First off, a confession. A few weeks ago, I made the pledge that I would not get on the scale again until the end of 2006. Yesterday afternoon at the gym, I "fell off the wagon" and weighed myself. It’s a good comeuppance, for me, I suppose; I post so often on this blog about making commitments and redirecting impulses. I’ve had so much success in so many areas of my life, but resisting the urge to climb on the scale is tougher than I imagined. Just thought I’d share my slip…
It’s a busy day, and I suspect I will have time for only one post. Both here and elsewhere, there’s been discussion of Monday’s shooting at an Amish school in Pennsylvania. Thanks to my friend Jonathan Dresner, I read this particularly nasty piece from Judith Klinghoffer at my own History News Network. Klinghoffer opines:
How low can one sink? No. I am not talking about the murderer, may his name be erased. I am talking about those who saved themselves by leaving the little girls at his mercy. Consider:
"They found the suspect dead on the floor," Col Miller said. "Three other students between the age of six and 13 had been killed." He said that when Roberts, a non-Amish, first entered the school he apparently showed the handgun to the children and was "having some discussion in the class". "He told the kids to line up in front of the blackboard. Then, using wire ties and flex cuffs, he began to tie the females’ feet together. It appears that when he shot them he shot them execution-style in the head.
And they LET him. I have yet to hear about a single person who did anything to stop him. By doing nothing, they permitted a deranged man to fulfill his sick revenge fantasy.
This is the ultimate result of Amish pacifism. All evil needs to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Evil flourished in that schoolroom.
Bold is mine. And here on my blog, thechief weighs in:
There’s something we need to realize about pacifists in general, including the Amish: They can afford to be pacifists because somebody else is holding a gun for them. They can afford not to raise their hand against evil because somebody else–a police officer, a soldier–is standing between them and true evil. Somebody else will do the dirty work of keeping them safe, except for those awful situations where the system somehow breaks down, like yesterday in Pennsylvania. Then the pacifists are going to be toast.
Let me be clear that I am an aspiring pacifist. As Stanley Hauerwas always says of himself, I am a violent man trying to become peaceful. When I read about stories like this one, my first thought is always "I wish I could have been there with a gun to blow the s.o.b. away." That’s my first response, but happily, as a Christian, not my second.
Both Klinghoffer and thechief have a tortured, twisted view of what pacifism really is. First off, most Christian pacifists don’t live in the United States. The largest Christian pacifist communities are Anabaptists living in war-torn places like Indonesia, Nigeria, and Colombia. The notion that pacifists are comfortable, middle-class white folks who are protected by a wise government willing to wield the sword is ludicrous and ahistorical. Christian pacifism traces its modern roots to the blood-soaked Central Europe of the sixteenth century. The pacifism of the peace churches (to which Mennonites, the Amish, the Quakers, and others belong) was a response to appalling violence by people who experienced that violence first hand. The great lie that both Klinghoffer and thechief perpetuate is that pacifists are ignorant of the realities of human brutality; the historic truth is that pacifism was birthed by men and women who had infinitely more knowledge of the realities of violence than your average Marine in Iraq has today.
The other great lie is more simple: they equate pacifism with passivity. A Latin lesson, girls and boys: pacifism comes from pax facere, to "make peace"; it does not, contrary to popular misconception, derive from passus sum, to "suffer." In other words, authentic pacifism is an active response to violence, not a passive one! From the sixteenth century onward, pacifists have insisted that the goal of Christian witness is not to run and hide but "to get in the way." Jesus says, Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Soldiers quote that all the time, but wrongly. Jesus calls us to the cross, He calls us to come and die, but He never calls us to kill. From a theological standpoint, there is all the difference in the world between being willing to die for one’s friends and being willing to kill for them. For soldiers, both may be true. For cowards, neither is true. For Christian pacifists, only the former is true!
The third lie about pacifism is that it is hopelessly idealistic and has no efficacy. Once we convince our opponents that we aren’t cowards (after all, Christian pacifists are dying in places like Colombia and Iraq all the time), we usually get dismissed as "fanatics." I mentioned in my post on Monday that I hoped that if it came to it, I would be willing to take a bullet for "my kids." But I would not be willing to fire a bullet, even to protect the lives of my students or youth groupers. That always strikes folks as irresponsible and prideful; I seem to be putting my theological convictions ahead of my obligation to protect the lambs.
But as a Christian, I know that there is more to our story than our life on this earth. I love life, I love this planet, I love God’s incredible creation. But my story — our story — doesn’t end here. This is not my final home. I am a "resident alien" in a beautiful, violent, scary, wonderful place. I know that while death is overwhelming and terrifying, it is not the end. Not only do I have an even truer home elsewhere, so too do those lambs I am called to feed. They are Christ’s lambs, not mine. Their lives are precious, but so too are their eternal souls. Crazed gunmen can kill the bodies of the young and the innocent; crazed gunmen can break the hearts of a community. But crazed gunmen don’t get to write the final chapter of the story. After the tears, there will be rejoicing, no matter what, no matter what, no matter what.
It is with the certainty that death does not separate us from each other or from God that I can claim my pacifism. If I thought death was the end of the story, I’d probably be packing heat in the glove compartment of my Toyota Solara. To prolong the short lives of my loved ones here on earth, I would do anything and everything. But I know that love endures past the end. I know that I am called to follow Christ first and foremost. Thanks to Him, I already know how the story turns out in the end. Those of us who are true pacifists are not cowards who run in fear, muttering prayers of thanksgiving for the protection offered us by violent men. We are people who have seen the end of the book. We know that after the crucifixion, comes the resurrection. After the bullets and the terror comes the peace and the joyous new life. With that certainty, we can offer up our lives non-violently. It’s not that we seek death, or value life any less. It’s that we are quietly, absolutely, peacefully certain that our Lamb conquered death for all of us 2000 years ago — and with fear, trembling, and yes, joyful certainty, we will follow Him. No matter what.
Thanks for the history lesson, and I see some of the issues regarding participating in war (though am unconvinced myself), and see several reasons not to own weapons. But I think this post will serve mainly as a testament to the absurdity of some strains of pacifism. There’s nothing moral about saving yourself while handing children to a man who intends to raped and kill them. A real man* would have defended those girls with a pitchfork, chair, desk, eraser, or whatever was available.
I believe it was Peter who cut off a soldier’s ear who came to crucify Jesus. Jesus restored the ear, since he needed to die. But if the soldier were coming to rape and kill a little child, I’m srue that our Savior (who once fabricated a whip) would have praised Peter for acting rightly by protecting the powerless from injustice. “Laying down your life for your friends” seems to imply that something positive could come from your death, i.e., trying to tackle a gunman with the realization that he would probably shoot you (or dying for their sins). “Laying down your life for nothing” by standing there saying “kill me too, please” would be participating in evil by abetting, furthering, and worsening the carnage.
I don’t see fatal violence encompassed by “turn the other cheek;” that would be “if a man tries to stab you, offer him your jugular also.”
