Is pacifism at all logical?

[Maya2172]

Ok, im not sure if this is the right section of the forums to be posting in, but whatever. A question has been on my mind. In the New Testament, Jesus tells us not to fight, and to be good to those who persecute us. But what if being good and not fighing meant that your nation would be destroyed, what if it means your relegion would be wiped out? What if on 9/11, those passengers on that one airplane decided to not fight back so the plane would crash in a feild? More lives would be lost, more evil could come to power. I have heard of the “just war/right war” theories that the Church seems to accept, but still, somethig isnt making sense to me. Please explain.

On the other hand, I should mention the fact that Chrisianity is the largest relegion on earth, but started off as a small group persecuted by the Romans…clearly something about pacifism worked…but what???

 

[jbenade]

No, pacifism is not at all logical. Pacifism is a policy of appeasement which opens the door to many evils - Nazism, Totalitarianism, Holocaust.

I actually cringe when I see a “peace sign.” It’s one of those “feel good” things. What a good person am I that I want “peace.” Nice. Until someone, some country wants to take your freedoms away. Or worse, your religious liberties. Your very life and the lives of your loved ones. So for the sake of “peace,” they would just let them? It’s nonsensical.

I’m with Ronald Reagan. “Peace Through Strength.”

 

[jbenade]

St. Augustine and St. Aquinas spoke on the conditions of “just war.” Here’s a link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

 

[Daizies]

No, pacifism is not at all logical. Pacifism is a policy of appeasement which opens the door to many evils - Nazism, Totalitarianism, Holocaust.

I respectfully disagree. One does not have to be violent to oppose evil.

As a pacifist, I believe in non-violent protest, and civil disobedience when necessary. I will not use violence as a means to an end.

In your example of a totalitarian state, my choice would be the path of non-violent resistance. I would not shoot anyone, blow anything up etc - but I would refuse to comply with what I believed to be evil.

In my mind, part of the problem is that people think that a pacifist is someone who will just lay there and do nothing, or worse, to facilitate evil, when in fact that is not true.

 

[Joko2599]

I believe that all forms of violence are immoral, UNLESS in self-defense of yourself, your family, and your country.

I’m a big fan of the Just War doctrine.

 

[layman2]

In the New Testament, Jesus tells us not to fight, and to be good to those who persecute us.

Matthew 10:34

Luke 22:36

To answer your question, OP, no, pacifism is not*** realistic*** (logic doesn’t really enter into it, because lots of stuff can be logical yet not realistic). When Jesus tells us to “turn the other cheek,” what he’s talking about is Mafia behavior, or the type of stuff the Taliban and that ilk practice: personal vendettas. Jesus is not referring to defense in general, or to self-defense. Think for example about the soldiers mentioned in the N.T.: Jesus never told those guys they needed to lay down their arms and become pacifists.

 

[BrethrenBoy]

No, pacifism is not at all logical. Pacifism is a policy of appeasement which opens the door to many evils - Nazism, Totalitarianism, Holocaust.

I actually cringe when I see a “peace sign.” It’s one of those “feel good” things. What a good person am I that I want “peace.” Nice. Until someone, some country wants to take your freedoms away. Or worse, your religious liberties. Your very life and the lives of your loved ones. So for the sake of “peace,” they would just let them? It’s nonsensical.

I’m with Ronald Reagan. “Peace Through Strength.”

Don’t tell that to any Mennonites or Brethren you meet. Please look up the life of Ted Studebaker or Elder John Kline. Or just take some time to learn about the Anabaptists’ tradition of pacifism. We are NOT cowards who appease evildoers for the sake of peace. We find the act of war to be irreconcilable with the message and teachings of Jesus. That does not mean we believe evil should be allowed to reign unopposed. Far from it! We have a long standing tradition of non-violent resistance.

 

[BrethrenBoy]

I respectfully disagree. One does not have to be violent to oppose evil.

As a pacifist, I believe in non-violent protest, and civil disobedience when necessary. I will not use violence as a means to an end.

In your example of a totalitarian state, my choice would be the path of non-violent resistance. I would not shoot anyone, blow anything up etc - but I would refuse to comply with what I believed to be evil.

In my mind, part of the problem is that people think that a pacifist is someone who will just lay there and do nothing, or worse, to facilitate evil, when in fact that is not true.

I strongly agree. This is the official teaching of my church, though unfortunately it has been somewhat lost over time.

 

[Ismael]

The problem with pure pacifism is that it works only if the ‘opposition’ allows it.

Would a ‘Gandhi-like’ pacifist movement would have worked against Nazism? Of course not.
If Gandhi had been a Jew in Nazi Germany, he would be at best a footnote in history. That’s because British Imperialism and Nazism were quite different regimes.

In your example of a totalitarian state, my choice would be the path of non-violent resistance. I would not shoot anyone, blow anything up etc - but I would refuse to comply with what I believed to be evil.

