The ITT List
Saturday Dec 10, 2005 8:04 am
Why is it called violent extremism when “they” do it to us?
Frida Berrigan
December 9, 2005
In an interview with the BBC yesterday, the host asked me how we as
Christians could walk to visit the prisoners at Guantanamo, many of whom
had been picked up on battlefields throughout the world and were commited to
killing Christians.
He asked about Norman Kember, one of the men kidnapped by violent extremists.
He said Norman had been shown on British TV with an islamic symbol and
was about to be killed. The BBC man said he was accused of being a spy.
How can you walk for people like that? Are you walking for those people?
First, I responded that we still don't know who is being held in Guantanamo.
So many have not been charged with any crime. We have no idea if they are
guilty of killing Christians. We have not given them access to the rule
of law. Instead, the US government has created a modern Heart of Darkness, an island
of impunity in the midst of this beautiful country where the rule of law does not apply.
I continued, asking how can the world's sole superpower and a nation
that purports to bring "democracy" to the world so flagrantly disregarding
such a central pillar of democracy--the rule of law.
When he pressed me on Norman Kember, I said we are with him and he
would be with us. We are walking with Anne Montgomery, a 79 year old
nun who sets a mean pace, bus has also lived and worked in Iraq and
Palestine with Christian Peacemaker Teams.
Why is it called violent extremism when "they" do it to us? and called
justice when we do it to them?
When we hold ourselves above the law, when we create a whole new standard
for ourselves and that standard is violence and torture and impunity--
even in the name of the war on terrorism--what do we expect in return?
The response to violent extremism will be violent extremism.
It will perpetuate itself, feed and grow and intensify ad infinitum and
without rest until everyone is dead or has blood on their hands.
Unless someone says "no". And we are walking to be that "no". We are walking
because violent extremism ENDS with us. We are citizens of the empire,
but we are Christians first. And as Christians we reject the privileges
of empire--the money, the security, the violence.
And we walk through this beautiful countryside, disarmed, to visit the prisoners,
and to pray and fast and await the intercession of the holy spirit.
And then the gates of the prison will be thrown wide and we can begin
to imagine a true security based on humanity instead of violent extremism.
December 9, 2005
In an interview with the BBC yesterday, the host asked me how we as
Christians could walk to visit the prisoners at Guantanamo, many of whom
had been picked up on battlefields throughout the world and were commited to
killing Christians.
He asked about Norman Kember, one of the men kidnapped by violent extremists.
He said Norman had been shown on British TV with an islamic symbol and
was about to be killed. The BBC man said he was accused of being a spy.
How can you walk for people like that? Are you walking for those people?
First, I responded that we still don't know who is being held in Guantanamo.
So many have not been charged with any crime. We have no idea if they are
guilty of killing Christians. We have not given them access to the rule
of law. Instead, the US government has created a modern Heart of Darkness, an island
of impunity in the midst of this beautiful country where the rule of law does not apply.
I continued, asking how can the world's sole superpower and a nation
that purports to bring "democracy" to the world so flagrantly disregarding
such a central pillar of democracy--the rule of law.
When he pressed me on Norman Kember, I said we are with him and he
would be with us. We are walking with Anne Montgomery, a 79 year old
nun who sets a mean pace, bus has also lived and worked in Iraq and
Palestine with Christian Peacemaker Teams.
Why is it called violent extremism when "they" do it to us? and called
justice when we do it to them?
When we hold ourselves above the law, when we create a whole new standard
for ourselves and that standard is violence and torture and impunity--
even in the name of the war on terrorism--what do we expect in return?
The response to violent extremism will be violent extremism.
It will perpetuate itself, feed and grow and intensify ad infinitum and
without rest until everyone is dead or has blood on their hands.
Unless someone says "no". And we are walking to be that "no". We are walking
because violent extremism ENDS with us. We are citizens of the empire,
but we are Christians first. And as Christians we reject the privileges
of empire--the money, the security, the violence.
And we walk through this beautiful countryside, disarmed, to visit the prisoners,
and to pray and fast and await the intercession of the holy spirit.
And then the gates of the prison will be thrown wide and we can begin
to imagine a true security based on humanity instead of violent extremism.
20 comments ·
Please Login to Comment register a new account »
To participate in discussions, please register an account.
SAVE 53% OFF
Comments
There are those who don’t understand how Christians can oppose violence against those who are accused of killing Christians. Opposing violence has little to do with who the violence is being perpetrated against. Jesus made this very clear when he spoke about loving your enemies in Matthew 5:43-48.
Sure, there is no real difference between police who shoot and kill an innocent bystander while trying to arrest a murderer and the murderer him/herself. After all, they both killed someone!
By this logicm we should allow murderers to roam free, and turn the other cheek to them. After all, is this not the “Christian” thing to do? And if we were to attempt to apprehend them, we would risk the lives of other innocents. . .
Or maybe - just maybe - it matters that murderers pick and kill their innocent victims ON PURPOSE, while police try very hard not to kill innocents, but yet sometimes fail. Perhaps there is a subtle difference there, even if the results are the deaths of innocents?
Perhaps there are analogies elsewhere that might apply as well. . . ?
“midst of this beautiful country where the rule of law does not apply. “
Is this the same island that makes librarians polictical prisoners? While one may wish to march against the “injustices” of Gitmo, one might also wish to consider marching against the horribly repressive regime of Cuba as well. . .
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:39
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Matthew 26:52
For what reason was he named Never Despise? Because he paid respect to and commended everybody he saw, monks, nuns, men and women disciples; speaking thus, “I deeply revere you. Wherefore? Because you are walking in the bodhisattva way and are to become Buddhas.” That monk did not devote himself to reading and reciting the sutras, but only to paying respect, so that when he saw afar off a member of the four classes of disciples he would specially go and pay respect to them, saying, “I dare not slight you, because you are all to become Buddhas.” Amongst the four classes, there were those who, irritated and angry and low-minded, reviled and abused him, saying, “Where does this ignorant monk come from, who takes it on himself to say, ‘I do not slight you,’ and who predicts us as destined to become Buddhas? We need no such false predictions.” Thus he passed many years, constantly reviled but never irritated or angry, always saying, “You are to become Buddhas.” Whenever he spoke thus, they beat him with clubs, sticks, potsherds, or stones. But, while escaping to a distance, he stilled cried aloud, “I dare not slight you. You are all to become Buddhas.” And because he always spoke thus, the haughty monks, nuns, and their disciples dubbed him Never Despise.
Buddhism. Lotus Sutra 20
Those who beat you with fists,
Do not pay them in the same coin,
But go to their house and kiss their feet.
Sikhism. Adi Granth, Shalok, Farid
One should choose to be among the persecuted, rather than the persecutors.
Judaism. Talmud, Baba Kamma
Let there be no injury and no requital.
Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 32
Victory breeds hatred, for the defeated live in pain. Happily live the peaceful, giving up victory and defeat.
Buddhism. Dhammapada 201
I can not say I am so holy that I would turn the other cheek. If someone were to strike me, I would strike back. On the other hand, I would never strike someone first - right now.
I do believe that this Iraq situation and so-called “terrorist war” is wrong. Torture is wrong. Holding human beings without benefit of counsel or writ of habeus corpus is wrong.
However, if I were taken against my will, transported thousands of miles from my home while drugged and blindfolded and then placed in a prison for three or four years where I was mistreated emotionally and physically, I can guarantee you one thing for sure. If I wasn’t a terrorist when I was captured, I damn sure would be when I got out.
gar - you make some good points. One question: was the rule of Saddam, which resulted in 100’s of thousands of deaths, right or wrong? Were the sanctions that contributed to many of those deaths, many of which were women and children, right or wrong?
When choosing between two wrongs, how should one decide? In my view (obviously) doing nothing was wrong. Which leaves the question above. . .
But perhaps there was a “right” choice? If so, i am unaware of it to this day.
Hi Gar
Turning the other cheek doesn’t have to be holy .
It can simply be the better choice. I am practical enough to recognize the need to defend oneself in extreme circumstances.
But ... If someone struck you and did only a little harm would you ....
- strike back with greater harm
- strike back with equal harm
- strike back with lesser harm
- not strike back at all
????
How do you weigh the harm?
Don’t you think that you would be happier, in the long run, not striking back at all?
I, like you, think that the Iraq war is wrong.
I believe that torture and imprisonment without benefit of counsel or writ of habeus corpus is wrong too.
I believe that the war on terror is warmongering at it’s worst/best.
Hi Wolf
Can I answer your questions too?
Right or Wrong ??
Saddam killing people - wrong.
Sanctions killing people - wrong.
Need more
USA/Iraqi WAR killing people - wrong
Right Choice or Wrong Choice ?