*(and probably woman…I can’t give the woman’s perspective)
In defense of the adults who were present (at both shootings), the best course of action may have been the one they chose: escort as many children as possible to safety and then call for help.
K, that’s a huge stretch to read that into Jesus. A whip is not lethal. Pacifists are allowed to get angry. Pacifists can even push someone. We can’t use lethal force. “Thou shalt not kill” does not mean “thou must avoid displays of righteous anger.” There’s a lot of room in there for a whip, but no room for a sword.
(And when Jesus tells his disciples to take up a sword for their travels, the sword he refers to was a small dagger used to protect oneself from animals, not from human beings. Ya just gotta know the ancient languages and the context.)
Oh, and a pacifist could definitely tackle the gunman. We could try and wrestle the gun away. But we can’t use the gun, no matter what.
This is a bit of a grey area for me. On the one hand I agree - how could they just walk out and leave those small children to fend for themsevles (which, would clearly be impossible - and why the murderer chose them in the first place)?
On the other hand, I’ve read that the adults in the room were pregnant women and women with infants. Exactly what could they have done?
Is it written somewhere that women must sacrifice their lives to save others no matter what?
I’m certainly not criticising anyone who walked away. I am saying that walking away, running away, is not generally what pacifism calls for. Pacifism calls for “standing in the gap”, “getting in the way”, and yes, laying down your life. But no pacifist I know is judging those who fled.
“If I thought death was the end of the story, I’d probably be packing heat in the glove compartment of my Toyota Solara. To prolong the short lives of my loved ones here on earth, I would do anything and everything.”
This gets at the suspicion that many atheists — including me on Sundays and alternate Wednesdays — have of religion: pious folk often talk as if they would do incredible evil if they were not religious. (I am reading “incredible evil” into the phrase “anything and everything”; I think many defenses of the innocent are moral — I am not a pacifist — but “anything and everything” explicitly sanctions the immoral, it seems to me.)
Well, I wouldn’t. I do know (if you can use the word “know” for what I describe as your beliefs, then I suppose I can too) that death is the end: we are a consciousness running on a meat computer, and when it dies so do we. And — again, not a pacifist — I would fight to protect my loved ones and my ideals and (I trust) in some cases to protect strangers too. But there are some things I wouldn’t do: moral lines I wouldn’t cross. (I hope! As you said in your comment about giving your life for your kids, we can’t really know how we would react until we are in that situation.)
I assume you’re being honest in saying that that’s what you’d do without a belief in another life. But those of us who know (silly word: but it was yours, so, again, I’ll use it too) that there is no such hereafter still have to choose how we will walk in this world: kindly or cruelly, justly or unjustly, well or poorly. We are as fallible as any human being. But we still attempt — with roughly the same success, on average, as the faithful — to live moral lives.
… This hasn’t been very coherent. But I think my point is made, or at least gestured at. Those sentences struck me in a long and meaty post.
Stephem, I was engaging in a bit of unfortunate hyperbole. But the truth is that my pre-conversion life was violent and irresponsible. The fact that Christ changed me doesn’t mean that those who don’t know Christ are violent and irresponsible. That was my very real narrative, but it isn’t everyone’s.
Oh, and a minor suggestion. You write that pacifism comes from “men and women who had infinitely more knowledge of the realities of violence than your average Marine in Iraq has today.” I respectfully suggest that — given the horror that Iraq has become — that that is an unfortunate and unfair piece of hyperbole. I take your point about the lives of pacifists, and respect it; but I think you disrespect one reality to emphasize another here.
So I suggest the following emendation:
“…men and women who had infinitely more knowledge of the realities of violence than almost any American today, save perhaps a Marine in Iraq.” — Or something like that.
Oh, and a pacifist could definitely tackle the gunman. We could try and wrestle the gun away. But we can’t use the gun, no matter what.
A pacifist could (depending on your interpretation of pacifism). But the traditional Anabaptist position and interpretation of non-resistance would not permit even that amount of resistance.
From this we understand that therefore, and according to His example, we must not inflict pain, harm, or sorrow upon any one, but seek the highest welfare and salvation of all men, and even, if necessity require it, flee for the Lord’s sake from one city or country into another, and suffer the spoiling of our goods; that we must not harm any one, and, when we are smitten, rather turn the other cheek also, than take revenge or retaliate.
With all respect, Stephen, the Marines in Iraq are protected by rifles and body armor. The pacifists who were slaughtered by Catholics and Protestants alike in the sixteenth century went to their deaths with no such protections. I accept that our servicemen and women in Iraq know more about violence than your average American — but they know it as perpetrators as well as victims; the Anabaptists who were martyred were not perpetrating violence on anyone. Respectfully, that sentence stands.
Sam, you’re right that there’s a tremendous amount of discussion about the limits of non-violence within pacifist circles. Towards the end of his life, the great Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder was working on a project for “pacifist policing”. He met with a lot of folks in the law enforcement community, I’m told, and was open to a middle ground that rejected any possibility of lethal force.
Hugo,
You are right on Yoder, and on pacifists; but the Amish (really, Plain groups generally, including plain Mennonites) view the Mennonite General Conference as not really nonresistant. The plain world rejects association with violence to the point of not voting; governments use force, and we won’t have ANY involvement in the use of force.
Hugo, I guess we just disagree on the issues of Marines in Iraq. Fair enough! (I think that what particularly struck me, thinking it over, is the word “infinitely”.)
Incidentally, I wonder if it’s worth making a distinction between pacifism (or “nonviolent resistance”) in larger social movements and in cases such as a single psychotic gunman? There are a lot of practical arguments for the efficacy of the former, and such practitioners as Gandhi and King made practical as much as moral arguments, about nonviolence as a way to reach the reason of those one opposed. But in the latter sort of case, there seems little hope of doing so. Of course, the religious rationale stands equally in both cases — but it’s harder to argue for pacifism as an effective tactic in the latter.
“On the other hand, I’ve read that the adults in the room were pregnant women and women with infants. Exactly what could they have done?”
They could have at least tried to restrain and/or overwhelm him, e.g., tackle the guy just like Hugo says is reasonable and proper for a passifist. That is, if you accept the notion that men and women are equally capable and responsible members of society. Granted, the pregnany women might have an excuse based on their physical condition (albeit a pretty shaky one), but the women who weren’t pregnant don’t have that excuse.
“Is it written somewhere that women must sacrifice their lives to save others no matter what?”
Silly question. Of course women are not expected to do such things - in Western societies it’s a man’s duty to sacrifice himself for women and children.
As an atheist pacifist, I wanted to thank you for this post. While we differ on some specifics — I can’t really engage with the final two paragraphs and my third-to-last paragraph would be ideological rather than theological convictions — this is incredibly good as a guide to how pacifism is not passivity.
