Jump to content

Talk:Pacifism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

older entries

Boy oh Boy does this need some work. For discussion on the merging of pacifism with pacifist, see talk:pacifist

Definition

I would like to see a sharpening of the current definition:

Pacifism is opposition to war. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from a preference to use non-military means for resolving disputes through to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, in any circumstance.

A preference to use non-military means for resolving disputes would make almost everyone a pacifist, not? I don't have a suggested change, but came here originally to find solid ground for removing Caregory:Pacifists from Nobel Peace Prize Winners, e.g. Jimmy Carter. If Jesus wasn't a pacifist, neither is Jimmy (see discussion below). -- JonHarder 02:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

A section on criticism needs to remain, but the section as it is horribly un-encylopedic, and NPOV. I didn't make any changes because I'm not sure exactly what ones should be made.--12.202.240.9 08:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The criticism section is incredibly bad writing for the encyclepedic nature of wikipedia. This section is concluded with questions. It needs to be looked at. glocks out 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed.... rhetorical questions dont belong in an encyclopedia: "Could a short bout of violence (to depose the dictator) shorten the long bout of violence (due to the dictator)? Is a pacifist supposed to worry about that?"

perhaps a better quote that IMO sums up Orwells view on pacifism better that the one given for him is "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." from "Notes on nationalism" by Orwell --Michael Lynn 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

this section still has a lot of NPOV problems in my opinion, its hard to discuss critisisms of pacifism if every other sentence is a line stating why this critisism isn't founded...by all means the article should present both points of view but if we're going to have a section on critisism it should be about the critisisms and not about why those critisisms are invalid... --Michael Lynn 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This article started with a lot of POV criticism of pacifism as the 2005 comments state. I would have been glad to just delete the section. But not being BOLD enough, I just answered the criticisms with relevant SOURCED info.
I don't have a problem with any article having criticisms with responses because criticisms may not relate to issues directly addressed in the article. Or they may be by people who would be ignored otherwise in article, like Ward Churchil but since there ARE written responses to them by well-known pacifists, they should be mentioned in response.
I think this is quite in line with WIKIs statement on Point of View:
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.
The alternative is for me to weave these arguments into the preceding text, making the subsequent criticism section just an already answered follow up.
Would you prefer that?? I'll be happy to do it. Otherwise, let's remove the neutrality disputed notation.
PS:Also, per change I just made, just quoting Einstein is not necessarily an argument, especially when the article already details the fact that a lot of well known pacifists supported world war II and his quote should be added to that list.
Carol Moore 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Christianity is Pacifism

The articel states that Christians are split as to whether Christ was a pacifist. Though some Christians may have definitely not acted pacifistically, I am curios what documentation can be provided to prove any Christians think Christ was not a pacifist. His teachings clearly are pacifist, and I have never heard of any Christians denying the fact. Could someone provide proof or documentation for this "split" in opinion, or any churches who do not advocate pacifism at least in principle?

I don't think Christ was a pacifist. He physically assaulted some vendors who set up stalls in a Jewish temple. A pacifist would never do that.

The Biblical text does not say Jesus attacked the merchants. The text does not support the idea that Jesus assaulted the merchants. If you would read the text you would see that Jesus scattered the animals and overturned tables, but he never attacked the vendors. glocks out 01:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Glocks, you are right in pointing out that the Biblical text does not actually say Jesus attacked the merchants. However, the text did say that Jesus chased the merchants out using a whip. This has to imply that Jesus *at least* threatened the merchants with that whip, and to back up that threat, he overturned the tables and scattered the animals. Such actions demonstrate that Jesus had a violent streak, and is therefore not really a pacifist.

