[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Turning cheeks (was Miami Herald)

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 Hazel410 at aol_com wrote:

> The "turn the other cheek" principle doesn't apply to battered countries
> any more than it does to battered women.

How far do you want to push that, though?  And who is more battered, after
the last 10, 20, 30 years of conflict between the United States and
certain Arab countries?  If "battered wives" is the metaphor of choice
here, then who do the terrorists represent -- the abusive husband, or the
battered wife who, a la _The Burning Bed_, finally gets revenge?

> As I understand it, it is meant for small and mostly inconsequential
> offenses, linked with the patient understanding that "we all make
> mistakes now and again"..

That's the common, convenient, and somewhat toothless version of it, yeah
-- but Jesus was speaking to an audience of devoutly religious, Middle
Eastern peasants who were oppressed by a western imperial power.

> The only proper way to deal with harmful, abusive people is to
> a) end/avoid/alter the situation that makes the abuse possible ASAP, and
> b) take sane, rational steps to acquire justice, if not on principle,
> simply to retain one's own very-important sense of security. 

I agree ... but if you were on the other side, and if you, as an Arab, saw
yourself as the battered spouse, and if you, as an Arab, realized that
there was pretty much nowhere to hide from the Americans and no way to
bring America to a rational sort of justice, what would you do?

> I only have second-hand knowledge of this, thank goodness, but from what
> I've seen, battered women will tell you that working within the law as
> it stands is not always the most effective means to those ends.

They probably get more support than battered men, though.  But that's a
whole *other* tangent ...

> As for Falwell/Robertson, they seem to have forgotten that one of Jesus'
> best friends was a former prostitute.  *sigh*

Um, who would *that* be?  If you're thinking of Mary Magdalene, there is
not one bit of evidence anywhere that she was ever sexually active, much
less that she was a former prostitute.

   Mary Magdalene has appealed enormously to people who have imagined all
   sorts of romantic things about her: she had been a prostitute, she was
   beautiful, she was in love with Jesus, she fled to France carrying his
   child. For all we know, on the basis of our sources [i.e. the gospels],
   she was eighty-six, childless, and keen to mother unkempt young men.

   -- E.P. Sanders, _The Historical Figure of Jesus_, London: Allen Lane /
   Penguin, 1993, pages 74-75.

> I don't recall Him standing back looking at those in pain and despair
> and pointing out that they brought it on themselves.

True ... but see Luke 13:1-5, and read it within the politically-charged
context of his times.

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups: References: