Non-Violence

One would get the impression that Christianity is the religion of hate given the wars the USA perpetrates on Moslem countries, and how both Catholics and protestants together have large, vocal contingents that call for ever more war.  We seem to have forgotten the lessons of Jesus, and as far as I can tell the last leader who was pro-peace was Martin Luther King.  And here is what he had to say:

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government

That was back in 1967.  King was dead shortly thereafter.  Perhaps that is why we have no such leader today.

We need to learn about nonviolence, and one of my top three authors working today, Mark Kurlansky has written a book, Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea.  Kurlansky opens the book with the observation that on the subject of non-violence, there is no word for it, not in any history or language.  You can read Kurlansky's views on this phenomenon, which are interesting, but it seems to me that the expected synonym for non-violence, peace, is inadequate since peace is an aspect of freedom, especially truth in freedom, and violence is concentrated force, unto its terminal conclusion.  Violence is always based in a lie, and exercised by force. Violence is so specific and limited that its opposite can be expressed only in abnegation: non-violence.

Most of Kurlansky's book are huge, generous, well written, and this book is short and well written, I suspect because the world has had so little experience with non-violence.  The protestors in Egypt are showing it can work (so far) as did the protestors bringing down the Soviet bloc.   The book is a fascinating and quick read, although I could quibble with some observations and analysis, I'd give this five stars.

The last page gave me a bit of a charge.  I am a CO (conscientious objector, different from a draft dodger), Vietnam era, govt certified (as if they would know)... and Kurlansky recounts the tale of a GI who change his mind about war, and applied for CO status.  They asked the lad if he would defend his family from a violent intruder.  He said yes, his application was denied.  See, they do not know.  Jesus defended the temple against violent intruders with force, yet He was nonviolent.  Righteous rejection of immediate and effective danger can be expected, a brace of hearty kicks for the mugger who knocked down an old lady, nothing more than you'd see at a rugby game.  It is qualitatively different to take a job where you train and wait to kill.  There is a difference between saying yes to violence, and saying no but being caught up in the moment.  One can reasonably be a conscientious objector, yet innocently take a life.  You just cannot agree to it. And certainly one cannot join the military, or in any way accept alternative government service.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post