said no, go home, and they accepted his leadership. What if he had said "good idea, it may take us decades but we will make sure no Northerner feels safe here, until they tire of us and leave."

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're probably looking for this.

especially as articulated by
Walter Wink

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Um, "The A-Team" wasn't for kids. Don't know how it was marketed in other countries. Some kids did watch it, but it definitely wasn't a kids' show.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

But isn't the gospel centred on purification through violence: Crucifixion and resurrection. Sounds like a parallel. Is it?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But isn't the gospel centred on purification through violence: Crucifixion and resurrection. Sounds like a parallel. Is it?

It's the polar opposite (see my Walter Wink link above). The Myth of Redemptive Violence insists that evil can be defeated only through violent overthrow-- "power over." The cross shows us the opposite-- defeating evil not through "power over" but thru "power under"-- not be assaulting evil violently but by entering sacrificially into death.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

@no prophet: The gospel is definitely not centered on purification through the use of violence. Maybe purification in spite of violence or even occasioned by being the victim of violence, but not through violence per se. Jesus' crucifixion was violence perpetrated by those in power, not by Jesus or any of his disciples.

Trying to derive a doctrine of purification through the use of violence from the gospel is an exercise in self-serving rationalization. In other words, you might be able to justify the legitimate use of violence, but not from the gospel.

[ 13. September 2013, 04:23: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Um, "The A-Team" wasn't for kids. Don't know how it was marketed in other countries. Some kids did watch it, but it definitely wasn't a kids' show.

I was on prime time in the UK (early Saturday evenings IIRC, well before the watershed). Even as children (11+) we wondered how so much ammunition could be expended without anyone getting hurt.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I ponder sometimes if it isn't to do with the rise of paganism (using that term in a very broad sense). The heroics of violence seem to be greatly lauded in the West at present, in a way that I don't think is particularly good. There is the added complication that violence can be presented to us in a sacrificial veil, often with psuedo religious language layered over the top.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Um, "The A-Team" wasn't for kids. Don't know how it was marketed in other countries. Some kids did watch it, but it definitely wasn't a kids' show.

As the Midge says, it came on at tea time on Saturday afternoons. That's prime time for children's programme, the sort of slot more recently occupied by Merlin.

The comment was made back in the 1960s when every half baked student was advocating 'come the revolution', that this was a belief in orgasmic salvation', the horrible fantasy of the sexually frustrated that everything would be made good by a great orgasm of revolution, violence and chaos.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're probably looking for this.

To answer the question scholars really need to update their myths. You can't base any theory on creation myths these days. We are no longer living within a cultural identity steeped in the scriptures.

The A Team is part of our mythology, alongside other TV and film. Comic books also fuel the mass prevailing mythology of our modern western world. Superman and Batman are our mythological representation of 'good'. Their attitudes to evil are always to punch it in the face. This presents the prevailing attitude that violent evil can always be beaten by more violence, as long as it is violence carried out by a 'good' character. When punching it in the face doesn't work, the solution is to get all your friends to join you so you can punch it even harder. This I think is why western countries seem to have the idea that throwing bombs at a foreign country will fix things.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I don't think you can hang this on religion, mythology or even Western culture. I was going to say that it's "human nature" but I'm not sure you can even blame it on that.

Bad things happen and we want them to stop. The obvious step is to say: "well, someone has to make it stop". And there are lots of situations where this happens, with various levels of force being applied. (At what stage does "force" become "violence" by the way?).

So when faced with big problems, we simply scale up and say "well, we just need to apply more force".

There may be much better solutions. But sometimes no-one can see what they might be and sometimes they are very unappealing and difficult. And generally they involve a loss of control - they rely on co-operation.

So I don't think the cause lies in a particular sickness in our society. I don't think the West has a monopoly on this. The trouble is that violence is obvious, and non-violence is non-obvious and often more difficult. So it is not surprising that if you are suffering and hoping for rescue, you will imagine a violent solution.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But isn't the gospel centred on purification through violence: Crucifixion and resurrection. Sounds like a parallel. Is it?
It's the polar opposite (see my Walter Wink link above). The Myth of Redemptive Violence insists that evil can be defeated only through violent overthrow-- "power over." The cross shows us the opposite-- defeating evil not through "power over" but thru "power under"-- not be assaulting evil violently but by entering sacrificially into death.

I should have completed my thoughts.

Except as the cross has been lived out by Constantine on forward. Allied with power the Cross has been taken into war and as a symbol of our righteousness to conquer, to enslave (in the past), and as our right to enforce our moral view on the world. Except the moral view has become allied with economics such that we can bomb and conquer, right now, middle eastern countries, and make their economies serve ours. Thinking right now of post-conquest Iraq and the Halliburton pipeline which, as I understand, still has Bush Jr administration cronies, e.g., Cheney on its board.

