I continue to ponder these words. Violence is the act of violating some other creature. It is a purposeful act to humiliate, subdue, and assert domination over another creature. Seeking non violent solutions to situations of conflict ought to be a principle of human conduct.
I make a distinction between violence and the use of force. If I seek to arrest, restain, or deter a violent person, a criminal, but have no intent to destroy that person, that is necessary force, but it is not violent. To be non violent is not to advocate no defense against violators, it simply argues that one must seek non violent means. I have seen non violent police (in Canada.) They were able to use necessary force, but that force was limited and intended to deter and stop violence not to contribute to it.
Is it a matter of definition? Or is it a matter of difference in understanding of Unitarian Universalist principles? How can violence be compatible with Unitarian Universalism?
Still, I find the phrase "in any form" problematic. If I lose my temper while defending myself against a predator, ethically I am using force, but in my heart I may be engaged in violence. My spouse and partner said she is categorically opposed to the death penalty, but she confess that she has felt "exceptions" when confronted with vicious criminals. She is for non violence, but experiences the urge to revenge emotionally. I have as well. Shouldn't we be urging Unitarian Universalists to strive to use non violent means, rather rejecting violence in any form?
We are emotional creatures. We are capable of ethical action as well. We strive to be ethical, and to cherish those emotions that contribute to human betterment. We minister to those emotions that are destructive to ourselves and others, they are part of who we are, but they do not justify vile conduct.
Thanks for another thoughtful post, Clyde. I have been thinking on this for months now, and am grateful for your distinction between violence and force. It helps!