Nonviolence Vs. Violence

In the 1960s, many of the colonial nations of Africa were gaining independence. The ANC was encouraged and campaigned for democracy in South Africa. They were mild campaigns at first, but as the government became more hostile, so did ANC protests. In November 1961, a military branch of the party was organized with Mandela as its head. It authorized the limited use of arms and sabotage against the government, which got the government’s attention—and its anger! Mandela went into hiding in 1964, he was captured, tried, and sentenced to life imprisonment. It was a sad day for black South Africa.

In the words of Mahatma Ghandi, "There are many causes that I am prepared to die for, but no causes that I am prepared to kill for" (Knapp 1). A strong believer in civil disobedience, and the refusal to obey unjust laws, Ghandi engaged in many forms of passive resistance, which eventually brought about much political change in India. Leaders who fought for change in other parts of the world, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, also believed that non violent tactics were the most effective way to bring about lasting change. On the other hand, many extremist organizations feel strongly that the change they are seeking needs to have broad attention, and to come about quickly. As a result, they pursue violent action as they feel

generations of extreme violence from the state, and logical decisions about what kind of actions require political result.

Some believe a few reasons for thinking why nonviolence could potentially be better rather than violence is because it is less harmful to people, their country, and the world. But most times when a war starts, it is violence that will make it come to an end. Yes, when using violence in war it is going to harm innocent lives, and although this will happen, it will also essentially wipe out the nation you are fighting against. Violence shouldn’t ever have to be the answer, but when it comes to defending yourself you don't have any other choice at that moment. Violent methods are better than non-violent methods because they can end wars. The first example to prove our argument is the Holocaust. They couldn’t have been stopped using non-violent methods since the Nazis were extremely

Yes, nonviolence can be more dangerous than violence to a ruling class. Although the results in both situations will be very different. Using violence may bring the result they want but it would only be put in place because of fear. Less people could be hurt because it would bring the message they are trying to send faster but it will be taken the wrong way. People from both sides will be killed and the British people in India would not understand what they were doing was an injustice that should be corrected. It would instead be seen as a hateful act brought upon the brutal Indians. They would end up building a tense, hateful relationship with each other that will last for a long time. The British will be justified in using physical force

“It must be pointed out that resistance of any kind—violent or nonviolent— is not recommended by these saying of Jesus.” This quote is saying that Jesus does not want people to resist anything no matter if the thing is harmful or not. This Scholar’s opinion is one of the many reasons why we must begin to decide if Biblical Hatred is correct or wrong. If he would have the idea of retaliation as a Jesus thing then people would see the book through a different lens. When we begin to look at things through a different lens then we can see that, “[Jesus] refused to become a military messiah … using violence to set things right.” Jesus was against violence even though he was pushed to be violent. Jesus refused to handle anything that way.

In Matthew 5:43-48 what was Jesus point in the teaching? Jesus, I feel had a few things that he wanted to express and teach to us. This begin with Jesus saying he heard it been said “Thou shalt love thy neighbor; and hate thine enemy”. His teaching here was to express why not love your enemies, even bless them to do god despite how they feel towards you. His teaching then goes to even the one who speak evil of you in response we still should speak kindly of them. Loving our enemies will also cause us to pray for their wellbeing and salvation which if they have a change of view could be a faithful servant of Jesus. If turning our backs on our enemies leaves them without a proper chance to following Jesus then are we really serving what God wants from us? Once you read Jesus teaching it is easier to show kindness and mercy when we can expect to benefit from doing so. I also feel this teaching shows how much harder we must work at something and expect nothing in return that could happen when you show someone love and not get it in return. However, Jesus does not say that you need to like your enemy or like what he does. Rather, you are called to love him or her. Jesus teaching also declares that friendship with one’s friends is nothing exceptional. His saying that even tax collectors should be loved, showed how his loved spread to all. In Jesus’ day, the tax collectors would collect taxes for the Roman government and then add a surcharge, which they kept. Since tax collectors

In this passage, Gandhi talks about what non-violence means to him. In his reading, he talks about the importance of non-violence in resisting injustice. He further talks about how non-violence is a part of his life and the importance of it in his movements like Satyagraha, noncooperation, and civil disobedience. He then also says nonviolence is the only way India can gain freedom.

