|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Okay, that's it.
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Scot,
It seems to me that you advocate the use of violence where passive resistance is not a viable alternative. So presumably you either support the violent struggle of the Palestinians against their Israeli oppressors or you believe that they should remain pacifist in that instance.
Which is it?
You suggest an absolute moral equivalence between Israeli tactics (however ham-fisted) and Al Quaeda's? Marvellous. Extraordinary.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I suggest nothing. I’m asking a question.
Are you sure English means the same over there as it does over here?
Would you prefer me to re-phrase with shorter words?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Nice try Bonzo, but if you will re-read my post you will notice that I was not advocating anything. I was explaining why the Indian example is irrelevant to the terrorist situation.
However, if you must know, I would never advocate the use of violence in the pursuit of an unjust cause.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I'm not a pacifist either Scot. But I'm interested in how you can define a just or unjust cause.
Erin says that you can't use the Bible if the dispute is between countries. Do you agree with that?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I suggest nothing. I’m asking a question.
Are you sure English means the same over there as it does over here?
Would you prefer me to re-phrase with shorter words?
Oh, come now. You know as well as I do that "asking a question" is often a way of proposing a point of view, especially when the word "presumably" is used in the way you used it.
Anyway, I can't go on with this because I'll be hiding under the bed: Increase In Terrorist "Chatter" Similar to pre-September 11th Levels Indicates Likely Attack Soon ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I'm not a pacifist either Scot. But I'm interested in how you can define a just or unjust cause.
Erin says that you can't use the Bible if the dispute is between countries. Do you agree with that?
I think what Erin means is that the U.S. can't use the Bible as a means of formulating its foreign policy; this is a constitutional democracy, and we can't ask a multi-religious society to adhere to the standards of one religion in responding to international threats.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
So how do we decide if a cause is unjust or just? Is there a definitive way of deciding such things?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Bonzo, I agree that the Bible cannot be used as an authoritative standard in a nation comprised of people who do not all subscribe to biblical authority. This does not mean that all biblical morality is discarded, only that the morality must not derive solely from the Bible. Fortunately most major religious systems have similar concepts of morality in their mainstreams.
Personally, I think the following lays out a fine standard for just causes. These provisions are not true because they are in the Bible or the Declaration of Independence, but rather because they are, well, self-evident.
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
As much as I'd enjoy continuing this, I'm late for work. I'll check back in about ten hours.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
So it seems to me w.r.t war that what you are saying is that a war is just, because of self evident standards and rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That where a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, even by use of violence.
Please tell me if you think the Palestinians have a just case? Or are the Israeli government allowing them their rights?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Okay, as much as this thread isn't about Iraq, it is a billion times more REALLY NOT ABOUT ISRAEL.
Go play in Dead Horses to pursue that tangent.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
No tangent,
If the US takes a different stance on Israel then Al Quaeda will be seriously damaged. This is where they derive their support from.
In Soct's frame of reference the Palestinians have a case for violent struggle. The West need to make a big change in their support for Israel according to ther own morality. If they did they would be safer, the world would be safer and fairer, and Al Quaeda would lose support.
All this without a war.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Thanks, scot. You said most of what I had in mind.
There is one more important point, though. I did not mean that everyone involved in the British rule of India was Christian or believed in Christian ethics. However, many of the top officials believed they were supposed to act like Christians.
Another restraint on the behavior of the authorities was public opinion back in Britain. That is what I meant earlier when I said that nonviolent resistance can only be effective against a democracy. If people know that speaking out against an evil will result in their being arrested and never heard from again, very few will speak.
If the British in India had killed Ghandi and his followers, there would have been a tremendous uproar in Britain. As I understand it, Saddam Hussein has killed many of his political opponents, and no one has dared protest. If you think that nonviolent resistance would work against Saddam Hussein, why do you think the Kurds didn't practise it years ago?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
The all knowledgable one said Just to spell it out, the “war on terror” and pre-emptive strikes on Iraq fall outside of the usual understanding of Just War.
What you should have done is said why that is the case instead of making a general statement. I guess you are learning.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
As a general point, and I intend to offend nobody, the man I am talking about was called Mohandas K Gandhi. Often given the honorific Mahatma. As some are so concerned about spelling, I would appreciate it if we could at least spell names correctly.
