Can We Talk 2

Advocates of Violence

         I heard two people on TV interviews this past week say that sometimes violence is necessary to make your point or to get what you want. They were leaders and spokes people for various political groups.

         If I were facing those people, I would respond with, "You mean if I don't agree with you over some issues, it's okay for me to confront you with physical assault, break the windows in your business, and loot the place to make you conform? It would be okay for me to jeopardize the safety of your children or kidnap your family members to make you into a different person with a different way of thinking? Are you saying, I should set fire to your car or break into your home to get your attention?"

         I believe these people say this because they only conceive of themselves as the perpetrators of violence, not the recipients. They see the violence of the masses against their enemies and can't imagine that it would turn on themselves. This lack of empathy is rampant in our world and contributes to the unrest and the lack of law and order.

         Violence is never the answer. There may be some justification in self-defense or the defense of a helpless one or a loved one. Revenge is not self-defense. And civil disobedience should never lead to violence. The violence itself defeats the cause and never gains the desired results.