I don’t believe pacifism is prideful, either — another turn of phrase I wouldn’t use as an atheist, btw — I just believe it is the right thing to do to demonstrate my humanity. I don’t believe that a gunman has any right to kill others, and I’m going to try to prevent that any way I can, including laying down my own life, but I cannot and will not compromise my humanity and human dignity to do so by taking up a gun myself. I believe in preserving human dignity as a basic and fundamental right that drives many of my activist concerns, and would never wish to deprive another human being of their basic humanity and human dignity either. But it’s hard to phrase that all without sounding wea k — and yet, I know that it’s a priciple necessary to prevent and resist abuses of human rights, and aas an atheist, it’s the best way I have to phrase my understanding of the things you describe in theological terms.
Anyway. Thanks.
Hugo:
The Marines who were killed in Iraq were not, ultimately, protected by rifles and body army. Moreover, you seem to make a distinction between the . . . value? . . . of the Marine’s death and the pacifist’s death because the Marine is a “pepetrator” of violence. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to argue that the Marine somehow deserved to be killed . . .
The original Stephen
I don’t find pacifism convincing, but you’ve made one of the better cases for it, Hugo, in saying that as a Christian, you believe there is a value higher than mere earthly life. Presumably in an Amish school one could assume the potential victims have made the same value-choice, but maybe not in a lot of other classrooms. What if the teacher or other responsible adult is a pacifist, but the folks for whom he is responsible are not? Can you decline to protect them, in the name of an afterlife they may not believe in? (I guess you can, but I just feel there’s potential sin in either direction here.)
One thing that has always impressed me about the Mennonites is their dedication to principle.
I am not a pacifist. To be simple, perhaps oversimple, I find the scriptural foundation for it to be from an overly scrupulous exegesis. I am prepared, if necessary, to do great violence if that cup passes before me. By the same token, sitting not 3 feet from where I type is my Glock, the third in a succession of arms I have carried for 25 years, and have never had to draw. Whether anyone believes it or not, I pray every time I clip it on my belt that I will lay it down that night unfired, except for the range.
I have been a bouncer in my life. I have studied several armed and unarmed styles of combat. I have worked security and as a bodyguard; and in those times when I had to put some lumps on heads, it did not please me. I always preferred to talk trouble down, and I’d like to believe I was successful at it for the most part. Sad to say, though, there are some human beings running around who only keep themselves in check when presented with someone who can do a tap dance on their skull without breaking a sweat.
I’m not a believer in universal salvation, I think it a violation of free will. In many respects, Hugo, I have some deist beliefs. We live in an imperfect world. Full of imperfect people, and sometimes the choices given us are between lesser evils. I in no way believe God holds it against us when faced with such choices, even and we choose wrongly. It’s the whole catholic thing there, grave sin - moprtal sin - must include an intent to choose the evil path.
It is the difference between legal and moral. Where I live, I walk in and find you burglarizing my house, I can blow you away, and won’t spend so much as a night in jail so long as I keep my mouth shut - or even lie. Morally? Unless you are a grave threat to me or mine, it is murder.
I have stood in a position of having to visit violence on people who would do it on another. I have made the choice to do so, and would do it again. Because I believe that I would be asked “You had the ability - the means - the power I gave you to stand against evil, and strike a blow for those who could not defend themselves, and you did nothing? You let Evil triumph through your inaction?”
Again - real pacifists, like Martin, thje fellow I buy a lot of my leather from - I won’t judge their consistancy or principle, though I think them mistaken. Martin wouldn’t even call the police when his shop was vandalized because he’d not be a party to someone doing violence on his behalf, and he indeed paid a fine for not doing so, as the law required him to report that crime.
But not all such pacifism is as principled; not all have the courage to accept the consequences of their beliefs. And those people aren’t pacifists - they are nothing but cowards.
From a theological standpoint, there is all the difference in the world between being willing to die for one’s friends and being willing to kill for them. For soldiers, both may be true.
Hugo - since earlier your wrote Soldiers use your referenced Biblical quote wrongly, I infer you mean Soldiers focus on the “being willing to kill” portion. I would disagree. My experiences suggest the former as well. If you look at works such as Samuel Stouffer’s “The American Soldier” study released in 1949 or more recently Lenny Wong’s “Why They Fight: Combat Motivation in the Iraq,” I believe you find evidence that supports more emphasis on the former as well.
I would be interested in your expansion of these lines: Pacifists can even push someone. We can’t use lethal force.
The military is putting more emphasis on and close to fielding greater “non-lethal” capabilities — if the Amish could have “zapped” the school where everyone inside would have been incapacitated for a period, without any serious short-term effects (hard to tell long-term effects of say getting a microwave jolt), would a pacifist employ that type of weapon?
Col Steve, you ask the very sort of question many of us are asking these days; the answer is “I don’t know.” Within the peace church community, there’s been intense discussion of this sort of thing. I think we can work closely with the powers and principalities to help create a less-lethal way of fighting. I won’t let the best (total non-violence) be the enemy of the good (concrete steps towards lowering lethality).
Hugo, aside from issues of pacifism, this really strikes me as death-worship. If there is a better life waiting after death, why bother to rescue anyone from death at all? Doctors should put away their medicines, parents with ill children should let them succumb to disease, we should all stop carping about Darfur and put our efforts into making sure that the victims of genocide accept Jesus before they are slaughtered. What awaits them is better than what’s here, right?
Prolonging the short lives of your loved ones sounds an awful lot like selfishness: I know you’d be better off in eternity with the Lord, but right now I want you here, so too bad.
Ha, that’s a common charge. Mythago, the other part of this faith life is the sense that we are called to use our lives to bring justice and transformation to the world. Creation is magnificent, and it is a gift, and we are to enjoy it and delight in it. The fact that it is not our truest home doesn’t mean that it isn’t wonderful,and good, and in need of our best efforts. I am here to “build the peaceable Kingdom”. Since Jesus seems to be tarrying, there’s plenty to do.
Maybe because I’m a (relatively) young woman, I’ve never thought of this in terms of my ability to cause violence, but of violence hypothetically committed on my behalf.
And the bottom line is that I don’t want violence committed on my behalf. I think that killing is a wrong thing and a terrible burden to bear, even when done in self-defense or in defense of others, and whatever comes after death I don’t think it could be so bad that a person should kill to save me from it–I feel like it would be adding in some way to the evil in the world.
But I feel like I have the right to make that decision for myself–but not to make it for anyone else. Which is why I’m not as much of a pacifist as I could be.
Thank you for talking about this Hugo.
I would like to be a pacifist, but honestly the reason I couldn’t be is because I’m afraid. Pacifist’s aren’t cowards: most of the time I think it’s people who perpetuate violence that are.
I cut my teeth on guns. I had a bb gun since I was old enough to hold one and know how to handle it safely. I’ve done Tae Kwon Do, and am quite good at grappling. I own multiple firearms and am proficient in them.
Yet, I hate to hurt people. When I get into real fights, I break down bawling at the end of them because I hurt someone. I’d rather lose a fight, never hitting, and getting the crap beat out of me. But whenever I think about swearing off violence, I think about what got me into fights in the first place. I think about my little sister crouching in the corner because she’s scared.
