|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Violence: what is it, and is it always bad?
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's interesting to see the qualifications and special pleading defense of someone making a scourge and driving animals from the temple and expelling the vendors as a kind of non-violence.
It also is odd to hear whipping someone with a scourge of cords as child like admonition or any of the other minimizations in this thread.
There is another scourging described in Matthew 27:26 Would you describe this in the same fashion and not a brutal punishment? What's the difference?
Also, is the second one a consequence of the first incident?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It also is odd to hear whipping someone with a scourge of cords as child like admonition or any of the other minimizations in this thread.
There is another scourging described in Matthew 27:26 Would you describe this in the same fashion and not a brutal punishment? What's the difference?
Who exactly has said this?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Who exactly has said this?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts. So yep, Jesus used mildly traumatizing violence. A 'grown up' version of smacking children. His 110% humanity is apparent. Therefore I have been WRONG to argue otherwise.
[ 26. March 2015, 03:22: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Who exactly has said this?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts. So yep, Jesus used mildly traumatizing violence. A 'grown up' version of smacking children. His 110% humanity is apparent. Therefore I have been WRONG to argue otherwise.
Ah. You need to learn to recognize Martin's snark.
No one here is arguing that whipping is anything other than violent. A few of us (myself included) are arguing that Jesus didn't whip any humans, but only used the whip to drive out animals. An arguable thesis, yes, and one that several here view as eisegetical. Hence the debate. But it's a far cry from defending whipping as a minor or non-violent act.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
If I can be ... weird... about this, it bothers me more that innocent animals should be whipped than that their involved-with-bad-stuff owners should be. I'd really rather Jesus took the whip to the folks who were profiting from being there.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I agree the argument "its ok, he only whipped their animals" seems feeble.
It is interesting that by whipping them, he drove them away from the place where they were about to be sold to be sacrificed. If they weren't recaptured for sacrifice it probably was better for them.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I don't think it's at all weird. I see no reason to declare hitting a person to be violent, and hitting an animal as non-violent. Or, even hitting an inanimate object.
Of course, the whole reason there were animals there in the first place was to support God-ordained violence towards animals on the sacrificial altar.
[x-post. That was, of course, a reply to Lamb Chopped]
[ 26. March 2015, 04:19: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
You have a point (Boyd makes a similar point). otoh, if the notion of whipping some livestock bothers you (not saying it shouldn't) you really don't want to take a look at where your food comes from. (I have *shudders*)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Again there is NO comparison between a condign flogging with a glass embedded braided leather cat that few survived - anecdotally no one, no one survived a Roman scourging - and a scourge made of short cords of string, briefly applied to leathern cattle, woolly sheep and clothed Mafiosi.
It's very odd. Here we are further along the arc that Jesus propelled us and blaming Him for not living up to those evolved standards whilst seeming to use that 'failure' as justification for worse violence on our part.
Like the Pope over IS?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's very odd. Here we are further along the arc that Jesus propelled us and blaming Him for not living up to those evolved standards whilst seeming to use that 'failure' as justification for worse violence on our part.
I disagree. Like I keep hinting, I think there is just as bad violence perpetrated by the mantra that "as long as it doesn't leave a mark, it's not torture" (cf waterboarding).
I think there might be better ways of dealing theologically with our own propensity to violence (physical or otherwise) than thinking Jesus' outburst was simply because "he wasn't as far along the arc as we are".
Thinking that way is in great danger of leading us to perpetrating more refined violence unawares - and thinking we are morally superior because we do.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Who exactly has said this?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts. So yep, Jesus used mildly traumatizing violence. A 'grown up' version of smacking children. His 110% humanity is apparent. Therefore I have been WRONG to argue otherwise.
In this post I have pointed out that the Greek text does not say that he drove men out of the temple with a whip.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
Originally posted by Moo
He didn't say they had turned it into a market; he said they had turned it into a den of thieves.
I don't know Greek, so I have to rely on translators. John has "market", the Synoptics have "den of thieves". I had to pick one for my recreation. He could, of course, have called it a market and a den of thieves. Street markets have always been a convenient place for thieves to exchange stolen goods for cash.
You pays your money and you takes your choice. The problem with the market in the temple was that there was no place else you could go to get your sacrificial animals or get your money changed. Corruption is much more likely to occur when the customer has no choice.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The problem with the market in the temple was that there was no place else you could go to get your sacrificial animals or get your money changed. Corruption is much more likely to occur when the customer has no choice.