Now. The British empire was not concerned with acting in a 'Christian' way whatsoever. That is blatent nonsense. There are countless examples where it exterminated whole races of people, moved others willynilly and held others in absolute poverty so it could obtain cheap raw materials like tea, coffee, rubber etc. There is this myth going about that colonialism was somehow an extention of the church. Rubbish. Read some history.
That is not to say that there wasn't something happening in reverse, so that Victorians saw themselves as being part of the 'taming of the natives' by going and becoming missionaries.
To say that Gandhiism has nothing to say to our situation misunderstands the nature of the philosophy. It was not intended to be something only for the situation in India. It was intended to be something to be used anywhere where there was injustice.
I say it is just as applicable as in India before partition. We are faced with an aggressor with no face, with no idea where he is going to strike next. We say we are on the side of right, just like the Indians did. But we must prove that we are. If we lash out and deny to those who do these evil deeds the very things that we hold dear (and why does nobody answer my points I raised earlier about the American constitution?) - ie the rule of law, truth and whatnot - then how exactly are we behaving any differently? If we are on the side of right, then we need to behave like it. Not for their benefit. I doubt if they can see beyond their hate any more than some of us can. But for our own humanity.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Bonzo, are you really not aware that Israel has been fighting for its survival since its inception? Are you aware that its neighbors have vowed (and attempted, more than once) to push it into the sea? I wish it really were as cut-and-dried, "Israel is evil and the poor Palestinians are SO oppressed" as you portray it. The fact is that it's not. The Palestinians are guilty of crimes against humanity (so saith Human Rights Watch, if you don't believe me), too. If the US changes its stance to become wholly supportive of Palestine, it will be as wrong in that as it is to unconditionally support Israel's actions. And, for the billionth time, it still wouldn't change al Qaeda's stated aims of getting rid of all the Americans and the Jews. Al Qaeda's motives have nothing to do with that. They only began using Palestine as an excuse when it suited them.
Back when western citizens were being kidnapped in the Middle East, a few Soviets were, too. However, the Soviets KNEW what kind of dogs they were dealing with, and spoke in a language they understood. The Soviets extracted a member of the terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the kidnappings and demanded that their people be returned. When that didn't happen, they sent the member back. Various pieces in various boxes delivered to various members. No more Soviets went missing after that. They learned a lesson we don't seem to be able to comprehend -- you don't negotiate with terrorists.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Verily, verily,
You have heard it said: if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer them the other one also. But I say to you just remember - this isn't just about you, it's about your friends and family too, and they're not Christians, are they? So beat seven kinds of shit out of the bastard.
You have heard it said: if someone asks you to go one mile, go with them two. But I say to you, what sort of a fuckwit are you being pushed around by these evil, and I mean E-fucking-VIL, dogs? You do not negotiate with these rectal bacteria. Armed is unharmed. Shoot the brute.
You have heard it said: love your enemy. Well, that's all very well as an aspiration in your private relationship to God, but it's no way to lead a life, is it? No! I say to you kill your enemy nice and slow, then work out who's going to be your next enemy and kill them too. Don't hang around. There's a whole world of bad guys out there, countries full of them, and if you don't get them first, they're going to get you.
Now the competition, children. This is the gospel according to someone very famous. Can you guess who it is? Someone with a lovely smile . . .
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
It's always fun watching feeding time at the Alligator Pool.... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Well you know, Anselmina, I wouldn't be so annoyed if they could recognize that people of good faith and good will might, just might, come to different conclusions. I mean, Ruth and Karl are two of the biggest bleeding heart liberals ![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) on the boards, but I totally respect them and can debate anything with them because they can accept that there really are Christians who disagree with them.
Our buddies Matrix, FCB, hatless and Bonzo put forth the idea that they're the voices of God, which is something that I really do get more than enough of already, living where I do. They are loathe to admit that some of us might be Christians, too, even though we don't agree with their interpretations of things. They ATTEMPT to take the moral high ground (but in reality, they're just as bad at the name-calling as anyone else, at least I am honest and straightforward enough to admit when I do it) but invariably have decided that their way is, in fact, the only way, and the rest of us can't POSSIBLY have arrived a different conclusion through much thought and soul-searching. I think logician said it best on another thread -- the idea that we HAVE listened to their arguments and found them wanting is completely foreign to them. They honestly cannot comprehend it.
Which is really sad and pathetic, so we probably should take pity on them. However, being in the big name clique as I am, I am forced to give them virtual swirlies. It does 'em good.
