|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pacifism
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
As another example of effective pacifism, the Christian abolition movement in the US that helped an estimated 100,000 slaves escape the South through the Underground Railroad.
All of the North and most of the West had banned slavery in individual states prior to the onset of the Civil War, and we all know that the war did not have the effect of liberating Southern black people, who remained indentured and second-class citizens for almost another 100 years...
...when a non-violent activist named Martin Luther King Jr led the civil rights movement.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not think that belonging to a church, being in the Body of Christ, means that we are no longer individuals. I don't think my quote about individuals, families and neighbours is against the christian ideal of a faith community at all.
But of course it does, if there are ONLY individual people and families, which is what Thatcher's quote says.
The word 'only' does not appear. It is put there by you.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not think that belonging to a church, being in the Body of Christ, means that we are no longer individuals. I don't think my quote about individuals, families and neighbours is against the christian ideal of a faith community at all.
But of course it does, if there are ONLY individual people and families, which is what Thatcher's quote says.
The word 'only' does not appear. It is put there by you.
Oh for fuck's sake. If there is no such thing as society, it follows that there are ONLY individuals and families.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Oh yeah and Mudfrog, please explain how MLK was a high-minded idealist in an ivory tower who didn't achieve anything through his pacifism. We're all ears.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
His ideals were more important to him than the lives of innocent Britons who he would not have been happy to see go to the gas chambers, but would have done nothing to prevent it.
Meanwhile, the ideals of those who wanted to prevent the gas chambers were more important to them than the lives of innocent Britons who were sent to die on the battlefield.
Can nobody see that it's the same fucking thing, just with different people being killed?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.
Yes, I'm sure those civilians will be much safer once they've been handed a rifle and marched out to war ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But of course it does, if there are ONLY individual people and families, which is what Thatcher's quote says. It says there is no such thing as society - which is impossible to agree with for Christians, since the Church (properly understood) is a society.
This is a bit of a tangent, but surely what Mrs Thatcher was driving at is that the problems we face cannot be pinned on an abstract concept called 'society' and that it's thing called 'society's' fault, because our communities are made up of real people and we must look to ourselves and others to improve our lot.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Where your argument fails is in assuming that evil can be quantified only in number of deaths. Such a simplistic and reductionist approach is pointless as a way of judging events IMO.
Only if you think that some deaths are less important than others, or that lives are less important than political ideology.
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But of course it does, if there are ONLY individual people and families, which is what Thatcher's quote says. It says there is no such thing as society - which is impossible to agree with for Christians, since the Church (properly understood) is a society.
This is a bit of a tangent, but surely what Mrs Thatcher was driving at is that the problems we face cannot be pinned on an abstract concept called 'society' and that it's thing called 'society's' fault, because our communities are made up of real people and we must look to ourselves and others to improve our lot.
Even that doesn't make a great deal of sense. If there's no society, there's no community surely? That's all society is. Smaller communities eg towns, villages or even a street are just society in miniature, and the same goes for the Church.
It's still an individual-focused viewpoint that's utterly absent from the Bible and from the Church as it was established, although unfortunately not absent from all churches now.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Where your argument fails is in assuming that evil can be quantified only in number of deaths. Such a simplistic and reductionist approach is pointless as a way of judging events IMO.
Only if you think that some deaths are less important than others, or that lives are less important than political ideology.
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.
But isn't there a point when we actually don't know? For example, we have limited knowledge about whether an assassination attempt on Hitler would shorten the war or whether a chaotic evil Himmler type would get the power and somehow turn things back into Great War warfare, making the war drag on for decades with many thousand dead. Is it wrong on that occasion to seek to assassinate Hitler? What if people disagree on the likely outcome - should those act who think it likely, putting their own estimations of ideology and people above the possible lives of all those soldiers?
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.
What if the political ideology you oppose is one that says sixty million+ humans should be exterminated, including any future 'undesirable' humans who are born?
Again, you simplify things too far Marvin. Weighing human lives against political theories seems like an easy decision on the surface. But its much more complicated in reality.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Where your argument fails is in assuming that evil can be quantified only in number of deaths. Such a simplistic and reductionist approach is pointless as a way of judging events IMO.
Only if you think that some deaths are less important than others, or that lives are less important than political ideology.
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.
But isn't there a point when we actually don't know?
Don't know what? Whether having the right political ideology in charge of a country is more important than the people of that country being alive?
I'm not sure what your "for example" was trying to argue, to be honest. It doesn't seem directly related to what I've been saying.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.
What if the political ideology you oppose is one that says sixty million+ humans should be exterminated, including any future 'undesirable' humans who are born?
What if it does? Does that make it right to exterminate a different sixty million+ in the name of stopping it? Are those deaths less important? Are those people less innocent or less worthy of protection? Is the grief of their bereaved families and friends less real?
quote:
Again, you simplify things too far Marvin. Weighing human lives against political theories seems like an easy decision on the surface. But its much more complicated in reality.
I disagree. I think the ones who oversimplify things are those who act as if the situations that lead to war are like something out of Lord of the Rings, where the Bad Guys will kill every last man, woman and child in existence if they win. Real-world conflicts - even ones that feature Nazis - are not like that, and real-life Bad Guys - even Hitler - are not Sauron.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Good Samaritan teaches us a very important lesson. The two men, the priest and the Levite, did nothing wrong in walking by on the other side: they had their ideals, they were obeying the Torah, the will of God. The knew that in their life there was nothing higher than being pure and holy in the sight of God. They were respected for it, they may have been very humble in their service of God. BUT they placed that personal sense of service and holiness above the needs of a fellow human being. And THAT was wrong. The Samaritan saw the need before he saw his own personal standards.
Would the Samaritan have used physical force to protect the man who was being being up, had he arrived when the attack was being carried out? I don't know.
But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.
.
But again, ignoring the suffering of others would be passivity, not pacifism. No one here is arguing for passivity. Continuing to swat at your strawmen is getting tiresome.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Frankly, once you start saying that eradicating undesirable political ideologies is more important than people's lives then you're no better than the ideologies you're seeking to eradicate. Worse, even.
What if the political ideology you oppose is one that says sixty million+ humans should be exterminated, including any future 'undesirable' humans who are born?
What if it does? Does that make it right to exterminate a different sixty million+ in the name of stopping it? Are those deaths less important? Are those people less innocent or less worthy of protection? Is the grief of their bereaved families and friends less real?
No, but an ideology that says human life is meaningless or that certain people are sub-human and should be persecuted and/or eradicated has an effect on human life far greater than the mere number of people they can suceed in killing between 1939-45. Such long-term affects need to be taken into consideration. And sometimes there are worse evils than shooting people. Shooting someone only takes away their life, whereas a particularly evil ideology can create a permenant system where human life or equality of individuals is no longer sacred. In a thousand year Reich how many people would have suffered compared to a five year war - however devestating?
quote:
quote:
Again, you simplify things too far Marvin. Weighing human lives against political theories seems like an easy decision on the surface. But its much more complicated in reality.
I disagree. I think the ones who oversimplify things are those who act as if the situations that lead to war are like something out of Lord of the Rings, where the Bad Guys will kill every last man, woman and child in existence if they win. Real-world conflicts - even ones that feature Nazis - are not like that, and real-life Bad Guys - even Hitler - are not Sauron.
I completely agree. But you have to be careful not to swing to the other extreme, and ignore the real-world effects of a malicious ideology. We can see the effects of an unrestrained ideology which cares nothing for human lives in the lessons of Lenin and Stalin's Russia and Mao's China - which exterminated around 40-70 million and more because they considered such deaths to be nothing compared to the goals of the Party. As well as the Kim's North Korea, whose devestating effects on human lives are even today ongoing, supported by a society specifically designed to shelter and support the continuation of torture, oppression and murder, with no signs of this ever ending.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]
So I'll do you a deal. I'll accept that war is sometimes necessary if you accept that it should only ever be fought by those who volunteer to do so. Acceptable?
Just as an aside: sometimes these seemingly obvious ethical positions have unintended consequences. An all-volunteer military has been the rule here in the US ever since the deeply unpopular and famously divisive Vietnam War draft. I doubt we'll see a draft again while my generation is still living-- our memories of thousands of young men sent off to die in a war they could not ethically support are just too fresh. The fact that 18 year olds couldn't vote until 5 years into the war was also an issue-- those bearing the burden of war did not even have a say in the act of war.
But the unintended consequence of that is also none too pretty. We now have a military made up almost entirely of young men and women from the poorest communities in our country. It is very, very unusual to see a serviceperson from a wealthy or privileged family. Yet the wealthy have an increasingly outsize political influence in our country, leading to a very similar situation to what we saw during Vietnam-- the people voting to send us to war are often completely isolated from the effects of war, unlikely to ever have a vet in their family or community.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We now have a military made up almost entirely of young men and women from the poorest communities in our country. It is very, very unusual to see a serviceperson from a wealthy or privileged family. Yet the wealthy have an increasingly outsize political influence in our country, leading to a very similar situation to what we saw during Vietnam-- the people voting to send us to war are often completely isolated from the effects of war, unlikely to ever have a vet in their family or community.
Excellent insight, cliffdweller.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But I do know that it isn't right to stand on some kind of moral platform and ignore the suffering of others because of it.
Mudfrog, assuming that you're talking about pacifism here again:
Despite the many times it has been pointed out to you, it seems that you remain frustratingly unable to distinguish PACIFISM from PASSIVE-ISM. Only Marvin seems to be arguing for the latter.
If you want to argue against something, then you need to understand what you're arguing against. You simply don't seem to understand what pacifism is.
So, in reply to the above. Your approach doesn't ignore the suffering of innocents, but pacifists don't ignore that suffering either. You both strongly care and want to do something about that suffering. The difference is that you each choose to do different things about that suffering. The difference is not between action and inaction, but different types of action, and the question, therefore, is which actions are better and righter? The question is most definitely not "why aren't those people doing something when they should be doing something?".
No, I think what I am saying is that pacifism may be OK during peacetime when we all have the luxury of private beliefs and high-minded ivory-tower intellectual beliefs, but when it comes down to the crisis of a war actually happening, those beliefs should be overridden by the need of the moment.
Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.
Honestly, mudfrog, to you EVER read the posts you're responding to? It is clear that goperryrevs is NOT talking about a situation where you would have an "unopposed army" marching into town. Because, once again, as goperryrevs notes above, pacifism is not inaction.
Now you may believe that the action of pacifists to oppose an imperialist army would be ineffective. Fine-- you are in good company. (Wink has some interesting things to say about the faith implications of that). But please stop misrepresenting what others are saying. Pacifism does not ever mean that evil goes "unopposed".
[ 13. November 2013, 14:32: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Of course, I realise that my analysis above ignores the fact that without the war and armed resistance movements the shelter of Jews would likely have been less succesful, even ultimately pointless as the Nazis probably wouldn't have stopped hunting Jews if they hadn't been eventually overthrown militarily. But I think it's still interesting to note that pacifist methods of resistance were very effective at saving lives, and definitely far more effective than relying solely on armed force.
Mind you, one of the main reasons Denmark managed to save so many of its Jews were that there was a neutral state 20 minutes away by boat. The neutral state was kept neutral by its use supporting the war effort, trading iron to the Wehrmacht. Also, the Swedish prime minister threatened to blow up all the mines rendering Sweden ultimately worthless to the Germans, should they enter. This is supposed to have saved the safe haven, and provided opportunities like saving Danish Jews or saving around 40 000 Jews in Hungary through Raoul Wallenberg's efforts. Depending on the view you take, you could say that the pacifist movements depended on a passivist country, a pacifist country or a war-prepared country. Not sure what that says about the argument, though.
Actually, what you're describing is two pacifist countries working in tandem. Blowing up mines is an excellent example of what Wink calls "creative non-violence", particularly since, as with most such acts, it comes with great personal sacrifice.
It also demonstrates something that Bonhoeffer came to recognize as well-- that pacifism is more effective when it is practiced by a community (e.g. LeChambon) then in isolation. Which is why it is appropriate for Christians to advocate for it as a community value.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Thinking about this whole pacifism thing (I am not a pacifist, not because I reject it, but because I'm weak)...
It seems to me that we are, inevitably, promoting war without end, if we say that one permissible end of diplomacy is armed conflict (the von Clauswitz view). It allows nationalistic, God-fearing Germans to join up, at the same time it allows the British Army freedom of agency. It allows idealistic young Irishmen and women to don a balaclava in the hope of overthrowing the hated occupiers. It gives permission, and even hope, to the fighters heading to Syria - whichever side they end up fighting for.
Simply put, if we give ourselves permission to kill, others will too. Whether they do so before or after we have armed ourselves is moot. It is the thought itself that condemns us to fight.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Simply put, if we give ourselves permission to kill, others will too. Whether they do so before or after we have armed ourselves is moot. It is the thought itself that condemns us to fight.
But removing the thought from ourselves has no effect on removing the thought from others. In fact if we don't give ourselves permission to kill if we're attacked then it may actually encourage others to do so because we'll be seen as an easy target.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
No, but an ideology that says human life is meaningless or that certain people are sub-human and should be persecuted and/or eradicated has an effect on human life far greater than the mere number of people they can suceed in killing between 1939-45. Such long-term affects need to be taken into consideration. And sometimes there are worse evils than shooting people. Shooting someone only takes away their life, whereas a particularly evil ideology can create a permenant system where human life or equality of individuals is no longer sacred. In a thousand year Reich how many people would have suffered compared to a five year war - however devestating?
Just to drag this away from Hitler for a moment: how about the American Civil War? It was kiiiind of fought to combat an evil ideology. Or at least it had the side effect of (sort of) crushing the ideology, even if the government's main goal was to preserve the Union.
Were the deaths of over half a million soldiers, and the destruction of a regional economy, worth freeing 4 million people from terrible suffering?
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And sometimes there are worse evils than shooting people.
I disagree. Death is the ultimate evil, the only thing that utterly precludes any future joy, contentment or peace. Anything else can be worked through and survived. Death cannot.
quote:
Shooting someone only takes away their life, whereas a particularly evil ideology can create a permenant system where human life or equality of individuals is no longer sacred.
Are you saying it's better to be dead than to be in a society where equality isn't a sacred principle?
quote:
We can see the effects of an unrestrained ideology which cares nothing for human lives in the lessons of Lenin and Stalin's Russia and Mao's China - which exterminated around 40-70 million and more because they considered such deaths to be nothing compared to the goals of the Party.
Fun fact - neither Stalin nor Mao were brought to an end by armed conflict. Yet end their reigns did.
quote:
As well as the Kim's North Korea, whose devestating effects on human lives are even today ongoing, supported by a society specifically designed to shelter and support the continuation of torture, oppression and murder, with no signs of this ever ending.
Tell you what - go there and ask the people how many of them would rather be dead than living in such conditions. Not many, I'd warrant.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the people voting to send us to war are often completely isolated from the effects of war, unlikely to ever have a vet in their family or community.
Don't worry - I'm also firmly of the belief that if those fucking politician bastards want to fight wars so much they can bloody well get on the front lines themselves. Let's have a return to the days of leaders taking to the battlefield with their troops, then we'll see how important the fuckers really think the battles are.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]
So I'll do you a deal. I'll accept that war is sometimes necessary if you accept that it should only ever be fought by those who volunteer to do so. Acceptable?
Just as an aside: sometimes these seemingly obvious ethical positions have unintended consequences. An all-volunteer military has been the rule here in the US ever since the deeply unpopular and famously divisive Vietnam War draft. I doubt we'll see a draft again while my generation is still living-- our memories of thousands of young men sent off to die in a war they could not ethically support are just too fresh. The fact that 18 year olds couldn't vote until 5 years into the war was also an issue-- those bearing the burden of war did not even have a say in the act of war.
But the unintended consequence of that is also none too pretty. We now have a military made up almost entirely of young men and women from the poorest communities in our country. It is very, very unusual to see a serviceperson from a wealthy or privileged family. Yet the wealthy have an increasingly outsize political influence in our country, leading to a very similar situation to what we saw during Vietnam-- the people voting to send us to war are often completely isolated from the effects of war, unlikely to ever have a vet in their family or community.
Actually, that is not quite true in the case of the US. Rosa Brooks in Foreign Policy quotes a study from 2008 that shows that only 10 % of new recruits come from neighbourhoods in the lowest income quintile but 25 % come from neighbourhoods in the highest income quintile. The Ivy League schools are more likely to provide ROTC recruits than other schools. The demand for a high school diploma in order to sign up means most of the poorest are actually ineligible, she points out.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why not do a bit more reading?
Nothing I havn't already seen. Do you really think two links to reviews of the same book is conclusive proof? Links which only speak in generalisations except when quoting Origen, Tertullian and Lactantius.
I've already dealt with Origen and Tertullian in the last post, I don't intend to go over it again, other than to say maybe it's you who who needs to read more. Lactantius, advisor to Constantine, as a pacifist, did he advise Constantine to be a pacifist. I laughed when I realised who Lactantius was, thank you for brightening my evening.
If you do want to read more, try Googling "Eusebius Thundering Legion."
I appreciate that you've made your mind up, but since I have church fathers saying "don't kill, and that applies if you're in the army", why not wheel some out who say, "Sure, go ahead! Hit them with the pointy end!"?
Because I have never alleged any of them said that. Stop building straw men.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
But isn't there a point when we actually don't know?
Don't know what? Whether having the right political ideology in charge of a country is more important than the people of that country being alive?
I'm not sure what your "for example" was trying to argue, to be honest. It doesn't seem directly related to what I've been saying.
At the beginning of a conflict or military action, we don't know how many will end up being dead. If it is solely a matter of not sacrificing (roughly) as many in trying to reach our goal, that means it should be ok to sacrifice a little to save a lot. But at what point on the gray scale of risk and likelihood of Verdun should we back away from action? Every point that risks a single life?
(And yes, in my example I mixed the case of an individual committing an act of violence with that of a general sending troops to war - if this darkened the comparison and example, I'm sorry.)
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Simply put, if we give ourselves permission to kill, others will too. Whether they do so before or after we have armed ourselves is moot. It is the thought itself that condemns us to fight.
But removing the thought from ourselves has no effect on removing the thought from others. In fact if we don't give ourselves permission to kill if we're attacked then it may actually encourage others to do so because we'll be seen as an easy target.
So in pre-WWII Germany, when ~80% of the population are Protestant, ~20% are Roman Catholic (less than 1% Jewish), almost everyone is Christian, nominal or otherwise.
Tell me again how, if Christianity preached pacifism, WWII would get off the drawing board?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I appreciate that you've made your mind up, but since I have church fathers saying "don't kill, and that applies if you're in the army", why not wheel some out who say, "Sure, go ahead! Hit them with the pointy end!"?
Because I have never alleged any of them said that. Stop building straw men.
No, but you are saying that the early church fathers didn't mind if Christians were in the Roman army. I have evidence that they did. That's hardly a straw man.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I was going to post to respond to this from Mudfrog... quote:
At the moment all I'm suddenly seeing is a Quaker version of WWJD?
with asking what was bad about that, but I then saw about his meeting with a particular Quaker.
I probably don't need to remind anyone else that there is no such thing as a single Quaker who can give the Quaker interpretation about anything. No one Quaker can speak for the whole Society. A meeting - of various sizes according to the locality - can arrive at a group interpretation and publish it. (And then, as in the case of the American Civil War, separate from other meetings which disagree, though this is difficult to explain in terms of guidance from the Holy Spirit.) This is a good thing (or possibly, with regard to 1066 and All That, A Good Thing).
It applies to other denominations as well. Fortunately. The separation of a friend of mine from the Anglicans was contributed to by a vicar who answered a question by saying that, if the Nazis had invaded, and demanded the identification and delivering up of Jews, he would have done it. Because it was important to obey the law, apparently, and if the law changed to make that demand, then, regardless of the consequences, it must be obeyed. (I want an emoticon showing someone hitting a vicar around the head. Despite it not being particularly pacifist.) Not a man who spoke for the CofE, I believe.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, the worst kind of pacifist. A gutless collaborator. Civil disobedience, passive resistance and subversion are mandatory, as Jesus showed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I appreciate that you've made your mind up, but since I have church fathers saying "don't kill, and that applies if you're in the army", why not wheel some out who say, "Sure, go ahead! Hit them with the pointy end!"?
Because I have never alleged any of them said that. Stop building straw men.
No, but you are saying that the early church fathers didn't mind if Christians were in the Roman army. I have evidence that they did. That's hardly a straw man.
I never said that either.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I was going to post to respond to this from Mudfrog... quote:
At the moment all I'm suddenly seeing is a Quaker version of WWJD?
with asking what was bad about that, but I then saw about his meeting with a particular Quaker.
I probably don't need to remind anyone else that there is no such thing as a single Quaker who can give the Quaker interpretation about anything. No one Quaker can speak for the whole Society. A meeting - of various sizes according to the locality - can arrive at a group interpretation and publish it. (And then, as in the case of the American Civil War, separate from other meetings which disagree, though this is difficult to explain in terms of guidance from the Holy Spirit.) This is a good thing (or possibly, with regard to 1066 and All That, A Good Thing).
It applies to other denominations as well. Fortunately. The separation of a friend of mine from the Anglicans was contributed to by a vicar who answered a question by saying that, if the Nazis had invaded, and demanded the identification and delivering up of Jews, he would have done it. Because it was important to obey the law, apparently, and if the law changed to make that demand, then, regardless of the consequences, it must be obeyed. (I want an emoticon showing someone hitting a vicar around the head. Despite it not being particularly pacifist.) Not a man who spoke for the CofE, I believe.
Quite. I would actually go as far as saying that the Quaker Mudfrog mentions and the priest you mention are not actual pacifists at all, but as Martin says, gutless collaborators. To be a pacifist is to be working for peace (it's what the word means after all) and the actions/ideas described by those people are not helping bring about or sustain peace. And peace is not a lack of action, since peace is a fruit of the Spirit and how could that be passive and inactive?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I do not think I have been told the priest claimed to be a pacifist. Just a gutless collaborator. (Is priesthood a reserved occupation?)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Actually, that is not quite true in the case of the US. Rosa Brooks in Foreign Policy quotes a study from 2008 that shows that only 10 % of new recruits come from neighbourhoods in the lowest income quintile but 25 % come from neighbourhoods in the highest income quintile. The Ivy League schools are more likely to provide ROTC recruits than other schools. The demand for a high school diploma in order to sign up means most of the poorest are actually ineligible, she points out.
The article is behind a paywall, but sounds interesting.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
The neutral state was kept neutral by its use supporting the war effort, trading iron to the Wehrmacht. Also, the Swedish prime minister threatened to blow up all the mines rendering Sweden ultimately worthless to the Germans, should they enter.
So Sweden did not want the Nazis in their country, but declined to to contribute to the military effort which actually defeated Nazism, were happy to contribute materially to the Nazi war machine, and profited economically from the conflict.
In other words, they were on the same moral level as Switzerland, which also did well out of the war.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Aye, the worst kind of pacifist. A gutless collaborator. Civil disobedience, passive resistance and subversion are mandatory, as Jesus showed.
Again, a gutless collaborator is, by definition, NOT a pacifist, but a passivist.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I do not think I have been told the priest claimed to be a pacifist. Just a gutless collaborator. (Is priesthood a reserved occupation?)
Wikipedia says that all clergy were exempt from conscription in WWI and WWII, but that in the last year of WWI there was support for the conscription of clergy (but it did not happen).
Interestingly students were also exempt from conscription in WWII which I did not expect but I suppose they were a small group back then.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We're on the same side cliffdweller. Nuances of words should not differentiate us. And I can embrace passivist too. As in passive resistance.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I probably don't need to remind anyone else that there is no such thing as a single Quaker who can give the Quaker interpretation about anything. No one Quaker can speak for the whole Society.
Quite. I would actually go as far as saying that the Quaker Mudfrog mentions and the priest you mention are not actual pacifists at all, but as Martin says, gutless collaborators.
I'm sure there are gutless Quakers about - I may even be one of them - but I wouldn't rush to condemn anyone on the basis of Mudfrog's account of a conversation with them.
More generally, I don't think there is one right answer to what one does when war breaks out in a world committed to war as the ultimate (as opposed to the worst) way of resolving disputes. Yes, pacifists should work for peace; they should work to try and reduce the amount of time, energy, money and effort that goes into preparing for war. However, whenever a situation breaks out such as we had in 1939, each individual has to make a choice. Quite a few Quakers enlisted - and had I lived then, I might have been one of them. But maybe that's just because I don't have the guts to be 100% pacifist.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I know I don't either, but if I put my mouth on the line, my money might follow.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I probably don't need to remind anyone else that there is no such thing as a single Quaker who can give the Quaker interpretation about anything. No one Quaker can speak for the whole Society.
Quite. I would actually go as far as saying that the Quaker Mudfrog mentions and the priest you mention are not actual pacifists at all, but as Martin says, gutless collaborators.
I'm sure there are gutless Quakers about - I may even be one of them - but I wouldn't rush to condemn anyone on the basis of Mudfrog's account of a conversation with them.
More generally, I don't think there is one right answer to what one does when war breaks out in a world committed to war as the ultimate (as opposed to the worst) way of resolving disputes. Yes, pacifists should work for peace; they should work to try and reduce the amount of time, energy, money and effort that goes into preparing for war. However, whenever a situation breaks out such as we had in 1939, each individual has to make a choice. Quite a few Quakers enlisted - and had I lived then, I might have been one of them. But maybe that's just because I don't have the guts to be 100% pacifist.
I'm not sure that's what I meant! By gutless (and certainly 'collaborator') I meant the person being prepared to welcome a Nazi government - which is as un-Quakerly as it is possible to get.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, a gutless collaborator is, by definition, NOT a pacifist, but a passivist.
OED definition of pacifism: "The policy or doctrine of rejecting war and every form of violent action as means of solving disputes". There is nothing there to suggest pacifism demands active resistance to occupying forces or that pacifism and passivism are mutually exclusive. It seems to me you are using a No True Pacifist fallacy to try to redefine pacifism to exclude anything that could be considered negative.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Of course, I realise that my analysis above ignores the fact that without the war and armed resistance movements the shelter of Jews would likely have been less succesful, even ultimately pointless as the Nazis probably wouldn't have stopped hunting Jews if they hadn't been eventually overthrown militarily. But I think it's still interesting to note that pacifist methods of resistance were very effective at saving lives, and definitely far more effective than relying solely on armed force.
Mind you, one of the main reasons Denmark managed to save so many of its Jews were that there was a neutral state 20 minutes away by boat. The neutral state was kept neutral by its use supporting the war effort, trading iron to the Wehrmacht. Also, the Swedish prime minister threatened to blow up all the mines rendering Sweden ultimately worthless to the Germans, should they enter. This is supposed to have saved the safe haven, and provided opportunities like saving Danish Jews or saving around 40 000 Jews in Hungary through Raoul Wallenberg's efforts. Depending on the view you take, you could say that the pacifist movements depended on a passivist country, a pacifist country or a war-prepared country. Not sure what that says about the argument, though.
Actually, what you're describing is two pacifist countries working in tandem. Blowing up mines is an excellent example of what Wink calls "creative non-violence", particularly since, as with most such acts, it comes with great personal sacrifice.
This is another example of redefining pacifism to get the result you want. This time, instead of excluding the passivists at one end, you seem to be classing anyone who didn't take up arms as a pacifist, and erroneously claiming their positive actions for pacifism. Sweden and Denmark were not pacifist countries. Sweden was neutral not pacifist; they are not the same thing as any Republican in Franco's Spain would have told you. In April 1940 the 400,000 strong Swedish armed forces were put on the alert and their strength later increased to 600,000. For a country of less than 10 million people armed forces of that size does not sound very pacifistic. Neither does the existence of major Swedish armaments manufacturers like Saab or Bofors.
Denmark was overrun by the Germans in one day having been totally taken by surprise. Until then Denmark too was neutral, not pacifist. What is your evidence for claiming that the subsequent Danish response to occupation, including the successful evacuation of the Jews, was down to pacifism?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Denmark was overrun by the Germans in one day having been totally taken by surprise. Until then Denmark too was neutral, not pacifist. What is your evidence for claiming that the subsequent Danish response to occupation, including the successful evacuation of the Jews, was down to pacifism?
It was an active response to evil, and was non-violent.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, a gutless collaborator is, by definition, NOT a pacifist, but a passivist.
OED definition of pacifism: "The policy or doctrine of rejecting war and every form of violent action as means of solving disputes". There is nothing there to suggest pacifism demands active resistance to occupying forces or that pacifism and passivism are mutually exclusive. It seems to me you are using a No True Pacifist fallacy to try to redefine pacifism to exclude anything that could be considered negative.
Early on I had offered Wink's definitions as an important distinction between the two responses. I guess if you want to argue those definitions, you've got a point-- though oddly late in the game. But whether you use "pacifist" and "passivist" (as Wink does) or some other pair of terms, the point remains: we need to make a distinction between active, courageous, non-violent resistance to evil and passive resignation and/or collaboration with evil. It seems to me that everyone on this thread on the anti-war side has been arguing for active non-resistance, only to be met with a strawman objection of why passive resignation is cowardly and/or unethical.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, I think what I am saying is that pacifism may be OK during peacetime when we all have the luxury of private beliefs and high-minded ivory-tower intellectual beliefs, but when it comes down to the crisis of a war actually happening, those beliefs should be overridden by the need of the moment.
Your pacifist ideal will not save civilian lives at home when the unopposed enemy army marches into town.
Agreed.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But removing the thought from ourselves has no effect on removing the thought from others. In fact if we don't give ourselves permission to kill if we're attacked then it may actually encourage others to do so because we'll be seen as an easy target.
Yes. To aim for peace is best, but realistic, practical considerations have to take precedence when necessary.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
