Todo Tiene Su Como-Se-Llama

Unfortunately, it looks to me as if your position on Korea is mostly a slippery-slope argument. I am not entirely unsympathetic to slippery slopes, but this one works both ways. If violent people are not opposed with force when they invade other countries, they will invade more often. Your Iraq example actually confirms this -- it was partly Saddam's belief that we would not oppose him with troops that led to the war. You've just made my deterrence policy seem more reasonable to me, and made pacifistic diplomacy look worse.

It is true, of course, that American troops were responsible for abuses in Korea. They were also responsible for abuses in WWII. It is still possible that the alternative to American involvement would have been worse.

Of course, I agree with you on many of the other examples, as I suspect you already know.

Ok Wheeler, I'm going to put this out here then. If violence is truly never an answer at all, then we either need to start giving in to criminal demands when they take hostages, or just let the hostages die. I suppose we could try talking to them, but if they know we won't actually be able to do anything, then they won't negotiate. Following your logic, I should, as a proper and moral Chrisitian, put forth to my government representatives to completely disarm our country and law enforcement. That, or we just need to go hide out in this country, or start our own. Because we can't say "I won't use violence, and Christians shouldn't either", and then in any way support anything that would put violent tools in the hands of men (and women).
Now, if you say nay to this, I put forth that you are then calling not for a non-violent life (or however exactly you wish to word it), but rather a life with limited violence. In that case, the debate becomes when we can fight back, as it were.

Oh God... um... can I just say for a minute that while I'm not in agreement with you on a lot of this, he (points at Sharpton) is not on my side? I'm not sure who gets to deal with that little disaster of mis-reasoning... but I don't wanna. So, Sharpton = not on my side... got it?

Jared, as I believe I mentioned the other day, there is a difference between the reasons that a war came to be started and the justification for Christian involvement. Given the War of 1812 for a moment: the average lay-person who is marching off to war in that conflict knows that the reason he's fighting the British is "they're on our shipz, stealing our soldierz." And honestly, protecting your country from forced enslavement seems to be a pretty good cause to go to war to me, regardless of the spurious saber-rattling that lead to the start of the war. The problem here is that you're attempting to judge the reasoning of a Christian in a war by the standard to which you hold a country for going to war... and that really doesn't wash.

Oh Scholl, forgive me. I'm so sorry that my response was somewhat emotional. I'm just not the incredible debater some of you are. Forgive me for embarassing you. I'll just go do penance now.

Alright... since it's clear I'm not going to get away without arguing this myself after that last comment... Sharpton, what you've done is called setting up a straw man. You've created an argument that appears, at face, to represent the position that Wheeler holds... except that it's also a completely untenable extension of Wheeler's position that oversimplifies it to an extreme. What's worse is this is a straw-man based on a side issue that was brought up as an aside after an illustration... so the argument is over here and you're setting up straw men in Nebraska.

Alright... now that we've gone over why the Cynic hates straw men and gets very angry (note that my response to Sharpton above seems not entirely keeping with dispassionate logic), I think we're into a discussion of degrees of pacifism.

Now, for a moment, let me step back and note that I *do* believe Sharpton's arguments have some validity to them, even if they are probably out-of-place and overstated. If the threat of lethal force is necessary in some cases, then the extreme pacifist is in a bad place. If, as many pacifists will argue, only nonlethal and debilitating force is necessary, then a Christian pacifist who feels it unethical to participate in the use of such force and benefits anyway is hypocritical. Of course, the problem here is to what degree force is necessary... and it is to that argument that I commend Wheeler... since I probably disagree with him and it would be disingenuous of me to attempt to represent his position.

Wilson, point. I am in the awkward position of having some crappy arguments because I'm fairly new to this concept, and at the same time not entirely convinced by it. However, I still say that in America we have a history of slow corruption of what started out as a fairly noble idea (to protect democracy in places where it could not protect itself). Our idea was that the end justifies the means (even if it wasn't phrased in so many words, that's what it amounts to, and that is wrong). But we have betrayed the end so many times, I think we've all but lost sight of what it should look like.

If violence is the only deterrent we have, then surely we lack creativity (not to mention resolve). I think it is equally valid to state that there will always be an enemy to fight so long as we continue to oppose them violently. We continue to create enemies through our willingness to solve problems violently.

