- This topic has 30 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think as a purely intellectual exercise one could draw a parallel between Israel’s military history(not Judaism though) and some Krav tennets. First, as you may know most Israelis are vehemently secular. Second, KM stresses the forward motion. Israel has no room to retreat and they must always go forward take the fight to the enemy. Similarly, counter attacking with overwhelming violence is stressed. Israel has had to counter attack and even pre-emptively attack with overwhelming force to counterbalance it’s manpower and geographical limitations. Third, the system is simple to learn and applicable to many situations. When an army has to train it’s force fast and effectively, it doesn’t have time to spend on hundreds of approaches to similar problems. It’s most effective when the soldiers are taught principles to apply in many situations.
I still don’t think any aspect of self defense needs to be tied to any religious belief. Self preservation should be the only motivating factor.
One could also draw parallels to Israels past beyond its current make-up. There was a time when Israelis were vehemently religious. They used forward motion and improvised tactics against the Syrian-Greeks who outnumbered them dramatically. By using improvised tactics, combined with knowledge of the land and religious fervor they were able to defeat the Syrian-Greeks and thereby giving us the holiday of Chanukah. This rebellion was led by an elderly priest named Mattathias who refused a Syrian order to sacrifice to an idol. When an apostate Jew stepped forward to comply, Mattathias killed the man and tore down the altar. Then he and his five sons took to the hills and launched a guerrilla war against the armies of the empire.
Seems to me that if an elderly priest can lead a successful guerilla war then maybe there is more similarities to modern Krav principles than was once thought.
Re:
quote \”Ryan\:This is a self defense system, taught by self defense instructors. There are better places, led by more informed people, to learn your religion.I agree that learning about my religion would be done well by people more informed. But someone else’s religion is a bit less accessible.
Ryan agrees with me?? ❗ 😯 😀 I’m so touched, I think I’m gonna cry… 😥 😉
I think talking about religious principles in eastern martial arts might make a bit more sense, since certain aspects of those religions (such as meditation) may be an important part of that martial art (learning to meditate to increase one’s mental powers, things like that).
Krav Maga is more straight forward. No meditation, just simple, effective self defense that anyone can use. There is no need for religious lectures. If it’s just the occasional background information that’s fine, but once we get into \”you shouldn’t really put the guy in a choke hold in that situation, because the torah forbids it\” then maybe that’s a bit much.
I suppose making it a religious class isn’t quite what I would want either. But a sense for the perspective that its originators held adds immensely to the training. I remember during fight class once, I was paired with someone far superior in skill to me. My instructor grabbed my face mask pulled me in close and said \”he’s faster than you, stronger than you, younger than you, and more skilled than you — defend yourself!\”
All of that was true.
Through the whole fight I kept repeating to myself the mental lessons he had taught us. I didn’t think about the technical training at all. Incidentally, I won that sparring event. I just think the philosophical side adds a tremendous boost to one’s ability to fight.
GK, don’t get used to it. 😉 8) 😛
tehillim144:1, I agree, but I think you’re talking about psychology/behavior, not religion.
KravMDjeff, it’s not the place to learn about religion–yours, mine, or anyone else’s. Is that how you advertise it at your school? \”Combat-proven self defense and life skills from the torah\”? I doubt it, and there’s a reason for it. There’s a time and place, and Krav Maga is about real world self defense–don’t make it something it isn’t. You can infuse life lessons which transcend self defense, but you can do it, and I suggest that you do, without religious overtones.
If your goal is to teach self defense, why would you potentially alienate students by injecting something that is not relevant to that goal, and something that they didn’t ask/pay for? I just don’t get it.
Ryan,
I actually agree with you. Being in other situations on a pretty consistent basis where religious teaching goes on, I think self-defense is a whole other animal.
My question was entirely theoretical in nature. I have not ever, nor do I ever plan to, make a reference to anything remotely religious in the Krav classes I teach. People tend to make the assumption that the Israeli background is part of why I got involved, and though I personally make connections between my spiritual beliefs and my skills as a fighter, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve shared it with anyone, and none of those have been when I’m in the role of an instructor.