The Temple requirement was for coins that did not bear the likeness of Caesar, or any inscription ascribing divinity to Caesar. There were plenty of coins in circulation that were acceptable. Any of the coins issued by Herod the Great, or Archaleus or Antipas would be acceptable. Coins still in circulation from the Maccabean period as well. They would be common throughout Judea, it was Jews from elsewhere (and the God fearing Gentiles) who wouldn't have appropriate coinage. Practically anyone of substance in Judea could have exchanged currency, it was just convenient to be able to do that at the Temple.
The animals for sacrifice had to meet certain requirements, no blemishes etc. You could have come to Jerusalem with your own animal. Though, why bring an animal a long way, when it was so convenient to buy one in the Temple?
The Temple market was a convenience, not a necessity. And, even that convenience didn't need to be in the Temple itself. Why not set up the market selling animals just outside the city gates?
It's been suggested (though, merely speculation) that animals bought in the Temple had already been checked by the priests. So, if you bought your sacrifice there you went straight to the priest and offer the sacrifice, if you walked into the Temple bringing an animal it would be rigorously checked. Of course, the market traders in the Temple could charge a wee bit more for the "guaranteed to be acceptable to the priest" status of their wares. If the priests got a small cut, they could make sure that a small blemish was found on any animal not bought in the Temple.
A stall in the Temple would have been very lucrative. The merchants selling animals were practically guaranteed to sell all their stock on festival days. Those changing money could do so without touring all the inns and hostels asking visitors if they needed to change coins. There may not have been corruption, but I bet profits were good.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Since we're on the subject of corruption, there was apparently a huge temptation for people to basically cart things through the temple precincts because of its proximity to one of the gates of Jerusalem. If you didn't want to go the long way around, transporting your goods right through the holy area was a major shortcut--and no doubt hugely distracting to worshippers as well. I wish I could recall where I was reading about this, but it's easy to see how that would further contribute to the marketplace atmosphere.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Again there is NO comparison between a condign flogging with a glass embedded braided leather cat that few survived - anecdotally no one, no one survived a Roman scourging - and a scourge made of short cords of string, briefly applied to leathern cattle, woolly sheep and clothed Mafiosi.
It's very odd. Here we are further along the arc that Jesus propelled us and blaming Him for not living up to those evolved standards whilst seeming to use that 'failure' as justification for worse violence on our part.
Like the Pope over IS?
Cliffdweller claims you're just being snarky, but I'm going to assume you mean what you're saying.
So the scourge was made of little cords of string, and not cords of ... cord. It was robust enough toe persuade a sheep or oxen to move out but delicate enough that it wouldn't bother a human. And apparently the people moving the livestock were wearing three piece suits and not just a breach clout or tropical weight robe.
It's fine to say, he was violent and that's what people did then, although that kind of weakens the argument that he's a model for today. What is unimpressive is reams of special pleading to say it didn't really happen because you can translate it as tickling with some embroidery floss to masochists who enjoyed the experience.
And it's not violence because he only hit the animals just as a mugging isn't violent if the mugger threatens you but actually hit you.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Far from it Eutychus. For me. But not for you. This is psychologically fascinating. What we each bring to the party. Utterly irreconcilable. Each of us an island. What follows for you Palimpsest doesn't follow for me at all. That's OK. Better than that. It's good, proper, right.
He is an eternal model for any day, all days. In that He showed us the way to go, more than any other and here we are. Going. Still on our way. Still working it out - our salvation - for ourselves, individually, as St. Brian wished.
Jesus' culturally constrained and transcended humanity couldn't be more inspiring for me. He worked it out in ignorance too.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool
Apprentice
# 18359
|
Posted
The OP asked: Violence: what is it, and is it always bad?
For the first part I'm reminded of George MacDonald Fraser's anti-hero Flashman's response to whether 'red Indian' (native Americans in new money) know the difference between right and wrong. Try wronging one. Most of us have no difficulty recognising violence if it is directed against us. Nuances tend to start when other people are on the receiving end, especially if we don't approve of those people.
As for the second part violence is always bad but as I'm a soldier and I've been a policeman I'd have to say that it may sometimes be necessary/justified.
For it to be necessary/justified it has to have a legitimate aim and it has to be proportional.
In the present in functioning democracies I would say that legitimate could be accepted as a lawful aim. In other times and other places the law may not be legitimate. Legitimate also means that the amount of violence used must only be that required to complete the aim.
