Harm

Violence is a subject that intrigues and troubles me just about every day. Maybe it's because I'm a father and read the newspaper every day. This is probably no surprise to anyone who reads this blog (all three of you).

I’m still really torn on the issue of using violence. So, how about an examination of both sides, however superficial it might be.

Firstly, the use of violence:

Violence may not always be unreasonable; but in order to formulate a reasonable response to atrocities we should try to figure out what is going on first and that includes understanding the other guy's side. Violence may indeed be an answer once we have ascertained the five w’s. The old saying, "to defeat your enemy you must first know him" applies here. For example, going to Afghanistan and bombing the heck out of the Taliban and hunting down bin Laden probably was a reasonable response after the events of Sept. 11. Going to Iraq was not.

Secondly, the use of non-violence:

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

I have used here only examples from the New Testament because it is the book I am most familiar with but I could have easily used the Old Testament, Qu’ran or Buddhist texts to come to similar sayings. And I believe that the writings on compassion, love and responsibility far outweigh the writings on calls to violent action in these very same books. Amen.