“Turn the Other Cheek” and the Violence of Shari (Christians strike back)

pontifications ^ | 02-21-06 | Alvin Kimel

[jecIIny]

See the link to the original website for some interesting comments.

[jecIIny]

Ping for your lists.

[jecIIny]

My comment from the original web site...

Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Christian tradition demands pacifism. We are not Quakers. There has always been a clear right to self defense. Self defense may be exercised by both individuals and society as a whole when threatened by unlawful violence. However, care must be taken not to confuse a justifiable exercise of force in self defense with simple revenge. The Government of Nigeria must be told in no uncertain terms to deal with the issue and protect religious minorities in the Moslem part of the country or the Christian part will be within their rights to take such measures as may be reasonably necessary to protect themselves from further aggression. If the government is unable or unwilling to maintain order in a religiously pluralistic society then Christians should consider the possibility of secession. They could form their own country and place strict limits on Moslem immigration into their “new” country.

This is not politically correct advice. But I think it’s time to start being blunt. One of the major problems is the unwillingness of liberal enlightened people in the west to recognize danger when it is approaching. I think Islamic immigration should be banned in Europe for at least ten years. Our own immigration laws are so restrictive already that it is not a major issue here. But in Europe and many other culturally Christian parts of the world there is a serious danger that they are going to be overwhelmed in an Islamic tidal wave. And their total inability to see Islam as something other than a benign religion is very frightening.

It reminds me of a story I once heard. There was an old man who walked into an Irish bar and ordered a drink. The bartender started to converse with the customer and the topic came up of ancestry. The old man said he was Jewish and his family had been wiped out by the Nazis. The Irish bartender sighed in sympathy and asked why the man’s family did not flee when the Nazis took over. The old man said they were an educated and cultured people. They could no believe anyone was capable of such evil. The bartender said his family knew that the Jews were going to be massacred almost as soon as Hitler took office. “How is that?” asked the old man in disbelief. He replied “Because Hitler said he would do it. And while my family was not educated or cultured, no Irishman has ever underestimated man’s capacity for evil. We know better from experience.”

Yes I am Irish, and I have nothing but very bad feelings about this.

[CobaltBlue]

It seems crazy to say that oneself would kill in the name of Christ.

It seems crazier to say that oneself would not kill to protect the ones one loves because they risk being killed in the name of Christ.

[FormerLib]

As the troops who chased the Jihadist scum out of Srebrenica learned, sometimes you have to kill the Muhammedans to stop them from killing.

[Redcloak]

This misunderstanding of the Lord's words is not unusual.

When He said "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well." (Mt 5:38-39), he was referring to insults; not lethal attacks. Think about exactly what He said: "whoever strikes you on the right cheek...". Picture such a blow being delivered. How is it that one can be struck on the right side of the face when the attacker is most often right handed? A punch, thrown with the right hand, would land on the left side of the face. A backhanded strike, however, would hit the right side of the face. When the desire is to insult someone, a backhanded strike is used. The Lord is not referring to an attempt to do physical injury.

Later, the Lord advises to the disciples to arm themselves, selling their cloaks if need be. "Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or traveler’s bag, or sandals, you didn't lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.” So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Then he told them, “It is enough.” (Lk 22:35-38) A sword is a lethal weapon. Clearly He is teaching us that a lethal attack (as opposed to a backhanded slap to the cheek) may be repelled with lethal force.

Christians are under no blanket obligation to be murdered. A particular Christian may be called to martyrdom, but that does not mean that all Christians are so called.

[Kolokotronis]

Ping

[livius]

This is a terrible situation, but one with which I think we Christians are going to become increasingly familiar in many other parts of the world. It's certainly good to have our response thought out in advance.

I think your points are absolutely right on target: Christians have a right to defend themselves and are not all called to be martyrs, but at the same time, this should stop simply with defense and not go into vengeance.

We are seeing a total failure of a government to protect its citizens, which is one of the universally acknowledged duties of a government. Granted, the government of Nigeria might be a little shaky in general, as governments go, but to some extent, I think we saw the French government take the same hands-off attitude when the Muslims were roiting over....what was it now? (Oh yes, two Muslim teenagers who had gotten electrocuted hiding in a power station ... makes sense to riot, no?) Granted, they weren't attacking Christians in particular at that moment, but they will be in the future. I think this means that Christians not only have to be prepared to defend themselves, but that they have to start demanding protection from their governments now. This means that we have to demand that civil society do its part, and not let the situation get to violence and vigilantism in the first place.

Sadly, a lot of existing governments are either on the side of the Muslims, or too scared of them to do anything to restrain them.

