One of the charges people who support any war level against pacifists is that pacifism is just a dressed up form of cowardice. According to this line of reasoning, only those willing to kill and pillage others are worthy of being called brave. If a person believes that killing and violence are ethically or morally wrong, they are just the wimpiest of wimps.
If this is true, then Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. are the sultans of wimps. During each of their lives, when faced with great bodily harm and death, not a one of them backed down from their nonviolent stance and reciprocated violence for violence. Each stood his ground and accepted the consequences. In my book, that's bold courage!
Take a look at the life of Jesus. When the authorities came to arrest him, one of his disciples drew his sword and struck one person in the head. Did Jesus say, "Way to go, Peter! Throw me a sword and let's fight these guys"? No, Jesus instructed Peter to put his sword away.
Once arrested, Jesus was roughed up and later flogged. At any time, did he attempt to fight back? No, he didn't. In the end, he was nailed to a cross. Did he try to run away before this could happen or try to duke it out with the guards? No, he courageously accepted the sentence handed down.
According to current war hawks, Jesus should then be considered the ultimate coward. In the face of all kinds of threats of bodily harm, he REFUSED to fight back.
Gandhi and King both adopted this same kind of strategy. Gandhi was beaten several times by British authorities and yet he prayed for those who beat him. King faced down police dogs, fire hoses, high-handed police tactics and angry white mobs. In every single case, he REFUSED to meet violence with violence and he urged his brethren to follow his example to turn the other cheek.
Gandhi & King, like Jesus, paid the ultimate price for their steadfast belief in nonviolence -- both were assassinated. King died before reaching his 40th birthday.
As all three of these men exemplified, pacifism takes a tremendous amount of resolve and courage. The normal human reaction is to hit back when somebody strikes you first, to hurt those who hurt you. However, just because this is a natural reflex, it doesn't mean that people with strong convictions cannot will themselves to react otherwise.
In the final analysis, I wonder how today's war hawks would have reacted had they been present during any of these three men's lives. Would they stand outside Gandhi's or King's prison cells and taunt them for not fighting back? Would they have stood at the foot of Jesus' cross and mocked him for so meekly submitting to his sentence?
Would any of them have the courage to look Jesus, Gandhi or King square in the eyes and say, "You sir are a coward!"?
If this is true, then Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. are the sultans of wimps. During each of their lives, when faced with great bodily harm and death, not a one of them backed down from their nonviolent stance and reciprocated violence for violence. Each stood his ground and accepted the consequences. In my book, that's bold courage!
Take a look at the life of Jesus. When the authorities came to arrest him, one of his disciples drew his sword and struck one person in the head. Did Jesus say, "Way to go, Peter! Throw me a sword and let's fight these guys"? No, Jesus instructed Peter to put his sword away.
Once arrested, Jesus was roughed up and later flogged. At any time, did he attempt to fight back? No, he didn't. In the end, he was nailed to a cross. Did he try to run away before this could happen or try to duke it out with the guards? No, he courageously accepted the sentence handed down.
According to current war hawks, Jesus should then be considered the ultimate coward. In the face of all kinds of threats of bodily harm, he REFUSED to fight back.
Gandhi and King both adopted this same kind of strategy. Gandhi was beaten several times by British authorities and yet he prayed for those who beat him. King faced down police dogs, fire hoses, high-handed police tactics and angry white mobs. In every single case, he REFUSED to meet violence with violence and he urged his brethren to follow his example to turn the other cheek.
Gandhi & King, like Jesus, paid the ultimate price for their steadfast belief in nonviolence -- both were assassinated. King died before reaching his 40th birthday.
As all three of these men exemplified, pacifism takes a tremendous amount of resolve and courage. The normal human reaction is to hit back when somebody strikes you first, to hurt those who hurt you. However, just because this is a natural reflex, it doesn't mean that people with strong convictions cannot will themselves to react otherwise.
In the final analysis, I wonder how today's war hawks would have reacted had they been present during any of these three men's lives. Would they stand outside Gandhi's or King's prison cells and taunt them for not fighting back? Would they have stood at the foot of Jesus' cross and mocked him for so meekly submitting to his sentence?