By doing nothing , which you think is wrong apparently, you probably mean <b> not </i> killing people?
Not killing people would be the right choice .
David - when i address a post to someone, it is never meant to exclude any other posters from responding. I enjoy your posts, especially when we see things differently (i like to metaphorically squint my eyes/mind to try to see things from other points of view).
Anyway, i agree that killing is wrong. But when doing nothing leads to deaths, it seems wrong to me too. Iraq under sanctions was a pretty horrible place. . .
Anyway, i hope that Iraq will emerge a better country from the result of our intervention. I imagine we can all agree that that is a desirable outcome?
Wolf, Thanks.
Doing nothing may lead to deaths but doing something may lead to more deaths too.
Yes the sanctions were cruel. So discontinue the sanctions.
As for Iraq being a better country as a result of the American (and coalition toadys) please consider this :
How many people will suffer and/or die from the use of toxic nuclear waste used as bombs and bullets?
Depleted Uranium weapons are killers that keep on killing forever. They have turned Iraq (Afghanistan and Balkans too) into literal toxic nuclear waste dumps.
How is that desirable?
oops .. missing word ..
As for Iraq being a better country as a result of the American (and coalition toadys) intervention please consider ...
The American government keeps fearmongering about the possibility of terrorists possibly exploding a dirty bomb in an American city.
Depleted Uranium weapons are essentially dirty bombs.
The American military have used these toxic nuclear waste weapons extensively.
Who’s the terrorist now?
oops again .. and I see that I posted using another username by accident ..
posted by CuriousDave on 12-16-05 at 5:24 PM
Apologies for any confusion.
I have clicked the “remember my personal information” to avoid the error again.
Wolf why is every overreactive piece of new violence of abuse by the US Junta and its war machine, got to be conmpared to Police shooting people, accidentally or otherwise?
Has it never occurred to you that things can be sorted out without resorting to shooting people all the time?
Does it never occur to you that any justification for violence, goes both ways simultaneously?
You cannot justify any abuse of “Supposed” enemies of the USA, without also justifying at least equal treatment in return from them. That my friend os a simple law of nature, God is not refuting it either.
Only someone who had the false belief of extra entitlement could say otherwise.
Why does Rabbit know you will say otherwise?
You are an American Hubris Sheep, thats why.
It occurs to Rabbit that the Iranians should be allowed to kill the US president, without it being more than fair. The US owes them at least one president.
The Iraqis are owed at least 100,000 lives, before anyone should be calling them unreasonable too.
If not Wolf, why not?
The hard part to accept is that the Reagan administration helped Saddam in the make believe war with Iran while we helped him kill “his” own people, then Bush 1 went in and killed more people but didn’t kill Saddam and left hundreds of tons of spent DU floating radioactivity over the country poisoning for how many thousands of years, then the sanctions put in by Bush 1 and continued by Clinton (Bush 1/2) killed a hell of a lot of kids and women and old people, then Bush 2 has gone in and killed another huge amount of people and spread even more radioactive DU into the ground/water/air of that country. Viet Nam is still dealing with Agent Orange deformities in their children and not a peep is heard in this country about it. We, the US of A, are mass murderers. That is a very hard pill to swallow, isn’t it? Think about this.
We as a country have been wrong each and every time.
If you would assist leaders of people by way of the Tao,
you will oppose the use of armed force to overpower the world.
Those who use weapons will be harmed by them.
Where troops have camped only thorn bushes grow.
Bad harvests follow in the wake of a great army.
—The Tao Te Ching, Chapter 30
Weapons are ill-omened things.
Among gentle people the left side is the place of honour when at home,
but in war the right side is the place of honour.
Weapons are not proper instruments for gentle people;
they use them only when they have no other choice.
Peace and quiet are what they value.
They do not glory in victory.
to glorify it is to delight in the slaughter of people.
Those who delight in the slaughter of people will
never thrive among all that dwell under heaven.
The army that has killed people should be received with sorrow.
Conquerors should be received with the rites of mourning.
—The Tao Te Ching, Chapter 31
of course you’re right!
http://anzwers.org/free/greenday/American-Idiot.html
http://anzwers.org/free/greenday/Boulevard-Of-Broken-Dreams.html
http://anzwers.org/free/greenday/Holiday.html
http://anzwers.org/free/greenday/Jesus-Of-Suburbia.html
http://anzwers.org/free/greenday/Wake-Me-Up-When-September-Ends.html
——-