How Do You Respond to Injustice and Evil?

[AR Husker Fan]

I like to try to be pacifist since an aggressive response seems like it'll only result in escalation or a deeper conviction on the part of the other guy that they're right. Which is the opposite of the desired effect.

It's for that very reason that I'm the opposite.

 

But some men just want to watch the world burn...

[walksalone]

If you try to harm those I regard as friends, my family, or myself, I will f*ck you up without compunction...

[StPaulHusker]

1. You witness a blatant, explicit and oppresive case of racism between two strangers.

 

 

1. Unless it became dangerous or violent, I would mind my business because they need to work it out.

 

 

 

Let's focus on this then. Your solution when confronted with racism is to let it happen how it will happen and not get involved. How is that beneficial? Just because it isn't violent doesn't mean it isn't extremely detrimental, to that person individually and to our culture. Or, asking a different way, if every single person responds in this way, how do we ever make progress in ridding the world of evils such as racism, oppression and genocide? If we take the pacifistic approach and refuse to get involved. I don't think anyone here doubts that these things still exist, even in our own immediate cultural contexts. So what do we do about them?

 

Doing nothing might help us all sleep better at night and not step on any toes, but is it not just turning a blind eye to injustices that are real and need to be addressed head on?

 

And if we do do something (doodoo....), what kind of action will yield results?

It's a difficult situation to answer to. Looking at JJ's scenario, I would have spoke up on that and immediately disassociated myself with the offenders. But if I hear 2 people yelling racial slurs at each other and it's not violent, and I don't know these people, I would not put myself into the situation. I'm not afraid of hurt feelings but I'm not stupid enough to get into a potentially harmful situation.

 

I hope that explains my statement better.

 

[Husker_x]

Great topic, Landlord.

 

I think most of us would struggle with violence/nonviolence in reaction to different events. The fact is most of the time violence begets violence, or as the Buddha put it, "To the conquerer comes a conquerer; to the slayer a slayer." That said, occasionally figures like Hitler appear in the world, and playing the pacifist is simply another way of enabling. There really isn't a one size fits all solution. If a conflict can be resolved without violence, that is usually the best option. But sometimes that's not an option.

[strigori]

Great topic, Landlord.

 

I think most of us would struggle with violence/nonviolence in reaction to different events. The fact is most of the time violence begets violence, or as the Buddha put it, "To the conquerer comes a conquerer; to the slayer a slayer." That said, occasionally figures like Hitler appear in the world, and playing the pacifist is simply another way of enabling. There really isn't a one size fits all solution. If a conflict can be resolved without violence, that is usually the best option. But sometimes that's not an option.

Good points. Some people can not be reasoned with, leaving violence as the only option. "Walk softly, but carry a big stick"

[NUance]

1. You witness a blatant, explicit and oppresive case of racism between two strangers.

 

 

1. Unless it became dangerous or violent, I would mind my business because they need to work it out.

 

 

 

Let's focus on this then. Your solution when confronted with racism is to let it happen how it will happen and not get involved. How is that beneficial? Just because it isn't violent doesn't mean it isn't extremely detrimental, to that person individually and to our culture. Or, asking a different way, if every single person responds in this way, how do we ever make progress in ridding the world of evils such as racism, oppression and genocide? If we take the pacifistic approach and refuse to get involved. I don't think anyone here doubts that these things still exist, even in our own immediate cultural contexts. So what do we do about them?

 

Doing nothing might help us all sleep better at night and not step on any toes, but is it not just turning a blind eye to injustices that are real and need to be addressed head on?

 

And if we do do something (doodoo....), what kind of action will yield results?

The person being wronged, they are supposed to turn the other cheek, right? But a third person witnessing the wrong is supposed to jump right into the fray? Intredasting.

[walksalone]

The only two reasons for me to even get involved in something where I don't have a vested interest is, if somebody's being picked on (bigger guy beating up a little guy or a bunch of guys beating up one guy) or a guy hitting a girl...

[BigRedBuster]

I tend to not be shy. When I see a wrong, I tend to speak up and get directly involved.