[ 14. November 2002, 21:50: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Verily, verily,
You have heard it said: if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer them the other one also. But I say to you just remember - this isn't just about you, it's about your friends and family too, and they're not Christians, are they? So beat seven kinds of shit out of the bastard.
You have heard it said: if someone asks you to go one mile, go with them two. But I say to you, what sort of a fuckwit are you being pushed around by these evil, and I mean E-fucking-VIL, dogs? You do not negotiate with these rectal bacteria. Armed is unharmed. Shoot the brute.
You have heard it said: love your enemy. Well, that's all very well as an aspiration in your private relationship to God, but it's no way to lead a life, is it? No! I say to you kill your enemy nice and slow, then work out who's going to be your next enemy and kill them too. Don't hang around. There's a whole world of bad guys out there, countries full of them, and if you don't get them first, they're going to get you.
Now the competition, children. This is the gospel according to someone very famous. Can you guess who it is? Someone with a lovely smile . . .
I'm not sure, but my feeble brain detects sarcasm here.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I'm not sure, but my feeble brain detects sarcasm here.
And a genuine attempt to discuss issues.
This discussion feels like being some big, strong, slow thicko in the ring with Mohammed Ali in his prime. I'm trying to box, but my punches aren't landing, and there's this opponent mucking about all over the place and verbally abusing me. We're not connecting, so I thought I'd try something different.
Don't give me that stuff about claiming to speak for God, or not giving you the credit for thinking you could have come to other opinions for good reasons. We're having a disagreement, and this is how they tend to go. We disagree with the other person, and we hold to our own opinions and commend them and struggle to see how it is that everyone isn't persuaded at once. But keep talking, something good might happen. Offering reasons is a good way to show respect.
Instead, whenever the discussion begins to connect you say it's off topic, or it's just anti-Americanism again, or this is hell and you won't get reason here. It's very frustrating, butterfly.
So is the parody too wide of the mark?
By the way, I did admire your claim, Erin, to the moral high ground because your name calling is up front and honest, not sneaky and vindictive like mine. Too true.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Hey Erin, when are you going to start ignoring me? You keep promising.
And why do you think that just because someone thinks that a position you espouse is incompatible with the Christianity that you profess -- and I believe you profess it sincerely -- that they have set themselves up as the voice of God? Can't I think that you are wrong about something regarding the Christian faith without being a "fundamentalist" or a fuckwit or somehow playing unfair?
As to "name calling", I don't think I've called you any names on this thread, though I will admit to describing an argument you made as "brain dead" (but that referred to the argument, not to you). Oh, and I did call myself a fuckwit, but that was just to save you the trouble.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nosmo:
As a general point, and I intend to offend nobody, the man I am talking about was called Mohandas K Gandhi. Often given the honorific Mahatma. As some are so concerned about spelling, I would appreciate it if we could at least spell names correctly.
Now. The British empire was not concerned with acting in a 'Christian' way whatsoever. That is blatent nonsense. There are countless examples where it exterminated whole races of people, moved others willynilly and held others in absolute poverty so it could obtain cheap raw materials like tea, coffee, rubber etc. There is this myth going about that colonialism was somehow an extention of the church. Rubbish. Read some history.
I don't know what the "British Empire" was concerned with. It was a conglomeration that did not think with one mind.
If the British really didn't give a damn about Christianity, why didn't they just kill Gandhi and all his followers?
I agree that many of the colonial administrators were unscrupulous. I think they were restrained by British public opinion. This was possible because the British politicians could not ignore public opinion if they wanted to win elections.
Do you honestly believe that if the Kurds had used Gandhi's tactics, the Iraqis would have refrained from using poison gas on them?
If the Iraqis were willing to use poison gas on their own population, why should they hesitate to use it elsewhere?
Moo
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
Don't worry about Nosmo and the British Empire. He's obviously read a little history. When you read a lot of history then you realise that, in an imperial sense, the British Empire was quite the most well-intentioned (if not in doing) Empire in history, the only Empire in history that never made a financial profit for the imperial power, the only empire in history to be given up voluntarily (and if you don't believe me then you need to study the Colonial Office Papers from 1936-1964).
