It seems to me there is a significant difference between the owner of a temple sending someone to cleanse it, and destroying the private property of others without such permission.
Both acts are symbolic attacks intended to make a point. In the Waihopai case, the point is this:
We are responding to the Bush administration’s admission that intelligence gathering is the most important tool in the so-called War on Terror. This war will have no end until citizens of the world refuse to let it continue. The ECHELON spy network including Waihopai, is an important part of the US government’s global spy network and we have come in the name of the Prince of Peace to close it down.
…
Five years ago the Clark government opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq. Yet at the same time the Bush administration was using the National Security Agency’s ECHELON system, of which Waihopai is an integral component, to spy on UN Security Council members so it could more easily swing them in favour of an invasion.
Why focus on the damage to property rather than the substance of their protest?
Okay, more accurately a case of joint ownership then. Herod’s temple, but also “my Father’s house”.
In any case, it disappoints me when people who claim to follow Jesus destroy other people’s property in the name of Jesus. If that is how Jesus’ people ought to act, then it would follow that the Plowshares ought to be burning down abortion clinics, brothels, etc… as equally symbolic acts to make a point. Truth is Jesus doesn’t call his people to fight this way.
“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” (2 Co 10:4)
“He said the group, which called themselves the Ploughshares, followed Jesus’ example of resisting power on an ethical basis.”
To what would they be referring to?
Perhaps the disruptive but basically nonviolent ‘cleansing of the temple’.
I pretty much agree with Helen.
incidentally on the photo view it says the damage is $30K. $1M does seem a bit high.
It seems to me there is a significant difference between the owner of a temple sending someone to cleanse it, and destroying the private property of others without such permission.
It’s not private property, it’s public property.
Both acts are symbolic attacks intended to make a point. In the Waihopai case, the point is this:
Why focus on the damage to property rather than the substance of their protest?
It’s private property because it doesn’t belong to them – they vandalised something that isn’t theirs. The temple did belong to Jesus.
Did the temple belong to Jesus more than other Jews?
(Off topic but that is my way.)
My understanding was that it was Herod’s temple.
Okay, more accurately a case of joint ownership then. Herod’s temple, but also “my Father’s house”.
In any case, it disappoints me when people who claim to follow Jesus destroy other people’s property in the name of Jesus. If that is how Jesus’ people ought to act, then it would follow that the Plowshares ought to be burning down abortion clinics, brothels, etc… as equally symbolic acts to make a point. Truth is Jesus doesn’t call his people to fight this way.
“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” (2 Co 10:4)
I would be very interested to hear a Ploughshares person’s response to that.
Would be interesting, I agree.