That country has been purified and redeemed, and its economy will now serve ours. So goes the acceptable myth. Except we're redeeming economies and we'd rather the people disappear.

[ 13. September 2013, 13:14: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

Of course, left to their own devices, Syrians, Egyptians, Afghans and all other non-western people would NEVER,EVER commit any acts of violence, would they? What an absolute wanky OP. Typical of this site though.

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But isn't the gospel centred on purification through violence: Crucifixion and resurrection. Sounds like a parallel. Is it?
It's the polar opposite (see my Walter Wink link above). The Myth of Redemptive Violence insists that evil can be defeated only through violent overthrow-- "power over." The cross shows us the opposite-- defeating evil not through "power over" but thru "power under"-- not be assaulting evil violently but by entering sacrificially into death.
I should have completed my thoughts.

Except as the cross has been lived out by Constantine on forward. Allied with power the Cross has been taken into war and as a symbol of our righteousness to conquer, to enslave (in the past), and as our right to enforce our moral view on the world. Except the moral view has become allied with economics such that we can bomb and conquer, right now, middle eastern countries, and make their economies serve ours. Thinking right now of post-conquest Iraq and the Halliburton pipeline which, as I understand, still has Bush Jr administration cronies, e.g., Cheney on its board.

That country has been purified and redeemed, and its economy will now serve ours. So goes the acceptable myth. Except we're redeeming economies and we'd rather the people disappear.

If anyone is benefiting from post-war Iraq then it is Iran, not Halliburton or the USA. You must read too many conspiracy theories because you seem to be able to believe anything except the truth.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But isn't the gospel centred on purification through violence: Crucifixion and resurrection. Sounds like a parallel. Is it?
It's the polar opposite (see my Walter Wink link above). The Myth of Redemptive Violence insists that evil can be defeated only through violent overthrow-- "power over." The cross shows us the opposite-- defeating evil not through "power over" but thru "power under"-- not be assaulting evil violently but by entering sacrificially into death.
I should have completed my thoughts.

Except as the cross has been lived out by Constantine on forward. Allied with power the Cross has been taken into war and as a symbol of our righteousness to conquer, to enslave (in the past), and as our right to enforce our moral view on the world. Except the moral view has become allied with economics such that we can bomb and conquer, right now, middle eastern countries, and make their economies serve ours. Thinking right now of post-conquest Iraq and the Halliburton pipeline which, as I understand, still has Bush Jr administration cronies, e.g., Cheney on its board.

That country has been purified and redeemed, and its economy will now serve ours. So goes the acceptable myth. Except we're redeeming economies and we'd rather the people disappear.

Yes. That's the point that Wink is making in The Powers and the excerpt I linked above. Of course, that's a perversion of the cross, but you (and Wink) are correct that the cross (as well as the flag, the crown or any number of stand-in icons) gets co-opted and exploited to serve the Powers.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I don't think you can hang this on religion, mythology or even Western culture. I was going to say that it's "human nature" but I'm not sure you can even blame it on that.

Wink would-- and I'm inclined to agree. He makes a powerful argument that this is THE prevailing mythology that unites all cultures, all people groups. It shows itself in an endless number of places and variations, and of course looks different when the group telling the story is the oppressed or the oppressor at that particular pt in time. But it's universality is undeniable-- as well as it's futility (a major theme of the sermon on the mount).

IMHO and arguably, it appears in many ways to be a key component of "original sin"-- the human condition. The fact that Jesus so frequently speaks precisely to it, calling us to oppose/resist the myth in ways that feel so very very counter-intuitive and counter-cultural only confirms that to me.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
That country has been purified and redeemed, and its economy will now serve ours. So goes the acceptable myth. Except we're redeeming economies and we'd rather the people disappear.

Oh, the memories. Back in Bomb brinksmanship Cold War days the supposed ideal was a - neutron, was that the word? - Bomb that would kill all the people but leave the buildings and bridges etc intact.

"Plunder is more valuable than people" sounds the opposite of Christianity to me, even if it makes sense to politicians.

(If oil is the goal, as many think, it's just the same old game.)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. That's the point that Wink is making in The Powers and the excerpt I linked above. Of course, that's a perversion of the cross, but you (and Wink) are correct that the cross (as well as the flag, the crown or any number of stand-in icons) gets co-opted and exploited to serve the Powers.

