Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, suggested that the moon landing might have had a developmental effect on Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who were in their early teens at the time. The landing introduced an idea into their consciousness that hadn't existed before. Regardless of their prior interest in the moon or space, witnessing the impossible becoming possible likely expanded their vision and spurred their creativity.
When a new idea emerges, it becomes possible, even if we initially reject it. For instance, the concept of responding to a violent act with non-violence wasn't widely considered until Jesus introduced the radical idea of “turn the other cheek" in his Sermon on the Mount. He said, "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 anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
Can you imagine the response to that radical idea 2000 years ago. “What? What did he say? We can’t do that. That can’t be what he said. Let’s get closer so we can hear better.”
This reminds me of a humorous comedy sketch by Monty Python. In the sketch, a large crowd gathers to listen to the Sermon on the Mount, but due to the lack of sound systems at that time, some people at the bottom of the hill turn to those behind them and ask, "What did he say?" The reply they receive is, "He said blessed are the cheesemakers."
But, the idea had entered human consciousness and was available for contemplation and became a possibility. While it is still being rejected 2000 years later, we have seen examples that begin to overrule the primitive side of our nature that sees no other way to respond to violence than an equivalent or greater degree of violence.
What does it mean to turn the other cheek? Is it just an inspirational metaphor or is it to be taken literally? If someone hits me, should I passively let them hit me again? The context of this statement is that Jesus is emphasizing a non-retaliatory and non-violent approach to dealing with offenses. Instead of seeking revenge or responding with violence, he teaches his followers to respond to aggression with grace, forgiveness, and humility. This teaching promotes the idea of not escalating conflicts and seeking reconciliation and peace instead. It is often interpreted as a call to practice non-violence and to respond to hatred and harm with love and understanding.
An eye for an eye seems to be winning over turn the other cheek. We have a presidential candidate in the modern day who is making revenge and retribution a central theme of his campaign. However, there are some inspiring examples that show us the potential of our humanity:
In 1996, Nelson Mandela met with Christo Brand, a former prison guard at Robben Island, where Mandela had been incarcerated. Mandela forgave Brand, and the two became friends. This gesture demonstrated Mandela's genuine commitment to reconciliation and his belief in the power of forgiveness to unite a divided nation.
On May 13, 1981, Pope John Paul II, was shot four times by a would-be assassin named Mehmet Ali Ağca in St. Peter's Square in Vatican City. Ağca was a Turkish national with a history of political extremism. On December 27, 1983, Pope John Paul II visited Mehmet Ali Ağca in Rome's Rebibbia prison. The Pope's visit was seen as a symbol of his commitment to forgiveness and reconciliation. It sent a powerful message to the world about the importance of forgiveness, even in the face of a violent and heinous act.
South Africa - Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC): The TRC was established in the aftermath of the terrible atrocities committed during apartheid to address the human rights abuses committed during that era. Led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the TRC provided a platform for victims and perpetrators to share their stories and give and receive forgiveness.
During the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule in 1959, as the Chinese military moved into Tibet and took control, the Dalai Lama was faced with a difficult situation. He had to escape to India to ensure his safety and to continue his efforts to advocate for Tibetan autonomy and culture.
While escaping, the Dalai Lama and his followers were pursued by Chinese troops. At one point, the Dalai Lama's party encountered a group of Tibetan monks who had been captured and were being brutally interrogated by the Chinese soldiers. Despite the danger and the violence surrounding them, the Dalai Lama stopped and demonstrated great compassion.
He approached the Chinese soldiers and negotiated for the release of the captured monks. He pleaded with the soldiers to spare the monks and treat them with kindness. Remarkably, the soldiers, whether out of respect for the Dalai Lama or other reasons, ultimately released the monks.
This story illustrates the Dalai Lama's unwavering commitment to the principles of non-violence, compassion, and forgiveness. Even in the face of immense suffering and adversity, he advocated for peace and showed compassion not only to his own people but also to those who were perceived as oppressors. The Dalai Lama's approach is deeply rooted in Tibetan Buddhist teachings, emphasizing the importance of compassion, even for one's captors and enemies.
While these examples are inspiring, in the light of recent events in Israel they are like Facebook inspirational posters that we quickly scroll past on our way something we can “like.” We have not yet evolved to a higher state of consciousness where we can respond to such horrific acts of violence with anything but an equivalent or greater act of violence. Is there any other way to respond? I think that’s a question to contemplate.
We give some token consideration to the message of Jesus when we consider proportionality in the planning of war. I must hurt you as you have hurt me, but I will not hurt you more than you hurt me. That’s a small glimmer of hope that we might be overcoming our primitive programming, but it rarely works out that way. If my enemy kills my babies, must I kill their babies in return? Are we brought down to the same level of inhumanity when we respond in kind to violence? Do we bring the universe back into balance with equivalent violence? I don’t think so. We’re pulled back toward our primitive beginnings.
Viktor Frankl famously said, “Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space lies our freedom to choose our response.”
Is it possible for Israel to choose another response? I don’t have a good answer for that, but I’m contemplating it without judgment. I hope you are too.
Your post has me thinking about this perfect world in which Israel did a radical embracing of these teachings and reached out with love to those in Gaza and rather than cutting off water, energy, etc. gave extra, offered opportunities for a better life, etc. What would be the response? I would like to think it would open up a whole new opportunity for peace, love and forgiveness, but I fear it would simply lead to other countries taking advantage of what they perceived as weakness. I am reminded of the story of King Stephen of England, who in simplified terms often offered forgiveness to nobles who had opposed him in support of his opponent for the crown, Empress Matilda. This contrasts with his uncle Henry I and his grandfather William the conqueror who were not known for forgiveness (other than very politically selectively) but for ruthlessness. The nobles who were forgiven generally took advantage of Stephen when it was to their own benefit. The ruthlessness shown by his uncle and grandfather generally caused the nobles to fear going against their King and seeing them toeing the line, remaining loyal. In the short-term at least, I think the country doing "the right" and peaceful and loving thing usually suffers. Perhaps if they were somehow able to persist, and the next generation continued to persist, and so on, and managed to survive during that time then ultimately people would come to see that is the better way to live. But cynically and regretfully I think it's more likely the "powerful" strongmen countries would destroy the peace-loving ones. I hope I'm wrong.