Posted on 04/04/2008 8:31:22 AM PDT by bs9021
Pacifism’s Utopian Heart
by: Bethany Stotts, April 04, 2008
... "At its heart, utopianism is the denial of radical evil. It is a naive vision of social and political life that ignores the realities of history and human nature,” writes Professor Joseph Loconte for JJI. The Pepperdine University Visiting Professor expressed his concern that “despite some good intentions, the utopians have absorbed a number of sub-Christian views about human nature and [the] mission of the Church in a fallen world.”
Such attitudes lead to moral relativism, he argues, prompting strong anti-Americanism from figures such as Jim Wallis, Arthur Schlessinger, Jr., and Stanley Hauerwass (Duke University). “These thinkers join a chorus of voices who compare the United States to imperial Rome and Nazi Germany. This is how utopians talk—outraged utopians, that is,” he writes....
(snip) ....Pacifism, argues Loconte, ignores Islamic fascism’s threat to civilization and human rights in favor of a “theology of love.” “In other words, it is a theology of love divorced from the Biblical demands of justice—which means it is not a theology of love at all, but a posture of pious indifference toward suffering and evil,” he writes. He later continues, “By denying these facts, by rejecting the reality of radical evil, by confusing the roles of church and state, the utopians are succumbing to an old temptation: They’ve allowed their hatred of war to blot out all other virtues.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at campusreportonline.net ...
Say what?
Great article! Then the pacificists’ denial of human nature allows for dictatorial style rule in the name of “the cause.” Since the flock is in denial of basic truths of human nature, they also overlook evil in their leader.
The same reason socialism/communism never really work. They are systems run and participated by imperfect humans. There can never be equality or perfection.
Pacifists will obtain peace ...the peace of the gulag and the peace of the grave.
I had a hell of a time finding this quote, so print it or write it down someplace;
“Pacifists are among the most immoral of men. They make no distinction between aggression and defense. Therefore, pacifism is one of the greatest allies an aggressor can have!” ~ Patrick Henry
For some reason,I had thought that the quote belonged to C.S. Lewis, then discovered that it was Henry.
Boy! Wouldn’t you like to tip a couple of cold ones with the likes of those guys!
Yah, well let’s not throw neo-platonic idealism out with the bathwater. I’d rather assume a genetic, instinct towards a more efficient method or outcome on the part of our species than the civilization destroying existential quicksand of cynical pessimism. For Christian’s practicing acts of forgiveness, this is a no-brainer. Same for the universally idealistic concepts of update, upgrade, improvement, the creation of surplus value, the application of creative mentation to problems of physical reality...
If I paid you to transport either one of two suitcases, one without a handle and one with a handle, you’d pick the one without a handle, right? Humans may not be perfectable, but they sure as hell can be taught to use a fork or paint a watercolor on a Sunday.
Thanks for that quote! That's why the Islamic terrorists love the Democrats.
The writer makes a mistake in confusing the Marxist anti-militarism with pacifism. They are not at all the same. What the anarchists, Liberationists and other Marxist sub groups, oppose is use of military force by a dominating institution. So, use of force by oppressed people is not only acceptable, it is expected. The use of force in whatever form by "the people" is necessary to bring about the desired change in condition.
In the original article (snipped), the author connects utopianism with Marxism.
..... The use of force in whatever form by “the people” is necessary to bring about the desired change in condition.....
Which is precisely the reason Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi et al should be shaking in their boots
My point is that Marxism is by definition a combative philosophy. There are no truly peaceful revolutions in history, that I can think of. Even Barack Obama said that if he is denied the nomination, there will be a quiet riot in this country. Quiet riot = peaceful revolution, both oxymorons.
The destruction of Naziism.
The destruction of Japanese militarism
The end of American slavery
The rollback of Communism
The defense of innocents against the onslaught of Islam....
The modern day pacifists only oppose militarism of hegemonic institutions. They don’t oppose the use of force by North Korea, or Chavez, or the Islamists. So, they are not really pacifists. They are just, as the author says, co-opting the religious admonitions of love and sharing to further their own agenda. It’s like Saul Alinsky suggested, forcing the Christians to live up to their own book of rules, not living up to those rules themselves.
The Leftist Democrats think that we are all too stupid to understand what they are all about. They talk down to us and all around what they really mean and it takes work to filter out all the drek that they float our way, but we are getting there. The problem is explaining all this to the general public without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
That idealism can lead to very tragic outcomes. This reminds me of Allan Bloom who also said not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Bloom’s erotic inclinations, those that underline and elevate the imaginative soul to the love for great ideas and such, also lead him to indiscretions that caused him to die from AIDS. The erotic is a dangerous thing: like the game of snakes and ladders the soul can be elevated from the carnal pits of hell on the ladder of love only to fall back by meeting a serpent (with or without apple). Idealism, the child of the erotic, can be tempered with conservative realism. Mind you, Bloom doesn’t believe so. He still sees the dangers inherent in both love (the erotic) and idealism, but thinks the dangers are worth the risk of having the possibility of soul glimpse its own perfection.
Sorry, I’ve realized you may not have read Bloom... I apologize, it’s been a crazy day for me.
It doesn’t hurt to measure progress against ideal end points.
I just don’t see pacifism as a worthy ideal end point, unlike the libertarian non-aggression ideal.
TR was more to the point:
“The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrong doer.”
Theodore Roosevelt
I don’t see idealism necessarily as part of the erotic side of life except maybe as a distant Freudian sublimation if id urges. One can likewise argue that all pleasure leads to decadence, that pain or irritation keeps one sharp, but that overlooks the function of creative imagination that can solves problems and invent stuff like computers and medicine. The deal is to make efficiency a “total field” thing- the greatest good for the greatest number over time, a Christian principle by any interpretation. My problem is that “realism” can quickly degenerate into cynicism, pessimism and, according to Ted Turner, cannibalism.
Any concept that becomes an “ism” is a problem in that it becomes dogmatic orthodoxy unable to flex with changing circumstance, new data, etc. Yah, some folks head to the bar spoiling for a fight, but most of us would rather trade pickup lines with a barstool cutie. Pacifism need not imply a lack of preparedness or an unwillingness to make war, but in my view, should be construed to be a more desirable state than the prospect of running various gauntlets of destruction to achieve ordinary life goals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.