Bill Reel--Disciplinary Court is Imminent

[_toon]

You've obviously never been involved with any of the so called courts of love if you don't believe that they are spiritually violent.

I'm not disputing that a church court can cause damage, serious emotional damage and stress, which can in turn lead to physical harm. I'm not disputing the ridiculousness of those courts. Not questioning whether they're even a fair hearing with the results, in cases of alleged apostasy, predetermined. But they're not violent.

And if you want to qualify that with them being spiritually (or figurative) violence, then you'll have to explain what that means and why using this new term that is associated with actual violence, as opposed to something more apt and descriptive of what's really going on, fits

[_toon]

5. Spiritual Violence

Spiritual (or religious) violence occurs when someone uses a person’s spiritual beliefs to manipulate, dominate or control the person.

Spiritual violence includes, but is not limited to:
•Not allowing the person to follow her or his preferred spiritual or religious tradition;
•Forcing a spiritual or religious path or practice on another person;
•Belittling or making fun of a person’s spiritual or religious tradition, beliefs or practices; and,
•Using one’s spiritual or religious position, rituals or practices to manipulate, dominate or control a person.

Broken link and all, still sounds like touchy feely made-up bull crap.

But if you want to expand the use of violence to encompass things that are clearly not violent . . . I guess we can all be victims.

[Guest]

nothing to see here, move along

[_Meadowchik]

5. Spiritual Violence

Spiritual (or religious) violence occurs when someone uses a person’s spiritual beliefs to manipulate, dominate or control the person.

Spiritual violence includes, but is not limited to:
•Not allowing the person to follow her or his preferred spiritual or religious tradition;
•Forcing a spiritual or religious path or practice on another person;
•Belittling or making fun of a person’s spiritual or religious tradition, beliefs or practices; and,
•Using one’s spiritual or religious position, rituals or practices to manipulate, dominate or control a person.

Broken link and all, still sounds like touchy feely made-up bull ____.

But if you want to expand the use of violence to encompass things that are clearly not violent . . . I guess we can all be victims.

Spiritual violence is pretty self-explanatory. Just as physical violence is about attacking another's body with force, spiritual violence is pretty much about attacking another person's perception, especially beliefs about god, through coercion.

[_Shulem]

5. Spiritual Violence

Spiritual (or religious) violence occurs when someone uses a person’s spiritual beliefs to manipulate, dominate or control the person.

Spiritual violence includes, but is not limited to:
•Not allowing the person to follow her or his preferred spiritual or religious tradition;
•Forcing a spiritual or religious path or practice on another person;
•Belittling or making fun of a person’s spiritual or religious tradition, beliefs or practices; and,
•Using one’s spiritual or religious position, rituals or practices to manipulate, dominate or control a person.

Broken link and all, still sounds like touchy feely made-up bull crap.

But if you want to expand the use of violence to encompass things that are clearly not violent . . . I guess we can all be victims.

I fixed the link. Here:

Defining Violence and Abuse

BS? really?

[_toon]

Broken link and all, still sounds like touchy feely made-up bull ____.

But if you want to expand the use of violence to encompass things that are clearly not violent . . . I guess we can all be victims.

Spiritual violence is pretty self-explanatory. Just as physical violence is about attacking another's body with force, spiritual violence is pretty much about attacking another person's perception, especially beliefs about god, through coercion.[/quote]

Just as emotional and cultural violence is self-explanatory. The problem, however, is that potential consequence or response to using when there's also a potential victim. See my link above to how the characterization of words and speech as emotional and cultural violence has placed out. When you use the word violence in situations where there's no physical violence, people can and have interpreted that as justifying violence in self-defense. And that's extremely problematic.

So while I get the metaphorical usage, I also think that it's not without consequence.

I also have problems with the hyperbolic usage. It's semantic violence. ;)

[_toon]

url=https://www.gov.Nightlion.ca/VPI/types/index.html]Defining Violence and Abuse[/url]

____? really?

Yes, your link connects cultural violence, emotional violence, spiritual violence, and other forms of metaphorical violence with actual physical violence. They are just different forms of a similar phenomenon.

While most people agree that self-defense, including violent use of force, is justified when confronted with violence and potential violence, then what is appropriate when confronted with these other apparently equivalent, albeit metaphorical, types of violence.

Think this is just an academic exercise? Then see my link above. It's not, and actual physical violence is being justified as a legitimate response when words are considered violence (i.e., cultural and emotional violence).

And why resort to hyperbole when there already are terms that appropriately fit the situation?

[_Meadowchik]

When you use the word violence in situations where there's no physical violence, people can and have interpreted that as justifying violence in self-defense. And that's extremely problematic.

People can "try" to justify anything. Doesn't mean anyone is buying.

I don't have a problem with clearly defined terms and spiritual violence can be clearly defined.

[_toon]

When you use the word violence in situations where there's no physical violence, people can and have interpreted that as justifying violence in self-defense. And that's extremely problematic.

People can "try" to justify anything. Doesn't mean anyone is buying.

I don't have a problem with clearly defined terms and spiritual violence can be clearly defined.

It's not just trying. It's happened and is happening.

Spiritual violence is a relatively new, made up term. One that sits along side cultural violence, emotional violence, and physical violence, and in which all are considered as having the same impact, as equally wrong and equally harmful.

Why this term, considering the impact it can have (and has similar metaphorical uses have had), when there are more accurate and descriptive terms? Why the hyperbole? Why not spiritual or religious abuse?

[_Meadowchik]

It's not just trying. It's happened and is happening.

Let's see an example or few.

Spiritual violence is a relatively new, made up term. One that sits along side cultural violence, emotional violence, and physical violence, and in which all are considered as having the same impact, as equally wrong and equally harmful.

That is odd. Physical violence can come in different forms, can range from throwing things at walls or spitting on a person's face to shoving someone to rape to beating someone to a pulp. All types of physical violence vary, and one type of assault does not justify making a response appropriate to deadly attack a one-size-fits-all response. If we can deal with the variability of the meaning of physical violence, we can deal with the variability of the terms identifying other types of violence.

Why this term, considering the impact it can have (and has similar metaphorical uses have had), when there are more accurate and descriptive terms? Why the hyperbole? Why not spiritual or religious abuse?

It works because it is obvious in meaning. It is a natural iteration of the term violence when applied to spiritual experience. It's not hyperbole at all but is merely the application of the term violence when it relates to violating boundaries of a spiritual nature.

I don't see a problem. I think human beings can step up their linguistic game, doing so is a natural adaptation.