Well, what do you know…
Robbie at Urbangrounds.com thinks I am a sheep.
. . . And J.M. is a sheep. A classic sheep. He doesn’t or can’t admit that there are dangerous, violent people in this world who would kill him without so much as blinking.
He’s living in denial.
But at the same time, he can’t understand the need for brave warriors who are willing to do violence on his behalf to protect him and his family. In fact, in this post, he openly admits that he is not “a fan of the police”.
Of course he’s not. He’s a sheep. And they are sheepdogs.
I’ve known almost all of my life that I was a sheepdog. I come from a long line of sheepdogs.
. . . So, J.M, you go on grazing and striving for your “non-violent revolutionary change for peace and justice”. Just understand that when the wolf comes for you and your family, brave men and women will be nearby ready to kill that wolf for you.
Robbie makes a bunch of ridiculous assumptions about what I believe and don’t believe, but let me clear up a few of them…
First, non-violence doesn’t mean one just sits there and submits to injustice. The way of Jesus, the way of Dr. King, the way of Gahndi, are not ways of passivity, but rather of creative non-violent action. I’m not sure I’m creative or committed enough to confront much of the evil in this world, but I’m not going to immediately assume either that the alternative is violence.
Second, while I do think there are nutjobs out there, I don’t think most of the “terrorists” out there want to kill me or anyone else, but rather have been mislead to believe that it is necessary to commit acts of violence to achieve political or religious goals. They are no different than soldiers of other nations (including our own — let’s be frank, one nation’s terrorist is another nation’s freedom fighter), who have been mislead to believe that violence is necessary to achieve political goals. I think if one can reason with the “terrorists” (which is what our nation should be doing), we might find that we at least can sit together and talk about our problems and that maybe the “terrorists” won’t feel the need to commit acts of terrorism if their concerns are being heard.
Third, I never asked the police and the military to “defend” me. I know there are good folks in both institutions (some of the best folks I know are cops and servicemembers), but when it comes to the use of lethal force I wished they didn’t use it. And if I actually has some choice in the matter (which I don’t), I would ask that lethal force not be used to protect me at all. And for that matter, if I ever was killed by a murderer, I would ask that the prosecutor not seek the death penalty (I have communicated this desire to my family already). I, like my hero, Thoreau (who asked to not be considered a member of any organization that he never chose to join), never asked to be associated with our modern military/industrial complex and if I knew a way to be disentangled from it I would.
I’m not anti-police officers or anti-military servicemembers. I want to make this as clear as possible. The folks serving in these roles are following their consciences and I have to respect that. I am though anti-violent-institutions (such as the military). My hope and dream is that someday there will be no police and no military. I know it is pretty outlandish to even think that, but if we don’t dare to dream it, it will never be. I’m sick and tired of the conventional wisdom that human beings need violence as a means of control. I think love is a better means of governing communities.
And yes I know that this sounds like insanity to folks like Robbie, but that’s where I will argue that faith comes in. In the Bible, it says that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1, NRSV) Believing in the possibility of a peaceful and just world seems nuts even impossible, yet faith makes it possible to hope for it and to have a conviction to stand up for it.
Anyway I’ll get off my soapbox now. Thanks Robbie for making me think about these issues. I hope you’ll at least give my ideas a fair hearing.
“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest.” – Martin Luther King, Jr, Autobiography, Chapter 2
It kinds of astounds me that people would think that because you don’t believe in doing violence, that you think violence doesn’t exist. Yet of course this fallacy is expressed all the time, usually in anger (and with the seemingly requisite namecalling, as in this case). It is based on a whole lot of assumptions not only about pacifism, but about the nature of violence itself.
What the philosophy of nonviolence provides is an understanding of violence and its origins (personally and politically).
Most people don’t think about violence in any substantial way, they just react in kind when they feel fear (and accept the social constructs about it they were taught, thus allowing their government to commit violence on their behalf). This behavior has been shown, throughout recorded history, to be ineffective in stopping violence, and quite successful in perpetuating, even expanding it.
On a personal level, nonviolence training teaches one to recognize this reflex, and to begin to retrain oneself to think and respond differently. On a political level, nonviolence seeks a radical change in our policies and institutions in order that justice prevail, and thus most violence be stemmed. For individuals as well as states, this is a process, not overnight magic; no one said otherwise.
And it’s hard work that takes a level of courage that doesn’t get honored in our current value system. Peacemakers serve their country (and their world) too.
My only disagreement with James is that I do not believe that a commitment to nonviolence requires religious faith. Perhaps just “faith” in the human species to — eventually — learn, and belief that each individual’s political choices have a cumulative affect on human social institutions.
That’s a good point Rena, and truthfully I didn’t speak with enough clarity on this point because I don’t think that the religious kind faith is necessary for non-violence.
I was speaking about in the religous context because that is where I think Robbie is coming from, but I think that the faith required for non-violence could be simply faith in humanity or faith in something that is knowable in an intuitive rather than an empirical way.
But one could even go further and argue that the validity of non-violence can be understood in empirical ways too (i.e. studying the history of non-violent movements, testing out non-violent theory in actual crisis situations, etc.). I’m not as convinced though that the case is made for non-violence is this way, but know there are folks would argue that, such as my friend Bill Bryant who is involved with the United Nations Association. He tends to have a more optimistic view of human history, but he does raise a good point that the world in many ways is becoming less and less violent as time goes by when looked at from a macro level.