Jim Douglass and the Lightning Fire of Nonviolence

This is a long response to all the various postings in reaction to my earlier ones.

I think that in part there is some confusion regarding what was known by Jews and others during the time that the Nazis were engaging in genocide. The Jews cooperated with the authorities because they had no idea what was in store for them. There was anti-Jewish rhetoric, but very few people were aware of the extent to which this was taken in practice. Even though we know all about it now, it is still mind-boggling that the educated and otherwise civilized people who had risen to power in Germany came up with this idea to exterminate Jews, especially because of how elaborate and deceptive this program was.

Even though our technology allows for much better communication, we are still inclined to believe what we are told by official sources. It may not be the case that our government is exterminating the people it kidnaps and transports to other countries for torture, but that it happened without our knowledge, and still happens even though it is known, makes it not too different. And, do we really know what happens in Guantanamo or do we only know what we are told?

For that matter, what do we really know about the School of the Americas, now known as WHINSEC? Is it really effective to sit outside the entrance to WHINSEC at Fort Benning every year, or might it be more effective to use the tools of communication that we have today to investigate the situation and to convince people that something needs to change, if indeed it still does? (The government claims that it has corrected that which people found so objectionable.) It seems as if these demonstrations only serve to make the participants feel righteous about being non-violent.

Pat Claus states, "If only the Jews had been able to conceive of exactly what was about to happen to them, perhaps they could have organized and had enormous, mass protests that would have woken up the entire world and spurred them to help . . . I doubt that America could have remained as isolationist as it was at the time leading up to the war." This statement is a misinterpretation of the facts, but what I find interesting is this idea that the US should have done something. What might have been effective and non-military? Or is military force not considered violent, after all?

There are objections to my claiming that Christ’s purpose on earth was something other than simply to show us how to get along peacefully. I tend toward the metaphysical. My understanding of why Jesus was born relates to what happens to us after we die. He was executed, yes, but it was foretold. Some would argue that it was foretold because it was known, since for God there is no passage of time. I tend to believe it was foretold because it was planned.

I believe that God once expected and appreciated sacrifice from human beings of all kinds in all places, having once gone so far as to demand it from Abraham so that we would know to appreciate it when He did it for us. I believe God sets the terms of what is an acceptable sacrifice, and that by sacrificing His son for us He elevated us in relation to Himself so that we are no longer expected to offer sacrifices but only to be one with the sacrifice of Jesus for us.

It think, ultimately we are to become one with God which is Everything (good and bad, as defined in human terms), all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal and that life on this earth is just a small part of that process. I expect my life here to end in a question mark, and anticipate that what comes after will begin to answer that question.

Jesus’ presence here was not without additional purpose, however, His teachings were an improvement over the Hammurabi Code of an “eye for an eye”, which in itself was developed to prevent retribution in excess of the offense. The instruction to “turn the other cheek” was permission to not retaliate at all, which as we all know, often leads to a better result for ourselves as well as others, even though in theory it is felt to be a wimpy reaction. There is, after all, no punishment greater than the punishment a person who has wronged another inflicts upon himself while awaiting the punishment that never materializes. I suspect that as human beings become more familiar with this way of responding we will become further enlightened in our relationship with God.

The Catholic Church claims to be the Church established by Christ. The Sacrament of Reconciliation, by its existence, implies that there is a recognition that one not only makes mistakes, choosing the wrong path and then seeing the light, but also that sometimes the paths that are available are too rocky to allow for perfect choices and that these unavoidable bad choices also taint the soul.

Finally, my main concern is that pacifist activism tends to be so idealistic that people cannot put it into practice in anything but an interpersonal context. I believe that there is a place for the military in terms of defense that includes engaging in the violent act of doing battle. I tend to think that the absurd idea of being able to pre-empt war by attacking another country was able to take root because there has been no realistic pacifist position regarding the use of the military.

We might want to consider that not only do principles of nonviolence indicate that it is wrong to engage in pre-emptive war, but that the criteria that was put forth to justify this would even more readily justify other countries attacking ours—since we have an abundance of WMD’s, have used them in the past, and have a leader who boldly deploys the military. I think this would have become clear had there been debate on this, but because there is such a division between groups opposed to the military and those who support it, there was no common ground upon which pacifists could initiate dialogue.

I would certainly agree that “the best way we as followers of Jesus can hope to change the dynamics of violence in the world around us is to follow Jesus' example in the way we live our lives.” Based on my experience with people in our nation’s armed services, I would say that for the most part, despite the fact that they are in the midst of violence and engage in violence for that reason, they are this example to the people in those places in which they are called to serve. The message they all too often get from pacifist activities, however, is that their willingness to serve in the military is to blame for war.

I'm generally in agreement with everything said in the essay. However, and it's probably just something I'm misunderstanding or not seeing, but how is "napalm[ing] draft files" considered nonviolent?

Thank you.

Kerry Kleiber

I'm willing to take the blame because I also want the credit.

I would like to reflect on the approach recommended by Jim Douglass in the light of the experiences of the Jews during WWII. As far as I know, with the exception of the uprising of the ghetto in Warsaw, there was no violence whatsoever from the Jews against the Nazis. Did that response qualify as "non-violence" or was that the powerless suffering mentioned by Douglass? Clearly, the Jews' response did not move their oppressors to perceive them as human beings and make violence impossible, which according to Douglass is the main purpose of non-violence.

How can be non-violence be effectively implemented in a situation like that experienced by the Jews in WWII?

"Only the degree of violent force required to restore peace"? Is that what Jesus said? I must have missed that.

Obviously, it is very important to understand what drives people to do the things they do, and to have some sort of ongoing diplomatic dialogue with them.

The day this column was posted I saw for the second time the great "Frontline" documentary about the Tiananmen Square Massacre... it just seemed so apropos to these ideas. It was so striking that the only form of resistance that worked during those horrendous days was when the one man with the shopping bags stood in front of the tanks. He stopped the first one dead in its tracks and made it go around him. He then confronted it again and made it stop again before he was hauled away by friends.This kind of courage is what is needed again today.

Thomas Merton also had some very pointed insights about what society must do, which I just read in John Dear's book "Transfiguration": "There can be no question that unless war is abolished the world will remain constantly in a state of madness and desperation in which, because of the immense destructive power of modern weapons, the danger of catastrophe will be imminent and probable at every moment everywhere. Unless we set ourselves immediately to this task, both as individuals and in our political and religious groups, we tend by our very passivity and fatalism to cooperate with the destructive forces that are leading inexorably toward war." This was from an essay in The Catholic Worker from 1961.

Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

I think there needs to be a finer distinction made regarding violence. Obviously, from the examples given, confrontation is not considered violence even though it may incite some people to violence. On the other hand, using military force as an intervention when things are already violent seems to be condemned in the view of nonviolence that is usually espoused. I think a better practical result would come from denouncing aggression and advocating the use of only that degree of violent force required to restore peace. The most important thing though is to discern what is driving people to use either violent or nonviolent means of expressing themselves and to address those issues.