Is "Turning the Other Cheek" a Misguided Doctrine that Encourages Aggression in Socie

..ty Does appeasement of the aggressors stop aggression? Or does it make aggressors bolder?

 

I believe it makes them worse.

Eye for an eye is better in my book (even if it makes the whole world blind)

 

"turning the other cheek" in its original sense doesn't mean backing down from a conflict as it does now.

 

So what's the original sense of "turning the other cheek"?

 

as an act of defiance; the idea being that if someone slaps you on the cheek; you turn the other cheek as if to say "is that all you got?"

it's been turned into a back down and put your tail between your legs; but originally it meant something completely different

 

Doesn't it mean do not take revenge?

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

Haven't you heard the old klingon proverb: revenge is a dish best served cold? It's very cold in space.

 

if someone hit you once, you hit them back twice. that should give them a lesson.

 

I forget what movie this is from:

They put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue.

Good Fellas probably.

 

bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay'

I think it was originally a French saying..

 

If the U.S. would have turned the other cheek at 911, America would have
BILLIONS to pay for better health care and education ... now instead they have
more taxes to pay, a few thousand dead American mercenaries and thousands
more crippled for life

 

And if police didn't catch or pursue criminals then there would be no police deaths.

If Osama Bin Laden never attacked America then there would be plently more money flowing around.

 

turning the other cheek also doesnt mean starting a war based on a lie)))))))))))

 

i believe in both turning the other cheek and fighting back, you can't simply just base your ideas on one of these you need both!Their are time when you bneed to turn the other cheek and their are times when you need to fight back. When i say fight back that does not include killing innocent people just to make it clear.

 

The US turned the other cheek after the original WTC bombing. The scripture says nothing about turning it again and again. Islamic terrorists simply ran out of cheeks!

 

We're here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And we're all out of bubble gum.

 

I like how the merely 3000 killed in the WTC bombing not only evens the score for decades of past US aggressions, but actually makes the americans the victims of aggression.

 

I'm not even sure what to think of this post.. What aggression are you referring to? The US has NEVER been an aggressor.. We've always been on defense. Only recently have we gone on offense; I don't even see our offensive policy as being aggressive.

Did your statement come out the way you intended, or was there something more you care to elaborate on?

 

U.S. Conduct in the Middle East
Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention

 

What about you? Specifically? Can you give me something more specific than Cato Policy Analysis and Opinion?

You spoke of "aggression", not "intervention". The only mention of the word "aggressive" is in reference to the Soviets, and the United State's backing of the UN's plans. What this is referring to was the "aggressive" acceptance of a UN plan to the "partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. "

I think ultimately what this is about, like most of the discussions here, is that US support for Israel = aggression.

You might want to read the entire opinion...