Seeking Limits of Mankind, and Limits of God > Comments on Mahatma Gandhi: With All Due Respect, He Just Got Lucky

Go to Seeking Limits of Mankind, and Limits of GodAdd a commentGo to Mahatma Gandhi: With All Due Respect, He Just Got Lucky

GM

I think there are times we need to show physical strength when there is no other alternative. BTW, I answered your question with an entire post. Thank you.

posted by RPresta on February 22, 2018 at 2:10 AM | link to this | reply

OTR

Your original comment below was excellent, bringing up many good points, but I have not had time to properly address it.  When I get time, I might make it the subject of a post, if you don't mind.  If that makes you at all uncomfortable, just say the word, I and will not do that. Cheers

posted by GoldenMean on February 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM | link to this | reply

OTR

You also wrote  "I do believe there are other ways to stop a tryant, but it requires a united front and sadly the world is not there yet. The blueprints are there, and I believe it will happen in time."  I completely agree with you......  but that time is far far in the future, decades, or more likely centuries. 

Therefore, lacking that united front and with people ignoring the blueprints, I am addressing the things that should be done NOW, to stop tyrants in-the-act.  There are several tyrants in the world right now, actively murdering and torturing, that should not see another day of sunlight.

posted by GoldenMean on February 18, 2018 at 8:32 PM | link to this | reply

OTR

My apologies, I just checking in, and in a rush again.  But in reply to your comment " Can we use the words moral and kill in the same sentence?" , I think we certainly can.  When an evil human predator or a pack of predators, is in the act of killing one, two, three, a dozen, a hundred, a thousand or a million,  and they will not be stopped with words,  they must be stopped with violent action, and that usually means killing them.  I am focused on stopping these murderers in-the-act, not giving them time to kill more people (1, 2, 3, 10, 100, 1000 ?),  before we decide how to chase them down and arrest them.

If we do have to chase them down and arrest them,  there is a verse in the Bible that tells us what God said to do with them...... I think it is Genesis 9:5 and 9:6.  I think our failure to do so has caused unlimited suffering for thousands of years, by giving the predators the upper hand.

posted by GoldenMean on February 18, 2018 at 7:14 PM | link to this | reply

Re: OTR

i agree that i may have missed the point that you were talking about a tryant. One person that is killing millions.  Can we use the words moral and kill in the same sentence? and how many do you have to kill to not be moral, one or one million? I do believe there are other ways to stop a tryant, but it requires a united front and sadly the world is not there yet. The blueprints are there, and i believe it will happen in time.

posted by overtherainbow on February 15, 2018 at 12:35 PM | link to this | reply

OTR

Thanks for your comment, and you make many good points.  I am in a rush now, but I must say that my emphasis is not on killing, or tit for tat, or revenge. In the extreme case of a tyrant..... a person who is abusing, torturing and killing people constantly, throughout a long career,  it is only logical to end his activity as soon as possible. I say that it is a moral imperative to stop him.  Most of the time, the only way to do that is to kill him (or her).  The sooner they are stopped, the more victims we save, getting into the millions, or tens of millions.  I will gladly kill one man, to save millions. I would even say that it is the moral duty of everyone in the world, to stop him.  Sadly, we usually fail, in that moral duty.

posted by GoldenMean on February 15, 2018 at 5:54 AM | link to this | reply

dear gm, first i would llike to say, and this is only my opinion, i wish you would break a long post down to smaller posts.  It is easier to comment to small sections than to a very long post.

i will try, but i will probably not touch all you have said.

first you make an asumption that we all think alike or should, when you say they are wrong. Thank God this will never happen.

second this post makes asumptions that it is better to kill than be killed, and i say maybe not.  I have spent my whole life searching for God, studied most religions.  I believe for my mortal soul that it would be better to be killed than to kill. 

third, there are worse things than death.  we all die sooner or later, so what do i want to accomplish before i die and what will the circumstances of my death mean. I also believe that the evil people of this world do have a day of judgement, they do not get to kill others without judgement, maybe their judgement will be after death, maybe before, or maybe in the next life, there is no way to know when and how.

if one believes in reincarnation, then you have to believe that eventually we will escape the cycle, but how and why?  I do not believe it is in the tit for tat, or an eye for an eye, or i can kill someone because they will kill me and others.  i do not believe that killing is right in any circumstance. you have opened a really deep discussion with this post , not one that can be answered with just a few comments.

