JSM and whether war is worse than anything and everything else

[Savaric]

Originally posted by Gillan
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.

Yeah. Not a pacifist.

I don't see these as different facets of Jesus' personality- I see them as inconsistencies. The sheer multitude of various religions functioning on this planet is a huge inconcistency.

[i]Originally posted by Gromgor
I wish America had a mandatory 2 year military service.

What a different world this would be if we did. Americans might not take what they have for granted. Sometimes to appreciate these things you have to go down a bit, and in this world you can go very, very far down. These people who are upset over war and unable to get past the reasoning are the soft underbelly of our society. They don't realize it's because of war they are able to complain about these things (echoing Gromgor's point).

If we can succeed in Iraq and they become a successful democracy like Germany and Japan did after WW II, it would send a powerful shockwave through the middle east. But Aristotle made a good post somewhere around here that the core problem is America does not understand the middle east. I feel comfortable saying a large majority of these Islamic nations DO NOT WANT DEMOCRACY. It's not just their governments- it's their citizens as well. It's pretty evident there's a heavy degree of brainwashing in the middle east on what is good and what is bad.

They're just too fucked up to see they are doing so poorly because of their acinine views, and that it has nothing to do with Israel or the West. In all honesty I think they're a pretty backwards people. I swear their mindset is stuck a couple hundred years in the past. That and intolerance- that's an important part to remember about this radical Islam and Islam in general (imo). They have shown the world time and time again that they have zero tolerance for other cultures and that they cannot coexist peacefully. So the question is this: How long are we going to keep putting up with their shit?

As a cohesive whole they act like vicious little kids that won't give up until you run them over on your way to work.

[ejda]

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

By fighting I meant standing up for something, rather than picking up a gun way of fighting.

[ejda]

Originally posted by Aristotle
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.

From Dictionary.com:

pacifism

n 1: the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable [syn: passivism] 2: the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration

Which part I don't seem to understand?

[ejda]

Originally posted by Gromgor
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.

I agree if someone is unwilling to fight because of fear of death but also wants to enjoy the comfort or the safety war brings is a pathetic and morally depraved person. But JSM does not make such distinction. He simplifies the opposing idealogy, generalizes it and then exaggerates whatever he wants to say. That's why it sounds so beautiful. In reality you cannot make such jugdments. In reality you cannot so easily say who is better than who or who is morally depraved and who is not.

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).

Very good example. I agree in this case if they are conscious of results of war and want those results but refuse to participate, then I can say they are morally depraved.

[Katidyd]

Then when I think of an extreme patriot good ole Hitler doesn't fail. Here's a guy who just wants to create a blond haired blue eyed nation of german drones and kill everyone else.

Within the two spectrums, I would rather admire a person who believes in not fighting to one who has a cause to fight. But I've never actually met a real pacifist, I do think some are only pacifist to a certain point.

Though I have the luxury to philosophize, I would want someone who would help me fight if I were an oppressed group.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by ejda
By fighting I meant standing up for something, rather than picking up a gun way of fighting.

You don't have to pick up a gun to be violent. Tree huggers can often be a very violent group. That's why we have the term "eco-terrorism". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecoterrorism)

"Standing up" for something is a vague term that has nothing to do with pacifism or no pacifism. A tree hugger can stand up for his cause by passing out flyers or by blowing up Hummers and both sorts of tree huggers exist in the world today. The tree hugger who won't actually pick up a stick or stand in front of a bulldozer and defend his/her beliefs when it's about to be destroyed is what JSM is discussing.

By the way, setting someone on fire (including yourself) is a pretty violent act. I wouldn't classify those monks as people who aren't willing to do something drastic (like die) for their cause.