The toll taken

Honey, you're OK.

There's just not anything we can do with some of the people left in NO. Some of the folks I've seen on the tele are obviously mental health patients who haven't had their medication in a few days or illegal drug addicts who haven't had a supply in a few days either. They're under extraordinary stress when without drugs they can't handle regular stress.

I've seen a few, I'd just shoot, too. And I'm usually against even the death penalty. But we just don't have the time to mess with some of these evil crazy people in these circumstances. We can't send four big fellas to catch, strait-jacket and medicate each of these folks.

Watching the news with a health professional is fun. I have a friend that does on the spot diagnoses and prescriptions. If you try to watch the news using your best psychology, you can pick out which persons are normal persons under stress and which ones are druggies and crazies.

And I know some kids that are pretty good at picking out who needs a fix.

I guess I'm a pacifist, too, unless somebody messes with my mama or my daughter or breaks in front of me in the gas line. LOL

I guess I'm a pacifist, too, unless somebody messes with my mama or my daughter

See, to me that's not pacifism, it's just setting closer boundaries than most folks.

Apparently that's what I do too.

You are right. It's not pacifisim. That's why I added the LOL

I think the way my logic works is like this: I might let a crazy person kill me rather than kill them. But I wouldn't just stand there and let that happen to my mama or daughter. But, if one of them said, "Kathryn, I don't want to be accountable for a murder - just let them kill me." I'd stand back in a minute because I know that's right and because I believe in eternal life.

Let's just pray the words of Lord's prayer, "Deliver us from temptation" or some translations say, "Deliver us from evil." Then we may not have to be faced with these choices.

I like that solution. I will do that.

Boy, can I relate to that.

In that case, I'd love to hear some thoughts when you have the time. I know you were far more affected than I was by all this.

I appreciate you posting about this. I struggle with this too. There is so much sense to be made out of nonviolence. I know of at least two voices in my head, though, that won't entertain the concept. One voice comes from my shadow, I know. I know that true, deeply rooted nonviolence acknowledges our shadow side - which will always exist inside each of us - and simply posits that nonviolence is the only true way to overcome it. Then there's the part of me that sees that there's far more mentally disturbed people out there than any of us really recognizes, and that part is willing to kill to protect what I love. I know I have an aggressive side, too, and I'm willing to believe that aggression has been vital to my survival, and could be dealt with in healthy ways. I also know that many folks never really gain mental adulthood, and need to be "parented" in shall we say assertive ways, for the good of all of us.

I don't know. I cheer when the army of the good guys win in the movie. But I'm seriously impressed by a Christ that remained obedient to embodying divine love, and did not respond with violence... even while being sodomized, tortured and crucified. Beats me what the hell to do with that. I had an easier time with nonviolence, I think, before I really started to acknowledge the power of evil in the world.

But I don't beleive that just because we feel terror or rage in the midst of profound crisis, that these feelings are essentially our core, or are the deepest truths belying other beliefs of ours. I'm glad you're willing to own up to all that you felt, but don't forget that your ongoing craving for nonviolent solutions is just as real as the rage response.

Human beings need structure and community, never mind food and shelter and clothing. When that whole damn list is threatened, the fear can be blinding, as I suspect you see around you far more than I right now. The situation in New Orleans is not what happens when human beings are stripped down to their core. Its what happens when large groups of people are victimized, first by the weather, then by their own governemnt abandoning them.

You know, I've been reading comic books over the last few months. Right now it's Batman. You know I love Batman. I love this idea that someone can take all this power and use it against the forces of evil and I cheer for him even at his lowest.

So I know there's a part of me that's not purely non-violent, and I've always known this.

But to be so confronted with the visceral, instinctual drive to violence... it's quite jarring for someone who has based ethics on its opposite for so long.

But you know... they were victimized and abandoned... but that's no excuse to do what they did. Why should the government have to get involved just to get people to not fucking kill and rape one another? There's something deep coming into play there. I'm not saying that there is not good in people, but I do understand the idea of people being less-than-good by nature now.

Point of clarification: I guess I'm a pacifist, too, unless somebody messes with my mama or my daughter... are you labelling yourself not-a-pacifist because of the emotional response you had, or because you've made the choice not to value nonviolence as the best option in particular circumstances? I was assuming the former, and I don't think that's a fair statement to make... but you may be talking about the latter.

Why should the government have to get involved just to get people to not fucking kill and rape one another? You and I come at this issue from different perspectives, as I believe you are anarchist in political orientation (correct me if I'm wrong... or fill in with more info, since I don't know much about it). I'm... not anarchist, though I'm not sure what I'd be. One of those "democracy is the second worst form of government, right behind everything else that's ever been tried" type of folks. There has to be a governmental force making some people behave, because many, many people never grow up, never learn empathy, never learn impulse control, and human community needs authority figures and parental figures to do some ass-whooping sometimes. Holding this belief, I suppose, knocks me out of the pure nonviolent category, now that I think about it. I mentioned the violation that the refugees and other victims must be feeling not to excuse anything, but as a reminder not to fall into a trap of believing that human nature as seen in a chaotic situation is somehow more real, or more pure. Humans crave structure, internally and externally. Many don't have a strong enough internal structure (ego) to withstand such chaos without falling into antisocial or even psychotic behavior. It's true that humans do have terrible shadow sides. I prefer not to agree with the human depravity theologians, because they seem to suggest it is inevitable in our nature. I prefer to think of it as always a possibility...a possibility that tends to happen a lot, because we don't have our shit together enough yet to avoid failing most of the human population in developing their better potentials. May be six of one, half-dozen of another, but it's an important delineation for me.

