Posted on 09/26/2001 8:39:21 AM PDT by flamefront
Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are, and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet, it is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their appeal.
It is worth it, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea becomes.
It is worth it, secondly, because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What happened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered recede.
It is worth it, thirdly, because the American foreign policy establishment has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression really the right thing? Mightn't it just make matters ever so much worse?
Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality, and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument is rooted entirely in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence only begets more violence.
There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as occupying the moral position.
But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked — a situation such as we are now in — pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "
England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.
An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.
There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this outcome.
As President Bush said of nations: a war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this.
If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans — perhaps a great many more — to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.
That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.
Michael Kelly's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. The Washington Post Writers Group can be contacted via e-mail at writersgrp@washpost.com.
*re Donahue, I don't what he said in his recent left wing mutterings. This left wing scumbag has decades of anti America/American agenda!
Right now, Rush Limbaugh is reading your post! Great post on your part! Pacifists today are abetting the murderous terrorists like the pacifists in the 1930-40's era aided and abetted Hitler and his murderous henchmen!
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'!"
The same priest who cannot bear arms himself, will lead the service blessing the arms of Orthodox warriors in time of war. The deacon who cannot bear arms himself leading the Great Ektenia in time of war will intone, following the prayer asking general blessings the President of the United State (or other head of state, as appropriate), our civil authorities and armed forces, the next petition "That He will grant them victory over all enemies, let us pray to the Lord".
The Church has always struck a balance between the ideal of peace found in the Gospel and the practicalities of resisting evil. We bless the arms of our warriors, but impose a penance on all who kill (yes, even in just war or self-defense---the Orthodox accept and lament the choice of the lesser evil, but do not believe that it is not evil for being the lesser). We proclaim the glorification both of Passion-Bearers who followed Christ in his passion by not fighting against evil which assailed them personally--SS. Boris and Gleb, St. Nicholas, the newly glorified Tsar--and of warrior saints--like St. Aleksandr Nevsky who defended the innocent from evil by means of warfare.
The idealistic pacifism of the left in ordinary times violates only the first half of Christ's injunction to be subtle as serpents and harmless as doves. In evil times, it can violate both.
I believe that there are people of good conscience who preach a pacifist message. I may not agree with them, but I understand the religious principles that guide their opinions.
Your mom, raped and murdered by terrorists, is just unlucky, just cannon fodder for their cause.
No worries. Get over it. You can't bring her back.
Oh, now they're knocking on your sister's door?
Tell her to give peace a chance.
Peace. Love. Right On! Right On!
I wouldn't class Jesus and Ghandi as do-nothing pacifists. They were activists who (mostly) practiced and preached love and non-violence in opposition to hate and violence.
"The Field of Time is root in conflict: all life is based on warfare."
I've noted before how remarkable it is that "pacifist" sounds so much like "pansyfist".
It is reviled deeply and universally by Leftists, Socialists, Communists, Clintoons, Government, Indoctination Education Institutions, et. al.
You know she's got it!
The Pope, in fact, has said that a nation under attack may justly defend itself.
Not exactly pacifist, that.
Those who hide behind Christianity to proclaim their blanket pacifism are either ignorant or disingenuous. No less so than Islamic terrorists who hide behind the Qu'ran.
Orwell's logic is impeccable.
Now that the lines have been drawn there is only to set the parameters of combat and take the ground that has always been coveted, the high ground. In this war our high ground has been personal freedom and liberty; we will need to retreat ever so slightly. Theirs has been theological aloofness; it will need to be humbled.
The symbol of our liberty, manifested in the statue that stands in New York harbor, may have been, for all we know, a target—one that would have struck us dumbfound, surely as the destruction of the White House, public building or any of our peaceful surroundings.
We need now, to respond in kind, not only as in a Doolittle type raid of vindication, but also in a demonstration of resolve as to our intentions. We need to strike at a symbol that occupies an area of their high ground—Mohamed’s grave. In this grave there lies the said remains of the being that has hijacked liberty, freedom, Americanism, and Muslim faith. He is the antithesis of all of that, which is common between Muslim and Judean-Christian teachings. His name, memory and teachings need to be obliterated for all time.
Our grand children need never learn of his name. So to, those who would conjure up his name for the sake of personal justification and vengeance need to be removed from the scene. Any and all organizations, which are said to owe allegiance to this anti-Christ, must be expunged for all time.
We must carry the weight of it on our souls in order that no future generation will. We must pay the price in order that our liberties will not.
Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Rev.19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Thanks DD. Must send this article to a pacifist, "academic" relative in LA.
He was a proud 'pacifist' when first elected.
My bet: his desire to stay in the Senate is stronger than his ideology. He is no longer a pacifist.
Do you strike your attacker?
You would? Why you murderer!
Imagine, your child is being killed.
Do you strike your attacker?
The point is, that terrorists have not stopped killing, have they?
In fact, many Islamic groups are on record as praising the efforts of New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Do it again!
Your way is anti-human, anti-life. A blind alley to nowhere.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
Freedom, and Security, are not negotiable.
Peace comes after War.
I'm sure you mean "bite me" in a non-violent way, of course...Yeah, that's a peaceful expression of your religious values.
Such wry wit!
Since we're in the mood to quote Orwell, why don't you dig up his essay on Ghandi. He points out that, if India had been controlled by Germans instead of Brits, Ghandi would have been kicked to death the moment he got out of line.
As for Jesus, I seem to remember that he chased the money-lenders out of the Temple. (He also lamented high taxes by observing that "The poor are with us always" -- but that is another story.
Fact is, pacificists can only exist when protected by the sort of democratic societies that are prepared to use force in defense of even their most illogical and ungrateful citizens.
In your case, even the snide ones.
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.