When I think about an extreme pacifist Jesus Christ pops in mind. He's so morally depraved he'd rather die than fight. I suppose he deserved to die, the poor sod.
When I think about an extreme pacifist Jesus Christ pops in mind. He's so morally depraved he'd rather die than fight. I suppose he deserved to die, the poor sod.
You don't like the current state of the media's out of context sound bytes and our politician subliminal messaging speeches?Quote:
Originally posted by Gillan
I agree, completely. The thing we miss the most now in our country are debates like the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I really, truly, feel that if we had political discourse like that today our country would be truly great.
Even Jesus wasn't a total pacifist. Remember the moneylenders in the temple?Quote:
Originally posted by Katidyd
When I think about an extreme pacifist Jesus Christ pops in mind. He's so morally depraved he'd rather die than fight. I suppose he deserved to die, the poor sod.
But but but but but but!
Umm...Isn't Jesus supposed to come back and do a bunch of fighting and smiting and sending his enemies to their ends?
I mean....I swear that's how the story ended when I read it.
Im pretty sure that Jesus was absolutely not a pacifist, as a matter of fact I remember reading that he celebrated the way in which the walls of Jericho fell (and the subsequent beating the defenders took)... and there are the money lenders being tossed into the street.Quote:
Originally posted by Katidyd
When I think about an extreme pacifist Jesus Christ pops in mind. He's so morally depraved he'd rather die than fight. I suppose he deserved to die, the poor sod.
Yeah. Not a pacifist.
No. But I do like the new sprite commercials.Quote:
Originally posted by Katidyd
You don't like the current state of the media's out of context sound bytes and our politician subliminal messaging speeches?
How pacifism is morally depraved? JSM's statement is totally bullshit. He makes claims which all are false and based on his gut feelings which shows he does not know what he's talking about.Quote:
Originally posted by Katidyd
When I think about an extreme pacifist Jesus Christ pops in mind. He's so morally depraved he'd rather die than fight. I suppose he deserved to die, the poor sod.
He is wrong. *Some* (if not most) pacifists are not morally depraved. They have clear morals, they are honest people but unfortunately they are out of touch with the reality. Much like those 'honest communists' who think sharing will benefit the society. They are both wrong because their philosophy does not correspond to the real world. They are not however morally depraved.Quote:
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse
His second mistake is that he assumes everyone who rejects war does so because of the concern for 'personal safety'. Yeah, I bet that shows his deep understanding of pacfism. He uses labels, he misinterprets his opposing idealogy. What about pacifist monks who set themselves on fire? How safe was that? What about tree huggers? They were willing to fight AND risked their personal safety.Quote:
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
Finally, I previously said I can see his point and I am not defending pacifism. But just because you dislike thieves, you cannot call them facists. That does not make sense. Similarly, if you are against pacifism, it does not make snse to call it "morally depraved". You should call it 'a self-contradictory idealogy'.
I think his statement was concerning people who were so afraid of dying, so afraid of what war would mean to -them- that they would be unwilling fight. Pacifism in itself, if one is willing to remain a pacifist even in the worst possible conditions, is a conviction based upon one's belief. If you have such faith in a higher power, or whatever, to a degree that you are willing to allow Them to bring about judgement on those who would attack and kill you, that is a belief and in my opinion is not lacking in moral fortitude.
What the passage quoted suggests though is in regards to people who would not take up arms yet want to have the same rights, opportunities and securities as those who fight to maintain them.
Imagine during WWII. Every American but 1 rallied against the Axis powers. We stop Hitler and his allies. Now that 1 that didn't offer his aid is basking in the safety he has since he lives in a free America. He gets to reap it's securities. He gets to enjoy the rights given to him by it's founding fathers (who, incidently earned those rights themselves when they marched off to war to create their new nation).
By what moral right does he get that? How has he earned that? What has he done to even dare claim that he deserves to stand up and say "I'm an American and I can do what other Americans can do!" Because of the location of his birth?
You see it's the fact that even though there are people who are like that, soldiers still march off to war so that person who is unwilling to do so can remain free. Regardless of how much they despise them. Regardless of how much those who are unwilling to do so will criticize and belittile and antagonize and try to interfere with that soldier.
I wish America had a mandatory 2 year military service.
A tree hugger who is willing to fight wouldn't be considered a pacifist and does not fall under JSM's statement. A tree hugger who is willing to resort to violence is very obviously not someone who will remain passive no matter what the issue.Quote:
Originally posted by ejda
What about tree huggers? They were willing to fight AND risked their personal safety.
Ejda, I really don't think you are in a position to say JSM is "wrong" - especially when you do not even seem to understand what pacifism actually means.
Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Saying they are "wrong" is a degree of absolutism and authoritativeness that requires a lot deeper understanding of the issues.