Its sad to me that one of the greatest if not THE greatest proponents of non- violence in history was Jesus Christ and yet the modern voice of Christian non- violence is seriously marginalized and squelched by the more popular positions of “Christian” militarism. I have had a lot to say about both Christian non- violence and “Christian” militarism on this blog. If you are interested… just look around and you will find it.

Meanwhile, enjoy the article:

Part Five. By David McReynolds

Having tried to give some of the background of nonviolence - and I am just going to have to assume you have read the four earlier installments - how is it possible that unarmed people can hope to liberate themselves? First, there is no guarantee nonviolence will work in every case.

This puts nonviolence in precisely the same place as violence. No one picks up a gun to liberate their country - as the Vietnamese did - with a guarantee of victory. History is a bleak record of countless valiant battles for justice - ending in defeat. One case worth mentioning was the struggle in South Africa led by Gandhi’s son, Manilal Gandhi, in the 1950’s in an effort to force a change in policy by the regime. The struggle ended in violence and defeat. In our own country there are thousands of cases where oppressed people have tried to deal with injustice peacefully and have lost.

The first instinct of every sane person is to find a “safe” way to resolve a conflict. The closer you are to a serious conflict - racial, labor, human rights - the more aware you become that people who are already hurting would prefer not to get hurt still more. So a peaceful - nonviolent - solution is almost always the first way chosen. People turn to violence when they feel the oppressor “only understands violence.” As this is being written there is a tragic situation unfolding in Kosovo, where a long and remarkably nonviolent struggle by the Albanian ethnic majority (about 90% of the population of Kosovo, which is a province under Serbian control in former Yugoslavia) is turning violent because a handful of courageous, angry young Albanians started killing Serbian police, the Serbs in turn have killed a number of them, and hopes for a nonviolent resolution may be fading as both sides in this conflict take the position “they only understand violence.”

SOCIAL DISLOCATION

Pacifists try to create conditions under which the opponent is “free to try different behavior”. There are three examples that can be used (and a lot more waiting for the history student, all the way from Finland to Cambodia). One is India. A second is the Montgomery Bus Boycott which began the Civil Rights Revolution in this country. The third is the Farm Workers under Chavez.

CREATING NEW REALITIES

Mahatma Gandhi did two things which were crucial to victory. The first was to give the Indians a pride in themselves, a sense that they were not weaker than the British. (It is common when you are in an oppressed group to feel that perhaps the reason you are oppressed is because you deserve it - the old pattern of self- hatred or a lack of self-respect common to the oppressed, whether black, gay, women, etc.). When Gandhi led the famous Salt March to the sea (to protest the British tax on salt). This simple act - so simple it would have made the British look foolish to try to stop it - let all of India see this man with a handful of followers walk from his “Ashram” across India to the sea. With every step he took all India began to feel a new pride. When he reached the sea and began the process of collecting the salt (which could be had at low tide when the salty sea water had evaporated and left deposits of “raw salt”), he was arrested and jailed. But not before some of his followers had begun to send the collected salt across India where it was auctioned for money for the Congress Party.

At every auction new arrests were made until thousands were in jail. A foreign correspondent talking to a high caste Indian asked if he didn’t find it embarrassing that someone of his social standing faced prison, to which he responded “Oh no, all the best people are in prison.” That was the first step - an open, public defiance of the law. A proof that Gandhi and his followers were not afraid of the British prisons.

The second step - both in this campaign and in the many others Gandhi led - was to create such disorder that the British were forced to negotiate. One of the actions Gandhi urged on his followers was the weaving of their own cloth, so that they would not depend on the British for imported cotton. (Up to that point the British bought the Indian cotton at a low price, then milled it and made garments in England, which were sold back to the Indians at a much higher price).