I don’t want anyone to be scared either. It’s not okay for people to hurt other people. And people above are right: evil does florish when good men do nothing (although I hope they remember that when we’re talking about domestic violence funding and poverty). However, does doing “something” mean being evil as well? If the violence is evil, surely it’s evil when anyone does it. So, good men doing evil against evil? That seems wrong somehow.
I’m sorry, I’m rambling, but this keeps me going back and forth. Whever I think about violence, two pictures always waver back in forth in my head: my sister crying in the corner, and the bloody broken mess that was his face after I was done with him.
That’s not really an answer, Hugo. This world may be wonderful, but if the next world is not only better, but unfathomably better (and in God’s presence to boot), how can we justify keeping anyone in this world just because we like having them around? Laying down one’s life for one’s friends is, in your worldview, a profoundly selfish act. You go on to Glory, and everybody else is stuck here toiling to improve the inferior part of Creation.
Antigone: I was raised Quaker. And so, am from a strongly pacifist tradition.
And yet… I know deeply of what you speak. I think many people from pacifist traditions deal with this conflict. I don’t think there are many Quakers that I know who would be critical of your actions in such a situation, contextualized as it is. Pacifism is still, to me, optimal - but in dire situations from family of origins in which violence is the authoritarian method, how are you to choose differently? What other dialogue is available? Especially young people whose community resources are limited by their parents?
I may be a pacifist, but I also have taken martial arts. (This is surprisingly common amongst Quaker kids I knew growing up.) To tell you the absolute truth, I didn’t see much difference in the intention of the gathered meeting and the intention in the “gathered” dojo. An odd paradox, but nonetheless my Quakerism and my martial arts training sprang of the same place.
So, you’re unwilling to commit violence of some sort to protect yourself or others. What do you do when someone else there feels a different level of violence is appropriate? (Either more or less.) Would you object if I were to kill someone on behalf of you and a bunch of kids (you’re there, kids are there, gunman threatening to shoot, I have a gun and shoot first)? What if I only injured them? Whose morals win out?
And it doesn’t just “seem like” you’re putting your theology ahead of the (earthly) lives of your students, you are doing it. (Or would be, should anything terrible happen and you act as you say you would.)
Wolfa, my pacifism is not evangelistic in nature. It’s a conclusion I’ve come to (or a process I’m engaging in) as the result of a lot of prayer and reflection. I wrote this post to defend pacifists from the nastiness that’s been directed towards us in the past two days. But I respect the rights of others to take different approaches.
I would never ask others to do what I am unwilling to do. By the same token, in a crisis situation, I understand that different folks will respond differently based upon their own beliefs and impulses. I honor that.
I never took an oath to kill to protect my students or my youth groupers. (Can someone name an American school shooting incident where a teacher killed the gunman? I can’t. It’s an absurd hypothetical, really.) If I was asked to do so, I’d quit my job.
Actually, all of us put our theologies ahead of other priorities. If I killed to protect my students, I would be making a theological decision — the decision that protecting human life is worth taking a life. That’s as much a theological position as its opposite. It’s true that both positions may cost lives, but the lives lost to pacifism are, I would venture, far fewer than those lost to other theological commitments.
I am not a pacifist. I’m with Dorothy L. Sayers in rejecting living on a mountain with Christ and Mr. Ghandi.
But I do have sincere admiration and respect for the Amish, and for the quietist Anabaptists. They are noble and good. And you can tell that because they are not only forgiving the killer, but collecting money for his widow. Any which way you choose, that’s Christlike.
I don’t like activist Quakers who shout, but I admire the inner silence and depth of grace I see in Menno Simons, and his descendents. It’s true Love without power is destroyed, but I think we need people like the Amish and the Mennonites to remind us that violence is never the best way, and always an evil. They’re in the process of bearing a very moving and noble witness to the world-and how you can tell its working is the nastiness of people like Klinghoffer. If we had more people willing to live their faith that way, there’d be no need for metal detectors and security gates.
Oops, sorry, Hugo, that was me. I seem to have borrowed your name by accident. Mea culpa.
It’s true that both positions may cost lives, but the lives lost to pacifism are, I would venture, far fewer than those lost to other theological commitments.
If one of the people present at the school had been armed that day and shot the gunman to death, the death toll likely would have been lower. The decision not to kill to save life is all fine and well, but in the event that the unthinkable occurs, you are also making that decision for other people.
If one of the people present at the school had been armed that day [ed. and being armed at a school were not a felony most places] and shot the gunman to death…
Cliche alert! I’m surprised it took this long for this comment to come up.
If, and, maybe. There are other ifs and maybes, as well, beyond the obvious “what if you miss/what if he gets you first” questions.
What if he wasn’t planning to kill anyone? then killing him would produce a net loss
What if resistance triggers an even worse response: remember, his first act, basically, was to let a bunch of people go, so he could have killed more if he’d been so inclined. Would a bigger tragedy that featured some obvious resistance have been better?
What if someone goes around from now on with a loaded pistol just in case something like this happens again, and through a household accident, domestic disturbance or error in judgement causes needless deaths?
I’m not a pacifist, myself. Or perhaps you could say that I’m a procedural pacifist: I believe that the use of force must be strictly limited by clear guidelines, lines of authority, regulation and checks. It’s not a matter of individual conscience, most of the time. Most of the time it’s just wrong.
Anyway, Hugo, thanks for the extra history lesson. I always make sure I include the Anabaptist and Spiritualist movements when I do the Reformation, and I need to fine tune the presentation a bit, I think, to highlight the pacifism as opposed to the anti-governmental character of the movements.
“Yesterday afternoon at the gym, I ‘fell off the wagon’ and weighed myself.”
You sure have some weird vices.
“How low can one sink? No. I am not talking about the murderer, may his name be erased. I am talking about those who saved themselves by leaving the little girls at his mercy.”
Was Roberts carrying his weapon when he was tying up the schoolchildren? If so, then perhaps there wasn’t that chance to do so, assuming they were unarmed. It’s easy for us to say what we’d do in such a situation; you never really know until it actually happens to you.
That’s not really an answer, Hugo. This world may be wonderful, but if the next world is not only better, but unfathomably better (and in God’s presence to boot), how can we justify keeping anyone in this world just because we like having them around? Laying down one’s life for one’s friends is, in your worldview, a profoundly selfish act. You go on to Glory, and everybody else is stuck here toiling to improve the inferior part of Creation.
I agree, mythago (and this is one of the few times I agree with what you have written!). I don’t buy any of this business about this life, this earth not being our “true home.” One can believe many things about God, religion, and Jesus and still see that our life is grounded in the earth. We are made from the earth. How can our true home be elsewhere?
I have never understood the idea that God created us and put us on the earth for the sole purpose of having us escape to some other place. That does not make any sense to me.
I never suggested anyone take an oath to kill a killer, whether you are a pacifist or not.