This is difficult to say, and it might horrify some, but approaching the world from a non-violent position will involve sacrifice. Innocent people will die. But innocent people die now (it's just that we kill them, too). At least non-violence has a shot at global change in the long run. War obviously does not. A violent victory is a Pyrrhic victory. A non-violent victory will often look like a defeat.

". . . given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'." -Benedict XVI

Sharpton, I was going to say something vaguely similar to what Scholl said (in his second comment, decidedly not in his first). What you have described is something that I have already addressed. It is called "passive non-resistance." Its proponents did pretty much everything you described, proscribing all violence under any circumstances or for any reason, removing themselves from government, and setting up their own community elsewhere.

I believe my exact description of this position was: "That's crazy talk." I also said, "Ballou and Tolstoy sought to remove themselves from society and effect slow change through individual conversion to their ideas and through non-cooperation with 'the system.' Gandhi saw, I believe, something much closer to the route Christ himself takes (if we're really paying attention)."

Now, it may interest everyone to know that I can't find any pacifists (who aren't icky passive non-resistants) that actually address law enforcement really at all . . . except capital punishment, which is a big no-no (I agree). For simplicity's (and uncertainty's) sake, I'm willing to fully concede the point this far: Law enforcement does its job, and I am reasonably confident that lethal violence is an absolute last resort. I don't know if I could do it, but then, you'll notice I'm not a cop. Meanwhile, I'd like to forcefully wrest the discussion back in the direction of war.

I still need "those who have mentioned specific wars to defend their approval of Christian involvment in the wars mentioned" in the light of my comments about said wars (with the exception of Wilson, obviously). In particular, if you mentioned a specific war and I included questions in my response to it, an answer would be great.

Now, Scholl, on the subject of your Christian justification thing . . . Honestly, protecting your country from forced enslavement doesn't seem to me like a good reason to go to war, particularly not under the circumstances of the War of 1812 incident. You almost seem to be suggesting that the average lay-person is going to war in response to a simplified (perhaps even ignorant) version of the actual reason, fed to him by a government which has ulterior motives. A Christian should certainly never go to war on the mere basis of the "company line." If a Christian's reason for being in the war is not the same as his government's reason, why is he there? And if his government's reason is a bad one, again, why is he there?

Once again, the actual question is not "Do I have a good reason to go to war?" If you want one, you'll find one. The question is, "Is this necessary?" My answer is, "No." I'm not sure why you grabbed up the War of 1812, since that's a classic example of overeagerness to solve a problem violently.

Quick post while I've got a break; it's not exactly on the topic of war, but I think it's relevant. Sorry if it's not (or if it's too disjointed).

#1: Regarding "violence as the only answer" and the necessity of war:

Jared, I assume you're advocating diplomacy (I think "non-violent resistance" essentially amounts to diplomacy). If you would, allow me to think out loud a bit.

Diplomacy is basically high-brow bartering; it's all about compromise. It's a game of give-and-take; one party has something that the other wants, so they negotiate and argue and discuss until they agree on an exchange. I want the grocer's carrots, so I give him some money and he gives me some carrots. Nation X doesn't want nation Y to have product Z, while nation Y doesn't want nation X to blow nation Y up, so nation Y abandons product Z and nation X doesn't declare war.

Now consider the Holocaust. The Jews didn't have anything that Hitler wanted; what he wanted was their destruction. Nothing they could offer (short of self-destruction) would satisfy his desire, so diplomacy was impossible. They were thus left with three options: resistance, escape, and submission.

Or consider a violent crime. The rape victim has nothing to offer the psychopathic rapist. If escape is impossible, the only remaining non-violent choice is surrender.

Apply that thinking to the international level: If nation X wants the destruction of nation Y (almost certainly for ideological reasons), then we have a bit of a dilemma. Unless nation X can be convinced to change its desires, no amount of diplomacy will be able to resolve the issue without violence.

None of us (I think) are suggesting that violence is ever the best choice. Saying "Sometimes violence is the only answer" is roughly equivalent to saying "Sometimes surrender is not an option." The holder of such views would say that some things are worth fighting for. That, I think, is what this debate boils down to. Is violence so inherently wrong that its use is never an option, or are some things worse than violence?

#2:
"It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people believe it, it will be true regardless of its validity."

(I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of your distinction between "truth" and "validity," but that's another issue.)

I think that's kind of the point; regardless of what Christianity dictates, many people are not Christians. And for many non-Christians, violence is a perfectly acceptable tool. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think it's possible to convert the world to non-violence. People will always be human, and humans are fundamentally rotten. That's not to say "slow change through individual conversion" is a bad thing; indeed, that's what the Great Commission is all about. But there will always be those who do not accept such ideas. There will always be evil people who will not be content to negotiate with us or leave us in peace.

Which leaves me back to where I ended the previous chain of thought: When those who don't share our beliefs seek to harm or destroy us, how are we to respond? Is violence the ultimate evil of Christianity?

First off, I wish I could have been a better debater in this. But, sadly, it's not my area of strength.
That said, I think I'm not going to be able to really continue in this debate. If I do, I'll probably end up with an ulcer. Why? The same reason my responses have been a bit on the emotional side: I have exteremely strong views rooted in my conscience on this topic. Perhaps at a later time I can continue in this discussion with the involved parties.

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/pearlsbeforeswine

barely relevent cartoon...

Well, I'm not only talking about diplomacy, I'm also talking about resistance. Let's take your Holocaust example. I just read this today:

We will never know if nonviolence would have worked against Hitler . . . The history of the Holocaust shows little resistance of any kind to Hitler from the Jews ( this is not surprising - they could not believe anything as terrible as the “final solution” was contemplated. Historically the Jews survived anti-Semitism by keeping a low profile). Some have said “The Jews were pacifists and look what it got them!” Sorry, they were passive - there is a world of difference. There is no way of knowing if active pacifism would have had any chance of working - we only know it was not tried. I remember the chilling deduction of Hannah Arendt in her book on Eichmann, in which she concluded it was the passive cooperation of the Jews of Europe with the Nazis which helped make the Holocaust possible. If you think about this for a moment it is, unhappily, true. To track down, arrest, transport and kill six million people who are resisting - even by not showing up when ordered, would, at the very least, have caused massive public disorder. (Nothing is easier than saying “I would have resisted” - a cheap sentiment expressed by people who weren’t there. Documents show some resistance, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Violent or nonviolent, radicals honor resistance).

Also, no, violence is not the ultimate evil of Christianity, but it is certainly on the road to that evil. Violence dehumanizes and destroys, and I see this problem bleeding through just a little in everyone's "what-if?" scenarios. Part of what makes non-violence so difficult is that it forces you to put a human face on your enemy, even if he is out to kill you. Another thing I read today:

Lenin, the Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution, and no pacifist, didn’t encourage his people to call the Czarist troops names - no, he encouraged a political dialogue with them, knowing that the armed forces of the old Russian regime were only “agents” employed by the ruling class. If you wanted to make sure the Czar could hold power, then you threw rocks at the troops, which made them hate you. If you wanted to overthrow the Czar, then you did what Lenin’s people did - you took every chance to have political dialogue with the police and troops so that, finally, at a moment of crisis the police refused to obey the orders of the Czar.

Sure, non-violence might get you killed, but then, violence has a pretty good chance of the same outcome. Would it be better to die because you attempted a loving, rational approach to your enemies, or because they shot you before you could shoot them? Alternately, if you succeed at the former, your enemy is a friend. If you succeed at the latter, your enemy is just another dead human being.

You note that there will always be evil people who are more than willing to employ violence to get their way. If we are willing to do the same, the only difference between us is "What are you trying to accomplish?" And that is a sketchy difference at best, as our country's history proves. Is beating back evil temporarily while we are on earth really so important that we must resemble our enemies to do it?

You asked, "When those who don't share our beliefs seek to harm or destroy us, how are we to respond?" But I think you already know the answer. That question, at least, is answered very clearly in the Bible.

I saw that today. "Pearls Before Swine" is awesome.

Sharpton, I hate to see you jump out for those reasons. I totally understand where you're coming from, and yeah, you probably shouldn't continue if your physical, emotional, or mental health are at risk. If you would like to carry on the discussion in a less "forum-like" setting (like in person, or over IM) that would be great, but what you're saying here gives me kind of a funny feeling.

