Proverbs 19:2
It is not good to have zeal without knowledge
nor to be hasty and miss the way!
From what I understand, militancy can be an aspect of zeal - although when militancy is confused to be the sole expression of true zeal...and I mean militancy in the sense of aggression toward anything disagreeing with oneself...then that can be problematic, IMHO, I've found myself having a lot of problems with that lately - as I do wonder if I'd be more so in the camp of a monastic/monk wanting to live a life of peace (like a Charles Xavier based on Martin Luther King/Fredrick Douglass)...or more so in the camp of someone who wants peace but is willing to be very aggressive about it/get it by any means necessary (like a Magneto/Malcolm X who at one point was willing to use violence to achieve things). Like soldiers and the Saints who were in that position - not wanting to use violence but being willing to do so if called to..and yet having regret on it.
Or if perhaps I'd want to be a militant pacifist -as others described King. Militancy was never something automatically divorced from the work done by Civil Rights leaders, as e
ven Dr.King was described as a Militant Pacifist by others in his day and was well respected by other militants.
For King, it was about discovering which has
more strength: fighting via violence self-defense or aggressive submission. And for anyone ever saying militant pacifists can never get anything accomplished, I simply say look at King..as he was willing to die for it to make a difference we live in today - and of course,
for white militants trying to harm his life and that of his family, he made it a point to have a weapon in his earlier life.( more at
Lesson 6 :: A Threat to Justice Anywhere: War" ( ).
Interestingly enough, both
King and Malcom X had convergence in many of their views of
militancy and peace/violence together - and IMHO,
St.Moses the Black would be a good example from the past to bring to mind when it comes to militancy being beneficial - as the man could be violent if he needed to be - and yet it was used to make others changed. Everytime I look at what is happening in the Gang culture and the music scene, it reminds me of how the only way to get rid of pimps is to transform them into priests - turning thugs into theologians and gangsters into god-fearers...and one of the reasons why doing Urban ministry has had been a blessing when remembering St. Moses the African/Black, a 4th-century Ethiopian
who went from being a thug and a gang leader to becoming a monk, a priest, and finally, a martyr. Even though Moses was committed to the monastic life, once when a band of robbers attacked the monastery, Moses fought them, overpowered them and dragged them to chapel where the other monks were in prayer. He told his brother monks that he did not think it Christian to hurt the robbers, but asked what they thought should do with them. The robbers repented, converted and joined the monastery....and if that's not a positive form of militancy in action - I don't know what is
.
But I digress.
With militancy, if it is called for and necessary to match the aggression done in the culture, it may be good - but it must be done with wisdom. A person planning a battle strategy to deal with their enemies is not the same kind of militant as one who throws bombs into their own camp because they want to "root out the spies" in it - and think they were successful in "protecting" their own because they may've killed some enemies even though they damaged others in the process. Friendly Fire is never good.
On the same token, even for others wishing to use militancy, it can be misapplied if simpler/more practical approaches have not been used - such as conversation/dialouge . or even choosing to change the conversation in the use of terms so that both sides can understand one another rather than getting lost in translation. And with the life of a believer, that seems to be the same dynamic.
Gxg (G²);62276969 said:
Ten days before his death, King argued before the Rabbinical Assembly in March of 1968 that "temporary segregation" -- the maintenance of certain exclusively black schools and businesses, for example -- may be necessary to prevent the loss of economic power that could result from complete integration. And in the last year of his life, King planned the Poor People's March, uniting poor blacks, whites, Latinos and native Americans in a multiracial coalition that sought to challenge the unfair distribution of wealth, employment and education.
He made very plain he was for seperatism at one point when it was apparent that whites would not help the black community -
arguing that a temporary segregation was necessary for blacks to take care of themselves in the absence of help from the government/larger community. While he rejected seperatism as the ultimate goal, he was very concerned with being integrated out of power...
(more
shared here and
shared here on his views).
King in his actions is easier understood when contrasting/comparing him with others who were often on the opposite side - such as Malcom X. What is fascinating historically is that both Malcom and Martin experienced convergence on issues similar to what was present in the Star Wars universe when it came to people in the Republic - be it the Jedi or heros from the Republic - realizing the ways that they were being played by people outside of the politics/only concerned about ruling.
Gxg (G²);61663944 said:
Prospects For Freedom In 1965- Malcolm X
Gxg (G²);60193232 said:
If most people were aware of the history behind how X-Men developed, they'd be shocked.....Growing up, everytime I saw it, it reminded me of issues of discrimination/racial injustice and the dangers of what happens when one becomes a reverse-racist as opposed to seeking peace. Their characters always seemed to have depth.......especially as it concerns the relationship between Eric and Charles.
What fascinated me more so than anything else was how much it seemed very much like a reflection between the struggle for being proud of one's ethnicity and knowing how to address that. Wasn't surprising to see that whenever the battles between Charles (Professor X) and Eric (Magneto)/their respective sides would come up, in light of how the background of X-Men developed during the Civil Rights era and the days of
Martin Luther King and Malcom X---
one side for integration and the other for segration, one side feeling like differing groups could work together and another side feeling as if it could never work ( more
here,
here ,
here ,
here and
here )
Many are not aware of how comic book creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had indeed come up with the X-Men concept while following the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements of 1960s that unfolded daily on their television screens.
Moreover, it turns out that
the authors of the X-Men series were Jewish men (more shared
here and
here and
here)---originally hiding their Jewish heritage by changing their names so that they could introduce ideas into a populace that initially would not have cared/taken it easy if hearing from people that they already hated since ALOT of anti-semitism existed at the time. It made a difference for Stan Lee to change his original name of 'Stanley Martin Lieber'..and for Kirby to change his name from Kurtzberg. For Kirby, one of his reasons was that he wanted originally to be able to sell his work to a number of different publishers at once under different names.
For to make a series explicitly on the struggles of Blacks/Jews in the 1960-1970s would be no small task. They were two white men who decided to tackle the oft-neglected problems of racism in America through the pages of fiction and symbolism (being certain in the racially charged 1960s to even use all white characters).
For more, an excellent article on such can be found under the name of
Black Politics, X-Men, White Minds 05/08/2003.
Gxg (G²);63470003 said:
And in reading Acts 16:16-40 with Paul demanding that he/Silas be treated properly after they were unjustly beaten (with the punishment to those violating that law being DEATH) so that others would not experience the same mistreatment, I cannot understand where it is the case that it's ungodly for others to fight back to protect themselves when they see their lives or loved ones threatened. You also have Luke 3:13-15 showing how soldiers seeking to serve the Lord were never condemned for being soldiers/charged to protect lives