Posted by finelinebob on August 20, 2006, at 22:43:55
[Disclaimer: I consider myself a Quaker. This may belong in Faith, but for many Quakers we pursue politics with religious fervor ;^)]
Edmund Burke is quoted as having said:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."I think he had no idea what "doing nothing" means. That quote is tossed in the face of pacifists and anti-war protestors as "just"ification for war, particularly our latest wars. Another quote the hawks like to toss at the doves is the "wimpiness" of the "turn the other cheek" doctrine. The full quote, from the Sermon on the Mount, is "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Most people are right handed. For another to strike you on the right cheek, they would have to back-hand slap you. In that day, such an action was meant to demean someone, to place them in a lower class of humanity than the aggressor. "Turning the other cheek" gave the aggressor 3 choices. A left-handed backslap, which carried grave implications for the aggressor's character; a right-handed open slap -- a challenge; or a right-handed punch, which forced the aggressor to accept you as an equal.
As such, turning the other cheek is a non-violent means of demanding respect or forcing the aggressor to back down.
As for doing nothing: Gandhi knew the value of actively doing nothing. So does the Dalai Lama. Gandhi succeeded with nowhere near the resources the US, NATO, and the sum of nations allied against Iraq have.
Perhaps Edmund Burke should have said:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do evil's bidding."So, am I just painting a (thorny) rosy picture of pacifism here, or do you think there were means of actively doing nothing that could have succeeded where turning to state-sanctioned murder has not?
poster:finelinebob
thread:678623
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060809/msgs/678623.html