Amy rethinks Girard

After class yesterday, I am still not completely convinced that I can agree with Girard's theory. But Sandy's explanation tamed the displeasure, somewhat. Some points of revision:
Girard does not himself believe that violence is part of human nature Instead, he sees it as imminent in creation, as an a priori condition for the existence culture and community. This makes me uneasy.
Girard posits the Judeo-Christian tradition as an attempt to work against this requirement of sacrifice. "Jesus was an antisacrificial figure," Sandy said. The "radical inclusion" of Christianity (well, some versions....sigh) is anti-violence (where violence = exclusion from society for scapegoating purposes). But if there's this ether of violence permeating the fabric of culture, then cultures influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition need some sort of outlet, some sort of other violence to hold the community together.

Here I would propose the Burkeian symbolic action, symbolic violence. Ad Bellum Purificandum, toward the purification of war, to purify by transforming it through text. What, then, do we do? Where is this symbolic violence taking place? And is Girard right--have we really managed to create an antisacrificial society (not "un"sacrificial, but one against the idea of the necessity of sacrifice). What about the Cold War? What about Iraq?