[.30Carbine]

O God our Father in Jesus Christ, through Your Powerful and Wise Holy Spirit grant grace to our persecuted brethren in Nigeria for this time of trial! Show them Your Way out, as You have promised to do, that with every temptation a way out will be provided: let them seek Your Way and do Your Will! Father, send help, The Helper, and many helpers to strengthen and encourage Your People in Nigeria, and cause even this to work together for the good of those who love You and are Called according to Your Purpose in Christ Jesus. Thy Kingdom Come. Let the Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdoms of Our God and Christ, for the nations are Your Inheritance, Yeshua, and all must bow the knee and confess that Thou Art Lord. Maranatha, Yeshua.

[The_Reader_David]

Turning the other cheek is for each of us, individually.

I have often pointed out that it is a blessing that except for the woman taken in adultery, we have no example from Our Lord of how to respond to violence toward another. Plainly Christians must imitate His example: diplomacy first.

But, if one can't talk down those intent on violence, how does the Christian respond?

Sometimes it is better to be a pacifist and permit evil, while not doing evil. Sometimes it is better to fight, yes, even to kill, though that is evil, to resist a greater evil.

This tension is plain in Orthodox tradition, which has never forbidden military service by the laity (once being in the legion didn't require pagan practices), but requires clergy in major orders to be pacifists; has services for blessing the arms of Orthodox laymen going to war and special versions of the trisagion prayers of mercy for Orthodox warriors, but prescribes penance for those who kill, even in a war sanctioned by duely constituted authorities, even by an Orthodox emperor.

[redgolum]

My wife and talked of this some time ago when remembering 911.

She said that she would start singing hymns and prepare to meet the Lord. I said I would not go quietly if there was a possibility of saving others.

As Christians, we do have a right to self defense. There is such a thing as just war. The hard part is that we often believe that violence is just more because of our own pride than reality.

[NYer]

An unidentified man walks near to a church that was burnt during violent protests yesterday at the city of Maiduguri, Nigeria, Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006. Thousands of Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches in northeastern Nigeria, killing at least 15 people, police and residents said.(AP Photo)

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Aquinasfan]

Are there limits to the dominical exhortation to turn the other cheek?

"Turn the other cheek" was an admonition to bear insults, not a call to pacifism. Then, as now, a slap in the face signfied an insult.

If Christ meant us to be pacifists, he wouldn't have commanded, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one (Luke 22:36)."

[Rytwyng]

Is there a ministry where we can donate guns to Nigerian churches? Sort of like the NRA's appeal in 1940 to donate guns for the British home guard?

[eleni121]

It appears that Nigeria's brave Christian community has not been sufficiently dhimmified as some others in the world have, in particular the Middle East.

The Lord Jesus' blessings and love to our Nigerian brohters and sisters.

[DTA]

>>>> Picture such a blow being delivered. How is it that one can be struck on the right side of the face when the attacker is most often right handed? A punch, thrown with the right hand, would land on the left side of the face. A backhanded strike, however, would hit the right side of the face. When the desire is to insult someone, a backhanded strike is used. The Lord is not referring to an attempt to do physical injury.<<<<<<<

At ancient times, only the right hand was used to beat servants.

"But whoever strikes you on the right cheek..." is a master beating the servant standing behind him, his right hand hitting the right cheek of the servant.

... turn the other to him as well." (Mt 5:38-39)

This means that if you have been beaten, turn around and face the opressor.

Protecting oneself with force is a Christian thing to do.

[AnAmericanMother]

Fighting bishops:

Odo of Bayeux (note the club to prevent the effusion of blood).

Leonidas Polk, C.S.A.

Anthony Bek, archbishop of Durham. He fought for Edward I, and even had his own army.

[Pyro7480]

But Leonidas Polk wasn't Catholic. ;-)

[AnAmericanMother]

WELL . . . he WOULD have been, if there had been any Catholics in central Tennessee at the time . . . it's a wonder there were any Episcopalians up there . . .< g >

. . . you know what they say, when the frontier went west, the Baptists walked, the Methodists rode horseback, the Presbyterians took the stagecoach . . . but the Episcopalians waited until they invented the Pullman car!

[Redcloak]

You're over analyzing this a bit. Right handed people strike most often with their right hands. Also, the principle "an eye for an eye" doesn't apply to a servant...

“If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

“If a man strikes the eye of his male servant or his female servant so that he destroys it, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his male servant or his female servant, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the tooth."

-Exodus 21:22-27

What's being referred to by the Lord is between two freemen and was regarded as an insult. The Lord is saying that we shouldn't return insults. He isn't saying that we should allow ourselves to be seriously injured or killed; a slap to the cheek doesn't do that.