THE SPINNING WHEEL AND REVOLUTION

For Gandhi, it was important to have a “Constructive Program” which would involve all Indians in the movement. His use of the spinning wheel was a symbol of “self reliance”. Gradually the British mills began to face bankruptcy as their exports to India fell. As we will see in looking at the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Gandhi was creating a new reality, was “changing the political facts” so that the British either had to engage in massive violent repression, or negotiate. There were many ways in which Gandhi created such facts - massive sitdowns in front of trains, general strikes, the famous “passive resistance” which so fascinated the West in the 1930’s. Here was a little man in a loin cloth, unarmed, and yet able to bring the British Empire in India to a standstill. He could, simply by issuing the call, stop trains from running. (There is an interesting, little known bit of history from the early Bolshevik Revolution, when the Revolution was saved not by force of arms - in the early days after October 25 the Bolsheviks had no armed forces - but by a “battle of the trains”. The White Russians were trying to move their troops to Petrograd, the center of the Revolution, but because the Bolsheviks had the support of the workers running the railroads, the trains carrying the White Russian troops kept having mysterious delays, or were shunted down the wrong tracks. Hannah Arendt documents similar actions by the Italians when, late in World War II, Hitler tried to deport all the Jews from Italy to make sure they were killed - he had lost confidence in the Italians to do the job properly. It was, again, a battle of trains, with the Jews never arriving at the same place as the Nazi transport. (It would have been funny - if the whole event had not been so horribly tragic).

MONTGOMERY 1955

When the Montgomery Bus Boycott began in December of 1955 it seemed hopeless, but it was all the black community could risk. They had no support from the Federal government at that point, and they faced the armed force of the local (and state) police. No one had successfully defied the white power structure in the South - resistance was suicidal. But the black community felt the police would have a hard time coping with something as simple as … NOT riding the bus. What could the police do if people chose to walk instead of ride? And in Montgomery that winter, and that spring, black folks walked. They walked if they were young, they walked if they were old. They walked if they were tired and they walked if they were sick. If they couldn’t walk, the Montgomery Improvement Association arranged for some transport by car.

At first the whites laughed. They weren’t threatened by black people walking!! But King and his co-workers were creating new facts. One of the first facts was that blacks were learning that, even if they were still afraid, they could act. Every step they took was seen as a step forward to a new goal. One of the white women asked her maid, who was arriving at work by walking a great distance, if she weren’t tired to which the maid said “my feet are tired, but my soul is rested”. A change began to occur within the white community, similar to the change Gandhi had been able to achieve in the British community - people who had looked on the Indians or the blacks as barely human, suddenly saw them emerge as people with dignity. With each passing day, the white community grew more restless and uneasy. No bullets had been fired by King’s people. Yet the community in the heart of the capital of the Confederacy sensed something was changing forever. One of the changes was that the bus company said it was losing so much money it would have to go bankrupt - and this meant that no one, black or white, would have public transportation. Faced with this fact, the white community negotiated a a settlement. Long weeks after it had begun, blacks and whites were no longer segregated on the buses. Glenn Smiley (an old friend and mentor, who ran the Fellowship of Recon-ciliation office in Los Angeles when I was a student at UCLA), was the first white man to board the buses arm in arm with Dr. King, as they sat together on a day of victory.

FARMWORKERS AND CHAVEZ

In 1962 Cesar Chavez, himself a migrant worker, began organizing largely Mexican farm workers in California. As with Gandhi and King, Chavez was struggling with the sense of defeat the farm workers had. Migratory, many unable to speak English and illiterate in Spanish, some illegal aliens, the Mexican community in California was considered impossible to organize - a source of cheap, compliant labor. Chavez did what the powerful AFL-CIO had failed to do - he gave the farm workers a sense of dignity and showed them it was possible to struggle and win. At great cost, and against the prejudice of the police and the public, he made the grape boycott into such a powerful symbol that he forced the growers to the bargaining table. In the face of beatings and shootings, he responded with fasts, boycotts, and peaceful marches.

THE KEY IS SOCIAL DISLOCATION

This will have to go to a sixth and perhaps seventh “chapter”, so I will close this “why it works” by emphasizing that nonviolence succeeds because through organized disruption of the existing social structure (sit downs, sit ins, boycotts, etc.) the old order cannot continue to function. It must choose between violent repression and negotiation. Nonviolence doesn’t work because it appeals to the “best in the enemy”, (though it certainly always does make that appeal). It works because the “enemy” is not only treated as a brother or sister, but also because our tactics absorb the pain and suffering even as we create social disorder so great that something must yield. By behaving, always, with dignity we compel our opponent to see us in new ways, making it hard for him to use violence (though violence will be used — nonviolent social changes does not mean no violence — it means we will not use violence but it is certain it will be used against us).

And it works because it changes how the oppressed think of themselves — it gives them pride and confidence. And nonviolence empowers the whole community — it can be used by old and young, weak and strong, professors and those still illiterate. This is in contrast to armed struggle which is usually limited to the young and healthy.

NEXT: PART6: The Basic Rules of Nonviolence

“If we remember that we must try to be honest, and act with courage, we won’t do things in the dark which we wouldn’t do by day. We won’t do things we aren’t willing to be caught doing. Again, there are paradoxes - does this mean that there are times when we might not act in secret?.. Yes, and I’ve tried to stress that there are always contradictions.”

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Debate this with others on the Nonviolence.Org Board

David McReynolds was a long-time staffperson for the War Resisters League. He writes: “There is not a single original idea in this material. Some of the ideas may be new to you, or may be arranged in ways that seem novel. They lack the power to kill, but contain the power to change. Read with caution. They have not been approved by any government authority. You are free to reprint, giving the source.”

Sphere: Related Content

posted in Christ, God, Love, The Art of War, War, christian, discipleship, faith, forgiveness, non-violence, pacifism, peace, peacemaking, reconciliation, theology | 0 Comments

14th October 2007

Philosophy of Nonviolence: But… what about Hitler?

Here is a brilliant article that I found at Nonviolence.org

Its sad to me that one of the greatest if not THE greatest proponents of non- violence in history was Jesus Christ and yet the modern voice of Christian non- violence is seriously marginalized and squelched by the more popular positions of “Christian” militarism. I have had a lot to say about both Christian non- violence and “Christian” militarism on this blog. If you are interested… just look around and you will find it.

Meanwhile, enjoy the article:

Philosophy of Nonviolence: Yes, But What About Hitler?
Part Four. By David McReynolds

At some point all pacifists face this classic question, stated in many different ways. “Yes, but what about Hitler” can also be “Yes, but what about Arafat … Netanyahu … Criminals … Fascists … Racists … Serbs … Croatians … Muslims”.

At first glance nothing is stranger than the notion that a people without weapons could take defeat an occupying force (India), or an oppressive and unjust racial structure (the U.S.). But then some dismiss these triumphs by saying the same tactics wouldn’t work against Hitler - that “nonviolence really needs a humane, Christian, decent, democratic opponent … such as the white Southerner or the British … or it won’t work”.

Part of the problem here is myth. There was very little “nice” about the British. I will come back to that in a moment. But first there is a “terrible truth” we all have to face, whether we are pacifists or the most dedicated of violent terrorists - not all battles can be won. There are times when nothing will work. (This does not mean we shouldn’t try - we never know when the tide of history is about the change). Racism was not less evil in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955 when the Montgomery Bus Boycott began than in 1915. Nor was this the first resistance. Blacks had risked their lives and lost their lives during their entire “American experience”.
SOMETIMES NOTHING WILL SUCCEED

In South Africa, decades ago there had been nonviolent campaigns led by Gandhi’s son, Manilal - they failed. So far - let’s be blunt - we have failed in this country at the task of “turning America around”. In some ways our job is harder than Gandhi’s - the Indians knew they were militarily weak compared to the British and were willing to examine alternatives, while Americans think they are strong because of the weapons they possess - and are reluctant to consider alternatives.