As Ghandi states on the first paragraph on page 81 “Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind.” This is a very true statement, No one is born to be a violent towards anyone or anything. Nonviolence is a key factor for most protesting. If you are violent while to protest you are only provoking the person you are trying to protest against. Nonviolence can take you very far with protesting or anything of that matter because you are not provoking or bothering anyone, you are peacefully protesting. A good example of how nonviolence can work is how current NFL players are kneeling rather than acting out and going crazy. It's actually working because it’s taken the whole world by storm and has even caught the eye of the president. Though we live in a world where violence happens all over the place using nonviolence can help the world evolve and become a better place.

Aristotle, an Ancient Greek philosopher once said, “To act the right way toward the right person, in due proportion, at the right time, for the right reason- that is not easy, and not everyone can do it.” Just as Aristotle stated, doing all of the right things is not easy to do. However, different characteristics and features may help one do so. The practice of ahimsa (nonviolence/non-harming) is one of the biggest things needed to do in order to follow Aristotle’s quote. Although truthfulness, non-stealing, and non-greed are other practices needed to succeed, they all relate back to the factor of ahimsa.

Before I begin, let me place before you one or two things, I want you to understand two things very clearly and to consider them from the same point of view from which I am placing them before you. I ask you to consider it from my point of view because if you approve of it, you will be enjoined to carry out all I say. It will be a great responsibility. There are people who ask me whether I think we will be successful in a nonviolent protest, or whether I am only dreaming. You are right in asking that question.

There are some who may believe that in situations where violence is taking place against another person then they are justified to strike back; however, Jesus found Himself in a similar situation,

In this example, Jesus is giving a sermon to people from various areas of Africa. “Therefore, whoever breaks even the smallest of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be least in the kingdom of heaven. On the other hand, whoever obeys the Law, and teaches others to do the same will be great in the kingdom of heaven” (The Sermon on the Mount 30 C.E.). This exemplifies that if one was to break a commandment, he would face little to no severe punishment. Although the individual would face little punishment, if they did nothing to make the situation right they would face punishment spiritually or after death. However, Jesus did not only ensure punishment but also made good promises for those who were obedient. “(God speaking to Moses) From this you know that now, if you obey my voice and hold fast to my covenant, you of all the nations shall be my very own for all the earth is mine. I will count you a kingdom of priests, a consecrated nation” (The Covenant Code, Exodus 20:19–23:33). This portrays that those who did not obey God’s covenant would not receive the good things that he promised but they would, however, get away with facing little punishment physically. On the whole, throughout history, justice becomes less about relentlessly punishing and following every rule word for word but more about benefitting from being

Yes, I am very familiar with non-violence. When I think of non-violence, I definitely have someone in mind that I think of when the topic is brought to attention. This person is my mother. My mother solves all of her problems with a non-violent solution. She uses non-violence as a way to resolve all of her conflicts and meet goals she sets for herself. As my mother is a broker, she deals with private clients that invest their money in her in sometimes stressful situations, so it is important for her to keep a calm mentality and deal with her clients in a way that does not provoke the client to make rash decisions. My mother

A further connotation of principled nonviolence is that people cannot be reduced to the evil they perpetuate (Gandhi). The approach calls for an objective focus on the problem or existing conflict rather than attacking the persons as the source of contention, thereby identifying them as an antagonist or enemy. Therefore, as there are no enemies, the insinuation of a principled course of action is the desire and intent to defeat only injustice and not people (King). Principled nonviolence approach further entrenches that one should hate the sin or deeds of men rather than the actual actors or man himself and should do so actively loving our adversaries while identifying our own flaws and shortcomings (Gandhi).