Right… and if you were e Jew in Nazi Germany would your ‘non-violent resistance’ have worked?

I doubt the Nazi’s cared if a Jew was doing a ‘hunger strike protest’ in a concentration camp.

---

I agree that violence should be always a last resort, but there are evils where violent action might be necessary.

There is nothing wrong in ‘being a pacifist’ ad hate violence and war, mind you. We should hate violence and war.

At the same time, sometimes strong action is needed to protect the weak.

An example is Nazi Germany… but today there are still places where people are being systematically exterminated in Africa or Asia… and military intervention might save actually many lives.

Of course those countries have no resources that interest western countries, so one cares.

 

[devoutchristian]

In my mind, part of the problem is that people think that a pacifist is someone who will just lay there and do nothing, or worse, to facilitate evil, when in fact that is not true.

If you witnessed someone being murdered in front of you and did nothing to stop it even though you could, then you would be a facilitator of that evil.

We find the act of war to be irreconcilable with the message and teachings of Jesus.

But allowing someone to be murdered right in front of you, for instance, would be in accordance with the teachings of Jesus?

 

[Daizies]

If you witnessed someone being murdered in front of you and did nothing to stop it even though you could, then you would be a facilitator of that evil.

Describe precisely a situation where a witness to a murder could violently intervene and stop it. If I am unarmed and alone how do you propose that I stop a murder - even if I were to choose violence?

Would you try to stop a murder? Would you physically attempt to intervene? How do you propose that you would do that? Would you give up your life for another, even a random stranger on the street? Or to raise the stakes more- would you give up your life trying to stop the murder of a homeless person?

It’s easy to come up with radical hypothetical situations, it is another thing entirely to place those situations in to reality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The old adage: “The reason evil triumphs is that good men sit by and do nothing.”

Non violent opposition is sitting by and doing nothing. Somebody should have killed Hitler before he could get started. No, everybody just sat around and did nothing.

 

[devoutchristian]

Describe precisely a situation where a witness to a murder could violently intervene and stop it. If I am unarmed and alone how do you propose that I stop a murder - even if I were to choose violence?

Here’s a hypothetical, say that you saw someone (unarmed) strangling a child to death, and you had a gun.

 

[triumphguy]

The old adage: “The reason evil triumphs is that good men sit by and do nothing.”

Non violent opposition is sitting by and doing nothing. Somebody should have killed Hitler before he could get started. No, everybody just sat around and did nothing.

Being martyred for your faith is not “doing nothing.”

It is witnessing in a non violent way.

Tell St. Maximilian Kolbe or St. Edith Stein that they sat by and did “nothing.”

Or St. Peter for that matter.

 

[devoutchristian]

Somebody should have killed Hitler before he could get started. No, everybody just sat around and did nothing.

Actually there was a plot to do so in 1938, but it fell apart for reasons that I can’t recall at the moment.

 

[devoutchristian]

Being martyred for your faith is not “doing nothing.”

It is witnessing in a non violent way.

Tell St. Maximilian Kolbe or St. Edith Stein that they sat by and did “nothing.”

Or St. Peter for that matter.

Certainly those you listed were heroes, but so were Churchill, Franco, Eisenhower, Philip, and Montgomery, to name a few.

 

[triumphguy]

Here’s a hypothetical, say that you saw someone (unarmed) strangling a child to death, and you had a gun.

It depends what kind of pacifist you are.

Read this: bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/against/pacifism_1.shtml

 

[Daizies]

The old adage: “The reason evil triumphs is that good men sit by and do nothing.”

Non violent opposition is sitting by and doing nothing. Somebody should have killed Hitler before he could get started. No, everybody just sat around and did nothing.

There is a big difference between refusing to use violence and refusing to do nothing.

I don’t really expect to convince anyone on this thread of that.

Nothing anyone can say here will convince me to change my mind.

Violence is so steeped into our culture that to most it is unthinkable to go without it.
It is so easy to sit back in your cosy home and think of hypothetical situations to try and devalue someone else’s beliefs. I’m not going to sit and wage a war of hypotheticals.
I know what I believe and why, and that is sufficient for me.

 

[Daizies]

Here’s a hypothetical, say that you saw someone (unarmed) strangling a child to death, and you had a gun.

I would never have a gun.
I would do what I could - without resorting to violence.

It’s easy to come up with hypotheticals.

Would you physically intervene if you were unarmed and saw a homeless person being stabbed to death?

 

[devoutchristian]

I would never have a gun.

Say that someone had given you one and you hadn’t had time to dispose of it.

I would do what I could - without resorting to violence.

And the child would die.

Would you physically intervene if you were unarmed and saw a homeless person being stabbed to death?

Yes.

It is so easy to sit back in your cosy home and think of hypothetical situations to try and devalue someone else’s beliefs.

That’s the same argument that is used by those who believe that contraception is justifiable in certain cases. “It’s so easy to sit and pass judgment on my choices when you aren’t having to go through (insert rationalization here)”