That being said a whole lot of the reponses on this thread, in particular those from these sceptred isles, remind me of Mr Chamberlain in 1938. It just happens that this time it is Iraq, rather than Czechoslovakia, that is a far-off country about which we know little. People like Nosmo and Bonzo are quite at liberty to hold their 'Little Englander' views, the view that says unless war is simply about the protection of our own homes from physical invasion by France or Germany then it is evil. Some of us happen to think that in the age of worldwide terrorism there are no such things as territorial borders AND that as a power capable of ridding the people of Iraq from the tyranny of a despot like Saddam Hussain we should do so, just as we protected the people of Sierra Leone from gaining a similar one last year and the people of Kuwait in 1974 and 1991 and just as we should rid the people of Zimbabwe of one also.
Evil is evil whether it threatens us or no. The destruction of evil is just. Self-preservation doesn't matter.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Retrospective hosting note
This thread is NOT to be used to discuss Israel and Palestine. There is a perfectly good (if flooged to death ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) thread in Dead Horses for that purpose, so put that stuff there.
Got it everyone?
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
It's always fun watching feeding time at the Alligator Pool....
What sort of disgraceful comment is this?
Why am I reminded of the school yard with the hangers on sneering as the bully takes it out on the bullied?
Didn't quite go the way you expected though did it.
There's no way I'm trying to take any moral high ground. But it's a wonderful ploy to divert the issue.
How many moslems do you know Erin? Go and ask them if they think Israel's an oppressor or is clinging on to it's existence. I think I could cling on quite well with all those tanks and guns and nukes.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Viki
Then it can't be used to discus AL Quaeda since the two are too closely linked.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
What sort of rubbish is this from Cosmo?
People like Nosmo and Bonzo are quite at liberty to hold their 'Little Englander' views, the view that says unless war is simply about the protection of our own homes from physical invasion by France or Germany then it is evil.
Go on find where I said that!
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
Thanks for thinking my comment 'disgraceful' . I was rather worried that so far I had been a little too rational and calm for hell in my postings on this thread - a little too purgatorial. And actually, the whole thread, in my limited experience of shipboard life has been rather unhellish in the extent of debate and discussion that's gone on, when one reads the introduction to this board.
When I see posters complain about language and ranting and others getting very angry etc, down here in hell, I wonder sometimes if they've bothered to read the introduction. Purgatory is the place if one's skin is a little on the easily roasted side. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
And Purgatory is the place to have an earnest worthy debate, but (usually) without the scratchiness of experiencing the depth and extent of people's innermost angst about a subject.
If the sight of that angst is not pretty or comfortable, or is too provocative, or leads one to sin, then one ought to return to the school of correction that is Purgatory. Here in hell, one acknowledges the damnedness of one's cause and expects an unbridled and hell-like response.
I also believe humour - albeit rather twisted humour - is permitted in hell. All in all, I think one is supposed to either deal with it, or leave well alone.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
That being said a whole lot of the reponses on this thread, in particular those from these sceptred isles, remind me of Mr Chamberlain in 1938.
Cosmo
Interesting comment, Cosmo. When I realized that I am one respondent from the sceptred isles - in fact the Emerald one - who isn't part of this mindset, I wondered if it was my growing up in terrorism-dominated Northern Ireland during the seventies that gave me a slightly different view
of the some of the realities of living with the problem?
I want so much to believe that there could be a united Christian witness to the power of 'peace'; and I particularly found the comment about 'would Jesus bomb, kill etc' very challenging. But I think if it came down to the nitty-gritty, I would expect, in God's grace and strength, to stand with the community in which he had placed me, in its defence; as one who shares the great blessings of life in my country, and therefore as one who should expect to similarly share and suffer in its less glorious and more painful moments.
As I said in an earlier post, perhaps we shall be torn between the 'right' thing, to eschew the killing of innocents, in order to achieve the only thing that is possible for our fallen situation, which is the 'good' thing, ie the battle against the terrorism which is also killing innocents.
I'm afraid it's probably a rather simple-minded response, though.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Viki
Then it can't be used to discus AL Quaeda since the two are too closely linked.
NO THEY AREN'T! Except in the mind of those who want to use them thusly.
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Minds like Osama Bin Laden's you mean?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Minds like Osama Bin Laden's you mean?
He's posting on this thread?
No, didn't think so.
Your point fails to stand. Keep off Israel vs Palestine.
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nosmo:
...To say that Gandhiism has nothing to say to our situation misunderstands the nature of the philosophy. It was not intended to be something only for the situation in India. It was intended to be something to be used anywhere where there was injustice....
Had Gandhi & Co. been facing Russian troops and bureaucrats instead of British same, it would have been a very different story. That sort of approach is viable only when the opposing side has to hew to some principles, or at least worry about public opinion.