More than anything my question had to do with whether or not others have that as a personal interest or whether it is incidental that the nation out of which Krav was created is one of intense religious tradition.
I teach at a traditional martial arts school, and we bow on and off the mats, when we first enter the school, and to each other from time to time. Anyway, yesterday I asked one of my students, a seven year old lad, why he never did. He said that he would not bow to any other god and got sort of angry. He was a Muslim and it went against what he was brought up with. I said that was fine- its just a symbol of respect, and if he won’t do it its not because a lack of respect. Anyway,it seemed relevant here- do you really want to preach a particular religion when it might be contrary to the religion of others who want to learn self defense? It seems like there’s been more muslims at the school in the last few years because of recent discrimination makes them think about self defense. Although if they went into a krav school I don’t think they would mind some wise words of Abraham.
There are certain ethical things that are agreed upon by many, if not most, religious issues.
I had an instructor at a seminar for instructors constantly refer to the \”moral, legal, and ethical obligation of instructors.\” I agree with legal…I can’t teach someone to do something that challenges the law, especially if it lands my student in jail (that would put them in a more dangerous situation, not less).
But ethical and moral obligation? Aside from bowing and stuff like that, certain sects within all five major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) all have teachings that put definite limits on the use of force.
I guess at the end of the day, my personal preference would be to be an instructor, as well as work with other instructors, who are aware and sensitive to the moral/ethical/spiritual/religious aspects of anyone’s worldview who we might teach.
First, I’m new to the whole KM scene (literally just found about it today), but I find the whole style quiet fascinating. The history/mind set behind the style seem have played as dominant factors in its creation.
Now, I will say that I am not Jewish, I am Catholic (non-practicing) so the concept of taking another life in self defense or in the defense of another is a bit of a touchy subject. Does anyone know what the \”official\” philosophy on \”excessive violence\” is? I understand that a core component of the style is to overwhelm your assailant and \”neutralize\” the threat, but what exactly does this mean? For example, if the assailant has intent to kill you, do you in turn have the right to bring about their death? When a group of many attackers come after you, do you have the right to make sure one assailant, once dealt with, doesn’t have a chance to re-enter the fight?
(I realise that this way not be the best place to post this, but it was the first thread I found that discussed the moral/religious implications of the style)
Thanks alot.
Gills0088, this is the perfect place for that question. Neutralizing the threat doesn’t mean you kill. It means you only take the action necessary to stop the threat so that you can go home safely. If you can create distance after your initial counter-attack to disengage and leave the scene without them catching up to you, then that’s always what you preferably do. With multiples, this changes, the level of defense is allowed to change with the level of the threat. Multiples means higher threat, which means force required to go home safely(generally). However, all of this has to fall into what your state defines as a reasonable level of self-defense.
Specific laws change within each state and county — and are interpreted and pursued by different district attorneys — so the very best way to learn is to talk to local law enforcement.
However, the general rule that applies is the \”reasonable man\” standard. This guideline states that you are allowed to do whatever a reasonable in your situation would do to make himself safe. Note that the definition is what a \”reasonable\” person would do. It’s not enough to beat someone up or kill them and then just to say \”I was in fear of my life.\” The authorities would want to determine if a reasonable person, put in your situation, would have felt the same need.
BTW, I was the instructor at MDJeff’s course for instructors. The \”legal, moral, and ethical\” obligation to students has NOTHING to do with preaching morality or ethics to them and EVERYTHING to do with accepting the legal, moral, and ethical obligations you have TO them when you take on the role of instructor.
Re:
quote \”johnwhitman\:BTW, I was the instructor at MDJeff’s course for instructors. The \”legal, moral, and ethical\” obligation to students has NOTHING to do with preaching morality or ethics to them and EVERYTHING to do with accepting the legal, moral, and ethical obligations you have TO them when you take on the role of instructor.John, actually, I wasn’t talking about the phase training. I was talking about a seminar by a guy named Nick Hughes, out of Charlotte, NC. He focused on it a LOT more than you did…to the extent that I felt like he was implicitly preaching a perspective without actually bringing it up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