Proportional means the amount of violence used must be justified by the need to complete the aim. We're all entitled to defend ourselves but we wouldn't be entitled to deliberately kill someone who tried to snatch our mobile phone or in military term destroy a compound full of civilians because a sniper is taking pot shots from the walls.
I'm not sure I understand why the argument about Jesus and the Temple is interesting or relevant but in the circumstances described I see nothing to justify the violence he used. It was one man attempting to impose his narrow view of morality on other people. We object when the taliban and ISIS behave like this.
With regard to Ghandi and Hitler, taking Ghandi's approach did not have worked. Rather a lot of appeasement was tried with Hitler and it was totally counter productive.
Apartheid in South Africa was evil and I think it reasonable to say that without a certain amount of violence it would not have been overthrown but I think a lot of the ANC terrorism failed the proportionality and legitimacy test. Its aim was not the overthrow of apartheid but the personal positions of the perpetrators.
Posts: 16 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
The OP asked: Violence: what is it, and is it always bad?
For the first part I'm reminded of George MacDonald Fraser's anti-hero Flashman's response to whether 'red Indian' (native Americans in new money) know the difference between right and wrong. Try wronging one. Most of us have no difficulty recognising violence if it is directed against us. Nuances tend to start when other people are on the receiving end, especially if we don't approve of those people.
Most wise.
quote:
As for the second part violence is always bad but as I'm a soldier and I've been a policeman I'd have to say that it may sometimes be necessary/justified.
Aye, you would.
quote:
For it to be necessary/justified it has to have a legitimate aim and it has to be proportional.
In the present in functioning democracies I would say that legitimate could be accepted as a lawful aim. In other times and other places the law may not be legitimate. Legitimate also means that the amount of violence used must only be that required to complete the aim.
Uh huh. By functional we mean pluralistic, not majority rule, I take it.
quote:
Proportional means the amount of violence used must be justified by the need to complete the aim. We're all entitled to defend ourselves but we wouldn't be entitled to deliberately kill someone who tried to snatch our mobile phone or in military term destroy a compound full of civilians because a sniper is taking pot shots from the walls.
Hmmm. I can think of military situations where that is exactly what is required. And can come up with extreme 'novel' scenarios where it would be reasonable to kill for a mobile phone.
quote:
I'm not sure I understand why the argument about Jesus and the Temple is interesting or relevant but in the circumstances described I see nothing to justify the violence he used. It was one man attempting to impose his narrow view of morality on other people. We object when the taliban and ISIS behave like this.
You're at the wrong of of the telescope.
quote:
With regard to Ghandi and Hitler, taking Ghandi's approach did not have worked. Rather a lot of appeasement was tried with Hitler and it was totally counter productive.
Ghandi's - Christ's - approach wasn't tried by anyone. It would have worked the more it was implemented. Total war was tried and that got us what?
quote:
Apartheid in South Africa was evil and I think it reasonable to say that without a certain amount of violence it would not have been overthrown but I think a lot of the ANC terrorism failed the proportionality and legitimacy test. Its aim was not the overthrow of apartheid but the personal positions of the perpetrators.
Don't start what you can't finish. For the weak to destroy the strong they MUST engage in terrorism. Or love them.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
With regard to Ghandi and Hitler, taking Ghandi's approach did not have worked. Rather a lot of appeasement was tried with Hitler and it was totally counter productive.
Appeasement is not "Ghandi's approach". Appeasement is passive concession to evil. Ghandi's approach was pacifism, not passivity. Pacifism is active, non-violent resistance to evil.
We can't prove a "what if" one way or the other, but there is no reason to think that the strategies that worked for Ghandi and MLK would not have worked in WW2, especially if applied earlier in the conflict. In The Powers that Be Wink addresses this question specifically:
quote:
The brutalities of the Nazis stand for many people as the ultimate refutation of nonviolence. Surely, they reason, only violence could have stopped Hitler. The facts indicate just the opposite. Nonviolence did work whenever it was tried against the Nazis. Bulgaria's Orthodox Bishop Kiril told Nazi authorities that if they attempted to deport Bulgarian Jews to concentration camps, he himself would lead a campaign of civil disobedience, lying down on the railroad tracks in front of the trains... [further examples from Bulgaria]... Ron Sider and Richard K. Taylor comment, "Because of these and other nonmilitary measures, all of Bulgaria's Jewish citizens were saved from the Nazi death camps."