Al-Qaeda and the Saddam regime have neither principles nor interest in PR (outside, in the first case, its own audience of Islamic funda-loonies). They're not interested in decency.
Rossweisse // not particularly pro-war, but not at all starry-eyed
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Non-violence is a philosophy seemingly honored more in the breach than in practice (to mangle a metaphor).
I'm more than a little shocked to find that not a few people whom I had heretofore considered sensible are actually arguing that "non-violence worked for Ghandi" because "we are, at heart, nice people."
My cynicism being what it is, I don't believe for the duration of a two-second fart that the British would have left Inja if their economic interests hadn't been compromised beyond repair.
But I digress.
Closer to home (mine, at least), the witness of non-violence demonstrably has brought about something of a revolution (if an imperfect one) in race relations in the United States. When state militia and local police forces were beating and lynching black AND WHITE people while the Ku Klux Klan was carring on a wide-spread program of ethnic intimidation; while high officers of the federal government were complicit by their silence--if not outright support, Martin Luther King, Jr. was preaching non-violence.
I do not think, for one fucking moment that the people resisting the integration movement of the 60s gave up because they were, at heart, "nice people." (Or, perhaps I should write that, "nahse peipul.")
I commend to your reading MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" which is, arguably, one of the most stunningly persuasive documents coming out of the philosophy of non-violence.
Two things astonish me about this thread: I am amazed by the willingness of some to sacrifice principle at the altar of hellish pragmatism; and I am dismayed at the piss-poor, flacid arguments used to counter it. Dearest God and merciful Mary, didn't anybody teach you assholes to THINK?
Non-violence as a philosophy is anything but pragmatic. At its heart, it is prophetic, and well we know what they do to prophets. They did it to Martin, and they did it to Bobby Kennedy.
Prophets have a nasty habit of becoming witnesses (martyrs) to their cause.
And, predictably, anybody who argues for non-violence in the face of the current world situation will probably find themselves in a similar situation.
Dearest Jesus, I pray with all my heart for prophets right now.
[ 15. November 2002, 03:32: Message edited by: tomb ]
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
By the way, I did admire your claim, Erin, to the moral high ground because your name calling is up front and honest, not sneaky and vindictive like mine. Too true.
So are you illiterate? No where did I claim the moral high ground, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in your attempt to claim it.
I commend to you Psalms 58, 70, 83, 92, 109, 129 and 140. I just wish you self-righteous gits would let those who are angry and hurt BE angry and hurt, instead of trying to condemn us for our feelings.
Job's comforters, the whole lot of you, unfeeling hypocrites, and I'm sick and tired of it. Go away.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Okay tomb, follow closely.
The fact that passive resistance is a good and desirable approach to a conflict does not imply that it is universally applicable. The goodwill on which pacifism relies is not necessarily that of the oppressor himself – it is quite often the goodwill of the bystanding public. This was the certainly the case with King and also, I believe, the case with Gandhi.
Saddam is in a different position altogether. He has no reason to care about public opinion and is therefore free to massacre at will. Bin Laden has the active support of his “public”. The radical Muslim community is most unlikely to be swayed by a display of passive resistance.
That said, I completely agree with you about the prophetic nature of pacifism. My objection is to the suggestion by others that pacifism would be an effective approach to the current problems.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
I, too, am unsure of how "effective" non-violence (note I make a distinction between NV & pacifism) would be in the present situation, Scot.
But utilitarianism has never been one of the criteria by which we judge the effectivness of non-violence--or its inverse.
We do not judge non-violence--or war, for that matter--by its benefit to us. People are going to die if there is a war, and one of the justifications of war--and the death it engenders--has always been that people are "sacrificing" for the future, for a principle, for the greater good. This is implied in St. Thomas Aquinas's definition of a "just" war--that it must be winnable. And this is where non-violence departs from Thomistic theory.
Moreover, evaluation of this sort of struggle is always a retrospective activity. Anything else is jingoism.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I am pleased to read that you are not suggesting that nonviolence is an effective approach. It would have been painful to attempt to chew on someone as squamous as yourself.
If anyone wishes to attempt principled nonviolence as a response to terrorism, I shall sincerely admire their moral integrity. While I might aspire to such lofty heights, I know full well that I am unprepared to witness the torture and murder of my children or wife at the hands of the bin Ladens of the world. Since I cannot go the distance with nonviolence, I choose active resistance to evil. While the principles on which I elect to stand might not be the gold standard, they are principles nonetheless, and ones with which I can live.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
MOREOVER, a posture of non-violence is much more dynamic that the absence of active hostility.
