Posted on 01/18/2008 8:45:26 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
In a 1938 essay, Mohandas ("Mahatma") Gandhi, the spiritual and political leader of the Indian independence movement, counseled Jews in Nazi Germany to neither flee nor resist, but rather offer themselves up to be killed by their enemies, since their "suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy."
When all hope is lost, a Jew about to be killed al Kiddush HaShem - as a Jewish martyr - is indeed to reach for serenity, even happiness, at the opportunity to give up his life because of who he is. When Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, the great Lithuanian Jewish religious leader and scholar, was murdered by Hitler's henchmen in 1941, he reportedly told the students about to be killed with him:
"In Heaven it appears that they deem us to be righteous because our bodies have been chosen to atone for the Jewish people.... In this way, we will save the lives of our brethren overseas.... We are now fulfilling the greatest commandment.... The very fire that consumes our bodies will one day rebuild the Jewish people."
But Jewish martyrdom is not something to be courted. And so, Mr. Gandhi's advice for Jews during the Holocaust was, even if consonant with his personal beliefs, from Judaism's point of view, profoundly wrong.
And Gandhi's advice was even more disturbing in light of his admission, in that same essay, that the "cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me." Jews, he said, should "make... their home where they are born." It is, moreover, he went on, "inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs."
Apples, they say, don't fall far from trees. A rotten one fell with a loud splat recently over at the Washington Post. On a weblog - "On Faith" - sponsored by that paper in conjunction with Newsweek magazine, Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mohandas and co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence at the University of Rochester, opined that "the Jews today" are intent on making Germans feel guilty for the Holocaust (which he chose to spell with a lower-case "h") and that they insist that "the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews."
"The world did feel sorry," he reminded his readers, "for the episode." But "when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger."
Ah, yes, that unpleasant "episode," more than 60 years ago. And those Jews still can't bring themselves to forgive the Nazis.
Like his grandfather was, Mr. Gandhi petit-fils is also concerned with Israel. Addressing those who defend the Jewish State's security barrier and use of weapons to fight terrorism, he challenged: "[Y]ou believe that you can create a snake pit - with many deadly snakes in it - and expect to live in the pit secure and alive?"
And so, the man of peace, grandson of the same, reached the conclusion that actions like Israel's "created a culture of violence, and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."
Interesting. Although his own concern about Jews was not exactly their militarism, Mr. Hitler similarly saw them as jeopardizing humanity's survival. Well, whatever.
Grandson Gandhi subsequently apologized for his "poorly worded post." In the course of his apology he even took care to capitalize "Holocaust." But his apology itself, unfortunately, consisted solely of his regret at having implied that "the policies of the Israeli government are reflective of the views of all Jewish people." Many Jews, he explained, "are as concerned as I am by the use of violence for state purposes...."
Well, thank you, Mr. Gandhi. But no thanks. I cannot speak for all of the Jewish people, of course, but for my part, I must decline your apology. Not because I bear you any grudge or ill will, and certainly not because I am hard-hearted. I don't think I have ever rejected an apology in my life, until now.
It's not because I am blinded by some ethnic rage over the unpleasantness of that World War II episode. And not because I am a knee-jerk defender of Israel in whatever her leaders decide to do; I am not.
No, I reject your apology simply because you seem to have missed the entire point of why your original post was so offensive - frankly, revolting. It is astounding that you still don't seem to realize your insult and error. They lie in where you directed your words.
You are welcome to criticize Israeli decisions, even the wisdom of Israel's establishment itself, if you agree with your grandfather's views. But if your ultimate concerns are, in fact, peace and humanity's survival, then in a world where Jews are regularly attacked simply for being Jews, and Israelis simply for being Israelis, where Jewish tombstones are defaced and broken, where Arab countries will not permit Israelis to enter their borders, and Arab textbooks teach children to hate Jews as a matter of religious and cultural obligation, where a United Nations routinely ignores murder, mayhem and unspeakable cruelty in scores of countries, but just as routinely condemns Israel for defending herself, the primary focus of your ire should have been not those living in the snake pit; but rather, the snakes themselves.
That's today's pacifists. Ghandi did do the dirty work. Of course he had the advantage of working against the relatively civilized British, and had a whole country that respected him. In the case of his last fast, he had a country afraid of being his collective murderers, so they relented. He was naive in saying the Jews should just say "Go ahead, kill me" because he didn't realize the Nazis had no qualms about fulfilling that request. But I do believe he'd have been the first to say it.