And I disagree that no matter what, you put your theology ahead of your commitment: if one’s theology is to be a pacifist and in the moment you attack (and wound or kill) an attacker in order to help the people your job is to care for, then you’ve put something else in front of your theology. In any case, if you have that priority, admit it — “seem to be” is weaseling out of it. (I agree, though, that you’ve not made a commitment to kill for others.)
Yes: pacifism probably costs fewer lives overall. I was asking if you’d object to a non-pacifist killing to save you [and others].
As a non-pacifist, if I take action to save lives, including those of pacifists, I’m not doing it for them as much as I am doing it for me.
As I said before - I could imagine the Big Guy asking me, “And you just stood by and let it happen? And did nothing, even though you could have stopped it?”
Gonz, you (and everyone else) sets up a false dichotomy. In response to violence, you seem to think there are only two choices:
1. be violent
2. do nothing.
There is a wide range in between these two extremes, ranging from prayer (which can never be discounted) to physically blocking the intruder/gunman to confronting him verbally.
you (and everyone else) sets up a false dichotomy.
Hugo, you’re doing that rhetorical thing you do when you feel pushed into a corner–patronizingly explaining that those who disagree with you are oversimplifying the issue and not Getting It.
I’m not addressing the proper or possible responses to violence. I’m pointing out that if the next life is better and holier than this one, then we shouldn’t just ‘not fear death’ - we should see it as desirable.
Mythago, I think it’s possible to desire and fear something at the same time! I also think it’s possible to say, I want to do something someday, but not now.
Death is like, well, marriage. Most of the kids in my high school youth group want to get married someday. They don’t want to get married now, and they are frankly scared of commitment. In a grand way, death is similar. Time and maturity ready us for it, and some are more ready than others.
Somehow, mythago, I don’t think that analogy is going to help close the gap between us!
I think it’s possible to desire and fear something at the same time!
Sure. But again, the issue here is that in your theology, Jesus has conquered death; the life after is far superior to this one. Given that, why on earth (sorry) would anyone really wish to avoid death? Or, if you fear death personally, why would you wish to keep others from it? That seems to me an act of ultimate selfishness: You would be better off, but I want you here.
You’re right that marriage is a terrible analogy. Your students aren’t old enough or mature enough for marriage. I would hope that you’re not saying that you have to be a certain age to be ready for Heaven!
Mythago, I fear any further attempts to explain my position will only “widen the epistemic gulf” on this one.
Something my old pastor said to me seems apropos: He related that when his father was teaching him to drive, he said to him:
“Slow down, son! I want to go to heaven, but not yet.”
Mythago; As far as I can tell from my grandpa, who is a Mennonite minister and a devoted pacifist (and none the less was working on the front lines in WWII as an ambulance driver and a smuggler of refugees), living is a “finish the mission” affair, where the mission’s point is to reflect as much of God’s love into the world. Plus, Grandpa loves the world. If he died in the course of protecting people non-violently, or witnessed someone else do the same, those actions in dying would still be about reflecting that Godly love, which INCLUDES love for the planet and the lives on it. Whereas dying from a heroin overdose would be not so much about those things.
I’ve been attempting to look at the phenomenon and commonality of the emotions of spiritual experience without necessarily attributing a particular religious mindset to it. Of course, I have no funding or anything: it’s more of a hobby, although if anyone knows anyone who’d like to fund a non-denominational phenomenological study (a la Kinsey) of spiritual experience, they should let me know. ;)
Anyway, I’ve talked to Christians and Buddhists and Hindus and Pagans and Jewish folks and Atheists about the emotionality of spiritual experience; (no discussion with Islamic folks, as of yet, nor with people of smaller known religious faiths); there is a regularly described commonality, a paradox where “none of this” really MATTERS in some larger way, which is a comfort, and yet being loving and compassionate and helpful to people is the ultimate and most-important goal. Both of those feelings exist simultaneously: the need to love more, and more completely and totally, and the need to personal let go of the illusory nature of our strife. (Samsara; Ignorance of God’s Plan; etc.)
This, obv., is expressed in different terms depending on the faith culture the experience-r is out of. But it’s a common thing I’ve found with spiritual atheists, too, who don’t believe in afterlife: there’s none the less a feeling that it’s all good, in the end.
The third lie about pacifism is that it is hopelessly idealistic and has no efficacy.
- Gandhi was a pacifist and he brought the British empire to its knees. No efficacy???
Arwen, I understand that idea–that while the next life will be with God, this world is pretty damn fine and we like being here. What I don’t understand is Hugo’s rather poorly-explained thesis that death has been pwnz0red, therefore we need not fear it.
Dying from a heroin overdose might be part of God’s plan, yes?
“It’s not that we seek death, or value life any less.”
Um. Seems to me that your particular flavor of Christian pacificm, if it includes thinking about the afterlife when making life-or-death decisions, certainly values *this* life less.
“There’s a lot of room in there for a whip, but no room for a sword.”
Isn’t he coming back with a sword to kill all of us atheists at the end of the world? What, is he a pacifist just until then?
Dying from a heroin overdose might be part of God’s plan, yes?
Only if someone else does it. *g*.
I don’t mean to be offensively glib. But there’s always that with greater vision comes greater responsibility thing which seems common in redemption stories. I imagine some of this is contextual, too: dying from heroin wouldn’t be… a mitzvah, is the most succinct word, I think.. in my grandpa’s Mennonite context because in and of itself it creates no greater good, whereas dying for others or for principle could situationally do so; but perhaps in other contexts, like faiths where mind-alterants are used spiritually, perhaps it could be the case that there’d be a mitzvah involved. Death itself is not to be feared, but denying the responsibilities given to you takes you a step away from the source of that spiritual reckoning and that is the biggest mistake that you can possibly make.
In my martial arts training, this was referred to as listening to the ancestors. In my Quaker upbringing, it was ministry - the light. Two sides of the same coin, from what I can tell.
Obv., this doesn’t create “In event A, I must do B or C”, since it’s a matter of being “used” by greater truth. (Writers talk about similar things when writing fiction; the characters taking over.)
It’s a remarkably consistant phenomenon in description, I think.
Pacifists don’t look to force pacifism on others (how would THAT work?), but if you felt “called” to that, it may mean you’re up for human shield duty. Or not. This is, I think, where the inconsistancies come in between faiths and practises: there’s no easy way to create universal dogma since the connection itself is intensely personal. Much like you can’t say that all husbands should take out the garbage and wives should make coffee.
I recognize Hugo as having a spiritual awakening story in a consistant vein, which I think may be experientially different than strong adherance to a religious faith system, although the two languages can support each other. But because of that, the death of “me” is necessarily different than the death of others; you cannot hear the truth being whispered in their ears, only yours. So you’d be inherently wrong to assume that it would be a good thing if someone else died; you have no idea “where they’re at”.