How many policies result in "outcomes" that are as negative as anything that a war might bring about? Wouldn't it be "violence" if, say, a government policy encouraged women to become pregnant out of wedlock in order to secure housing and food for themselves and, indirectly, their offspring, so that the more children they had, the more financially secure they would be?
In this case, it would be violence against individuals (the mother and her children) as well as violence against the state, inasmuch as its policies promoted instability in the social order leading to violence, crime, and increased financial dependency on the state, thus draining its resources?
(I'm using this example because I know you are a Republican and will resonate with the whole issue of US welfare reform.)
Is this so much different from the policies of our nation and other nations in the West that contribute to the disenfranchisement of large groups of people in other parts of the world? Isn't that violence, even if nobody on our side shoots at them? And is it so surprising that the reaction to violence is always more violence?
And how can that cycle be broken, unless there is a rigorous and compelling alternative?
I submit that such an alternative is non-violence. Not the blathering "all we are saying is 'give peace a chance'" bullshit that people of my generation employed in order to smoke dope and fuck each other.
Non-violence, Scot, is making peace, not avoiding conflict. And that is just as bloody as any wor. But if we're going to die for something, I'd rather it be the potential for a greater joy and not just the inadequate assurance of avoidance of yet more conflict.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Cosmo ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Louise
Do not attempt this at home. I will now, before your very eyes, make a purgatorial argument hellishly. At no time do my fingers leave my hands.
Scriptural arguments allowing corporate, or national violence.
1. The whole OT
2. When Jesus says "He who lives by the sword..." why was one of his disciples carrying a sword in the first place? Why had this not been forbidden him? Why hadn't he learned this in 3 years?
3. Jesus tells the Roman soldier not to take more than his due, be honest, etc. At no point does he say "You can't be a soldier any more."
4. Letter to the Romans -- the authorities do not "wield the sword in vain."
5. The eventual violent overthrow of evil by the armies of heaven.
That's just a beginning.
From Reason:
1. Are policemen okay? Would criminals obey them if there were not implied violence behind them? What's the difference between policemen and soldiers?
2. Do you get to turn someone else's cheek? If you are the ruler of any group of people, from where do you get authority to put others at risk?
3. If the strong do not protect the weak, how will the weak ever get justice?
The repeated assumption that the US is acting in retaliation is unsupported. It's just one of those things people keep saying until other people believe it. Some Americans undoubtedly do want revenge. But we would not put our sons at risk unless we thought there was further danger. We are moving against terrorists in self-protection.
The US, and all democratic nations do try the peaceful solutions first. What the hell do you think has been going on for the last year? Who is it that you think is feeding the poor, bringing medicines, clean water, agricultural techniques, warm clothes? We even give stuff to people who hate us -- and it doesn't change their minds.
Gandhi was a fraud, who believed we should not have opposed the Germans and Japanese in WWII and did nothing to confront them when he had the chance. He confronted the British , who had a long record of trying to solve things peacefully. Ho Chi Minh said "If minister Gandhi had lived in a French colony, he long since would have ascended into heaven."
I grow weary.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Scot, I wrote that "moreover" postscript before I read your statement:
quote:
....I know full well that I am unprepared to witness the torture and murder of my children or wife at the hands of the bin Ladens of the world. Since I cannot go the distance with nonviolence, I choose active resistance to evil.
This is precisely the reasoning people all over the world are using to justify directing terrorist attacks at the United States, Europe, Australia, and our allies.
Substitute for "bin Ladens" in your post the words "multinational corporations" or "American infidels" or any other anti-American/anti-western phrase you can think of.
Why shouldn't they (our enemies) justify their activities by the same logic?
How would you suggest we break that cycle of violence? Beat the shit out of them until they are too weak to resist? And how long will that last?
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
tomb, your last post illustrates precisely the reason why I am annoyed at the persistent misuse of the word "violence" to describe a thing to which someone objects.
If the "American infidels" were in fact torturing and murdering bin Laden's family, I would expect him to react in kind. However, making the substitutions you suggest renders the proposition unfactual. I, like the extreme majority of Americans, British, Australians and other westerners, do not wish to harm or kill anyone. The terrorists, on the other hand, desire our eradication.
