Dear Religious Right: Didn’t You Just Finish Telling Me You Believe in Violence Against Nazis?
I have a serious and honest question for my friends on the Religious Right, because what you told me recently has left me confused as to your actual position.
An American city saw terror descended upon it by a bunch of proud, white supremacist nazis– people who hold what most of us, whether liberal, conservative, or somewhere in-between, have long agreed is among the most vile and repulsive belief systems that a human being could hold. It didn’t shock me that the president deflected blame– these terrorists were literally wearing uniforms designed to look like him. They were part of his core base and how he became president in the first place. Neither did it surprise me that he tried to paint a picture of their being an “alt-left” who are somehow a moral equivalent to nazis, and equally to blame for the violence– violence that left protesters dead, not the nazis.
These nazis came out of the dark shadows of the internet; they shed their anonymous avatars, they came before us without even wearing white hoods to conceal their identities, and they literally ended up killing and injuring people. It was the natural result of a belief system founded upon hatred, and whose ultimate goal is dominating and eradicating other human beings who don’t have the right DNA.
All of us, from across the political spectrum, had once claimed to believe that white supremacist nazis represented an evil that cannot be ignored– until President Trump deflected blame for murder and violence away from them, and began to place it on those who had the courage to publicly stand up to these nazis.
It didn’t shock me that the president deflected blame– these terrorists were literally wearing uniforms designed to look like him. They were part of his core base and how he became president in the first place. Neither did it surprise me that he tried to paint a picture of there being an “alt-left” who are somehow a moral equivalent to nazis, and equally to blame for the violence– violence that left protesters dead, not the nazis.
But here’s what did surprise me: so many of you on the Religious Right jumped on this. As I publicly condemned and spoke against the murderous white supremacists, many of you quickly reiterated Trump’s talking point and pushed back on me, saying things like, “But aren’t you ignoring those who were willing to use violence against the nazis? They were wrong too, Benjamin.”
Every single time a right-wing commenter dismissed the fact that nazis actually killed and injured people in American streets, instead saying “Yes, but some of those people in the streets were willing to use violence to fight the nazis, so they’re both responsible for what happened,” it left me with a confused look on my face as I asked myself the following question:
“Didn’t you just finish telling me that you believe in violence against nazis?”
You see, if I am ultimately remembered for anything, I hope it will be for the work I’ve done around the issue of Christian nonviolence. I believe that Jesus not just invites us, but commands us to be people who love our enemies and who are unwilling to repay an eye for an eye or to stop evil by violent means. I see no place for violence in the life of a Jesus follower– as I read the words of Jesus, and look at the perfect life he modeled for us to emulate, I know of no other way. In fact, Jesus taught on this point more forcefully than any other issue, telling his followers that the commitment to love one’s enemies and not use violence against them, was an actual requirement of becoming sons and daughters of God (Matthew 5:45).
As I have written extensively on this over the years, it has been the American Religious Right who has pushed back on this most forcefully– the idea that Jesus forbids us to be violent is an abhorrent concept to them. Instead, I am consistently told that when evildoers are determined to harm others, it is actually our god-given responsibility to oppose them with violence in order to stop them.
And here’s where this all applies to the nonsense of there is “fault on both sides” between the nazis and the protesters recently:
It forces those on the Religious Right to do a full reversal from what they say to me every day.
You see, every time they push back on the doctrine of nonviolent enemy love, they quickly go to the same arguments. As they escalate the scenarios they believe proves my position of nonviolence wrong or foolish, they always (and I mean always) end up pulling out the same trump-card, as if it were the Mother of All Rebuttals as to why the way of nonviolence is wrong:
“Oh yeah!? Well what about the Nazis in World War II? Thank God the last generation knew that evil like this can only be stopped with violence.”
I’ve heard the argument a thousand times from a thousand people on the right, right up until recent events where Nazis marched through American streets, injuring and killing people. But then? Well, apparently they now think that opposing Nazis with violence makes one equally wrong.
So here’s my sincere question for my Christian friends on the right trying to call me out for not saying both sides were equally wrong: didn’t you just tell me that you believe in using violence against nazis?
Don’t lie– we both know you did, and that you did it nearly every time I posted an article on nonviolence.
So why the change?
Why do you believe that violent opposition to Nazis in WWII was not just necessary, but good, but that somehow in today’s world the willingness to use violence to oppose this same evil is now morally equivalent to the evil itself?
My position is consistent, and always has been: I am against the use of violence wherever I see it. But your position?
Well, your position five minutes ago was that violent opposition to the rise of Nazis is proof positive that some violence is good, necessary, and ordained by God. You see the anti-fascists of years gone by as some of the most courageous people our country has ever produced– so much so, that they have often been called the “Greatest Generation.”
