Let's fire some gays!- Page 5

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 9/24/04 at 2:03pm

I don't know. I'm sure there are some non-violents who are very religious. I, however, don't have a problem with religious or non-religious thoughts...both serve a particular purpose, and I try to balance myself with both thoughts.

Posted: 9/24/04 at 2:09pm

touchme - very commendable. If the discussion is derived from true metaphysical inquiry (before the term got destroyed by consumerism) then I'm all over it. Dealing with the very real man-made incarnations of religion, however, leaves me a bit disinterested and frustrated at the same time.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/24/04 at 2:10pm

While the articles you linked were informative, they do create a rather bleak image of the use of nonviolent demonstrations. Only Buglaria was an actual peaceful victor against Hitler. Denmark was lucky that they were leaked information in advance. David McReynolds speaks quite a bit about the fact that "sometimes nothing works", when he could just as easily have said "sometimes pacifism doesn't work", yet he makes it sound like if pacifism doesn't work, then nothing will, which is obviously not true.

Gandhi said, "The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see and realize the injustice he is engaged in."

But there are some enemies, like Hitler, who never see it, which is why he could only be defeated through violence. It was the only language he understood.

Gandhi also said, "Non-violence does not mean making peace."

Which proves that peace does not breed peace. Non-violence is about faith that someone else will change their minds and do something good. But what if that doesn't work? For decades? Do you simply keep trying until your group is extinguished or rely on others for violence to save you? Sometimes violence works and sometimes it is necessary. It's not pretty, but then, truth is not always a pretty thing.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 9/24/04 at 2:20pm

David McReynolds speaks quite a bit about the fact that "sometimes nothing works", when he could just as easily have said "sometimes pacifism doesn't work", yet he makes it sound like if pacifism doesn't work, then nothing will, which is obviously not true.

No, I think you misunderstand. Did violence get Hitler out of power? Yes. But, did it create a number of other problems? Of course. We all know the myriad of problems caused from "ending" WWII. I think it just goes to show that non-violence may have taken longer to effect change, but if we're doing it for the good of all people now and in the future, then, it's not so much of a sacrifice. Especially when compared to the bleak outlook of war, war, and more war.

I understand where you're coming from with Hitler, but I think you miss the forrest for the trees on this one.

You are trying to disprove peace bredding peace by siting one person (well, not one, but...go along with it for a sec) who is peaceful and then saying, "How come there wasn't peace?" It takes more than one person to make peace on a large level....just like it takes more than one to make war (see Gene Sharp quote).

[robbiej]

Posted: 9/24/04 at 2:59pm

'but if we're doing it for the good of all people now and in the future'

Except, of course, for European Jews.

Non-violence may have taken longer?? Then the Final Solution would have been completely successful.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/24/04 at 3:03pm

"Except, of course, for European Jews."

Oh, please. Don't get me started. They're the worst of the lot.

Everybody knows it.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/24/04 at 3:11pm

down Matt_G! LOL.