
“Loving Your Enemies” (1957) - meri_dian
http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_loving_your_enemies/index.html
======
hprotagonist
I'm also reminded of C.S. Lewis here:

 _“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose
that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or
not quite so bad as it was made out.

Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or
is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the
first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as
possible?

If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process
which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is
beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its
head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white
itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our
friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we
shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”_

------
hprotagonist
_So somehow the "isness" of our present nature is out of harmony with the
eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts us. And this simply means this:
That within the best of us, there is some evil, and within the worst of us,
there is some good.

When we come to see this, we take a different attitude toward individuals. The
person who hates you most has some good in him; even the nation that hates you
most has some good in it; even the race that hates you most has some good in
it._

And conversely, within those people and nations you most love, there's some
bad.

The role of the prohpet is to say both these things to their peers, who
generally don't want to hear either.

------
nabla9
"Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to
correct for subjective error." – Linus Pauling

------
wu-ikkyu
>I think the first reason that we should love our enemies, and I think this
was at the very center of Jesus’ thinking, is this: that hate for hate only
intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. If I hit you and
you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that
goes on ad infinitum. [tapping on pulpit] It just never ends. Somewhere
somebody must have a little sense, and that’s the strong person. The strong
person is the person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. And
that is the tragedy of hate, that it doesn’t cut it off. It only intensifies
the existence of hate and evil in the universe.

Many of the so called and supposedly tolerant "social justice warriors" and
the "PC crowd" would do well to understand this principle.

While indeed they may have a valid point about the vile hatred which their
enemies are spreading, many of them become overridden by that hatred and echo
it back creating a negative feedback loop.

>And this is what Jesus means, I think, in this very passage when he says,
"Love your enemy." And it’s significant that he does not say, "Like your
enemy." Like is a sentimental something, an affectionate something. There are
a lot of people that I find it difficult to like. I don’t like what they do to
me. I don’t like what they say about me and other people. I don’t like their
attitudes. I don’t like some of the things they’re doing. I don’t like them.
But Jesus says love them. And love is greater than like. Love is
understanding, redemptive goodwill for all men, so that you love everybody,
because God loves them. You refuse to do anything that will defeat an
individual, because you have agape in your soul. And here you come to the
point that you love the individual who does the evil deed, while hating the
deed that the person does. This is what Jesus means when he says, "Love your
enemy." This is the way to do it. When the opportunity presents itself when
you can defeat your enemy, you must not do it.

As he says, you don't have to _like_ your enemy, but you should strive to
_understand_ them and where they are coming from as a human being; rather than
writing them off as irrevocably stupid and completely irrational, as is done
repetitively by either side in the 2 party system.

This is not merely a religious/moral principle, but a strategic/practical one:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory
gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor
yourself, you will succumb in every battle"

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

~~~
coliveira
Jesus' ideology is one of submission and reward in the "next world". No wonder
why it has been embraced by every political power since ancient Rome. I think
that using such ideology to protest against oppression is a losing
proposition. In fact, if we like it or not, it is violence that really makes
the difference when people protest against something. For example, the
government loves to say that it was the peaceful protest of Dr. King that made
the difference in the civil rights movement. In fact, it was the fear they had
of the many violent, armed black movements that were developing around the
country that made any difference. Dr. King was then viewed as a public,
peaceful voice to control these protestors which lead it to the victory of the
civil movement. This is how the government likes people to see the history of
what happened. Similarly for the struggles of the Indian people that were
presented publicly just as the pacific protests lead by their enlightened
leader Gandhi.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Certain parts of the government definitely were glad that MLK was promoting
non violence, that is until he extended that call for non violence to the war
in Vietnam.

Though I think you underestimate the mass effect on millions of americans from
watching people peacefully walking down the street get beaten to a pulp by the
police and gored by attack dogs while they ate their TV dinners. It was
disgusting and iconoclastic to the ethos that the USA stood for freedom.

Dr. King deliberately strived to create such a violent ruckus in the hopes
that it would be televised so the rest of the nation could vividly experience
the reality of racism and the hypocrisy of the government. It was information
warfare.

~~~
vkou
> Though I think you underestimate the mass effect on millions of americans
> from watching people peacefully walking down the street get beaten to a pulp
> by the police and gored by attack dogs while they ate their TV dinners. It
> was disgusting and iconoclastic to the ethos that the USA stood for freedom.

Half the country looked at that, and all they saw was a mob of _______ getting
their just deserts. Why can't they shut up and go to work? What's their
problem - it's not like slavery was still around.

Half the country supported the Kent state shootings.

Today, half the country opposes _any_ protest against police violence. Sitting
down? Unacceptable. Standing up? Unacceptable? March in the streets?
Unacceptable. Speaking? Unacceptable. Staying silent? Also unacceptable.
Perhaps a purely functional form of protest, with no observable side effects
would be, but I've never heard of a successful one.

You can always find _something_ or _someone_ to condemn in a protest - and
once you do, this justifies using violence to put it down. Collective
punishment is still popular, especially when its collective punishment against
a group speaking out about an uncomfortable topic.