I don't think I've yet heard exactly what your feelings are, or why they're rooted in your conscience. However, I would suggest that if you are having trouble articulating them, and find a view which threatens or challenges them so emotionally distressing, perhaps it is time to pull them out and examine them very carefully and closely (this whole series of posts is the ongoing result of my doing just that). If you don't change your mind, your position will be that much stronger and less emotional.

I probably have more to say about that, but I can't think of a good way to put it. I think that gets the idea across . . . and I still would have liked to see you respond to some of my challenges.

well, Jared, I am quite intrigued by this whole issue and debate. I am trying to compose a well thought out response.....may never happen. I certainly struggled with this issue during my years at George Fox University. I respected my Quaker professors and freinds, respected and appreciated their pacifist values and beliefs. I also believed (and still do) that much of my personal rejection of this belief was pretty questionable and based in my inability to pull it off (and a certain love of "the battle").
I am prepared to comment on a couple points you raise here, however:
-In regards to your comments on the Civil War(Which group of Christian Americans would you, as a Christian American, feel most comfortable shooting a gun at?)--I'm much more inclined to shoot Christians than non Christians (Espcially yesterday... and as fate would have it they were indeed Americans...and yankees). It is the eternal consequences of killing...for both shooter and victim...that are problamatic for many Christian pacifists. One should note as well, that there were plenty of deluded Christians fighting for Hitler in WWII. Unfortunately, salvation is not a prophylactic against propaganda, nationalism and personal lusts.
- I think you have avoided 2 un-assailable truths: 1)While there were many many issues that contributed to the US Civil War, slavery was the poison pill. No slavery=no civil war. I don't believe any other factor alone can have any claim to this status. This was certainly in the consciousness of the country at the time., hence Lincoln's comment to Harriat Beecher Stowe, "So you're the lady whose little book started this big war." 2)Hitler's evil character and disgusting beleifs were certainly well known prior to the WWII (and during it) and are a relevent topic for this discussion dispite their having no direct causality for the conflict. Americans felt strongly about such moral issues and it was discussed/reacted to in many forums....most publically by American Atheletes in the Berlin Olympics. These moral issues certainly shaped many "objector leaning" men to go to war when any "threat" to home would never wash. What was surprising is that Hitler's world would turn out to be WORSE than these men ever imagined

Since we're discussing the question of whether active pacifism has ever been tried (and if so, whether it was successful), I think I should point to the example of Switzerland.

Arguably, Switzerland is the single most successfully peaceable nation in the world. Very few people have anything to fear from Switzerland. (Jews might have had something to fear from Swiss bankers during WWII, but I suspect you would view that as a Swiss failure to be active enough about pacific resistance). Yet Switzerland has universal male military training. It has largest reserve army (per capita) in Europe -- about 400,000 members. The country is full of hidden military installations, and hundreds of thousands of citizens keep assault rifles in their closets. By all accounts, invading Switzerland would be a very uncomfortable experience.

So I think "partial pacifism" has been tried, and has been tried successfully, in the guise of Swiss armed neutrality.

Furthermore, I believe I can point to other areas of the world where powerful standing armies have prevented war. Do you think South Korea would have survived for the last 50 years without a massive military presence on its northern border? And do you think Egypt or Jordan would have given up on invading Israel in the 1970s if the latter had not proven itself so deadly? (This is not to say that the Israeli Defense Force has prevented all military problems -- just the ones that threaten total annihilation for Israelis.) In either case, a successful invasion would probably have been followed by mass murder.

Long story short: my method has been tried. And it has worked.

I respect the attractiveness of the pacifist eschaton. In fact, I share your desire for it. And I understand that most pacifists are aware that it is an eschatological vision for society. But I can't in good conscience accept a damn-the-casualties, highly ideological, eschatological approach to civics. I think my approach to war would produce a more acceptable approximation of pacifist goals in the foreseeable future -- just as I think capitalism has better real-life solutions for poverty relief than Marxism has.

My question is, wilson, WAS societal non-violence/pacifism really promoted by Christ. Is it possible that personal virtues, at times, have no value in collectives and societies.