But the minute those who continue to live out the values you so long admired got labeled the “alt-left”?
Well, it appears that made you have a change of heart, and that you now disagree with the version of yourself from five minutes ago.
My sincere question remains:
What changed?
Because didn’t you just finish telling me you believe in using violence against Nazis?
-------------------------------
The Official Blog of Benjamin L. Corey
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
437 visitors
Anyone who pretends to be a Christian must be disturbed by recent events. In this article, Dr Corey presents an interesting argument:
1) Strict Christian doctrine is "turn the other cheek": no violence, ever, under any circumstances.
2) Some self-styled Christians contend that there is such a thing as a "just war" and usually cite the example of stopping the indisputable evil that was Nazi Germany.
3) If fighting German Nazis was a "just war"... then isn't fighting American Nazis also a just war?
Apparently Dr. Corey doesn't know the history of Christianity. It is FULL of violence.
Dr Corey says,
"Strictly speaking, Christ commands us to turn the other cheek. BUT! Some self-styled Christians contend that there is such a thing as a "just war"... that is to say that violence against evil is justified... for example, WWII against Nazi Germany.
"IF we accept that violence against evil is justified... then the protesters against the Nazis in Charlottesville were justified."
Dr Corey does not say anything at all about "the history of Christianity".
The mere idea that a religion with texts that call for the murder and slaughter of those who will not bend to their way a peaceful religion is ludicrous. The same book that Corey claims calls for turning the other cheek calls for the death of women who aren't virgins when they marry, kids who disrespect their elders and so on.
The FOLLOWERS have committed genocide and use that same book to justify it for centuries and it continues today. The Nazi's (since that seems to be the big shiny object this week) was backed by the church. I'm pretty sure that Dr. Cary had seen that. Hell, even a quick google search of Hitler with the Pope can generate thousands of articles and pictures.
The same book that Corey claims calls for turning the other cheek calls for the death of women who aren't virgins when they marry, kids who disrespect their elders and so on.
That is simply not true.
Your error is in saying "the same book", when the Bible is in fact many books, written over many centuries by men with different agendas... and a rupture particularly important between the Old Testament and the New. Reducing the Bible to "stupid rules" is... silly...
Maybe your correct. It's a collection of Novella's supposedly written about a man 30 years to a century AFTER he died. And none of which are eyewitness accounts and ALL have been heavily edited since their original writing. But I'm supposed to think that it's all accurate, true and I'm expected to fall in and think that the religion is non-violent despite it's past. Not going to happen.
But I'm supposed to think that it's all accurate,
You're taking both sides of this argument. You're complaining about the content at the same time that you are trying to demonstrate that the content is unacceptable. That's not coherent.
You're right that there are a lot of fundamentalists who consider the Bible to be inerrant, a position that leads to inextricable contradictions.
Intelligent Christians, OTOH, consider the New Testament to be the work of well-intentioned men trying to promote Christ's message, written, as you say, decades after Christ's death, and copied/translated dozens of times... with all the likelihood of error or intentional alteration that implies.
So intelligent Christians are very wary of direct quotes from the Bible. We have no problem, however, finding a coherent message in His teachings, that can be resumed as "Love one another."
OK?
Intelligent Christians, OTOH, consider the New Testament to be the work of well-intentioned men trying to promote Christ's message, written, as you say, decades after Christ's death, and copied/translated dozens of times... with all the likelihood of error or intentional alteration that implies.
You mean omitting some "books" adding some "books". It's called editing.
You mean omitting some "books" adding some "books". It's called editing.
Yes, although the word "edit" carries an implication of intent that isn't always valid. Certainly there were other books in circulation that could have been included, and were not for dogmatic / political reasons, but also there have surely been inadvertent changes when translating and recopying.
I'm bilingual, so I know how difficult good translation is. Remaining faithful to a particular word, without the nuances created by context, can lead to an erroneous overall result. This means that the translator must be intimately familiar with the author's way of thinking... and that simply was not the case. The copiers over the first several centuries also probably felt a mission to ensure that the Holy Word was as beautiful and as inspiring as possible. "Fidelity" was not a requirement.
Recognition of violence is not the equivalent of "believing in the use of." I can recognize the fact that there were people there to stir up violence, on both sides, while condemning the fact at the same time.