I wonder if Ghandi really understood Nazism very well. While I am a big fan of Ghandi, I don’t quite understand this aspect of his comments.
I think however, if he were alive, he is a reasonable person and would support the war on terror and the removal of evil regimes. But also, he could have major flaws in his thinking in this area... hard to known. He otherwise was one of the all time greats of humanity.
Of course, since Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. Jesus would have looked on Ghandi as a sinner in need of a Savior.
Unfortunately, unless he had some sort of death-bed conversion, it appears Ghandi chose never to receive that which he needed so much.
Ghandi will enter into the Kingdom of God. The Lord judges, but there have been few righteous men ahead of him in the history of the earth.
He was chosen in his capacity as a leader prior to being born I’m sure(like Isaiah), and did great things for this world. He would have no problem accepting of Jesus Christ and being baptized. I’ll let the Lord make that decision.
Ya! How dare he hate an apartheid caste system that segregates 160 million people into social isolation, humiliation, and discrimination based exclusively on their birth status.
Who does he think he is challenging an ancient system where certain people may not cross the line dividing their part of the village from that occupied by higher castes, drink water from public wells, visit certain temples and who's children are often made to sit in the back of classrooms.
Some people just don't know their place!
/s
Well, yes, but Jesus would have approved of Ghandi's acceptance of his fate according to fate/God/the stars/whatever and not going to war against his enemies.
Without the basic decency of the English, Gandhi would have been murdered early on and never heard of today.
When did he ever direct violence? When did he ever rule anybody?
Are you saying that Jesus is always opposed to war? I think not. He is God, and God Himself sent Israel into war a number of times.
There are times when war is necessary. And fighting against the Nazis was one of those times.
In other words, Ghandi was wrong.
What is your basis for saying that?
He would have no problem accepting of Jesus Christ and being baptized.
There is no record of him having done that before he left this life, and there is no second chance. (As scripture says, it is appointed once for man to die, and then the judgment.)
Yes, Jesus was always opposed to war. Some believe that's what really torqued off Judas about Jesus. You can't go by the Old Testament, because Jesus brought about new rules. There aren't any examples of Jesus or the Apostles advocating war.
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." --John 18:36
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. --James 4:1-2
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. --John 14:27 (a message to people who had plenty of reason to be troubled, considering their circumstances in relation to how they were treated by the government)
Even the early church (and early Christians) knew this:
"Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword." --Tertullian
"[H]e who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God." --Clement of Alexandria
Christians and war only went together when Constantine I decided to change Christian theology to suit his power-grabbing needs.
Saying that war is Christian is to spit into the face of Jesus.
He is more righteous than most everyone that has walked the earth.. Christiam or non-Christian. He fruits of his life are beyond dispute.
Only a person devoid of charity(the pure love of Christ) would think someone like him would be denied entrance to the highest kingdom of God. That would be like denying a young baby that does also entrance. A person that thinks would be evil and pretty well detroys his own salvation by the mere thought of God being that injust.
If they are ruthless you only make them killing you easier.
Scripture says there is no one righteous, no not one.
Only a person devoid of charity(the pure love of Christ) would think someone like him would be denied entrance to the highest kingdom of God.
Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. Jesus also said we have to be born from above to see the Kingdom of God. Biblically speaking, nless Ghandi repented of his sin and received Jesus as Savior and Lord before he died, he is not in heaven.
Your arguments are completely unbiblical. You may believe whatever you wish, of course, but no Christian would adhere to what you are claiming.
Then you obviously do not believe Jesus to be God.
You can't go by the Old Testament, because Jesus brought about new rules.
Nope, He didn't. He clarified (and fulfilled) what is in the Old Testament for those who had ears to hear.
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." --John 18:36
So, I presume that you reject His teaching to feed the hungry? After all, His kingdom is not of this world, so what difference does it make if someone starves to death or is gassed in the concentration camp? Isn't that your claim?
I won't even bother addressing the remainder of the verses you posted. They are out of context, and you completely forget the passages such as where Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip, and where Jesus tells His disciples to buy a sword as there will be a time when they will need to use it.
Jesus is just not who you seem to want Him to be. But of course, you deny the very key to who He is - that He is God manifest in the flesh.
Pacifists are peace thieves, stealing the benefits of civilization without being willing to do any of the dirty work involved in maintaining a civil society. Worse, they have the nerve to look down on those 'rough men' who do that work.
Absent a civilization, these people would be dead or serfs.
Pacifists would be dead or enslaved without the rights that they steal from those they look down on.
Try this quote by George Orwell: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.