[MagnaCarta]

I found an excellent article on pacifism that I would like to share. Pacifism is a human desire for peace that can be said to cross all religious and cultural boundaries. It is an approach and belief that is often misunderstood and confused with being 'passive'. This article is an excellent overview of what true pacifism is all about.

http://www.jewishpeacefellowship.org/index...about.tradition

[Musa]

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for peace, and I think pacifism is a great theory. However, I do not think it is realistic. You have notable figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, who is able to pull it off. But in order for pacifism to truly work, you need to be willing to sacrifice your life for the cause. Same goes for fighting, however, I'd say for a pacifist, if you are truly dedicated to making change, you need to expect that your life will be sacrificed.

Let's take Rachel Corrie for an example. For those who do not know, she was the first officially killed American in Palestine. She stood infront of a bulldozer, and it plowed her to the ground. She was attempting to block a home from being demolished. By my standards, she was successful. But look at the consequence. Most pacifists would have stood infront of the bulldozer and jumped out of the way when it got too close. This would have done nothing. But if you are willing to stand there regardless of how close the bulldozer comes, and if the bulldozer turns away, you were successful. But this takes sacrifice. If you are able to bear it, the effects would be the same as if you took a rocket launcher and blew the bulldozer to peices.

But for those who march in the streets blocking roads with their peace sign (been there, done that), they should know that they are doing nothing. The high guy wearing his tiedie (sp?) t-shirt, with his dreads and hippy glasses, holding his peace sign high in the air, as he blocks a road, looks like a fool when you take a look at what he's fighting for. How would the Iraqi child who just had his family killed and his sister raped feel about that?

But yes, there are some good pacifists. I just don't think you can lead a revolution that way. Furthermore, I've seen quotes (and I'm going to try to find them) by Martin Luther King Jr. saying that in certain circumstances, violence would be practical and necessary. LoL how come the resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto didn't greet the Nazis with flowers?

[MagnaCarta]

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for peace, and I think pacifism is a great theory. However, I do not think it is realistic. You have notable figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, who is able to pull it off. But in order for pacifism to truly work, you need to be willing to sacrifice your life for the cause. Same goes for fighting, however, I'd say for a pacifist, if you are truly dedicated to making change, you need to expect that your life will be sacrificed.

Yes, you would, but in the truest sense of the word you would be a martyr. Suicide bombers and soldiers believe that the fight is worth dying for but the very significant difference is they do it taking out the lives of others.

John 15:13
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

All of Jesus life and most significantly, his death, are a testimony to this. He chose to lay down his life, rather than go against the highest form of love by killing those who sought his death, in order that we would understand this. Those who have used it, Ghandi, MLK, have used it to great means, but we all say, that is impossible, just a theory.

Jesus also brought us the other part of the process needed to adhere to pacifism. He brought us the way to change how we respond to evil in the face of evil in a non-violent, non revengeful manner.

Furthermore, I've seen quotes (and I'm going to try to find them) by Martin Luther King Jr. saying that in certain circumstances, violence would be practical and necessary.

It would be good to find those quotes. Bottom line is, he did not believe it was the way to the dream he had of people living in harmony regardless of race.

When I think back to the difference between MLK and Malcom X I see a stark difference. With Martin Luther Kings stance of non-violence it became very clear that the people who were killing blacks were shining a true evil out to the world. It made the rest ashamed to be associated with them, and those freedom fighters who stood without violence served in revealing that contrast.

When Malcolm X came along, he opposed pacfism and to this day the people who followed him do not appear as a contrast apart from the same evil they sought to destroy. I have no respect for him although many do. This is because human beings are highly invested in violence, to the degree that they do not do the work toward mastering peaceful means. This is why we continue to live with war and atrocity, using violence to fight it has done zero to reduce it.


Malcolm X did what all angry vengeful or hateful humans do and in the end, it wasn't him or his way that held the greatest influence to change not only our laws, but our minds and hearts, it was MLK.