that's completely understandable; some situations, by their very nature, don't give you the luxury of things like pacifism. when the order of civilization essentially collapses (in whatever way) and chaos and the jungle come rushing in to fill the void, things automatically revert to a survival-mode, predator-prey, "protect what's yours" type of situation. nothing wrong with that either, because no matter how civilized or enlightened we get (or think we get), we're still animals on some level too. when you and/or your family, children, and loved ones are directly in physical danger, and you feel that primal fear at the base of your spine, that's not the time to turn the other cheek and play Jesus, that's precisely the time when you DO prepare yourself to fight if necessary. don't forget that "to everything there is a season", and yes, that includes things like fear and rage and even violence. if someone broke into my house where my children were sleeping with the intent to cause harm, and he had a gun, and I had a gun as well, you'd better goddamn believe that only one of us would remain alive and that it WOULD NOT be him. there's no time or place for absrtract theological musings about human depravity, etc. in such circumstances - that's just common sense. Like the Kenny Rogers song 'Coward of the County' - "sometimes you gotta fight to be a man". It's very true.

that's not the time to turn the other cheek and play Jesus, that's precisely the time when you DO prepare yourself to fight if necessary.

The "other cheek" verse is traditionally interpreted incorrectly. Jesus was navigating the complicated (and to us, foreign) cultural norms of his day regarding who you can touch with which hand (equals or subordinates). When he said "turn the other cheek", it was one command among a larger list (walk another mile with the soldier's pack, give away your underwear when you are sued) to do something totally inappropriate culturally, that would draw attention to the injustice being done. Jesus was advocating getting oneself in some trouble, a more aggressive form of civil disobedience than we are used to talking about, in order to win one's battle. It is not a decision between following Jesus and standing up for oneself, or between following Jesus and fighting against evil. It's a question of strategy.

True. It's the immediately preceeding passage, as well as several in the writings of Paul and Peter, and elsewhere in the Gospels, that advocate absolute nonviolence.

The problem with the "you can't live in a luxury fantasy world like Jesus and just turn the other cheek" argument is that Jesus didn't live in a luxury fantasy world. When He said "you have heard it said 'an eye for an eye', but I say unto love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you" He did so in a world where people did take out an eye for an eye. Not only that, but He actually lived in a quite violent situation of imperialist oppression counteracted by zealous anti-imperial terrorism and the regular day-to-day banditry. He Himself was eventually murdered for His preaching.

Pacifism is often derided as vain, luxurious theological musing divorced from the reality of the world. When it comes right down to it, we're all going to be violently tribal, ethnocentric, "defenders of our family". That isn't realism per se. That's opperating from a certain set of values and a certain worldview. There are people, believe it or not, who when the chips are down would even be willing to kill their own family members to preserve their own lives. It would be stupid, to a person motivated by egocentrism, to sacrifice one's own life for the sake of a family member.

Pacifism isn't a theological luxury divorced from reality. It is being realistic when one's understanding of what reality is has increased. When the chips are down, a pacifist wouldn't kill an enemy for the same reason that an average person wouldn't kill a family member. It seems that the existential angst facing Gabe right now is figuring out where exactly on the continuum he is when the chips are down.

This discussion of family matters is part of what I suprizingly take as Paul's great wisdom in saying that it is best for a Christian not to marry and not to get tied down in familial obligations. It is just easier when one doesn't have to assume responsibility for a dependent.

Though granted we live in far different times where we no longer view a whole family as being in any one member's right to sacrifice... In the ancient world, men would frequently kill their entire family themselves than let some other evil happen to it. Now, you would be considered monsterous if you didn't contradict your own pacifist values by murdering anyone who would murder your children... and nothing less than murder is permitted. Notice how quick were are to say with pride that we would shoot to kill anyone who tried to lay a finger on our kids (or snicker about it like it's a joke). It's like the litmus test of real parenthood.

Anyways, I also suspect this is exactly the sort of debate that Jesus' admonitions against the family were directed towards. Are you going to follow Him and His way, or are you going to fall back on violently tribal, ethnocentric loyalties?

As for Gabe, I don't presume to tell you anything buddy. Only that you now know yourself and the issues facing you more clearly. What you choose to do with that is between you and God.

Being human isn't something you can simply turn off.

It is what we are.



*Just a wandering interested passerby*

Hey man, I know what you mean there.

I've mentioned this before I think, back in the deep past of the Enclave, but I was raised a pacifist. I was taught that violence is never a solution and should never be used for any reason.

While I think that it is an admirable sentiment, I don't think it's always the moral choice to be nonviolent. Defending your family, yourself, and the things you care about are a basic right. If you cannot defend them without violence, then sometimes your only choice is to fight.

I know that it is a jarring thing to be faced with (when I finally broke and fought back against an attacker it took me years to make peace with it) but I'm certain you are stronger than you are giving yourself credit for here. You aren't out there becoming part of the problem, you aren't going out of your way to hurt someone, you just want to defend your space, and I don't think that anyone has a leg to stand on if they try to tell you that's wrong.

May Mother Night watch you.