Dear List,
re Ric's reaction to 'hammer home... that violence is wrong', alright
there's a basic tension between 'hammer' and '(non)violence' that
sets the quills bristling. But deeper lies our uncertainty about
exactly what the word 'violence' means. Does it mean 'undue physcial
coercion in any context'? or is it 'force of which I disapprove
because it is directed by the wrong people to the wrong end'? Hence
the 'violence' of a criminal, the 'necessary measures to contain and
control' by a policeman, and the 'heroism' of a soldier or a
revolutionary provided they are on the winning side. It
sometimes seems that the military want a monopoly on violence
that puts civilians everywhere at risk. This is by no means an
argument for the DIY brand, just another lament over the ways of
words.
On Kosovo, now, we have had any number of well-meaning words, but I
still do not see what makes this particular set of Christians on the
rampage different from any other set of Christians on the rampage.
Should we be sending in troops or lions?
yours concernedly,
Bill
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|