This post has been edited by MagnaCarta: 25 March 2009 - 07:42 AM

[MagnaCarta]

Regarding Hitler, from the article:

For example, pacifism is often blamed for Neville Chamberlain's shameful performance at Munich. It's true that a potent pacifist movement arose after World War l as a reaction to the ghastly carnage of that conflict. However, while the rhetoric of that movement was sometimes cynically adopted by national governments, it did not actually impose its will on any of them. In the case of Chamberlain, despite his infamous assertion that he had brought "peace in our time," peace was hardly his mission. England had a long history of attempting to influence events by creating a "balance of power" through its diplomatic and military policies and actions. Chamberlain, the Conservative prime minister, followed a policy of appeasement because he saw fascism as a force to balance the Communism of Stalin's Soviet Union. Doubtless he also believed that if England and France were supportive of Hitler they would not be attacked by the Third Reich. This was a foolish policy, and it was not pacifism.

The failure of the United States to stand up against Hitler likewise had nothing to do with pacifism. Our nation had refused to be part of the League of Nations because we refused to take part in any international effort we did not control and that was seen as a violation of our national sovereignty. We also took no part in opposing anything Germany, Italy, or Japan did during the 1930s-at least nothing of any significance or effect. Those Americans who did try to do something, notably in the Spanish Civil War, were later condemned as Communist sympathizers, if not Soviet agents. In addition to an isolation of self-interest, America was also influenced by a racism and bigotry that were pervasive not only among the Archie Bunkers of the time, but among the political and cultural elite of our society. None of this was due to pacifism.

As Martin Luther King noted, there may be times when violence can not be avoided. But a pacifist approach demands we attempt to use every other means and exhaust them first. Pacifism in numbers has rarely been applied. When it has, we have seen a glimpse of the power of mankind to overcome evil with it. Copping out and saying there is 'no other way' to fight evil is just that , a cop out.

If violence and war were a solution it would have solved the problem. If loss of life is the issue then one would oppose the loss of life that comes with the use of violence.

[Jim]

Violence begets violence. Injustice breeds more injustice.

Pacifism is a good thing, except it doesnt work when only one side is practicing it and the other side is not.

[MagnaCarta]

Violence begets violence. Injustice breeds more injustice.

Pacifism is a good thing, except it doesnt work when only one side is practicing it and the other side is not.

Worked for Martin Luther King and Ghandi. One must be willing to give your life for your cause, but war demands the same sacrifice.

[LadyGarnetRose]

Worked for Martin Luther King and Ghandi. One must be willing to give your life for your cause, but war demands the same sacrifice.

It didn't work.

India is still full of strife, and there is still racial inequality.

Them dieing did not facilitate anything towards their cause.

[MagnaCarta]

It didn't work.

India is still full of strife, and there is still racial inequality.

Them dieing did not facilitate anything towards their cause.

I respectfully disagree. It worked for the time and cause they used it on. If it had inspired others to pick it up and apply it, because there is much more to it than 'not being violent', then perhaps these other issues would not have remained. But it did bring about significant change, just by the influence of one human being who applied it. I can imagine if we had thousands with the same vision and commitment and courage.

Again, as I stated, dying can't be the issue when war demands the same sacrifice.

[LadyGarnetRose]

I respectfully disagree. It worked for the time and cause they used it on. If it had inspired others to pick it up and apply it, because there is much more to it than 'not being violent', then perhaps these other issues would not have remained. But it did bring about significant change, just by the influence of one human being who applied it. I can imagine if we had thousands with the same vision and commitment and courage.

Again, as I stated, dying can't be the issue when war demands the same sacrifice.

There is something called conditional pacifism. Where in general one is against war and violence, but they comprehend there are circumstances where war is the lessor of the evils.

[MagnaCarta]

There is something called conditional pacifism. Where in general one is against war and violence, but they comprehend there are circumstances where war is the lessor of the evils.

I can appreciate this Lady, can you expound on it? Did you have time to read the article which outlines a more comprehensive description of what Pacifism is, by virtue of point out what it is not. For instance many think that pacifism means being 'passive' to the point of not fighting evil at all. But Pacifism, as we see in our modern examples of MLK and Ghandi, are about fighting evil, albeit with a completely different method and approach. Neither though would say war is 'the way' if war is defined as both sides killing one another until the other is either totally slaughtered or incapacitated in other ways.

[LadyGarnetRose]

I can appreciate this Lady, can you expound on it? Did you have time to read the article which outlines a more comprehensive description of what Pacifism is, by virtue of point out what it is not. For instance many think that pacifism means being 'passive' to the point of not fighting evil at all. But Pacifism, as we see in our modern examples of MLK and Ghandi, are about fighting evil, albeit with a completely different method and approach. Neither though would say war is 'the way' if war is defined as both sides killing one another until the other is either totally slaughtered or incapacitated in other ways.

