Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Two views on nonviolent action

Published by

Matt Stone

2010-07-11

Following are two views on nonviolent action, the first negative, the second positive. Both leaders were contemporaries of one another, speaking on the same issue. Before clicking through to discover ‘the who’, please consider ‘the what’ and where you yourself stand.

“The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one’s adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.” – Mystery Man 1

“…nonviolent resistance is not a method of cowardice. It does resist. It is not a method of stagnant passivity and deadening complacency. The nonviolent resister is just as opposed to the evil that he is standing against as the violent resister but he resists without violence. This method is nonaggressive physically but strongly aggressive spiritually.” – Mystery Man 2

Tags Peace

3 responses to “Two views on nonviolent action”

emily

2010-07-12

I am drawn to the message of the second quote. The idea of overcoming evil with peace is appealing, and what I believe the Christian faith is based on: forgiveness and love of enemies.
However, I’ll admit that is my idealist side. My cynical side doesn’t like the first one, but agrees with it, at least in part. If I were ever to see a person whose life was in danger and the only way to save them involved the use of violence, I’m not sure I could justify witholding violence.
I would never celebrate the use of violence as good, but I also don’t think I could celebrate the use of non-violence when it is another person’s life on the line.
(unless I’ve completly missed the point here)

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-07-13

Emily, consider how American history may have played out if Mystery Man 1, the pragmatist, had won out over the Mystery Man 2, the idealist?. It would be a very different America today. The irony is, the ideas of the idealist were practically implemented whereas the ideas of the pragmatist were not.

LikeLike

Reply
emily

2010-07-17

This is why I’m think I’ve missed your original point… because I am not talking about political movements but individual situations.
My point is less about whether nonviolence is a workable solution and more about whether I can reasonably stick to a strict view of nonviolence if it meant that someone else would suffer. Essentially, would be really be moral of me to unflinchingly stick to a nonviolent position at the expense of someone else.
But then I know that the sort of situation that I’m thinking of isn’t one that would happen often– if ever– in someone’s life and I want to be clear that I don’t intend to bring it up to say that pacifism is not workable in real life. Rather, I’m just trying to work through the implications to my own life that would come with a committment to pacifist ideals. How strictly can (or should) one hold to a position of nonviolence? It’s more of a rhetorical question than a personal criticism of the pacifist position.

LikeLike

Reply