I read this in a Wilbur Smith novel*:
"There is terrorism from above - as well as from below...... If you define terrorism as extreme physical or physiological coercion used to induce others to submit to the will of the terrorist - there is the legal terror threat of the gallows, the religious terror threat of hell fire, the paternal terror threat of the cane - are those more morally justifiable than the aspiration of the weak, the poor, the politically oppressed, the powerless victims of an unjust society? Is their scream of protest to be strangled... Laws are made by man, almost always by the rich and the powerful - laws are changed by men, usually only after militant action."
What do you make of this reasoning? Especially when so many of us are parents?
Once your through thinking on that, read what comes later on, it's on the same topic:
"This is the test. No matter how much we personally feel the demands are just, yet we must oppose to the death the manner in which they are presented. If these people win their objects, it is a victory for the gun - and we place all mankind in jeopardy."
Writing is an art and writing which makes your readers think is a gift to them.
*I've reread all his novels at least 3-4 times and I learn something new every time. This guy writes from the heart and knows his subject intimately. I started reading his books when I was about 12-13 years old and still can't get enough.
In a way, I agree. I think that using fear to convince someone to do what you want them to do is lazy and pathetic. I do know as parents we are guilty of that too sometimes, but I try not to fall into it, because I dislike it so much when I see it (like in the fires of hell etc).
ReplyDeleteI try to always explain my daughters why I need them to do something, but sometimes I do have to say "enough fussing or no TV for a week!" :-)
I agree, though we as parents shouldn't use threats as a standard, there are moments when mild threats help us do the right thing for our children.
ReplyDelete