 

I absolutely HATE racism. Several times I have found myself in interesting situations because some friggen dip sh#t is clearly trying to make someone from another race feel uncomfortable or thinking they are superior. GOD that pisses me off.

 

Same holds true with sexism or when a man is mistreating/abusing a woman. I have found myself in the middle of abusive situations a number of times.

[Landlord]

The person being wronged, they are supposed to turn the other cheek, right? But a third person witnessing the wrong is supposed to jump right into the fray? Intredasting.

 

 

Interesting that you bring up turning the other cheek, NUance, as I was going to get there eventually.

 

For reference - "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matthew 5:39

 

So, in fact, Jesus is not instructing people to passively accept injustice. If we take a look at the historical cultural context of first century Israel, this passage shines in an entirely different light. In the illustration, the person has been struck on their right cheek, which is only possible either by an open left hand, or a backhand blow from the right hand. People in that world didn't use their left hand to strike people, as it was a custom to only use it for "unseemly" uses, and further, a backhand blow was the way that a superior would strike an inferior.

 

So the effect of Jesus teaching "turn the other cheek", isn't passive acceptance, but actually an assertive yet non-violent reaction that exposes injustice to the offender. If the peasant turns his other cheek to the superior, the only way for the superior to continue to beat him is by using an open hand, which would have meant treating and declaring the peasant as an equal.

[NUance]

The person being wronged, they are supposed to turn the other cheek, right? But a third person witnessing the wrong is supposed to jump right into the fray? Intredasting.

 

 

Interesting that you bring up turning the other cheek, NUance, as I was going to get there eventually.

 

For reference - "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matthew 5:39

 

So, in fact, Jesus is not instructing people to passively accept injustice. If we take a look at the historical cultural context of first century Israel, this passage shines in an entirely different light. In the illustration, the person has been struck on their right cheek, which is only possible either by an open left hand, or a backhand blow from the right hand. People in that world didn't use their left hand to strike people, as it was a custom to only use it for "unseemly" uses, and further, a backhand blow was the way that a superior would strike an inferior.

 

So the effect of Jesus teaching "turn the other cheek", isn't passive acceptance, but actually an assertive yet non-violent reaction that exposes injustice to the offender. If the peasant turns his other cheek to the superior, the only way for the superior to continue to beat him is by using an open hand, which would have meant treating and declaring the peasant as an equal.

Now that really is an intredasting, err, interesting interpretation. Seriously. I had not heard that explanation before. Nice.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

For reference - "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matthew 5:39

 

So, in fact, Jesus is not instructing people to passively accept injustice. If we take a look at the historical cultural context of first century Israel, this passage shines in an entirely different light. In the illustration, the person has been struck on their right cheek, which is only possible either by an open left hand, or a backhand blow from the right hand. People in that world didn't use their left hand to strike people, as it was a custom to only use it for "unseemly" uses, and further, a backhand blow was the way that a superior would strike an inferior.

 

So the effect of Jesus teaching "turn the other cheek", isn't passive acceptance, but actually an assertive yet non-violent reaction that exposes injustice to the offender. If the peasant turns his other cheek to the superior, the only way for the superior to continue to beat him is by using an open hand, which would have meant treating and declaring the peasant as an equal.

Not sure I buy all of that as any kind of universal explanation. Possibly in the limited context of master and servant. Outside of that context, letting someone strike you no matter front or back of hand or left or right side, is quite a stretch to be considered an "assertive" action.

 

So, what is your take on "Do not resist the one who is evil"?

[Landlord]

Not sure I buy all of that as any kind of universal explanation. Possibly in the limited context of master and servant. Outside of that context, letting someone strike you no matter front or back of hand or left or right side, is quite a stretch to be considered an "assertive" action.

 

So, what is your take on "Do not resist the one who is evil"?

 

 

It's my belief that, as a principle, Jesus is teaching a third means of response to injustice that can apply anywhere (while looking different, of course).