But back to the British and those “nice Christian Southerners”. The British were imperial rulers, repressive, violent when necessary, and if there were paradoxes to their rule in India, they were less from some decency inherent in British Imperialism than from self interest. The tropical climate of India did not attract large numbers of English. To rule the vastness of India, the colonizers relied on “natives” trained to manage the courts, police, transportation, postal services, etc. From a Marxist point of view there were contradictions built in. The British trained the Indians in the skills of running India. But the result was to create precisely that educated elite which led the independence movement.

Gandhi studied for the law in London, went on to South Africa, one of the many lawyers, and civil servants the British had trained to run their Empire. There was nothing about the English that was uniquely nicer than the Germans. Germany was the most civilized nation in Europe in the 1930’s. Hitler was a monster, yes, but not an alien. Second, because the Holocaust was documented, and happened in the midst of Europe (and because “our side” won) we know a great deal about it - and may think it was unique. Unhappily it was not. Records of the slave trade suggest far higher numbers of Africans died during that trade, and the evidence of Belgian rule in the Congo is shocking - in a short period after the Belgians took over in the last century, they killed several million more Africans than the Germans did the Jews. Evil in human affairs is universal, the Nazis had no monopoly on it.
EVIL IN HUMAN AFFAIRS

Americans need to pay attention to our own history. I am not trying to downgrade the Holocaust. I hope WRL Locals take note of April 22nd, Yom HaShoah, and arrange an observance in your community. No pacifist should be in the business of arguing “my pain is greater than your pain”. But we are charged to be honest about what we ourselves, or our nation, has been complicit in. The pain of 400 years of slavery is of the same level of evil as the Holocaust. In reading a New York Times Magazine piece about the Vietnam War (8.10.97), the figure accepted for Vietnamese deaths was 3.6 million. Their sole crime was defending their nation against a foreign invader - us. (As the Times noted, that many dead is equivalent, on the basis of the relative populations, to 27 million Americans). When someone says “pacifism is fine but it wouldn’t have worked against Hitler” they should consider that to the Vietnamese, Lyndon Johnson was Hitler, and to Black America Jim Crow was Hitler.

We will never know if nonviolence would have worked against Hitler (or if it might have worked against the Americans in Vietnam if the Vietnamese had chosen that method). The history of the Holocaust shows little resistance of any kind to Hitler from the Jews ( this is not surprising - they could not believe anything as terrible as the “final solution” was contemplated. Historically the Jews survived anti-Semitism by keeping a low profile). Some have said “The Jews were pacifists and look what it got them!” Sorry, they were passive - there is a world of difference. There is no way of knowing if active pacifism would have had any chance of working - we only know it was not tried. I remember the chilling deduction of Hannah Arendt in her book on Eichmann, in which she concluded it was the passive cooperation of the Jews of Europe with the Nazis which helped make the Holocaust possible. If you think about this for a moment it is, unhappily, true. To track down, arrest, transport and kill six million people who are resisting - even by not showing up when ordered, would, at the very least, have caused massive public disorder. (Nothing is easier than saying “I would have resisted” - a cheap sentiment expressed by people who weren’t there. Documents show some resistance, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Violent or nonviolent, radicals honor resistance).
SOME ISOLATED VICTORIES AGAINST HITLER

But within Occupied Europe there were well documented victories for nonviolence. In Norway there was a successful teachers’ strike against being forced to teach Nazi ideology. In Denmark the opposition to the Nazis was led by the King, who said that if the Jews had to put on the “Yellow Star of David”, then he, the King, would be the first man in Denmark to put one on. When the Nazis moved to arrest the Danish Jews, members of the Gestapo leaked this news to the Danish authorities and in 48 hours virtually all the Jews in Denmark were gotten to safety in Sweden. In Bulgaria, which had no history of anti-Semitism, spontaneous civil resistance (including crowds sitting on train tracks) prevented the Nazis from shipping any Jews out of the country.
“THOSE NICE CHRISTIAN SOUTHERNERS”