No, the text does not say that Jesus chased the merchants out using a whip. This incident is reported in all four Gospels, but only John mentions a whip at all. The most likely reading of John's text is that he used the whip to drive the animals out. The main "weapon" he used, as reported in all the Gospel accounts, is the appeal to Hebrew Scripture, which would have carried significant weight in the temple.
But really, the answer to the question is simply to read all four Gospels, and especially Jesus' actual words. Jesus' teaching on peace is right at the heart of the Christian faith.
--NSH001 11:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the contributor who said that Jesus was alleged to have used a whip cites the Bible, the burden is upon that person to produce such a passage from the Bible. Citing scripture proves nothing, of course, as to what actually happened. Nonetheless, if one is going to say that the Biblical account is that Jesus did use the whip against persons, or threatened to do so, then one should be prepared to offer the scriptural passage. Such a citation would be easy to produce if such a passage existed, but it does not. Therefore the conservative NPOV criterion should be applied here: if one is going to say that the Bible says something, then one should produce the passage in the Bible. Otherwise this entry falls prey to a biased opinion unsupported by any kind of documentation whatsoever. The opinions of the church fathers or subsequent followers of Jesus are not relevant if the claim is about what the Bible says. The issue is not the authenticity of the Bible, but the far simpler one as to what the Bible says. Advocates of the "just war" doctrine can be counted on to read back into the Bible interpretations that are unsupported by evidence. Again, if the claim is made that Jesus used the whip on persons or threatened to do so, then the appropriate Biblical citation should be given. Again, no such citation exists because no Biblical passage exists that says this, not in English and not in the Greek in which the Bible was written. It is true, however, that competing translations differ, althugh the Koine (the form of Greek used in the earliest manuscripts) says simply (translated literally) that "he drove them out, both the sheep and the goats." It is perhaps inevitable that persons who differ on these interpretations are going to engage in some degree of biblical exegesis, but at least the reader of this entry is advised to inquire further when seeing the differing interpretations--not to mention the sometimes ambiguous translations which have given rise to this dispute in Christian ethics and theology. A NPOV requires only that a claim be cited appropriately. Landrumkelly 04:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You can also look at the question in a historical light, looking at Jesus not so much as a historical figure (about whom almost nothing is known outside the gospels), but as a construction of the societies which claimed him as their master. Mediaeval Western society certainly did not regard him as a pacifist. It fought wars, burnt heretics and ghettoed Jews in his name. So whether Jesus was or was not a pacificist depends upon historical and social context. In Spain, for example, a nation built on a history of war with the Moors, Christ is often conceived as a great warrior -king, a liberator. Whereas in Australia, an island-continent which has never been invaded, at least after colonisation, Christ is generally seen as a peacemaker. I would suggest also that the authors of the gospels attributed to him at least some violent tendencies: they have him cursing a fig-tree, using the death of construction workers as a salutary lesson on the need for repentence, comparing his Father to a torturer exacting payment from a debtor, and thrusting sinners from his left into everlasting punishment. So the the opinion of the gospel writers on the subject is, I think, open to discussion. --Gazzster 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Judaism has never had any room at all for pacifism. But being pro-peace is not the same thing as encouraging mass suicide, by being pacifist in the face of murderers and killers, such as the Nazis. (but that of course is only one example) Consider what the blood-thirsty "pacifist" Ghandi had to say on this subject (and note that the following quote is copyrighted)