 

"Do not resist the one who is evil" means not to repay evil with evil. It's important to note that this is a teaching about justice, which is a blanket that covers all, and not about vengeance, which is centered on you the individual and your benefit. The difference is vast, because if you aren't concerned with justice you aren't concerned with what's inherently right but only concerned with what is right for you. We ought not to repay evil with evil because evil begets evil, which guess what? Begets evil.

 

Turning the other cheek is a specific illustration. It's not meant to teach that you should generally allow someone to strike you, but to teach that instead of repaying an evil deed with an equal retaliatory deed, that the best and just solution is to expose the evil deed for what it is.

 

The whole context of the sermon on the Mount is Jesus preaching to those who are poor and meek, being victims of injustice. Turning the other cheek when hit would force the superior to acknowledge you as an equal and shed light on the injustice of the system if he wanted to continue to hurt you. The next illustration is being sued for a tunic. That was commonplace to sue for non-payment of debt, and for the poor a tunic was often a blanket without anything else worn underneath sans essentially a lioncloth. So Jesus teaches if someone sues you for your tunic, give him your cloak as well. Because it would expose you as naked. It would expose what the system is doing to you; what they are doing to you. And viewing a naked person was considered to bring shame on a person. Lastly, Roman law said that soldiers could force civilians to carry their gear for one mile but strictly one mile and no further. So Jesus teaches to carry it for two, forcing the solider to risk getting in serious trouble, or be shamed trying to wrestle his stuff back from you.

 

They appear to be mild and passive teachings but they're actually tremendously creative and potent ways of protesting and exposing injustice and evil without actually doing evil. Because, just thinking logically, if you retaliate to evil and think it right, then you too are evil and deserve retaliation. So in your response to a man threatening your child, if you do whatever it takes to prevent that (I think you said even if it includes a lead pipe to the head) and thinks that he is right to do so, then it stands to reason that he should also think the person he is attacking is right to do whatever it takes to attack him as well.

[BigRedBuster]

"Do not resist the one who is evil" means not to repay evil with evil. It's important to note that this is a teaching about justice, which is a blanket that covers all, and not about vengeance, which is centered on you the individual and your benefit. The difference is vast, because if you aren't concerned with justice you aren't concerned with what's inherently right but only concerned with what is right for you. We ought not to repay evil with evil because evil begets evil, which guess what? Begets evil.

 

I'm not following you on this. The quote and your interpretation doesn't seem to go together. More specifically I'm talking about the parts I colored.

[Landlord]

"Do not resist the one who is evil" means not to repay evil with evil. It's important to note that this is a teaching about justice, which is a blanket that covers all, and not about vengeance, which is centered on you the individual and your benefit. The difference is vast, because if you aren't concerned with justice you aren't concerned with what's inherently right but only concerned with what is right for you. We ought not to repay evil with evil because evil begets evil, which guess what? Begets evil.

 

I'm not following you on this. The quote and your interpretation doesn't seem to go together. More specifically I'm talking about the parts I colored.

 

 

I'll refer you to John Calvin on this one:

 

39. Do not resist evil. There are two ways of resisting: the one, by warding off injuries through inoffensive conduct; the other, by retaliation. 412 Though Christ does not permit his people to repel violence by violence, yet he does not forbid them to endeavor to avoid an unjust attack. The best interpreter of this passage that we can have is Paul, who enjoins us rather to “overcome evil by good” (Ro 12:21) than contend with evil-doers. 413 We must attend to the contrast between the vice and the correction of it. The present subject is retaliation. 414 To restrain his disciples from that kind of indulgence, he forbids them to render evil for evil. He afterwards extends the law of patience so far, that we are not only to bear patiently the injuries we have received, but to prepare for bearing fresh injuries. The amount of the whole admonition is, that believers should learn to forget the wrongs that have been done them, — that they should not, when injured, break out into hatred or ill-will, or wish to commit an injury on their part, — but that, the more the obstinacy and rage of wicked men was excited and inflamed, they should be the more fully disposed to exercise patience.

[Landlord]

come on guys i thought we had something real here