Hello, I open this thread to speak about non violence and pacifism. Even if I admire the life of Martin Luther King, I'm however more pessimistic than him. First I will make the difference between two kind of pacifism : _ The pacifism of the one who won't fight because he is too afraid or too weak to fight. _ The pacifism of the one who could fight but won't because he think a better solution can be found otherwise. From my own experience, I'm born crippled, agressivity is a good thing. A lot of social relationships require a dosis of agressivity. Many people consider that a lack of agressivity is a weakness and would use that to crush people. Nowodays ideology of non violence is toxic, it turned people into weakling. They didn't learned pacifism, they learned submission. True pacifism can only be reached by people able of fighting but who choose of not fighting; otherwise it's just weakness, and that weakness will be used by the one willing to use this flaw. The main consequence for me is that it's imperative to learn back to younglings, especially males but female too, to be strong, agressive and brave.
Jesus was a pacifist and any real Christian has to be one as well. Ironically, many professing Christians are among history's biggest warmongers. While the likes of Hitler, Queen Elizabeth, King Leopold, and traitor Bush lived their lives believing themselves to be doing God's work through their evils, when the Judgment Day comes along they will find themselves in an eternal Hell for their crimes against humanity because they were not pacifists.
I believe in pacifism, not acting as weakling. The one who is not able to defend is own life, or don't wish to defend his own life treat is own life with the biggest scorn. In Christianity, I clearly prefer Francesco d'Assisi to Arnaud Amaury, but I'm not into "dying for your sins". Dead people are dead, and waiting the judgment day won't change anything. The only thing we can do is changing ourselves.
Pacifism is not weakness, but it is foolishness, and depends on the basic decency of your opponent. If your opponent is an immoral *******, pacifism will result in your death and humiliation. If your opponent is a basically decent person, pacifism can work. Gandhi's techniques only worked because of the basic decency of the British. Had the Russians been in charge, it would have failed.
Often type one thinks he's type two. But pacifists require non pacifists around to protect them, so there aren't really any extra morality points involved if your outsourcing your head busting to some one else.
Gandhi was only following Jesus's example. If the rest of the world did (especially the so called Christian world), there would be peace. Since this forum is so filled with born again Bible thumping Christians who faithfully adhere to the teachings of Jesus the pacifist, let's see them all applaud in accord.
I will begin by saying that Pacifism is a noble notion if you are a type two. Type ones are hiding behind an ideology with no back up plan. I consider myself a type two pacifist in the sense that: I stand for freedom, freewill and the idea of doing no harm to others. This means that I stand against most all military action (Because most has been engaged in for the purpose of conquest or for the sake of exploitation of others land and resources). This includes the USA (Read: Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn, The Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone and Suicide Pact by Judge Andrew Napolitano to get a picture on why I feel this way. I believe laws should be there to protect " all " people and those that are charged with upholding those laws (Police,Judges,etc) should be held accountable for protecting all citizens without prejudice or bias. I feel we as a country have fallen far short in this area. We also have issues with justification for abuse under the banner of religion that has influenced politics, policy and military engagement since the time of the early Christian church. My reason for bringing up these points is to address the fact that true Pacifism is a direct response to the " Myth of Authority ". By standing against the abuse of authority in all it's forms is the only way to stand for truth and freedom. It is the only way to stand for Human Rights and for true sovereignty. If we do not take this stance, then we are complicit in the abuses we say we stand against. This doesn't mean that we don't defend ourselves, but we must use this as a last resort. I strongly suggest everyone read two books (PDF's and audio versions are available) The End of All Evil by Jeremy Locke and The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose.
Where are all the forum's genuine "Christians"? You know, the ones who actually worship the Prince of Peace and follow his example in every way???
And there is considerable vanity/arrogance tied up in assuming you'll somehow be exempt from your opponent's potential violence.
I remember the quote of a french resistant about some pacifist : You the pacifist think that you decide if someone is your ennemy or not, but you're wrong. Once someone decided he is your ennemy, you can as much as you want protest with demonstrations of friendship, they won't change there sheme. I quote from memory, the original quote is both in french and formulated slighty differently.
Why question and judge other people? Do as you believe to be correct. Mahatma Gandhi did. He was a pacifist and was willing to die rather than harm anyone else. He didn't judge you or others who chose violence although he stood against such acts.
A lot of catharist were ready to died rather than harm anyone else, the result is they are in the graveyard of humanity. Gandhi stance worked mainly because the brits were not to harsh.
You are simply trying to derail the O.P by shifting the issue to the now drearily standard and deep-rooted hatred of Christianity by the generic leftist; as is your usual habit, and so posters are ignoring you in regards to any topic that can accept the grafting of bone deep hatred. Surprised?
Actually you are projecting your hatred. Jesus Christ, the one you supposedly worship, was a pacifist. So why aren't you endorsing his teachings on this thread?
Probably because unlike you I actually understand religion and not just Christian religion, and THAT's as far off topic as you are taking me. Enjoy.
Have you ever read Sermon on the Mount? Its pretty revolutionary teaching the Jews how to cope with the Roman occupation. It was studied in depth by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
Sorry kid, but I know the subject far better than you do. I will gladly match my knowledge of the Bible with anyone. And I mean anyone as my knowledge of that book is vastly superior to yours.