See, the pacifism you are talking about is called universal pacifism. There is no good reason to kill another person. With Conditional Pacifism, when your life is a stake, or your family's life is at stake, then that is when there is a good reason to kill another.

[catluvr]

On its face, Mag, I agree with your points. But I have to say that I find it unattainable without a consensus among people that non-violence is the only way. Jim makes an excellent point about the "other side". While on a personal level, and as a matter of conscience, if violence is being done to you in particular, it is certainly a more noble trait to take the non-violent way, even if it means your life.

But that is a personal decision. I disagree with your position when it concerns someone outside yourself, or as it regards national defense. Dennis Prager has done some very good discussions on the immorality of Pacifism:

http://mefeedia.com/entry/show-283-the-imm...io-mp3/12318085

[MagnaCarta]

On its face, Mag, I agree with your points. But I have to say that I find it unattainable without a consensus among people that non-violence is the only way. Jim makes an excellent point about the "other side". While on a personal level, and as a matter of conscience, if violence is being done to you in particular, it is certainly a more noble trait to take the non-violent way, even if it means your life.

But that is a personal decision. I disagree with your position when it concerns someone outside yourself, or as it regards national defense. Dennis Prager has done some very good discussions on the immorality of Pacifism:

http://mefeedia.com/entry/show-283-the-imm...io-mp3/12318085

If you can agree on the face with the points made about Pacifism, that is good. The other side may never be eliminated and yes, it is a personal decision. I think it is one born out of changing perspective on what power is, what the actual goal is in life and what we truly wish to believe and stand for in life.

That humanity still believes that war is the only way, even thought this requires great loss of life, and rejects pacifism because they see that as 'a loss of life' brought by being 'weaker than the enemy' only reveals that humanity has not made the shift to a higher consciousness that was given through Jesus and other highly enlightened humans who have lived on the planet. Yes, it would take a consensus, something that will never be reached when we reject it straight out on the grounds of a firmly planted belief, born out of fear, that to be pacifist means the end of any and all peace and the beginning of total chaos where the evil completely rule.

Not being able to see the power of love, which is greater than what we write about in sappy romance and ever greater than what can be done between parent and child, to perform miracles on earth is part of this failing to make a stronger commitment to developing the ability to stand more firmly in pacifism and resort less freely to our current paradigm of military might that has lead humanity to the brink of self annihilation and costs millions of lives in the long run.

It is incredibly amazing that we continue to do the same thing over and over again, unable to see that it simply does not work and we refuse to work toward any other approach, tossing the development of greater insight into peaceful processes away by a lack of faith and trust that it has any validity, calling only 'idealistic' or 'a dream'.

We truly are the creators of our own suffering on this planet. And we do not realize we have been given the key to being the creators of our own healing and pathway to peace.

Jesus was so much more than just another religious leader, he was the Spirit and Truth and Word of GOD in the flesh, Christians outnumber any other religious collection on the planet, yet the amount of absolute faith in what Jesus taught on these points is miniscule. That we still focus only on the humanity and reject the power He revealed was ours to do great works with, perform miracles with, move mountains with, which is the power of God and is received not with the sword or with war machines or 'self defense' proves that many are called but few are chosen, in the sense that few choose to adopt His Way completely and still cling to the belief that we must defend our 'self' with violence because God has given us no alternative.

[MagnaCarta]

Final note:

It is indeed impractical to think that we could immediately dismantle every source of defense we have on a national or world level for any nation. But what is disturbing to every pacifist is the lack of belief or commitment to developing a greater understanding and use of pacifist ideas and the absolute commitment that remains to the current old and tired use of military complexes to 'solve world problems'.

This will ensure we will never get to the point where we can ever let go of one to fully stand on the other, when we say, can't happen, no way, won't even consider it, here is a million reasons why, lets keep on killing with war, it is the only way, etc.

But so often in the dialogue on the topic it becomes this right now all or nothing mentality and the very thought process and analysis required to begin to pave a way for pacifism to become a human strength with valid results which bring peace to the world are shut down and we gain no ground, not one iota, while we focus all of our energy, our intelligence, our resources and our faith in greater and greater methods of human violence and destruction.

That which we resist, in this case violence, by using violence, truly does become stronger.