Tag: peace

  • Martin Luther King’s Nonviolence

    Nonviolence is a love-centered way of thinking, speaking, acting, and engaging that leads to personal, cultural and societal transformation.

    From The Center For Action and Contemplation:

    King’s Principles of Nonviolence

    Father Richard offers a summary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s principles of nonviolence:  

    1. Nonviolence is a way of strength and not a way for cowards. It is not a lack of power which allows us to be nonviolent, but in fact the discovery of a different kind of power. It is a choice, not a resignation; a spirituality, not just a tactic.  
    2. The goal of nonviolence is always winning the friendship and the understanding of the supposed opponent, not their humiliation or personal defeat. It must be done to eventually facilitate the process of reconciliation, and we ourselves must be willing to pay the price for that reconciliation. King based this on Jesus’ lifestyle and death and on Ephesians 2:13–22 and Romans 12:1–2.  
    3. The opponent must be seen not so much as an evil person, but as a symbol of a much greater systemic evil—of which they also are a victim! We must aim our efforts at that greater evil, which is harming all of us, rather than at the opponent.  
    4. There is a moral power in voluntarily suffering for the sake of others. Christians call it the “myth of redemptive suffering,” whereas almost all of history is based on the opposite, the “myth of redemptive violence.” The lie that almost everybody believes is that suffering can be stopped by increasing the opponent’s suffering. It works only in the short run. In the long run, that suffering is still out there and will somehow have to work its way out in the next generation or through the lives of the victims. A willingness to bear the pain has the power to transform and absorb the evil in the opponent, the nonviolent resister, and even the spectator. This is precisely what Jesus was doing on the cross. It changes all involved and at least forces the powers that be to “show their true colors” publicly. And yes, the nonviolent resister is also changed through the action. It is called resurrection or enlightenment.  
    5. This love ethic must be at the center of our whole life, or it cannot be effective or real in the crucial moments of conflict. We have to practice drawing our lives from this new source, in thought, word, emotion, and deed, every day, or we will never be prepared for the major confrontations or the surprise humiliations that will come our way.  
    6. Nonviolence relies on a kind of cosmic optimism which trusts that the universe/reality/God is finally and fully on the side of justice and truth. History does have a direction, meaning, and purpose. God/good is more fundamental than evil. Resurrection will have the final word, which is the very promise of the Jesus event. The eternal wind of the Spirit is with us. However, we should not be naïve; and we must understand that most people’s loyalties are with security, public image, and the comforts of the status quo. [1] 

    References:  
    [1] King’s language for these principles may be found online at “The King Philosophy – Nonviolence365,” The King Center 

  • Let’s Metaphorically B-Boy Battle In The Kitchen!

    Nice! Yer killin’ it! I dig your style!

    WAR

    I’ve always been a peaceful person, and I’ve always liked the concept of peace. Yet, at a certain point in mein kampf, I felt that mis-interpreters of the word/idea “peace” were doing wrongs in the name of peace. (See Zack de la Rocha’s – Killing In The Name). I got fed up and said, “I’ve rather have war, and fight for something I believe in, than the word/idea “peace” misinterpreted”.

    However, I have an updated, ethical, non-lethal definition of the name/idea of war (Thanks British! – language truly could be a great tool! Life gives you lemons… make (ethical) lemonade!).

    War, to me, as I’ve defined as being: worthwhile, ethical, progressive, valid, relevant, civilly and spiritually legal – according to the UN’s truest intentions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Law’s of Moses – specifically the Fifth “Thou shall not kill”.

    Let us define Kurveh Ein’s definition of “War” further:

    War are non-lethal competitions between “enemies”, such as sport competitions, where rules are already accepted requirements. Ethical and legal conduct where all HOMOSAPIENS, as defined by genetic composition… probably over 50 percent homo-sapien would have all human rights – as to the true intention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (yes, this includes everytwo, everyone, everythree, everyfour, everyfive, everysix, etc…). So, civil sports, competitions in every facet of …the spectrum of human behavior perhaps?

    My favorite war activity, though, would be culinary competitions between various state entities, countries, phenotypes?, “enemies”, etc…

    The culinary war would be each “opposition” preparing the finest culinary dishes and drinks representing the group’s “set” (flag/country/culture/ethnicity/locality/state/city…)… Perhaps serving this to your opposition or a neutral third party? Perhaps to impartial people who are not aware they are participating in war (*please consult a good Rabbi as to the ethics of this non-consensual activity)…

    This could be a way to annihilate incorrect overgeneralizations of groups, incorrect preconceived notions and ideas about the “opposition”, as well as an educational activity where the participants can learn about and achieve new positive associations to people who are different from yourself…

    War: -Ethical, non-violent, non-lethal, non-violating (respects personal boundaries / individual preferences, natural predispositions, localized civil laws, etc…) honest activities to learn about different cultures, perspectives, value systems, and points of view. Example: a meal at a “neutral” restaurant? Etc…

    Also, a note on the practical re-definitions and manifestations between timescales / visibilities / states of matter / spaces… *see below.

    The actual semantic ontological (universally non-violent, non-violating, non-lethal, legal) interpretations and manifestations (of wrongs / violence / violations / infringements) between cultures, states, houses, countries, neighbors, families, timescales, visibilities, states of matter, spaces, realities, etcetera, etcetera (all while respecting individuality and freewill…).

    Simple practical example: “Kill” / “murder” redefined as getting a (consensual) haircut and/or a (non-violating to all parties involved) spitting in a spittoon.

    That’s my kind of war! Now, where can I find some worthy enemies?