Interesting that you are now railing against the "cycle of violence" and questioning how it is to be broken. I thought you understood that nonviolence is not an effective tactic?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
....The repeated assumption that the US is acting in retaliation is unsupported. It's just one of those things people keep saying until other people believe it.
Most of the time, Logician, I have a lot of respect for you. But there are instances when I think your name is the most oxy-MORONic thing I have ever encountered.
Tell me, O you font of linear reasoning, who it was who said, "We will hunt you down." And parse for me, please, the meaning of this phrase given its context?
quote:
"Logician" continued:
The US, and all democratic nations do try the peaceful solutions first.
Bullshit. We try to effect the solution that is most expedient given our interests. We attempt "peaceful" solutions because they are attractive given those interests. Your statement implies that we want some particular outcome for disinterested reasons.
quote:
What the hell do you think has been going on for the last year? Who is it that you think is feeding the poor, bringing medicines, clean water, agricultural techniques, warm clothes? We even give stuff to people who hate us -- and it doesn't change their minds.
Substantive examples to back this up, sir? We don't do dog shit unless there is something in it for us. This is the nature of the capitalistic system. We don't "give stuff to people who hate us," we give it to their governments.
We don't give a warm pile of shit for "the people"--unless they have something we want and have managed to amass the power necessary to deliver it to us.
The history of our generosity points to our leveraging of our interests.
Doubt me? Why, then, don't we "give stuff" to the Central African Republic (the old Congo). Jesus, if there ever were a place of misery in our time on the face of the earth, that is it.
I'll tell you why. Because there's nothing in the Central African Republic that we want, and the struggle there hasn't killed any significant number of important Americans; just a missionary or two here or there.
quote:
Gandhi was a fraud, who believed we should not have opposed the Germans and Japanese in WWII and did nothing to confront them when he had the chance. He confronted the British , who had a long record of trying to solve things peacefully. Ho Chi Minh said "If minister Gandhi had lived in a French colony, he long since would have ascended into heaven."
I grow weary.
Good. Maybe you'll stop posting this sort of bullshit dreck. And while you're at it, change your fucking handle. Honesty (not your strong suit) would go a long way toward redeeming your reputation on the Ship.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
tomb, your last post illustrates precisely the reason why I am annoyed at the persistent misuse of the word "violence" to describe a thing to which someone objects.
Gee, Scot, I'm devastated that I'm annoying you.
Perhaps you would like to essay a personal. definition of "violence"? Maybe it would be something to the effect that "'Violence' is something--anything that hurts me or my family in any fashion, physical, mental, financial, regardless of the intention of the person or institution doing the violence"?
That, of course, begs the question of how you would respond to other people who were suffering from the sorts of pressures that you would define as "violence" if they were directed toward you. How would you respond?
quote:
If the "American infidels" were in fact torturing and murdering bin Laden's family, I would expect him to react in kind. However, making the substitutions you suggest renders the proposition unfactual. I, like the extreme majority of Americans, British, Australians and other westerners, do not wish to harm or kill anyone. The terrorists, on the other hand, desire our eradication.
If wishes were horses, we'd all ride....
The majority of "westerners," dear Scot, desire their/our own comfort, and we are willing to look the other way--our even justify our leaders--when they institute policies that benefit us regardless of the impact they have on others.
And I will point out that our personal wishes have little if anything to do with the foreign policy of our government. Surely you're not that naive?
I'm so very glad that you don't wish bad things to happen to other people. My question to you is, what are YOU DOING to ensure that the institutions that secure your own liberty aren't obstructing the liberty of people who don't enjoy the benefit of your franchise?
quote:
Interesting that you are now railing against the "cycle of violence" and questioning how it is to be broken. I thought you understood that nonviolence is not an effective tactic?
It's not an "effective" tactic if your aim is only your own utilitarian comfort. But, I'm sure I misunderstand you, because I'm certain your vistas for world harmony surely extend beyond the epic struggle to eradicate crabgrass from your suburban lawn.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Kudos to Tomb on an admirable string of posts. I try not to bring Gandhi into these kinds of discussions because I don't think that non-violence is a matter of "effectiveness." Frankly, I tend to think that Gandhi was a humanist idealist who got lucky, but this may be just because I don't really understand Hinduism. But in any case, it seems to me that Tomb is exactly right that a Christian argument for non-violence is not based on its effectiveness, nor even on its making the world a less violent place, but on the need to witness to God's peace in a world of violence.