Would any of them have the courage to look Jesus, Gandhi or King square in the eyes and say, "You sir are a coward!"?
Hm...a Taoist using Jesus as an example. There has to be a joke in there somewhere... :)
ReplyDeleteI think too many people see "pacifist" and think "person who doesn't stand up for what they believe in". This isn't so. Just because they don't fight violence with more violence doesn't make them a coward - as long as they are willing to do something to support whatever it is they believe in.
Pretend for a moment that it's a few years ago, Saddam's still in power, etc. Let's say you believe that Saddam should be deposed, but don't believe in sending troops to Iraq to do it, because you're a pacifist. You acknowledge that Saddam is a brutal despot who kills his own citizens and is generally a bad guy all 'round. What do you do, as the courageous pacifist? Organize protests? No, not much courage in that, really. Anyone can complain. Go visit Saddam and try to convince him to stop being a murderous scumbag? That'd be courageous, for certain. Would it be effective? Probably not so much. Still, the pacifist in this scenario did something.
I doubt anyone, "war hawks" included, would call King, Ghandi, or Christ cowards. Here's why - they all did something to support their beliefs, and never wavered from their respective paths. Had Jesus renounced his beliefs at the threat of bodily harm or death, he'd have been a coward. Had Dr. King done nothing at all to advocate civil rights, he'd have been a coward. He fought for what he believed in, using non-violent means. These men weren't afraid for their lives, because they were doing something noble and just. Had Ghandi whimpered and begged for his life when he was being beaten by the British authorities, he'd have been a coward.
It's the pacifists who say "Give Peace a Chance" and sit idly by while bad people do bad things who are cowards. The ones who say "Give Diplomacy a Chance" are the courageous ones...as long as they're participating in the process. And I don't mean protest. Anybody can stand in a square with a sign.
Ghost Dog,
ReplyDeleteThat's was very well put. I don't disagree with what you've stated.
Hm...a Taoist using Jesus as an example. There has to be a joke in there somewhere... :)
I can see how that might seem so. Many Taoists believe that Jesus was more Taoist than Christian. Most of his teachings are in line with Taoist thought. Most Taoists simply don't accept the notion that he was part man, part God. I personally think he was an enlightened and tuned in human.
"Anybody can stand in a square with a sign."
ReplyDeleteYeah but it takes courage to do that when you know that your presence in the square could result in your arrest or reprisals against your family, and this is the case in many countries today.
I've been out this weekend so just got a chance to catch up with the latest posts. A thought about pacifism: the way the world is now, unfortunately, I think pacifism is the hard road, not the easy road. To speak up for restraint, understanding, and non-violent solutions puts you in a visibly vulnerable position.
Personally, it's easier for me to get angry and want to hurt someone (I won't name names.) Accepting peace into my own heart is a challenge I face every single day. It's not the easy road. If it were, wouldn't we be on it already?
Just some more thoughts to toss into the pot...
Andi,
ReplyDeleteGood points. I agree that risking arrest IS courageous, but it does tend to undermine a person's stance if they protest the war, risk arrest and then, once the rally is over, jump into their SUV to drive home. We each must make choices in how we live our lives and, hopefully, such choices are consistent with our principles.
Trey,
ReplyDeleteI would agree a non-violent protest strategy, used by Ghandi and King, to accomplish social and political change is feasible. Especially in countries with humanitarian religious beliefs, where public opinion can be swayed. It is highly feasible in mature democracies in which the rule of law is observed. It also works well in countries that have pacifistic concepts embedded within its religions. Thus, Ghandi and King can use the religious beliefs of a country to exploit a non-violent protest strategy.
Is a non-violent pacifistic political or social change strategy feasible in a dictatorship or theocracy? Could a Kurdish pacifist been successful using non-violent strategies agains Saddam's government? Could a Christian pacifist be successful in the Sudan against the current Muslim Government?
I agree that pacifism takes courage. But, does non-violent pascifistic strategies work in all cases? When does non-violent pacifism transition to violence in order to protect one's tribe, community or nation? What form of passivism to you adher?