I tried to send the following to Carl Olsen of Envoy magazine regarding a letter sent by the Archdiocese of Portland.
I know what they mean by active non-violence. My lessons in the radical lefist lexicon began as a study of Earth First! and its bible The Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey.
The radical left is an overlapping blend of environmentalists, communists, anarchists, anti-capitalists, civil rights advocates, animal rights advocates, anti-West/anti-American groups, and anti-war groups.
They share a similar lexicon. When talking about non-violence they usually invoke Gandi, and sometimes invoke MLK.
When they talk about non-violence they mean that they will not injure people, animals or trees (this is not necessarily their order of priorties). There seems to be a debate raging, but non-violence does not exclude the destruction of property.
When they talk about active non-violence they are talking about some form of monkeywrenching (gumming up the works). I usually encounter the term as non-violent direct action.
I'm guessing, since I've never heard of contemplative non-violence, that it's a passive non-violence as opposed to active non-violence.
The following links may bring you up to speed (note: I just discovered the satyagraha site today):
The following was added to the comments box at Mark Shea's Blog
It's regarding the disparity in Bush's dealings with Iraq and North Korea, and the pope's beatification of a friar who helped defend Vienna against the Turks (Muslims) in the 17th Century (see Shea).
I've long been troubled by Pope John Paul II's alleged silence over President Assad's comments when the pope visited Syria in May 2001. See the following links:
Pope John Paul II's precious legacy was trashed by Vatican policy and Syrian hate -- Jonathan Tobin
A papal sin of silence -- The Jerusalem Post
"Silence," No; Deafness, Yes -- George Weigel
I did a search today to see if there's an adequate defense for the pope. I certainly could be charitable and accept George Weigel's views. But something in me demands that the pope specificly denounce Assad. The kissing of the Koran pales beside the "inaction" in the face of evil. Really, the kissing of the Koran is inconsequential. However, if the kissing of the Koran represents a symbol of brotherhood, what does the silence represent?
I expect the answer to this involves something on the lines of: this is the way that Pope John Paul works (re: George Weigel).
I didn't post this in the wrong comment box. But I see a relationship between the "silence" of the pope and the "appeasement" of the Bush administration.
I'm not particularly troubled by the disparity between the policy over Iraq and North Korea. It makes sense to me that Iraq will be first... if we fail in Iraq, it will make little difference how we handle North Korea. And George Bush doesn't strike me as Neville Chamberlain. How he deals with Iraq will have bearing on how he deals with North Korea. He'll have much more credibility in dealing with North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Syria with a whipped Iraq under his belt.
Then again, I could be wrong.