I’m most aware of reincarnation faiths where that would merely be an interruption of the cycle: but I imagine a Christian practitioner might frame it that someone else’s untimely death (if you avoided doing what you were called to do) may prevent their own process of getting right with God. In the X-tian sense this would be even more horrifying, if there’s a belief in hell, I suppose.
Although, I must admit, I haven’t really spoken to Christians with spiritual experiences that really see hell as anything but a metaphor. Perhaps I’ll email Hugo when he gets back and ask his opinion about eternal damnation…
Isn’t he coming back with a sword to kill all of us atheists at the end of the world?
Not to my knowledge. He certainly never said anything about a plan to kill all the atheists when he was last here in the flesh. And I’m sure no one in my Quaker meeting would affirm that belief.
Hugo - what I found really offensive about the Klinghoffer quote wasn’t the attack on pacifism, but the presumption. I believe that pacifism to any real extent is ultimately immoral, as it does counsel non-resistance to evil, but pacifism isn’t the necessary demotivator in the school shooting case. Many a non-pacifist, faced with that situation, would also choose to not directly resist the shooter.
Mythago, even if hell is “merely” separation from God in the afterlife, rather than the sorts of torments which can be previewed by driving across West Texas in the summer at 55mph without air conditioning (as a Protestant friend of mine claimed), in Christian theology, one can never be certain that any given person will avoid hell in the afterlife, therefore failing to save someone’s life might result in condemning them to eternal separation from God. Thus saving someone is not automatically a selfish act.
Anthony: Pacifism doesn’t counsel non-resistance to evil, it counsels non-violence. Big difference. Hence; India’s resistance to England, the underground railroad, the fight against dungeons, the pacifists involved in front line WWII refugee work, MCC (mennonite central committee), AFSC (american friends service committee), etc. etc. Quakers and Mennonites are the peace churches I know best, and the action of both of these churches is continuous.
It’s not a false dichotomy at all - I am either prepared (and by extension, willing) to do violence in the defense of myself or others, or I am not. Just because I hold that as an option, though, does not necessarily follow that I hold it as the first option.
thank you for your thoughts and for making me think about this subject more… my thoughts take me into a variety of scenarios in which I think peaceful resolution would be the one that I would seek first (I hope, altho who knows, it’s easy to thinks these things in the comfort of an arm chair)…
of course say I wrestled for that gun and the gun went off and killed the guy, morally should I have wrestled with him in the first place? It occurs to me that at the heart of this for me is that eastern/western philosphy divide of the needs of the one and the needs of the many - when does me knowing that I have eternal life become smug complacency? Where does the harmonising of middle eastern religions of judaism and christianity require me to act in ways where sometimes the one and sometimes the many are inviolate.
Relatd I guess, hugo, but I wonder - what do you think of recent interpretations of the sermon of the mount, where for example Jesus teaching to turn the other cheek is not a call to be a door mat but actually a radical way of shaming one’s oppressor by making him treat you/recognise you as an equal - taking the shame from the oppressed and putting it on the oppressor?
Thank you again for your thoughts.
That was a thoughtful post.
I’m not a pacifist, but I love it that some religious people are.
Religious pacifism — whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or otherwise (I don’t acknowledge atheist pacifism as having the same validity, because no good can come from demonic philosophies however mild they counterfeit) — is a wonderful thing, and I think it does do something supernatural and deeply good to the world.
But we are imperfect beings living in an imperfect world, so some of us are driven by our consciences to do imperfect deeds to bring goodness into the world the only way we can.
A strand of Anglo-Saxon fatalism in my Christianity, I confess.
For the record, the majority of troops, in any war you can name, didn’t kill anyone. Most casualties are inflicted by a small minority of soldiers, just like the movies. Strange but true…
By the way, For a long time I’ve felt that Jesus implicitly acknowledged this (the things about imperfect beings in an imperfect world) in his encounter with the Centurion. There is no hint of a negative judgement in this story, in stark contrast with his interaction with the religious authorities.
Arwen,
It’s worth noting that, “Pacifism doesn’t counsel non-resistance to evil, it counsels non-violence,” is true for pacifism. It is not true for non-resistance (and, to repeat, the Amish are non-resistant, not pacifist.) Non-violent resistance is explicitly condemned in the teaching of conservative Mennonites and Amish.
The issue of “heaven is better but preserving life is good and right” is a very old tension in Christian thought; the apostle Paul struggles with it several times, notably:
Philippians 1:21-24
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
Romans 14: 7-9
For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Kip, as an Agnostic, I am completley offended by your claim that my desire to be pacifist isn’t “good enough” because it doesn’t come from a god, and that my belief is demonic. I’m not atheist, but atheist means “no god”, not demons (to my knowledge, no one worships demons). How can you worship something that you don’t believe in? To say so is insulting and wrong.
A person who comes to pacisifism through searching and reason is just as good as a person who comes to because they’re particular invisible sky (or earth) fairy told them so.
Gonzoman, it is a false dicotomy because it is not either willing to violence or not. There are many, many things that can be included in the “not” and a lot of them more difficult to do than to simply beat the everliving crap out of someone. Beating the crap out of someone is satisfying: letting them insult you again and again so you can talk them out of doing violence is not. It’s hard to overcome your anger, but ultimately the better of two options.
As this place often addresses music as a calming and directing influence, here’s a Dresden Dolls song I think offers comfort when thinking about Bart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLyG0BJhJY
Lynn–
What about Rev 19:15?
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. [my emphasis]
Why is it that people don’t tend to remember the Jesus in Revelations when they talk about Jesus? You know, the guy who comes back to earth as the manifestation of God’s wrath? Who will God’s wrath be directed at? I’m guessing that atheists are in the group that will be vicitms of that wrath…and if not at least the atheists, then who?
OK, my apologies. Though that is how I feel, it was a little strongly worded. How about substitute ‘materialistic’ for ‘demonic’.
Because Revelations is metaphor, jeffliveshere, not literal. It’s like an ancient editorial cartoon, commenting on the politics of the Roman Empire.
And God’s wrath, in Revelations, is directed at Caesar - the Roman Empire government which was actually persecuting Christians at the time the book was written (real persecution, not “persecution” of the sort some Christians claim they’re being subjected to in the modern day US).
Gonzoman, it is a false dicotomy because it is not either willing to violence or not. There are many, many things that can be included in the “not” and a lot of them more difficult to do than to simply beat the everliving crap out of someone. Beating the crap out of someone is satisfying: letting them insult you again and again so you can talk them out of doing violence is not. It’s hard to overcome your anger, but ultimately the better of two options.
It most certaily is not - If I am in a place where you are threatening an innocent’s life I am WILLING to do what it takes to stop you - this includes taking you out. This will, however, be the very last resort. If you are still talking to me, you’re not killing them. If I can disarm you - with a degree of certainty - I will cheerfully and gladly take that option. Hell, if I can lay down a field of supressive fire that lets them escape, without targeting you, I will.