Of all the places Americans thought resistance to Jim Crow would begin, Montgomery, Alabama, heart of the Confederacy , was the last. I remember a bus ride through the Deep South in 1951, coming back from my first trip to Europe (a pacifist youth conference in Denmark). Inspired by Bayard Rustin and the Journey of Reconciliation I took the Greyhound bus’s Southern route back from New York to Los Angeles. My challenges to Jim Crow were timid - I was alone and not very brave even in a crowd. But I had a good chance to see and feel what it was like to move through the Deep South in the early 1950’s. So much time has now passed - nearly a half century - that Alabama is as far removed from us as Nazi Germany. But the incredible mass opposition to racism began there, in the Deep South, where the greatest danger a civil rights worker faced was not from the Klan but from the Sheriff, where there was no appeal to law, where Blacks could not vote, where night was a time of terror, not rest. Don’t tell older Black Southerners about how safe nonviolence was then!

Nonviolence cannot win every struggle - there are defeats. This is no more reason to abandon nonviolence than the military would give up its weapons if it lost a battle. (Philosophic note: it every military struggle there is a winner and a loser, so half the time violence fails, and half the time it wins. But in nonviolent struggle the objective is not to have a victor but to change the situation itself - a radically different concept).
WHY DOES NONVIOLENCE WORK?

Having admitted our approach cannot win all battles, why does it work at all? Why did it work against the Nazis in Norway and Denmark, or against the power structure in the American South? Or against the British in India?

Let us concede that all human events have “plural explanations”. It takes nothing from the Vietnam Peace movement in our country to see that while our nonviolence was effective, so, too, was the pain of the body bags coming home as a result of the military struggle the Vietnamese waged against our troops. Let us concede that while the British in India weren’t terribly nice, Britain had a democratic society which permitted an anti-colonial politics to develop. Let us admit that the violence of Southern racists was limited by fear of federal intervention, due to strong Northern support for Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking farther back in history, to times before any “civil society”, there are two examples of movements which spread in the face of great oppression. Buddhism is a totally non- violent philosophy which, despite hardship and persecution, spread throughout Asia, finally subduing the Mongols, who had so savaged Europe and China. Christianity, which did not make an alliance with the State until three hundred years after the death of Jesus, became the dominant religious force in the West, triumphing over the total power of Roman Emperors.

Neither Christianity nor Buddhism was a philosophy of social change - that awaited the teachings of Gandhi in this century.

But the fact remains like a stubborn rock - both Western and Eastern civilization are founded on the basis of ideologies that were nonviolent, and which for some time in their early period faced extreme persecution. Thus, when Gandhi began “to experiment with truth” in this century, and see if nonviolence could be used to challenge social injustice, he was working on a foundation that was not entirely new. Nonviolence is older than the Christian era.

Next: the dynamics of why nonviolence works.

NEXT: PART5: Why Nonviolence Works

“Nonviolence doesn’t work because it appeals to the ‘best in the enemy,…’ but also because our tactics absorb the pain and suffering even as we create social disorder so great that something must yield.”

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Debate this with others on the Nonviolence.Org Board

David McReynolds was a long-time staffperson for the War Resisters League. He writes: “There is not a single original idea in this material. Some of the ideas may be new to you, or may be arranged in ways that seem novel. They lack the power to kill, but contain the power to change. Read with caution. They have not been approved by any government authority. You are free to reprint, giving the source.”

Sphere: Related Content

posted in Christ, God, Religion, The Art of War, christian, discipleship, faith, forgiveness, non-violence, pacifism, peace, peacemaking, theology | 0 Comments

12th October 2007

Iraq- ‘A nightmare with no end in sight’

This is why the theology of our world leaders is so important.

‘A nightmare with no end in sight’

Ex-commander of coalition forces in Iraq lambastes ‘failure of leadership’

By Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube

NBC News

SOURCE

ARLINGTON, Va. - A “failure of the national political leadership” is responsible for the “nightmare” of the Iraq war, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said Friday.

