[lit-ideas] Re: 21. century European anti-Semitism
- From: "Michael Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:54:17 -0500
O. K. Jones wrote:
> However, the fact is that this policy was adopted at
> the time when violent rebellion would have had no
> chance of succeeding, and that it was changed later
> when political (and thus also military) power was
> acquired.
But the Quakers have managed to maintain a belief and practice in
uncompromising pacifisms. I think that's true, although I've heard it said
somewhere that the Quakers in Pennsylvania would hire non-Quakers to protect
them from Indians (kill them, that is) much as Renaissance Catholic rulers
hired Jews to do their banking. Is this true? Can anyone out there save me
from having to research this out myself -- you know I'll never do it, so
come on, spill the beans on the Quakers. In high school I would object to
the legitimacy of the authority of the Church on the grounds that the Church
had never ever measured up to its beliefs. "Truth is not dependent on the
behavior of its adherents," our priest-teachers would retort. Then what the
hell good is Truth I would scream (internally -- I didn't want to get
walloped upside the head for heresy). If religion can't deliver, let it
wither. But damn its roots run deep.
X. S. Probity
Proctor
Middleton Middle School
East Lansing, MI
I'm a Quaker without a God,
an alien without a pod,
a mason without a hod,
I'm Jesse without a rod,
I'm mod, baby, I'm mod.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omar Kusturica" <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:31 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: 21. century European anti-Semitism
>
> --- Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Omar Kusturica wrote:
> >
> > "The first-century Christians were only a community
> > in the making, and
> > lacked any mechanisms for organized self-defense,
> > which doesn't mean
> > that they had no need for it."
> >
> > In the first few centuries, Christians did indeed
> > defend themselves in
> > various ways but not through physical force. The
> > Church rejected any
> > use of the sword and up until the time of
> > Constantine refused active
> > soldiers from joining.
>
> I don't deny the fact that the early Christians had
> beliefs that accorded with the policy of non-violence.
> However, the fact is that this policy was adopted at
> the time when violent rebellion would have had no
> chance of succeeding, and that it was changed later
> when political (and thus also military) power was
> acquired. A similar example in modern times has been
> the Hindu national movement, which applied non-violent
> policies to achieve liberation from the British but
> went to war against Pakistan when independence was
> obtained.
>
> O.K.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
> http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
