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.
You are also correct that I do make a claim to absolute status for some of what I argue. Some of what I argue is (in my opinion ;-) absolute truth. Not because I agrue it, but because it is true whether we choose to believe it or not. For example, Jesus died to defeat sin and death.
It might be a good to remember that not all martyrs through history have been pacifists. Many have been soldiers and 'men of war' who have died in the defense of others and in the defense of freedom—protecting even the rights of those who choose to be pacifists.
Being personally pacifist is a long way from demanding it as foreign policy.
Orwell's words were directed at those who seek to change national policy, not those who choose pacifism for themselves.
Funny, there used to be a time when FReepers were pretty serious about letting people alone who are harrassed for their Christian views... LOL
And zero non-Arabs are Arab-Muslim Terrorists.
And zero non-Muslims are Arab-Muslim Terrorists/
Ergo, all Arabs are more suspect than Non-Arabs.
Ergo, all Muslims are more suspect than Non-Muslims.
First we must distinguish between those that hold Pacifism for convienience, personal whim, or political reasons from those who hold it due to religious office or long standing membership in a faith calling for such individuals to take that personal stand. For example, many Seventh Day Adventists have servered their country faithfully during time of war as medics. In fact they are noted for exemplarary service in this matter. The Society of Freinds has adherents that have been consistant with certain tenants in this regard for generations. This distinction makes the blanket claim of evil inconsistant with American tradition.
Secondly, we must look at Pacifists and distinquish those that advocate it for the nation in rhe face of ultimate defense and those who hold it on individual grounds only. The Pacifist that does such service as his country asks of him, save bearing arms, due to his religious heritage takes a lot of heat.
I suspect that there would never be an action atrocious enough for you and you ilk. Real Americans will just have to pick up the slack for people like you. So you can continue to have the freedom to post your feelings on Free Republic in Free America. No thanks required, we're used to coddling weak Americans/
Yeah, well he must have told Bush that we should kill these bast**ds and defend Freedom and not give in to Terrorists.
What did God tell you and when? What were his exact words?
Yes. So does President Bush, apparently. Don't you? Or you would prefer rashness, perhaps?
Don't worry, the "right time" is rapidly approaching...
I'd hate to have to chase them! And can we assume everyone in the surrounding crowd -- many of whom brought their own livestock -- was honest? And why a whip just to overturn tables, when he could as well have pushed the tables over? And no money fell together from adjacent tables?
Given that Jesus had the power of passing through a hostile crowd and escaping... I don't take the lack of charges from this event as proof of anything. From God's point of view, His Son would have had the perfect right to directly assail the moneychangers, but of course the Pharisees and Sadducees would have misunderstood. But his time had not yet come.
I'd still like to know if you believe God would expect me to stand by and watch as someone kills my children. Or should I defend them?
Regards
This will be a long and protracted war... After we have killed bin-Laden, there will be others we will kill. Pacifists are not with us, and therefore give aid to the evil-doers. The pacifists are the enemy among us and will be targeted as such.
It isn't "self defense." It's neighbor defense.
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.