If some of America’s political leaders were in the military they would have been relieved or court-martialed long ago, Sanchez told a conference of military journalists.

“Neglect and incompetence” by the National Security Council has led to an intractable situation in Iraq, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq said.

Sanchez said that the NSC, Congress, the State Department and the national political leadership are all responsible for the “crisis in leadership.” He refused to identify specific individuals responsible for the failure, saying that he thought the media should be able to figure it out for themselves.

His comments appeared to be a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership in the Pentagon to oppose them. Such assessments — even by former Pentagon brass — are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign.

Sanchez said the war in Iraq is “a nightmare with no end in sight,” adding America has no choice but to continue fighting or the country will sink into chaos, which will spread throughout the Middle East. America will be there “for the foreseeable future,” he said.

‘A desperate attempt’
The so-called surge of troops in Iraq is “a desperate attempt by the administration,” and the best the U.S. can do at this point is to “stave off defeat,” Sanchez said.

Asked when he realized the war was on the skids, Sanchez said, “15 June 2003″ — the day he took over as commander of coalition forces.

The officers and military leadership involved in the planning for the war in Iraq suffered from “an absolute lack of moral courage to stand up and do what was right in terms of planning,” Sanchez said. “We allowed ourselves to believe we would be greeted as liberators,” he said.

Sanchez said that the decision to disband the Iraqi army disenfranchised 300,000 to 400,000 Iraqis and put them out on the streets, fueling the insurgency.

Asked whether he had an obligation as commander to speak up if he saw problems in the strategy for the war he said, “Of course.”

Sanchez was caught up in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and although he was cleared of any involvement, the scandal cost him a fourth star and he was forced to retire.

Asked whether he is happy with the investigation and prosecutions in the case, Sanchez answered sarcastically, “Is America happy with destroying the careers and the reputations of everyone in the military chain of command involved in Abu Ghraib?”

Sanchez also railed on the media during his speech, saying that many people covering the war have political agendas and little concern about collateral damage when their stories are wrong. These members of the media are doing “a tremendous disservice to America,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Sphere: Related Content

posted in God, Iraq, Military Industrial Complex, Religion, The Art of War, christian, democracy, discipleship, faith, ideology, just warfare, middle east, non-violence, politics, theology | 0 Comments

10th October 2007

The Torture Question Part 2

The torture issue is back in the news over the last few days. Once again, the mendacity of our government leadership is at issue.

Its simple really. True disciples of Christ cannot endorse or sign off on torture and/or deception (AKA as lying). Not long ago I saw an interview with a former CIA interrogator from the Vietnam era. He said that back then enemy combatants would go out of their way to surrender to the US because they pretty much knew that they would be treated well. He went on to say that what is going on today is not only a disgrace, but it gets our soldiers killed because when opposing combatants assume they will be torutred they will fight to the death. He added that information derived from torure is generally worthless. - S.S.

Now…. here is what the Bible says about dealing with enemies and conflict (pay special attention to the bold verses):

Romans 12
1I APPEAL to you therefore, brethren, and beg of you in view of [all] the mercies of God, to make a decisive dedication of your bodies [presenting all your members and faculties] as a living sacrifice, holy (devoted, consecrated) and well pleasing to God, which is your reasonable (rational, intelligent) service and spiritual worship.

2Do not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and its new attitude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].

3For by the grace (unmerited favor of God) given to me I warn everyone among you not to estimate and think of himself more highly than he ought [not to have an exaggerated opinion of his own importance], but to rate his ability with sober judgment, each according to the degree of faith apportioned by God to him.

4For as in one physical body we have many parts (organs, members) and all of these parts do not have the same function or use,

5So we, numerous as we are, are one body in Christ (the Messiah) and individually we are parts one of another [mutually dependent on one another].