As to (some of) logician's points: - Matthew 5-7 deals in some detail with the difference Jesus makes, so that appeals to Old Testament wars don't really get you very far.
- The whole "live by the sword. . ." verse doesn't really help your argument, since Jesus says this in the context of forbidding the use of the sword by his disciples. As to why they haven't learned anything in three years, well... there were a lot of things they didn't learn in three years. This is something of a major theme of Mark's Gospel.
- I believe (though I don't have a bible at hand, so I'm subject to correction) that it is John the Baptist who tells the soldiers not to cheat people etc.
- I will grant that Romans 13 says that sometimes the authorities wield the sword as agents of God's justice, but Paul thinks that everything is under God's providence. More importantly, he says nothing here about whether Christians should participate in governmental wielding of the sword. Other early Christian documents seem to indicate that it was thought that this was something Christians ought not to do.
- You win your final point. If God wants to send Michael and the other angels to take out Osama, he's got a big thumbs up from me.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
I know it's unusual for me to get hellish, even in Hell, but i can't resist this...
Erin offering scriptures? Does that mean that Erin has become a "bible thumping fundamentalist buttwrench"?
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Not exactly a fundamentalist, but lay off Erin for a moment because there is some real self-awareness here:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I commend to you Psalms 58, 70, 83, 92, 109, 129 and 140. I just wish you self-righteous gits would let those who are angry and hurt BE angry and hurt, instead of trying to condemn us for our feelings.
This is very encouraging and deserves congratulation. (A deliberately patronising remark: you see, Erin, I was actually agreeing with you in the post you quoted. I am abusive, but in a less obvious way - which is probably nastier.)
Perhaps the best rejoinder would be to say that no one will deny you your feelings. It's basing foreign policy on them that is the problem. It's spraying the anger around at anyone who isn't joining in your panicky paddy under the bedclothes that's the problem.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
I know it's unusual for me to get hellish, even in Hell, but i can't resist this...
Erin offering scriptures? Does that mean that Erin has become a "bible thumping fundamentalist buttwrench"?
No you idiot, unlike you, I'm attempting to speak in a language that you understand. Would that you would extend the same consideration to other people around here, instead of walking around with your head shoved firmly up your backside and expecting everyone to adhere to your particular wishes.
Now, the horse you rode in on is in dire need of pleasuring. Get to it.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Now, a more reasoned response to hatless...
You see, one of the points of Hell around here is not only for the personal arguments, but also so that people can rant and rave and let loose with all their negative emotions.
The problem comes when people such as your good self don't just let it happen. There are some of us, and you very well may not be one of them, whose lives are, for better or worse, an emotional rollercoaster. Personally speaking, my highs are very high, and my lows are very low. So when I am angry and hurt, I need to vent. What I DO NOT NEED is people coming in here and shoving scripture down my throat like I've never heard it before. That is patronizing and offensive, PARTICULARLY when the underlying message is that I just need to understand how they became what they are. Well, where the fuck is the understanding for our feelings? It's hypocritical to demand that I empathize with them when (the general) you refuse to practice what you preach.
As a final word: I am not George W Bush, I am not a member of the Cabinet, and I am not a Joint Chief of Staff. Nothing I say can possibly have ANY bearing on the US foreign policy. I'm just a relatively regular person who truly cannot comprehend what kind of sick fuck you have to be to want to hurt or kill people for no other reason than they're not the same religion/ethnic group/race/whatever as you.
Oh, and tomb, I really wish that you'd stick to the facts of the argument here on this planet, instead of inventing some alternative universe. Al Qaeda's leaders have not in any way been exploited by the evil capitalist regime, seeing as how they have more money than God.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from tomb quote:
I do not think, for one fucking moment that the people resisting the integration movement of the 60s gave up because they were, at heart, "nice people." (Or, perhaps I should write that, "nahse peipul.")
I agree that the people resisting the integration movement of the 60s did not give up because they were nice people. They gave up because Congress responded to public pressure and passed the civil rights laws.
The non-violent civil rights protesters aroused public opinion. They made it clear just how oppressive the present system was.
This would not have worked in a country which did not have a tradition of individual rights. It also could not have worked in a country which did not have a free press.
In Britain and the US (and many other countries) the government is regarded as belonging to the people. In countries such as Iraq, the people are regarded as belonging to the government. If the people belong to the government there is no reason why the government shouldn't kill them if they get in the way.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
