Perhaps when doing violence is the lesser of evils
it is permissable, but it is still nonetheless evil.
A world which constantly chooses the lesser of evils
winds up choosing an awful lot of evil.
I'm sure the Jewish priests who sought Jesus'
crucifiction thought their action of klling
Jesus was justified.
Saying that violence in and of itself produces good
is incredibly naive. The subject is immensely complex
and not reducible to simple nostrums.
From: Nancy Gish - Women's Studies [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ot Re: Martin Sheen's Peace Prayer
There are two separate issues I think. One's response to the
prayer is one thing, the possibility of violence doing good is
another. I think the very ancient and carefully thought-out concept
of "just war" is valid. I do not think Iraq fit the criteria in any way.
But in fact, all human society has acknowledged that violence in
defense of self or others can be valid. So unless one is going to
say that it is ok to look on while someone or many people are
murdered and do nothing, one is forced to grant that it is more
complex than a total rejection of violence. To do nothing in the
face of violence is itself a collusion in and support of violence, is it
On 17 Oct 2003, at 0:42, Gunnar Jauch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> am 16.10.2003 21:20 Uhr schrieb Tom Gray unter [log in to unmask]:
> > This prayer fails to recognize the legitimacy of
> > violence to produce virtuous outcomes.
> Dear Tom,
> there is NO such thing as the legitimacy of violence. And there never will
> Violence will invariably produce more violence and eventually lead to
> destruction. The road to hell.
> Your calling this prayer naive saddens me. Think again.