Obtaining peace.

[Peterhouse]

"If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and non-violence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer."

- Dr Martin Luther King.

 

Do you agree with this statement? Do you ever think that violence can ever be used in the name of peace, and if so- under what circumstamces?

 

For those who may not know who Dietrich Bonhoeffer was, he was an exceptionally talented Christian theologist who lived in Nazi Germany. He actively opposed fascism and was put under Gestapo surveillance for preaching against the Nazis. He was arrested for plotting to overthrow Hitler and was hanged at Flossenburg in April 1945. He was a profoundly courageous man, and his actions and various theological works have been subject of great interest.

 

However, it is also believed he played a part in the planning of the July Bomb Plot to assassinate Hitler.

 

Does the evil of Hitler and his fascism condone the use of violence?

 

I apologise for choosing such an extreme example, but please feel free to submit and share other example that you think are important. I also apologise iif this isn't news, I'm new to the AB, and was unsure what category to place this under, but with the recent terrorist activity I suppose it is vaguely topical.

 

Discuss!

Peterhouse

[Ralph]

Of course he has a right to his opinion! I have respect for his opinion as well. In the first line of my last post, I tried to say that I had no arguments with his opinion, only with the facts as I see them (my opinion!). I am not disagreeing with bernardo, I'm disagreeing with George W & Tony et. al.

Bernardo, please don't take my postings as personal attacks, though they may occasionally appear as such, they are not.

Feel free to disagree though!

[bernardo]

I think this is what they call "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons".

[garyyokel]

Why is it that everytime someone strongly disagrees with someone else, people feel the need to say "it is only his/her opinion"? What else can it be? Surely everyone here realises that and there is no need to explicitly outline it.  bernardo's opinions are not invalid (???), but I do strongly believe they are wrong. But that is only my opinion ;-).

[Ralph]

Thanks garyyokel, I was starting to think that I had no right to have or voice an opinion.

bernardo, despite your last comment, I did not mean to personally attack you in any way.

I still stand by everything I've said. Maybe next time I'll prefix everything with IM(H)O.

[acw]

Sometimes it seems necessary to point out that people are entitled to their opinions because other people get so personal so quickly.  Also, some users on this site (though thankfully not in this thread) do seem to get confused and believe that people are trying to pass off as objective fact, what are clearly only opinions and views. 

People of course have a right to voice their opinions.  I personally just think that sometimes a bit of respect needs to be demonstrated.  I know you'll laugh at me for saying that.  But it's all too easily forgotten that the other person doesn't know the tone of your posting because they can't see facial expression or body language.  What seems like a reasoned response in a debate to you, can look like a personal attack on screen.  It's unfortunate that that happens, but I just think it makes it all the more important to be very clear that it's the OPINION that one disagrees with, not the person holding it. 

So there! :-p :-)

PS - Bernardo if you're still checking this, I've solved the mystery.  I was getting my B's confused and was thinking of Bartholomew.  A very silly mistake to make and I apoloigse again! :-)