To your point though. There is a vast difference in the assembly at Charlottesville and what Hitler and the Nazis were doing. This is where the disconnect is. You allege to be against violence, yet apparently refuse to acknowledge the violence that was on display by those on the left. All while comparing the apples of the idiot assembly at Charlottesville to the oranges of the atrocities being committed by Hitler and the Nazis. Its not inconsistent to think that a non-violent approach, by both sides, would have been better in Charlottesville, while at the same time thinking that the Nazis in Germany needed to be dealt with. In Romans, we are advised, as Christians, to live peaceably with all, so long as it depends on us. And, to never seek vengeance for yourself. Romans 12:18-19. So, there is a difference in defending someone else against evil (Hitler), and picking a fight with a bunch of idiots in white robes because you don't like or agree with them. The book of Psalms provides that we are to deliver the weak out of the hand of the wicked. There are multiple examples of battle in the Bible. Vengeance and spite are not justifications. Defense is.
The average German did not react to the Nazis' early actions in that country... and the whole world paid the price.
Stopping evil before it can grow is a much better way.
I won't argue this. If you want to say that these people do not need to be confronted... I'll just leave you to your opinion.
I know you won't argue, because the author of the article you posted compares apples to oranges.
Nowhere in my comment do I suggest that we should not confront the KKK, Nazis, or any other group these idiots associate with. But that's not the point of the article that you reproduced here, is it? The point of your article is to attempt to expose hypocrisy among Christians. It doesn't work. You simply can't compare Hitler's crimes to the idiots at Charlottesville.
As far as preventing these groups from gaining as much power as Hitler goes, I agree with you. Is showing up, throwing bear and pepper spray the way to go about it? No, which is why the left is having a hard time acknowledging the fact that that's how it went down. But, it's not going to happen, because the left agrees with the physical confrontation. However, since that lead to the tragic events, nobody wants to admit it.
You simply can't compare Hitler's crimes to the idiots at Charlottesville.
In 1923, the Nazi party attempted to overthrow the government in the Keystone-Kops "beer-hall putsch". Very funny!
Ten years later... not so funny... The concentration camps were built, and protesters were interned there...
What, in your opinion would be the Red Line that justfies opposition?
No offense, but you're having a hard time getting away form the apples and oranges argument. This isn't an article about opposition. Let's discuss the fundamental premise of the article. Do you believe a Christian has taken a hypocritical position when he or she recognizes the fact that there was violence on both sides at Charlottesville? After all, that's apparently the affront. How hypocritical of a Christian to ask the author to recognize such a thing.
To answer your question, oppose them now. It's that simple. See my comment above.
However, the question you want to ask, but for whatever reason can't bring yourself to ask, is this. At what point is violent opposition warranted? That's what we are concerned with, right? Violence. We could indulge in deep discussion on the issue of free speech. I'll save that, because the 1st doesn't protect me from getting punched in the face by someone that doesn't like my speech. However, local criminal laws may provide some penalty for the puncher. Speech itself isn't justification for physical violence though. As much as I'd like to, I can't punch a dude in the face, simply because he is waiving an offensive flag and chanting some racist BS. At least, not without any risk of being criminally prosecuted.
So, to both your question and the unasked one, oppose them now within the bounds of the law.
Do you believe a Christian has taken a hypocritical position when he or she recognizes the fact that there was violence on both sides at Charlottesville?
Yes. "Both sides" requires equating the people shouting anti-Semitic slogans with the people opposing them. That is wrong. It is wrong to shout anti-Semitic slogans; it is right to oppose those shouting.
Oh, and... One side kills people, the other doesn't. And not just Charlottesville... We can go back at least to Oklahoma City, with a bunch of other killings in between. On the opposition-to-fascism side, the killings amount to... zero.
So to answer your question, there was no equivalence in Charlottesville, and no Christian could possibly imagine that there was.
The answer to the question is yes, and it doesn't require a moral equivalency test to reach the conclusion. That's the problem with the whole debate. My kids try that shit all of the time. "But dad, he called me X." Okay, still doesn't doesn't justify what you did. "But he bit Me." After you punched him moron. You've heard it.
If the white nationalist viewpoint was not intertwined with support for Donald Trump you would have a better point.
The "alt-right' became vocal supporters of Trump , and Trump reciprocated. He retweeted white nationalists and white supremacists many times during the campaign. He has had white nationalist sympathizers (Miller and Bannon) in his campaign. He pretended not to know who a grand wizard of the KuKlux Klan named David Duke was.
A lot of the Trump voters have the so called fear of a black planet and Trump exploits it for votes.
I guess many of them learned from the mistakes Jesus made. Turning the other cheek sounds good on paper but once your feel the sting in real life it's better to kick them in the balls.
... the mistakes Jesus made.
Which were.......?
Not doing a good job of fighting off the enemy and avoiding capture.
That's a joke, right, Dean?