Finland saved all but six of its Jewish citizens from death camps through nonmilitary means. Of 7,000 Danish Jews, 6,500 escaped to Sweden, aided by virtually the whole population and tips from within the German occupation force itself. Almost all the rest were hidden safely for the balance of the war. Denmark's resistance was so effective that Adolf Eichmann had to admit that the action against the Jews of Denmark had been a failure.
The Norwegian underground helped spirit 900 Jews to safety in Sweden, but another 756 were killed, all but 20 in Nazi death camps. German wives of Jews demonstrated in Berlin on behalf of their husbands in the midst of the war, and secured their release for the duration. In Italy, a large percentage of Jews survived because officials and citizens sabotaged efforts to hand them over to the Germans.
During the Nazi occupation of Holland, a general strike by all rail workers paralyzed traffic from Nov. 1944 until liberation in May 1945-- this despite extreme privation to the people, who held out all winter without heat and with dwindling food supplies...
The tragedy is that even though nonviolence did work when used against the Nazis, it was used too seldom. The Jews themselves did not use it, but continued to rely in the main on the passive nonresistance that had carried them through so many pogroms in the past. And the church as a whole were too docile or anti-Semitic, and too ignorant of the nonviolent message of the gospel, to act effectively to resist the Nazis...
... the problem with war or violence as a last resort is that we may be less likely to look to God for a way though if we have already settled in advance that violence is an option. Faith requires at times marching into the waters before they part (Josh. 3:15-16).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It would be possible to question whether any of those were non-violent means of ending Nazi evils.
Protecting Jews, no matter how successful in the short term, did nothing the close the death camps, and if the Nazi's hadn't been brought down by other means how long could the Jews be hidden? How long could the trains be kept from running?
The rail strike in the Netherlands was non-violent, but it's effectiveness was in the context of Allied forces fighting through France. The strikers certainly hindered the movement of German troops and supplies which would have been a boon to the Allies and hence shortened the war (with an associated reduction in loss of life).
The question is, is an act that itself does not involve physical violence still non-violent if it benefits someone else who is exhibiting physical violence?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would be possible to question whether any of those were non-violent means of ending Nazi evils.
Yes. As I said, we can't prove a "what if". Bonhoeffer seemed to believe nonviolence would have worked if it had been engaged early on in the process, it was the failure of the Church to act early that led to the need for violence later.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Great quote cliffdweller. And well said.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I, along with those who believe in Just War theory, don't believe that violence is always bad. Certainly I don't think it was wrong for St. Michael and the other archangels to battle Lucifer when he was cast down from Heaven. And while I struggle with some aspects of what the Old Testament describes God as doing, I don't reject the idea that God specifically commanded the ancient Israelites to use violence at various times.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would be possible to question whether any of those were non-violent means of ending Nazi evils.
Yes. As I said, we can't prove a "what if". Bonhoeffer seemed to believe nonviolence would have worked if it had been engaged early on in the process, it was the failure of the Church to act early that led to the need for violence later.
I would certainly agree that small actions early are as effective as larger actions later (it's like a temporal lever). The difficulty is the foresight of knowing that something is needed. All sorts of things could have been done in the early 1930s that hindsight will tell us would have prevented the rise of national socialism, but for that to have happened the German people would have needed to see into the future - would anyone in 1930 have thought that little Austrian corporal would lead the country into a new war and arrange the systematic murder of millions?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Bonhoeffer seemed to think the German Church was negligent in not seeing the warning signs earlier and speaking out vs. Hitler's use of the "German Christian" rhetoric and the rising anti-Semitism. I'm not sure if he explicitly addressed the wider Church and their culpability (for example, in closing borders to Jewish refugees) but certainly they have their share of blame as well.
But "what if?" they had-- we don't know. Wink makes a strong argument it would have made a difference. We don't know.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Non-violent resistance to evil is never wrong.
Discuss.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool
Apprentice
# 18359
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Non-violent resistance to evil is never wrong.
Discuss.
I would say that it is wrong not to defend people from evil provided that you have the capacity to do so and the defence is proportionate.
Sometimes that defence may require violent means. To stand by and watch rape and murder when you have the capacity to stop it is in its self evil.
Posts: 16 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Wink would agree that it is evil and cowardly to do nothing in the face of evil, but would say there is always a creative non-violent option-- it is our blindness caused by our devotion to the myth of redemptive violence that keeps us from seeing that. Bonhoeffer, otoh, seems to be saying there is always a non-violent option at some point in time, but if we delay long enough we may be forced to violence because we didn't stop the evil when we could have. But it is always an ethically compromised choice.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
I would certainly agree that small actions early are as effective as larger actions later (it's like a temporal lever). The difficulty is the foresight of knowing that something is needed. All sorts of things could have been done in the early 1930s that hindsight will tell us would have prevented the rise of national socialism, but for that to have happened the German people would have needed to see into the future - would anyone in 1930 have thought that little Austrian corporal would lead the country into a new war and arrange the systematic murder of millions?
Stepping to the larger picture, poor treatment begets resentment and hardship gives fertile ground to extremist response is a lesson taught long before this and one ignored still. Not being able to predict a particular person is not an excuse for missing a well-worn pattern.
We create the situations in which "violence must be met with violence". And we need to stop.
[ 03. April 2015, 16:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We create the situations in which "violence must be met with violence". And we need to stop.
A very appropriate comment for Good Friday.
The man on the cross would approve.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Completely agreed Fool. To stand by in those or any such circumstances is to be complicit. I walked through the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum yesterday. Christianity's darkest hour among many. The Jewish women raped on the streets of Lvov, WERE RAPED BY CHRISTIANS. My head reels with the images still. Nothing new and guttingly, castratingly new. We could have stopped it. I'm convinced, with perfect hindsight, that if everyone who called themselves Christian had been, the total war of WW2 could have been prevented. Now we know. Now we are without excuse.
But the Western churches in the very main will not declare peace against IS. Because we've been complicit, passive in the conditions that make it what it is.
Violence is ALWAYS a sign that we've failed to act. That we've stood by.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Now we know? Iraq and Afghanistan are very peaceful because now we know.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have considered this question most of my life.
I recall specifically formulating my first major response to violence to other boys at my boarding school, with the resolve to get up about 5:00 a.m. and leave my room to avoid having to punch those who came searching for newboys to hit after wake-up. The game was to hold you down and 3 or 5 of them to take turns punching your upper arm, in their hope to get tears and calls for mercy, which of course was fuel for their evil little fires. There are interesting and oddly intimate conversations between the tormenters and tormented, an unholy evil shared between perpetrator and victim in a shared, disordered scene.
This, like your earlier post about the innere Schweinhund and violence, is somehow much closer to the reality of violence as actually experienced than the neat and somewhat stereotyped cases we usually like to consider in ethics class. That oddly intimate relationship between tormentors and tormented is possibly the real payoff for violent actions, at least some kinds of violence.
What I'm understanding from this is that imperfect people like me could do a better job of avoiding violence / violent action if they set themselves in order and dealt with their own innere Schweinhund. The log in my own eye, so to speak.
[ 03. April 2015, 20:06: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Grammatica, NPFISS... we must shine the light on such evil. At the time. Publically. TOGETHER before the 'authorities'.
lilBuddha. Couldn't agree more. But we hide behind the 'just' Second World War when it was no such thing. We - in the persons of the Pope and the ABC - say 'something must be done' about IS - and we don't mean love them.
There'll be somebody along in a minute to say 'yeah but'.
And accuse me of being self-righteous.
[ 03. April 2015, 21:21: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We - in the persons of the Pope and the ABC - say 'something must be done' about IS - and we don't mean love them.
How about not fueling their fire? Again I cry bullshit. We created the situation in which IS arose and we bloody well did it after we "learned" our lesson about WWII.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I weep with the weeping too lilBuddha.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Alan Cresswell: I would certainly agree that small actions early are as effective as larger actions later (it's like a temporal lever). The difficulty is the foresight of knowing that something is needed. All sorts of things could have been done in the early 1930s that hindsight will tell us would have prevented the rise of national socialism, but for that to have happened the German people would have needed to see into the future - would anyone in 1930 have thought that little Austrian corporal would lead the country into a new war and arrange the systematic murder of millions?
This question became especially urgent after Rwanda. When Rwanda happened, the international development community (including large organisations like Oxfam) said to itself: "Perhaps we should have seen this coming. Is there no way we could have predicted this?"
After this, a lot of work has gone into trying to formulate models that try to predict this kind of violence and suggest practical ways of prevention, both within NGOs as in the academic world. For example, I know that some universities in Belgium are working on this.
These models will never be a 100% fail-safe crystal ball of course — people are realistic enough to admit that — but I do believe that they have the potential to help us.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
