Struggling with Pacifism

Leslie, with insight and grace, as usual:

The world is full of people making choices.  Choices for good and choices for evil.  As many times as I roll it around in my brain, I can't find a good justification for granting blatant evil a spot on the world's stage.  Pacifism is definitely worth thinking about, and there are certain times when it will stop evil.  There are also too many times when it won't and it is those times that I'm left seriously questioning the morality of what I see as enabling evil.  With that I will tie it all up with an unpacifistic, yet apologetic torturing of Longfellow:

When pacifism is good, it is very, very good.  And when it is bad it is horrid.

It's all good over at The Insomniac, and stylish, and non-confrontational.  Go and read the rest.

My struggle is with Christian pacifists who are quick to criticize America and her fight against terrorism while nary a peep of criticism is ever launched at who it is we fight.  What's up with that?

Comments

[VinceTNq]

The emphasis is always on the pacifist and never really the Christian. Sort of a Green Party with a cross.

[agnana]

There's a legitimate answer to your question, which is that true pacificists believe that it is better to be killed than to kill. And as members of a democratic society, they see themselves as responsible for the killing carried out in their name, not that perpetrated against them. This does not mean that they think that stopping violence will necessarily bring victory, only that victory gained by violence is not worth the cost. Such a view (held for example by the "peace churches" like the Amish and Mennonites) has religious integrity, and is willing to admit that there is a potentially large cost.

However, there is another brand of "fuzzy-minded pacificism" which is what I see when I look at many of the more liberal mainline churches. In this theology, evil comes from institutions, not the human heart, and so it's always the more powerful institution that's in the wrong.

[Steve]

That seem rather unfair Vince. I would say the emphasis is completly on Jesus, and the pacifism as a conviction, right or wrong comes out of that.

I've read a lot a crit of Hezbollah (sp). In fact in General, on on subjects like Iraq, these sorts of blog/voices were sounding alarm on subjects such as Iraq long before America declared Iraq as an enemy.

The trouble is though that America does a lot it can be critisised for, and as potentially the worlds most powerful nation, it has a big expectation on it. Hezbollah are a terrostist organisation - I expect bad things form them. People expect betetr from a powerful 'christian' nation state.

America declaring itself neutral, while putting a rush on a bomb shipment for Israel - don't you think that has at least scope for critisism?

Steve