I do not think Gandhi was lucky, i think he would have done the same even if he knew he would die.  I do not think ML King was lucky, he did pay with his life.

Men and women give their lives because their beliefs are important to them and if we do not think they are right for doing so, that is a priviledge, but we should honor them as we do our warriors, right or wrong.  Our warriors do not come home whole, that is something we should think about. Why is this if killing is the answer?

I am to tired to go on, but i can tell how passionate you are about this subject and i respect that, i to am passionate about my beliefs.  Thank you for visiting me and i will be back to visit you.

posted by overtherainbow on February 14, 2018 at 7:42 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Dear friend GM

Anib, yes of course Gandhi was smart and crafty in his campaign, and he may have seen the futility of civil disobediance in a true tyranny.  But the tragedy is that other pacifists have applied the non-violent tactics in the tyrannies, and will continue to do so, foolishly, and will continue to be cut down.  Better if they had sacrificed themselves trying to kill the tyrant.  It can be done (killing the tyrant), if enough people are willing to die doing it.  But pacifists poo-poo such violence as evil in itself, and that is where they are wrong.  Cheers, my friend 

posted by GoldenMean on February 11, 2018 at 9:07 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Dear friend GM

Oh that should read bloodbath or bloodless

posted by anibanerjee on February 7, 2018 at 9:50 PM | link to this | reply

Dear friend GM

I read this with great care and interest, and your arguments too, in the article, seem to be incontrovertible. Kudos for that.

Firstly I grant, that Gandhi was intelligent enough to see an opening of goodness in the British rulers' heart and that, through a calculated risk, make capital of that goodness' weakness, to present an exceptional example to the world of the power of non-violence. At least this much credit, which again is no less substantial, Gandhi deserves. And probably he would have seen also the futility of these tactics were they to be applied in early 14th century French Inquisition of the likes of Joan of Arc's time, or the more recent examples of soviet Union, China, Korea, the Middle East savages  the medieval ages. He (Gandhi) probably, would never have used such tactics or else his voice would have been muted forever at the onset. From that point of view, he could be termed as an opportunist. I'm only praising his qualities of leadership, aso his self expedient motive of proving the point that non-violence too could be used as an effective tool. Yes, I agree with you that the faster and more quickly relieving method of counterviolence or Force is definitely better. The question arises: immediacy versus patience - bloodbath or bloodshed? Which one? I leave it open? 

No, I am not defending, just exploring the sanity of options. Personally, I would place Gandhi's adversary, Subhas Chandra Bose, who advocated violence, superior, and more passionately honest than Gandhi because he was not impelled by personal motives of political expediency. He formed the India National army (INA) successfully seeking Germany and Japan's support and proved a plague for the British army. India would have gained freedom earlier than in 1947. And the name Mahatma (great soul) was Subhash's gift to Gandhi, but Gandhi always nursed a hatred for Subhash. He wanted Mohammed Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League to become the Prime Minister in an undivided India. It was Gandhi that necessitated the partition of India into Pakistan and it was Nehru's (the first Indian PM) idiocy that the occupied Kashmir went to Pakistan and now they want the whole of Kashmir. Although Jinnah was a more capable leader than Nehru. This veering off from the topic was necessary. 

It was so, to prove my point that I consider Krishna's violence to be at its core, non-violent, and Gandhi's non-violence, at its core, violent. I could go on and on, but this is comments page that I should give due respect to. Cheers , you've written a fine piece.

 

posted by anibanerjee on February 7, 2018 at 9:46 PM | link to this | reply

I enjoyed reading your analysis of violence.

posted by FormerStudentIntern on February 7, 2018 at 10:26 AM | link to this | reply

Mahatma Gandhi, along with a Man called Jesus who's teachings I follow as a Christian, Martin Luther King, the Suffragettes, and other people who have protested for Peace are my heroes and my mentors. 

posted by Kabu on February 7, 2018 at 9:10 AM | link to this | reply

A very good read.....excellent!

posted by Corbin_Dallas on February 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM | link to this | reply

Referrals - About Us - Press - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Conduct Policy
Copyright © 2018 Shaycom Corporation. All rights reserved.