Nicely put. I think the ability to name this is rather a gift. To name the 'perversion' as you put it. Good word, because it is as offensive as anything I can think of.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I don't think you can hang this on religion, mythology or even Western culture. I was going to say that it's "human nature" but I'm not sure you can even blame it on that.
Wink would-- and I'm inclined to agree. He makes a powerful argument that this is THE prevailing mythology that unites all cultures, all people groups. It shows itself in an endless number of places and variations, and of course looks different when the group telling the story is the oppressed or the oppressor at that particular pt in time. But it's universality is undeniable-- as well as it's futility (a major theme of the sermon on the mount).

IMHO and arguably, it appears in many ways to be a key component of "original sin"-- the human condition. The fact that Jesus so frequently speaks precisely to it, calling us to oppose/resist the myth in ways that feel so very very counter-intuitive and counter-cultural only confirms that to me.

Well yes, I think that's what I was saying. This is not something unusual, not something caused by some particularly pernicious feature of Western culture. Everyone does it.

That suggests that the problem is something deeper than culture, some more basic problem that all cultures reflect.

In other words, it's not the "myth" that causes the problem. It's the problem that causes the "myth". Otherwise, it seems like terribly bad luck that all human cultures should have this "myth".

And I think the problem is that it's not entirely a myth. We tell children that "violence never solves anything" but the problem is that often violence does appear to solve things.

On the one hand, evildoers appear to use violence very successfully to achieve their aims. "Why do the wicked prosper", and all that. On the other hand, violence often seems to be at least partially effective in establishing good aims, as well - the "resistance fighter", the "strong leader", the "war of self-defence". People will admit that it's not perfect. But it often looks like the only option offering any hope at all - better than collaborating with evil, at any rate.

I agree that the cross is an example of the better way. But it is also an example of how difficult the better way is. You can't say: "Take the non-violent way and you will find that all the evil melts away before you". You can only say: "Take the non-violent way, because that's what God wants, and it may well be that the evil rises up and crushes you in the most horrible way imaginable, but God will turn it all to good it the end.".

Faced with that, is it any wonder that the natural reaction is to try the violent option first?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
[QUOTE]
I agree that the cross is an example of the better way. But it is also an example of how difficult the better way is. You can't say: "Take the non-violent way and you will find that all the evil melts away before you". You can only say: "Take the non-violent way, because that's what God wants, and it may well be that the evil rises up and crushes you in the most horrible way imaginable, but God will turn it all to good it the end.".

Faced with that, is it any wonder that the natural reaction is to try the violent option first?

I (and Wink) would definitely agree with all the above. Wink describes Jesus' "third way " of nonviolent resistance (as opposed to violent opposition or passive resignation) as "slow and arduous". He points out that Jesus often tells us that it may mean "losing your life"-- and Wink reminds us that may be literal. He reminds us that it therefore requires extraordinary courage.

But I believe what Jesus is pointing out in the Sermon on the Mount is that, however much it may feel at times like violent resistance is "winning", the fact is, it only kicks the can a bit further down the road. Violent resistance always simply extends the circle of violence-- of retaliation, revenge, hatred, and bitterness. "An eye for an eye soon turns the whole world blind" and all that. We enter into Jesus' third way because we have become convinced of the absolute futility of the other two options, and have a profound faith that Jesus' third way truly is Good News that will rescue us from a fruitless way of life.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
[QUOTE]
I agree that the cross is an example of the better way. But it is also an example of how difficult the better way is. You can't say: "Take the non-violent way and you will find that all the evil melts away before you". You can only say: "Take the non-violent way, because that's what God wants, and it may well be that the evil rises up and crushes you in the most horrible way imaginable, but God will turn it all to good it the end.".

Faced with that, is it any wonder that the natural reaction is to try the violent option first?
I (and Wink) would definitely agree with all the above. Wink describes Jesus' "third way " of nonviolent resistance (as opposed to violent opposition or passive resignation) as "slow and arduous". He points out that Jesus often tells us that it may mean "losing your life"-- and Wink reminds us that may be literal. He reminds us that it therefore requires extraordinary courage.

But I believe what Jesus is pointing out in the Sermon on the Mount is that, however much it may feel at times like violent resistance is "winning", the fact is, it only kicks the can a bit further down the road. Violent resistance always simply extends the circle of violence-- of retaliation, revenge, hatred, and bitterness. "An eye for an eye soon turns the whole world blind" and all that. We enter into Jesus' third way because we have become convinced of the absolute futility of the other two options, and have a profound faith that Jesus' third way truly is Good News that will rescue us from a fruitless way of life.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

[Overused]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0