It is your presumption that I would choose violence as the first option, and that I would somehow enjoy it, and frankly, that’s about as offensive a thing as I have ever heard. For 4 years, I worked as both personal and group security, and only rarely had to exercise any serious force which involved even temporary injury and each time sickened me that it had to come to that. It is one of the reasons I got out of that line of work, after having to nearly maim some clown on dope and with a weapon I started wondering how long it would be before I actually had to kill someone for one reason or another.
You know, there was a young man who beame a student of the martial arts - we’ll call him “Gonz” - who once asked his teacher “Sensei, what if someone stuck a knife in your face and told you to give him your wallet?” Well, the teacher got up, went to the mat, and said “Show me what you mean.” So Gonz gets a plastic knife, and adopts a fighting posture, and makes the demand. The Teacher looked at him, reache in his pocket, and gave Gonz his wallet, and said, “Take what you want - just drop the pictures of my children if you’d be so kind.”
Well, Gonz looked at that, and said “That’s it? Just let him take your money?” The teacher then said, “I have about $30 in there. Tell me, is it your life or mine which is only worth thirty dollars?” So Gonz looks at him, hands back the wallet, and says, “Well what if he tries to kill you anyway?”
The sensei nodded and said, “Then that is a different question.”
Now, I’m not going to try to tell you that the little fifteen year old hothead took that lesson right to heart, but by the time I was working security and protection, it had. I didn’t and don’t like the times I was called to do violence of one degree or another, but it was far outweighed by the many times I defused a potentially violent situation by not turning it into a confrontation, or offering a face saving way out. It was far outweighed by me eventually being able to filter out bullies in the hiring process, or by firing them. It was far outweighed by the times people went home by themselves instead of the police having to be called which invariably became violent. Each and every time, though, this “Soft speaking” was also backed up by the “big stick” I had; and these Amish folks have sadly learned that such soft speaking is no proof against evil.
No, I don’t lose a lot of sleep over what I was called to do, however much I regret it, because you know what? Every time I had to ratchet up the level of force, it was because the person I had to deal with had made the choice to take it to that level FIRST. And that is not my bad. That is theirs.
Kip:
Still insulting. I am probably the least materilistic person in the world, and have a lot atheist friends who are the similar. Compare this to my must-keep-up with the Jone’s, materialistic, oh-so-pious Christian family.
Now, the plural of anecdote is not data, but the point of this matter is materialism is not driving an atheist every time. Atheists fall all over the philosophical spectrum.
Gonz:
My sensi gave me the same story.
Antigone,
I believe Kip is using the usage of “materialistic” that is usual in the Christian world, and you are misunderstanding him. A “materialist” is not someone who tries to accumulate possessions (your meaning), but someone who believes that the only reality is in the material (as opposed to the spiritual/supernatural) realm. Both definitions are in the dictionary.
Gonz,
I mostly agree with you, but you make one inaccurate claim (yes, I’m being picky). “Amish folks have sadly learned that such soft speaking is no proof against evil.” We have known that for centuries; I grew up hearing it over and over. Remember, Dirk Willems is one of the heroes every Plain child knows. He rescued the thief-catcher who was pursuing him, was arrested by the thief-catcher he had just rescued, and was burnt to death.
The lesson, Sam, is really not for the Amish, but for the many people who have lived in ivory towers, away from real evil (Because of rough men, et al) who reflexively scorn those who stand betweem them and hurt.
And who are far, far to often the first to call for help when it does break through.
As I said - the Amish are real pacifists with the courage of their convictions who turn the other cheek, and have my respect, even if not my full accord with their why and wherefore. Those who claim to be pacifists but call for someone to do violence by proxy when the going gets tough are beneath contempt.
one can never be certain that any given person will avoid hell in the afterlife, therefore failing to save someone’s life might result in condemning them to eternal separation from God
That makes more sense. It still doesn’t explain Hugo’s insistence, on the one hand, that we need not fear death, and on the other that we should avoid death.
(And not to be insulting, but it’s just another one of those baffling things about Christian theology…)
As regards pacifism and the military, I take a sort of Crusader-esque philosophy to military force. We should follow Jesus’ commandment and love our enemies, but we still may have to kill them. The soldier of God has taken an oath to protect the innocent and the defenceless, and kills only from necessity not from hate.
A pious Samurai would probably think the same way, and I vaguely recall a similar message in Chapter One of the Bhagavad-Gita (I never made it to Chapter Two).
Postscript:
Antigone, I acknowledge you are offended. The best apology I can offer is is the following: As a Christian I believe almost all those who follow the ways of the ‘Prince of the World’ do so because they are deceived by him, not because they desire to do wrong. Materialist thinking is a hallucination, if you like (it’s a hallucination I know very well, I get flashbacks of it from time to time). Without the ‘Light of the World’ you are in darkness, so you can’t be expected to see things as they really are.
It’s not your fault, Christ doesn’t condemn you for it so I certainly don’t wish to. But when you are in Sin — the universal inheritance of all those in a fallen world, not the sin of a particular personal wrong — and devising philosophies from within own mind or from a human or worldly perspective, then however much you mean to do well, even adopting such a profound and noble philosophy as pacifism, the end result is destructive.
As St Paul describes the man in sin trying to do good: ‘That which I would do, I do not, and that which I would not do, that I do!’ Since around the time of the French Revolution, modern Secularists have several times tried to devise philosophies which contain all the good elements of religion as they see it — justice, brotherly love, every good thing right? — but the end result has always been Hell on Earth (literally, a Christian would say).
We should follow Jesus’ commandment and love our enemies, but we still may have to kill them.
Given that this risks damning them to eternity in hell, it’s hard to see how it can be loving.
By the way, as regards the soldier who loves his enemies. I have read numerous stories of US troops demonstrating precisely this quality. Rushing under fire to treat the enemy wounded by their own gun fire, risking their lives to give the enemy a chance to surrender rather than die, that sort of thing.
This is normal in the US Army now. How noble and beautiful! Every American should be proud and inspired. Such righteous behaviour will have good consequences far beyond the attaining of worthwhile political and strategic aims, not least on those suffering under the demonic delusion of the terrorist philosophies.
these Amish folks have sadly learned that such soft speaking is no proof against evil.
Neither are big sticks, frankly. Don’t get me wrong: there are times when big sticks are useful. But they’re no panacea, either; rather, there’s a tendency towards escalation.
Did you read this article?
The love of Christ must flow through that community like a torrent.
Well, Jonathan - that is why I have both. The right tool for the right job.
these Amish folks have sadly learned that such soft speaking is no proof against evil
Uh, right. Because they’ve never, ever had to deal with evil before; it’s always been Paradise and everybody behaving like angels. What nonsense.
Kip
Very well, I’ll accept that you are attempting not to be offensive, and failing. But, whatever: you think I’m wrong, and I think you’re wrong. Any government ever lead by religious has failed to bring up any type of miraculous utopia either, though, and many have brought up worse than hell on earth (especially if you’re female). So I’ll go with logic.
