Nonviolence has been very much in the news of late, with the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. The New York Times profiles one of the leading theorists of nonviolent direct action, Gene Sharp. I met Gene Sharp back in the 1980s when our non-violent efforts were directed at the proliferation of nuclear weapons and US actions in Central America. Nonviolence has been much on my mind this week, because of the gospel reading for this Sunday:

Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)

While it may seem on the surface that Jesus is advocating complete passivity, that is not the case. The Greek word translated here as “do not resist” could be translated more literally as “stand against.” The actions Jesus mentions, turning the other cheek, giving one’s cloak as well as coat, and going the second mile, are, as MLK and Gandhi pointed out, intended to transform the oppressor.

Here’s an interview with Gene Sharp, author of The Politics of Nonviolent Action. It focuses on events in Egypt and Tunisia, but is interesting in light of ongoing events here in Madison.

Here is the section of questions related to religion:

NS: While watching the coverage, many of us were struck by the images of Muslims and Christians protecting each other while praying. Do you think religion was a significant factor?

GS: Not from anything that I have found so far.

NS: Nonviolence and pacifism have often been historically associated with religions, like Jainism and Christian “peace churches”—

GS: Yes, that’s right.

NS: Is religion at all essential to motivating nonviolent movements, or can the ideas transcend their religious origins?

GS: It’s not even a question anymore. They have transcended religious boundaries. If people come from any particular religious group and are inspired to be nonviolent and to resist—not just to be nonviolent and passive—that’s fine. But don’t claim that they have to believe in a certain religion. Historically, for centuries and even millennia, that has not been true. Nonviolent struggle, as I understand it, is not based on what people believe. It’s what they do.

NS: But don’t cultural differences make some societies more likely to act nonviolently than others? Or is everybody equally equipped to do so, independently of their culture?

GS: Setting culture aside for the moment, not everybody is equally equipped to do anything. But when The Politics of Nonviolent Action was first published in 1973, the famous anthropologist Margaret Mead said in her review that what I was maintaining—without saying so, in so many words—was that this is a cross-cultural phenomenon.

NS: There have certainly been stereotypes suggesting that Muslims couldn’t do something like this, that they can only use violence.

GS: It’s utter nonsense. In the North-West Frontier Province of British India, the Muslim Pashtuns, who had a reputation for great violence, became even braver and more disciplined nonviolent soldiers than the Hindus, according to Gandhi. It’s a very important case. And when my essay “From Dictatorship to Democracy” was published in Indonesia, it carried an introduction by Abdurrahman Wahid, a Muslim leader who later became president.