6Having gifts (faculties, talents, qualities) that differ according to the grace given us, let us use them: [He whose gift is] prophecy, [let him prophesy] according to the proportion of his faith;

7[He whose gift is] practical service, let him give himself to serving; he who teaches, to his teaching;

8He who exhorts (encourages), to his exhortation; he who contributes, let him do it in simplicity and liberality; he who gives aid and superintends, with zeal and singleness of mind; he who does acts of mercy, with genuine cheerfulness and joyful eagerness.

9[Let your] love be sincere (a real thing); hate what is evil [loathe all ungodliness, turn in horror from wickedness], but hold fast to that which is good.

10Love one another with brotherly affection [as members of one family], giving precedence and showing honor to one another.

11Never lag in zeal and in earnest endeavor; be aglow and burning with the Spirit, serving the Lord.

12Rejoice and exult in hope; be steadfast and patient in suffering and tribulation; be constant in prayer.

13Contribute to the needs of God’s people [sharing in the necessities of the saints]; pursue the practice of hospitality.

14Bless those who persecute you [who are cruel in their attitude toward you]; bless and do not curse them.

15Rejoice with those who rejoice [sharing others' joy], and weep with those who weep [sharing others' grief].

16Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty (snobbish, high-minded, exclusive), but readily adjust yourself to [people, things] and give yourselves to humble tasks. Never overestimate yourself or be wise in your own conceits.(A)

17Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is honest and proper and noble [aiming to be above reproach] in the sight of everyone.(B)

18If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave the way open for [God's] wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay (requite), says the Lord.(C)

20But if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.(D)

21Do not let yourself be overcome by evil, but overcome (master) evil with good.

Cross references:

1. Romans 12:16 : Prov 3:7
2. Romans 12:17 : Prov 20:22
3. Romans 12:19 : Deut 32:35
4. Romans 12:20 : Prov 25:21,22

Sphere: Related Content

posted in God, Love, Religion, christian, democracy, ethics, faith, forgiveness, ideology, just warfare, middle east, morality, non-violence, politics, social comment, spiritual warfare, theology, video | 0 Comments

6th October 2007

The Torture Question

Yesterday, Bush said the program, which has sparked criticism over interrogation methods, was to ´better protect´ Americans.

See the PBS program HERE.

The torture issue is back in the news over the last few days. Once again, the mendacity of our government leadership is at issue.

Its simple really. True disciples of Christ cannot endorse or sign off on torture and/or deception (AKA as lying).

Not long ago I saw an interview with a former CIA interrogator from the Vietnam era. He said that back then enemy combatants would go out of their way to surrender to the US because they pretty much knew that they would be treated well. He went on to say that what is going on today is not only a disgrace, but it gets our soldiers killed because when opposing combatants assume they will be torutred they will fight to the death. He added that information derived from torure is generally worthless. - S.S.

Torture Still In Force in US

WASHINGTON, Oct 5–Former US attorney general Alberto Gonzales issued a secret document in 2005 authorizing use of painful interrogation techniques, a new report says.

The New York Times, citing unnamed officials, said the legal Justice Department document was circulated in 2005 — when Congress adopted a law banning cruel inhumane and degrading treatment.

At the same time, the Justice Department publicly had declared torture “abhorrent” and the Bush administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.

The legal document, approved by Gonzales, remains in effect, despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Gonzales resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino did not deny the existence of the document, but did not offer details.

However, White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend later said the program involved a team of fewer than 100 highly trained interrogators.

“We start with the least harsh measures first,” Townsend told CNN television. “It stops … if someone becomes cooperative.”

She said the White House was “baffled” by suggestions that if the US government didn’t use harsh interrogation tactics, Al-Qaeda would treat captured Americans better.

And she suggested the harsh interrogation techniques had support and understanding of the American public.

The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier, secret Justice document, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death.

But that controversial document was withdrawn in June 2004.

In a statement Thursday, the Center for Constitutional Rights urged attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey to end the policy if elected.

“Torture is illegal, immoral, and it doesn’t work. Detainee torture policies that produce faulty intelligence and exaggerated confessions result in innocent men being locked up,” the CCR said.