Gonz:
Am I to gather that you think me one of those ivory tower acedemics that would call the police at the first sign of danger? I think you need to be more specific on who you are referring to.
And final point: the “rough men” et al; who are they standing ready against? And who protects us from them? It’s one of the reasons I never liked fairy tales, the princess gets rescued by a knight who slayed a dragon. Who’s going to protect the princess from the knight?
The military protects from “terrorists”: who protects us from the military?
Violence really does only lead to more violence.
I am impressed by the level of restraint in this discussion, when normally this sort of thing leads to the usual flame war. Good things said all around, and much that is heartfelt. I suppose it’s one reason I keep returning to Hugo’s blog.
Gandhi was a pacifist and he brought the British empire to its knees.
But not strictly. Civil disobedience is a mode of psychological warfare, a form of struggle without employing violence.
And final point: the “rough men” et al; who are they standing ready against? And who protects us from them?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The answer is: the citizenry.
Antigone,
Not wishing needlessly to drag our little dispute out, but with the exception of the most odious regimes of recent centuries — Nazism, Communism, Jacobins — until very very recently *every* government was led by religious believers.
Christianity doesn’t promise utopia, exactly the opposite in fact. The struggle in the political sphere is not between angel and devil, but between Man and monster.
You are quite right Kip, we should drop this line of thought: it’s not related to the topic at hand.
Burton: I’m rather impressed as well, I was worried this would degenerate into people yelling “coward” and “murderer” at each other.
Anyway, if the citizenry has no power against the military, we end up in the same place all over again. Who do you pick as your master? It seems you come back to the same place: there is always someone over you.
To me, it seems we as a society should be discouraging violence from the get-go: not encouraging it. We let our children watch violent television shows, all of them about the “good guys” beating up the “bad guys”. No child, no matter how much of a bully, thinks themselves the “bad guys”. As soon as we get into the “we’re right, and everyone else is wrong” we start being able to justify horrible evil. We should stop it right away: evil is evil, and we don’t accept otherwise.
Gonz:
Am I to gather that you think me one of those ivory tower acedemics that would call the police at the first sign of danger? I think you need to be more specific on who you are referring to.
I have no hidden agenda nor meaning. On is a true pacifist - or not. Since I don’t have personal knowledge of that aspect of you, only you can decide whether that set of shoes fits or not. If they do - wear them. If they don’t - do not; in that case I am not talking about yoyu.
And final point: the “rough men” et al; who are they standing ready against? And who protects us from them? It’s one of the reasons I never liked fairy tales, the princess gets rescued by a knight who slayed a dragon. Who’s going to protect the princess from the knight?
The military protects from “terrorists”: who protects us from the military?
I’m personally much more in favor of a minarchist state where people are more responsible for their own protection than any gubbmint monopoly It’s one of the consequences when you trade off your personal protection to someone else, that you will in turn be dependant upon them, and their better natures.
Violence really does only lead to more violence.
I have never noted that being non-violent is truly effective against those who are bound and determined to harm you in one way or another; the tendancy of people to insist that unreasonable people will see reason is the nadir of wishful thinking. Were any conqueror met with an army of a hundread thousand “dealing peace” we would merely have a hundred thousand more casualties - or slaves.
One attitude I’ve noticed here and elsewhere (and to which Hugo responded very profoundly in his main post) is that ‘the Amish exist because there is a United States for them to exist in’.
But isn’t the opposite?
…doesn’t the United States exist because of Christian sects of great purity, just like the Amish?
Why are they bound and determined to harm us in the first place? Who is this unnamed conqueror and why does he have an army of a hundred thousand in the first place?
And perhaps it is better to be dead or enslaved than it is to commit evil. If someone steals from me, I don’t get to steal from them. Maybe this is the same.
Because Revelations is metaphor, jeffliveshere, not literal. It’s like an ancient editorial cartoon, commenting on the politics of the Roman Empire.–Lynn
I get that the sword (since it’s coming out of his mouth) is a metaphorical sword, Lynn; my point is that Jesus isn’t all about forgiveness and happiness and light and unicorns and rainbows–in the end times (unless you’re saying that all of Revelations is a metaphor), Jesus will return, and the unbelievers will die at the hand of him and his soldiers, right? I’m assuming that, as an atheist, I’m going to be among that group.
Jesus may be something of a pacifict in the New Testament–but in the Final Testament, he’s coming down with a sword to finish off the unbelievers–metaphorically or not. What the heck would “wrath of God” mean metaphorically? Presumably that’s some literal wrath I ought to be worried about, otherwise the Christian god can sort of be surmised to be full of empty threats.
in the end times (unless you’re saying that all of Revelations is a metaphor), Jesus will return, and the unbelievers will die at the hand of him and his soldiers, right?
That’s not my reading. I don’t believe that Revelations is a prediction of what will happen in the end times at all. I believe it’s about the ultimate defeat of the persecution that was then happening in the Roman Empire. I believe that all the apocalyptic passages in the Bible are about events in the near future (or, in some cases, written in future tense about events in the near past).
I’m assuming that, as an atheist, I’m going to be among that group.
I don’t get why you’re assuming we Christians would all believe that, since I’ve already said that the book is about the persecutions in the Roman Empire, and has nothing to do with atheists.
What the heck would “wrath of God” mean metaphorically?
It means that the Emperor Nero (the one whose name is represented by the number of the Beast) is under God’s judgment, and doesn’t get the last word. Since in fact, historically, Jesus didn’t show up with an army to defeat the Emperor Nero, it can be assumed that, if the book is saying anything true about history at all, it’s not saying that Jesus himself is leading an army in this case.
One more thing to jeffliveshere: Look up “amillenialism” in Wikipedia before you assume that anywhere near all Christians are expecting Jesus to show up with troops and kill all the atheists. Also take a look at “preterism” while you’re at it.
Lynn–
Ah. I think I’m getting what you’re saying now. For you and “Chrisians like you”, Revelations was a metahporical prediction of the future, but of the near future from the perspective of those alive at the time the new testament was written (or when the events described later in the new testament was written). Am I getting closer?
If so, then our disagreement may well come down to what you mean by ‘we Christians;’ what percentage of Christians would you say interpret Revelations in the way that you do?–because I’ve met a lot of Christians in my time, and so far they’ve all thought that I will be going to hell on the Judgement Day described by Revelations, as long as I live that long.
Also: So God/Jesus don’t have any wrath to direct at non-Christians (expet for Nero), according to your interpretation? Do I get to go to heaven as an atheist then? If not, then in my opinion, in the end, Jesus still isn’t much of a pacifist if he forces me to go to hell when I won’t do what he says…
One more thing to jeffliveshere: Look up “amillenialism” in Wikipedia before you assume that anywhere near all Christians are expecting Jesus to show up with troops and kill all the atheists. Also take a look at “preterism” while you’re at it.–Lynn.
Ok, I’m officially confused again. Under your view, Lynn, will Christ return to earth in a second coming (because it seems that amillenia