-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"Turn the other cheek" is a psychological defense mechanism for an oppressed people who are ashamed that they cannot fight back against their oppressors without being destroyed. It is most definitely not applicable to a free society.
quote: the half-century leading up to this is fraught with mistakes on the part of our country.
And on everybody else's as well. No points awarded.
Sneakily smart of you to leave out the first half of the century, which included our entry into WWII, which I doubt you could justify as a 'mistake.' Why, pray tell, did you leave that out? Nothing's different between now and then.
Sneak attack, War. Sneak attack, War.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Well we all know the only GOOD wars are the Revolutionary War, World War II and the Star Wars Trilogy (pIV-VI).
By the last fifty years, i refer to the fact of our involvement in the middle east political arena, not all the mistakes any country has made as a whole.
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, but our involvement in the Middle East is due to two things:
1: Oil. Admittedly, a necessary evil, but the one thing which has enriched the countries of the Middle East more than anything else. I suppose that's gratitude for you. Osama's daddy made his fortune in construction... but there wouldn't have been any construction were it not from the influx of oil money from the West.
2: Our support of the state and continued existence of Israel, the issue of which grew out of WWII.
If anything, the mistakes which have created crises in the Middle East were made by the Imperial powers in that area (Which really didn't include the U.S.) during the preceeding years, when largely arbitrary lines were drawn rather than borders along ethnic or religious lines. (Which is why the Kurds have no 'homeland.')
I won't say that there were no mistakes made. Most certainly abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat rather than rebuilding it and insuring its frendliness was a HUGE mistake, but trying to lay all the blame at OUR feet is... foolish, at best, because people are always responsible for their own actions.
Nobody made BinLaden do what he did. No one ever made that his only option. He has chosen what he has chosen, and he has thusly accepted all possible consequences. As has the Taliban. As has our government, and those who support us.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
quote: "Turn the other cheek" is a psychological defense mechanism for an oppressed people who are ashamed that they cannot fight back against their oppressors without being destroyed. It is most definitely not applicable to a free society.
Now that's a brand new low on your part, First.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
The Israelites were conquered by the Romans. At the time, the Romans had already mercilessly quashed several Jewish rebellions. Resistance, as it was, was futile. There were still pockets of rebellion (it is often believed that Judas and some others of the Apostles were involved in one of the rebellious factions, and followed Jesus because they hoped the Messiah would lead a successful rebellion), but nothing much could be done. Every rebellion was crushed, and with each new one, the Romans got nastier. The Jewish people were in danger of being crushed into nothingness.
Then some guy appears with a new idea: The unly way for the people to survive is for them to outwardly accept what the Romans do.
Resist not evil. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars. Rebel in your hearts, but not in your actions. He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Turn the other cheek. Leave militarism behind. This too, shall pass. etc.
The hope is, that when the people adopt this new idea, the Romans will once again relax their grip, as the Jews will no longer appear to be a threat. That eventually, the legions will go away, and the Jews, having endured, will live in peace.
Unsurprisingly, as people tend to prefer being alive to being dead, the concept catches on. A movement is born. It's not so very different from 'passive resistance,' but more suited to the times. (The Romans would probably have wiped out 'passive' resisters too.)
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
We look at the phrase "Turn the other check" in the context that First of Two described. There is another context, based in 1st century CE ideas and values. If you strike a man the way that is common, you are striking a slave. (This is how slaves were treated.) If you strike a man on the other check, you are striking a man who is free. The most basic and important concept to be gained from this phrase is the difference between a slave and a free person. This is how the disciples of Yehoshua bar Joseph most likely interpretated this teaching.
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Turning the other cheek mainly applies to day-to-day interactions. Notice how I've started ignoring Jeff most of the time when he says dumb things? If someone starts a fight with you, get up and leave. Peace is always the preferred state. But sometimes, peace is impossible to achieve.
Sure, Bush could go for the Christian approach, but that would a) risk the lives of millions of non-Christians, which would be unconsionable, and b) be an imposition of his religious beliefs on the rest of the country. He's a good man in a bad situation. As I say, you must take the path of least evil.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
quote:Notice how I've started ignoring Jeff most of the time when he says dumb things?
You also ignore people when they catch you lying. You imply you didn't call Canada socialist by using Sol's definition of socialist, MIB says you did in an AIM conversation, and you haven't touched the thread with a 10-foot pole since. Here's a link to the thread. Page two. Go, prove me wrong.
Then again, we've also got this thread, where you never responded to Jay's question on the top of the 2nd page.
Actually, I think Jay said it best "... your diversions and evasions cast a color of illegitimacy over much of what you write."
G'day.
[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
posted
I was having a much more enjoyable time in this argument BEFORE Judeo-Christianity came up.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Obviously, someone needs to retake their junior high reading course or something to improve their reading comprehension (IDIC and TSN). I'm not trying to resort ot ad hominem attacks, but c'mon guys, at least TRY to quote me correctly. At least TRY to make an honest effort. You can do that, can't you?
I stated, and I quote, "Enough questioning whether we are acting morally and justly. War has little room for those facets, but if its possible to fight a war for moral and just reasons, and morally and justly, then we are doing just that..."
In other words, my position is that the USA is trying to use morality and justice in this war, although its often very hard to use such things in war. Despite that, we are dropping food to the Afghan refugees, which I mentioned, clearly indicative of an attempt to use morality toward the innocents. Instead, TSN responded with, "Morality and justice have no place in war," an invented quote which IDIC later used verbatim. Note the subtle change in meaning? Again, please at least TRY to quote properly. Even my sophomores can do that, and they're virtually illiterate Whole English victims.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
