|
|
Eye am Cheeky
Recently, the Washington Post ran a story about a group of Jewish and Muslim protesters in Washington D.C. demanding that Israel cease firing on Gaza now. Some of the Jews wore shirts that said “Not in our name” on the front, and “Jews say cease fire now” on the back.
Sadly, many of them were arrested. They seemed to me to be the mark of sanity in the face of an insane conflict.
Bombing people who bomb people in effort to make bombings stop seems inevitably counterproductive in the long run. Even if all the opponents and their cronies are wiped out, what taste will such an action have left in the mouths of innocent civilians? Not likely one that begets peace.
But I recognize that to some folks “turning the other cheek” seems counterproductive. A sign of weakness. An invitation to attack again.
This made me wonder about religious teachings of “…an eye for an eye…” versus “…turn the other cheek.” I am by no means a scholar of the Bible or the Torah, but here’s what I gleaned from a little research:
The Torah allows for self-defense. In fact, one is expected to defend oneself, their loved ones, and their community against assault. But when this retaliation morphs into revenge, it has gone too far and is no longer acceptable.
A Catholic priest on YouTube explained that while Jesus’s counsel to “turn the other cheek” shows obvious restraint, the “eye for an eye” proclamation was also a call for restraint. If a perpetrator knocks out your tooth or whacks off a finger, you are allowed to react but may not do more harm to him that he did to you—one tooth, one finger, etc.
Some say violence can be condoned within the confines of religion, but the cause must be just. One who wages war must do it only to advance good and prevent evil.
But therein lies the rub—who defines good and evil? Clearly there is disagreement, even among the followers of one given religion.
My father was raised Catholic but left the church before I was born. Still, the teachings he imparted to me clearly sprang from “turn the other cheek.”
Pop was first and foremost a defender of civil rights. It was his calling. Not his job, mind you. In fact, his calling sometimes interfered with his employment. (More than once his principles cost him his job.)
All my young life, my father attended rallies and marches around the country in support of civil rights and in protest of war. I attended some protests with him. In front of the draft board of the town we lived in. In mass demonstrations in Washington D.C. He didn’t force me to go. I went because I believed in the causes as he explained them to me.
He also explained that it was important to be completely nonviolent. No hollering of epithets. No physical violence of any kind. In the face of physical confrontation, the true pacifist does not fight back.
“What do they do?” I asked.
“Get down on the ground and put their hands over their heads.”
This was, indeed, a religious teaching for me.
Alas, as a woman in a country where violence against women is routinely overlooked, I’ve come to have a different view of violence in the act of self-defense. I applaud a woman with the grit to defend herself and those in her care.
The ground between “eyes” and “cheeks” is fraught with question. But I still don’t ever think of revenge as “sweet.”