Violence, appropriately applied, is one of the great boons of civil society. While everyone should “give peace a chance,” peace should not be given unlimited chances. Those who say that “violence never solved anything” are quite simply wrong. Abominably, stupidly, profoundly wrong. What does nonviolence get you? A world where Hitler was unopposed. Where the genocide in Darfur continues until an entire people group is exterminated. A world where every non-Muslim, even pacifist hippies, pays the jizya and accepts second-class status, where homosexuals are killed, and women are subjugated. Sometimes just politely asking people to stop doesn’t work [gasp!]. And when it doesn’t, you have to have some alternative to force them to stop.
One of my favorite quotes is from C.S. Lewis in The Weight of Glory:
The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, or even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil. Nor am I greatly moved by the fact that many of the individuals we strike down in war are innocent. […] The question is whether war is the greatest evil in the world, so that any state of affairs which might result from submission is certainly preferable. And I do not see any really cogent arguments for that view.
Here’s yet another example of a problem that properly applied violence could easily solve.
h/t and thanks to the Reformed Chicks.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, Adam’s Blog, Maggie’s Notebook, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Rightlinx, Allie Is Wired, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein… has no mercy, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Overtaken by Events, Pirate’s Cove, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Oh, I get it. You’re coming from the Bill O’Reilly sect of Christianity.
Scan the line across the top of this blog, er the title, “Pursuing Holiness” and the entries along the right, i.e., “how’s that nonviolence working fer ya” and you’d think you have two different blogs — one Christian, and the other, well, I don’t know what to call it, but it is definitely not Christian if you go by the words of The Man himself as reported in the Holy Bible.
Nice montage of Katrina, though.
You’ll probably be happy to know that it is thinking like yours that is keeping displaced Katrina folks like myself away from from New Orleans — it’s how this thinking manifests in the city as a whole that I see as the problem.
It’s your blog, you put it out there, you asked for comments, so here’s one. Hope you’re open to it.
Actually, I’m not an O’Reilly fan. Furthermore, if you base your opinion on where to live based on blog content – extrapolating that citywide – well, that’s your problem, not mine. Haven’t you noticed that the local and state leadership is primarily Democratic, not Republican? Katrina certainly didn’t change it. Try San Francisco if political uniformity is your criteria when choosing a place to live. Certainly liberals far outnumber conservatives there, and the local laws and policies reflect that.
My opinion on the use of violence is based on the extensive use of violence in the bible to right wrongs. Not just in the old testament, but in the new as well, in the actions of “The Man.” This is also supported by a long, long line of great Christian thinkers, from St. Augustine right down to C.S. Lewis.
Personally, I’m not happy about your apparent decision not to come back – I think political uniformity is bad. It increases partisanship and stifles honest and open debate. But you didn’t want that anyway, as evidenced by your decision to give your opinion that I’m not much of a Christian instead of arguing against my premise.