What does it mean to "Turn the other Cheek"?

Violence begets violence. There is no way to militarialy win the war on terror. Unless of course we use thermo-nuclear weapons and steralize the planet. Then I guess the war would be over and right wing religious armagedeon freaks would jump for joy for the split second before being vaporized.

The best that can be said for the military option is that it can keep the wolves at bay until we work to solve the issue diplomatically. Wait there is no one working on the root causes. That means until someone in the whitehouse can rise above "Kill them all and let god sort em out" we are caught in a circle of violence we will not get out of.  We need a comprehesive approach. If we can't figure it out a solution then random bombings are in our future for a long long time.

Can we diplomatically/ politically solve an issue that is viewed by others as religious in nature?  What are the terrorists fighting?  They are fighting what they view to be Western Infidelities.  You can not politically solve a religious issue.  America is currently trying to do that by taking the “it’s either all gods or no gods” approach and choosing “no gods.”  

Turning the other cheek after 9/11 wouldn’t have accomplished much.  I think that you’ve taken the “Liberal” out of context.  America is not a country of “followers of Christ.”  There may be a Christian majority but there are Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Rastafarians and so forth all over this nation.  And I don’t see where he/she said that we should live the rule of “turn the other cheek.”  

“Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” (Isaiah 29:13)

Can anyone tell me the name of the person who originally quoted "violence begets violence"? This quote has been taken out of context for as long as I can remember. Many people fuddle it up by saying that if you defend yourself, you will bring violence to yourself. I think that if you need to defend yourself, you are in the midst of violence allready by anothers hand. This quote seems to be a warning to those who would bring the original violence and bully others.

Our Founding Fathers understood the value of defense when they allowed the government to provide for the common defense. They understood that it is one of the costs of freedom. These men knew the Bible. This was how people learned to read back then. This was a major curriculum in the schools and universities in America and England at the time. They knew the phrase "turn the other cheek". Yet, they still armed themselves, fought for their freedom, and then in 1812 through January 1815 they solidified this freedom by fighting back.

England brought violence upon themselves. If the way that many ignorant people interpret "violence begets violence" is right, then why is England our greatest ally and supporter today? According to these people, maybe England should be our biggest threat. Funny that there is so much friendship between the U.S. and the UK and so much annimosity between the U.S. and France; who by the way won us our independence.

I wasn't quoting.  I don't know who said it or what they meant.  Vilolence is usually responded with by more violence.  In other words violence begets or gives rise to more violence. Is this right or not right. That does not mean that violence is not a proper response under certain circumstances. There was no way to solve the hitler problem with any other response other than violence.  Once he was gone, things settled down.

We are now in a situation where killing one man will not calm things down. Killing a hundred won't, the more we kill the worse the problem gets.  Violence will be responded to with violence.  We need to cut off the "oxygen" to this fire, by solving the palestine problem, by working with governments to give more money and freedom to the poor.  We have to get beyond killing somehow.  They somehow came up with a solution based on forgivness in south africa. When Iraq tried to do something similiar we had a fit.  

Violence will only beget violence in this situation.  I don't give a darn about where or what the original intent of the quote meant.

And by the way, our founding fathers understood the importance of checks and balances. Look at how they set-up our government.  There is no question in my mind that they would be appalled at the NSA spying on americans.  They would want some sort of check. Why can't that be done? Why will bush not accept any check on his power? It is positively unamerican.
 

Where did you get your information about Iraq trying what South Africa Did? Also, how many years did people suffer until the South African authorities recognized equal rights? Why were the countries of Losotho and Swaziland organized? Saddam didn't do anything to bring equal rights to all Iraqis.

I also have my concerns about the NSA spying on americans. Nowhere in the constitution do I see the government being given the right to do any such things. I wonder what our founding fathers would say about any of this if they had a crystal ball and saw what modern science could allow a government to do?

RatinalRepublican, why did you contradict yourself by saying that violence was the only method to calm the Hiltler situation, but then state: "Violence will only beget violence in this situation.  I don't give a darn about where or what the original intent of the quote meant"??????

Matthew 5:39
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

If translated from the original greek  an alternate, and to most scholars more exact, word for "smite" would be "slap." You can smite someone even unto death, thus showing endangerment to body, something that one would naturally defend themselves against. To "slap' on the other hand is defined in the greek as an act which is "intended to embarass provoke, but not to harm...

Thus by "turning the other cheek" a Christian is showing self-restraint and self-control in a suituation that is NOT life threatening, but insulting to pride.

Just as split-finger said.

My point in this quote, from my point of view, was to suggest that past ills could be set aside and other options should have been and need to be explored. A nation such as the United States must be more cautious and show more self-restraint on a global stage. We have let our pride carry us to the point where we believe that our muscle is enough to solve any problem. We talk, we negotiate, we visit other countries from a position of arrogance and self-rightousness. Did we ever stop for a moment to even consider the possibility that we were wrong? That maybe democracy isn't the answer?

If you just shouted "No! It's not." you just proved my point.

"Violence begets violence" is a quote that is generally credited to Dr. Martin Luthur King Jr. "Hate begets hate. Violence begets violence." It is not taken out of context, it is perfectly applicable to this situation. Dr. King lead a non-violent peaceful civil revolution DESPITE hundreds of years of slavery, murder and humiliation. Dr. King took the higher road, "turned the other cheek," realized that while he could have followed the path of violence, that the path of peace was the longer, humbler, and more painful route.  some of you act as if violence is the only answer without remembering that leaders (King, Ghandi) have revolted without violence, countries (Canada) have gained freedom through intelligence and diplomacy.

Yet you would call them weak, cowardly. Liberal? Why do I have to wish to see all enemies of the United States destroyed in order to be considered a Patriot. Can't a Patriot be a man of peace?

We have to humble ourselves and realize that in order to achieve peace we may have to make sacrifices. Iran is going to have a nuclear program no matter how much we threaten. Because we have demanded they stop, threatened violence if they do not, Iran will look weak and foolish on a world stage if they give in. Who is the terrorist?

"Turning the other cheek" means looking for alternatives and holding our impulsive reactions in order to think instead of reacting emotionally and irrationally. I have seen examples of this on this site. Insults hurned back and forth. Opinions called "idiotic," some hurl the phrase "typical liberal" at me as if it were an insult. What does that mean? It says nothing.

Stop. Think. Don't react emotionally and thus irrationally, stick to logic and debate don't descend into personal attacks and squabbling. I have to believe that we can here on this site, if we can't, then there is no hope for this country.

Splitfinger opened this up to debate not contradiction and negativity, let's give that a try.

Thank you Liberal. You have made my day by your intelligence. Too many people place too much credit in what they hold as truth. When this perceived truth is threatened, they react emotionally and irrationally. I believe this to be the case with how the U.S. has handled much of it's foreign affairs as you have pointed out. Vietnan and the Gulf Of Tonkin is a perfect example. Personally, I believe that Bush wanted to unseat Saddam to finish what his dad should have done.

Because I say this, don't think that I change my view on whether we should be helping Iraq become a democratic society. I love Democracy. There nothing like the government being in the hands of the people instead of one or a few people who think they know best. Let's help Iraq get to the point that they can let their own people decide their own destiny instead of a dictator doing it for them.

Right now, the people in Iraq that want democracy are fighting for this freedom against some who do not want the it. Those that oppose this democracy have shown over and over again that they are not open to diplomacy and they will fight to their own deaths to do it.

Canada and India may not be the best examples for Iraq to follow right now. They had a more civilized and understanding England to deal with. Dr King was still protected in some part by the U.S. to allow him free speech. If the playing fields were equal for the Iraqis, I would be on your side.