Posted on 01/11/2011 8:06:24 AM PST by markomalley
Personally, I’ve always had a slight issue with the biblical “Turn the other cheek” directive. It seems like the action of a wuss.
One of America’s greatest military leaders made much more sense....
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, so I propse to give them all the war they want.”Von Clausewitz made much more sense....
- Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
First, Halperin should apologize for using war-like language "war stations" is going to just encourage people to shoot their opponents. /sarc.
Second, who is this "we" that Halperin thinks is not helped? His left-wing buddies? Of course they won't be helped, because we are showing how offensive they are to use even the shooting of their own colleague (who they didn't like very well anyway) for cheap political fodder.
And I can't think of anything more uncivil, more impolitic, more indicative of violent, inflammed rhetoric, than accusing your opponent of complicity in murder, especially when there is absolutely no evidence to back your accusation.
God help us if some tea party fringe person (or a tea party poser [won’t put it past a disruptor]) actually does do something like this. I shudder to imagine the reaction and freedom clampdowns that would follow such an act.
Dear Mr. Halperin. You can go *entertain* yourself!
THat was hilarious! thank you.
Let’s just say that the Biblical “turn the other cheek” doesn’t mean what most people think it does, and it certainly doesn’t mean what these godless leftscum are trying to say it does. Busy now, but if I get a chance I’ll add some detail/links...
Great smile. I’ve never seen her from the shoulders down before, looks like she keeps fit.
Really?
I don't think so.
OK, no time to dig up the links, but short version:
A strike on the cheek is usually the result of a backhand. It’s not real violence. It’s right on the line between really insulting words and violence, but it’s more of a big insult. Culturally in Biblical times, it was a HUGE insult. Think “fighting words” and then some.
So the context is insults, even extreme ones. The idea is don’t answer insults with insults, even insults bordering or just crossing over into violence. (Remember, violence in those days wasn’t playing slap face. It was getting people together with weapons and killing each other.) The directive was in the context of avoiding unnecessary violence.
It does not apply to defending from real violence, standing up against injustice, etc. It has to do with not being the cause of escalation to violence. If hit on the cheek (i.e., even severly insulted), then accept another insult, don’t insult back.
What we’re dealing with now isn’t a “turn the other cheek” situation IMHO. These aren’t insults. They’re attempts to seize unjust political power and bear false witness. No “other cheek” need be turned, and anyone who suggests doing so doesnt’s understand the context of the Biblical “turn the other cheek” (again IMHO).
PS I whipped that out fast. Sure some freeper or two out there will correct any errors/mistakes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.