I am aware that for many not privileged to have visited the former British Raj, the names Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Deccan are simply words. But other names, such as Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, somehow have a harder profile. The term "Jew," also, has a reasonably hard profile, and I feel all Jews sitting emotionally at the movie 'Gandhi' should be apprised of the advice that the Mahatma offered their coreligionists when faced with the Nazi peril:
They should commit collective suicide. If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers' knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for "ages to come." If they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a "rich heritage to mankind." Although Gandhi had known Jews from his earliest days in South Africa--where his three staunchest white supporters were Jews, every one--he disapproved of how rarely they loved their enemies.
And he never repented of his recommendation of collective suicide. Even after the war, when the full extent of the Holocaust was revealed, Gandhi told Louis Fischer, one of his biographers, that the Jews died anyway, didn't they? They might as well have died significantly. Gandhi's views on the European crisis were not entirely consistent. He vigorously opposed Munich, distrusting Chamberlain. "Europe has sold her soul for the sake of a seven days' earthly existence," he declared. "The peace that Europe gained at Munich is a triumph of violence." But when the Germans moved into the Bohemian heartland, he was back to urging nonviolent resistance, exhorting the Czechs to go forth, unarmed, against the Wehrmacht, *perishing gloriously* --collective suicide again. He had Madeleine Slade draw up two letters to President Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia, instructing him on the proper conduct of Czechoslovak satyagrahi when facing the Nazis.
When Hitler attacked Poland, however, Gandhi suddenly endorsed the Polish army's military resistance, calling it "almost nonviolent." (If this sounds like double-talk, I can only urge readers to read Gandhi.) He seemed at this point to have a rather low opinion of Hitler, but when Germany's panzer divisions turned west, Allied armies collapsed under the ferocious onslaught, and British ships were streaming across the Straits of Dover from Dunkirk, he wrote furiously to the Viceroy of India: "This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man...."
Gandhi also wrote an open letter to the British people, passionately urging them to surrender and accept whatever fate Hitler' had prepared for them. "Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds." Since none of this had the intended effect, Gandhi, the following year, addressed an open letter to the prince of darkness himself, Adolf Hitler.
The scene must be pictured. In late December 1941, Hitler stood at the pinnacle of his might. His armies, undefeated anywhere ruled Europe from the English Channel to the Volga. Rommel had entered Egypt. The Japanese had reached Singapore. The U.S. Pacific Fleet lay at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. At this superbly chosen moment, Mahatma Gandhi attempted to convert Adolf Hitler to the ways of nonviolence. "Dear Friend," the letter begins, and proceeds to a heartfelt appeal to the Fuhrer to embrace all mankind "irrespective of race, color, or creed." Every admirer of the film 'Gandhi' should be compelled to read this letter. Surprisingly, it is not known to have had any deep impact on Hitler. Gandhi was no doubt disappointed. He moped about, really quite depressed, but still knew he was right. When the Japanese, having cut their way through Burma, threatened India, Gandhi's strategy was to let them occupy as much of India as they liked and then to "make them feel unwanted." His way of helping his British "friends" was, at one of the worst points of the war, to launch massive civil-disobedience campaigns against them, paralyzing some of their efforts to defend India from the Japanese.
The preceding quotes were excerpted from "The Gandhi Nobody Knows" by Richard Grenier, "Commentary," March 1983. Commentary is published monthly by the American Jewish Committee, New York, NY.

No entry on pacifism will be complete until it makes note that pacifism relies on mass murder in order to make a point. Without mass-murder and violence, pacifists can never make the public relations points that they need to achieve their goals. IOW, pacifism is not about non-violence; rather, it is about allowing violent people to murder non-violent people in order to make a point. IMO, this is hard to call "non-violence". RK

Since you clearly do not understand pacifism, you probably should not participate in the writing of this article. -- Egern
I understand pacifism full well. I cannot believe that you accused me of "trashing" the article; I did no such thing. I just stated a fact that the entry as yet had failed to note: Ghandi promoted mass-suicide (and perhaps mass-murder) in order to prove his point. This is not an exagerration in the slighest. Do all pacifists engage in such tactics? Nope...but the world's most famous one did, and this guy still is worshipped as a model by those who promote pacifism. If you propose a better way to discuss this point, that's fine, but don't act as if raising this valid point was vandalism of the entry.
The changes you introduced are not even remotely NPOV. First of all, the article before you trashed it made some attempt at describing pacifism as encompassing a wide range of views about the use of violence,
Nonsense. That part of the article was simply wrong. If you are willing to defend yourself with force, then by definition you are rejecting pacifism. What kind of pacifist will use a gun to kill people? You can't rewrite the dictionary and claim that pacifists are usually opposed to violence, but will sometimes kill if they feel that they need to. That's not pacifism; that's just common sense. RK
and you stepped in and simply launched into an attack on only one brand of pacifism, namely that which Ghandi advocated. Secondly, you assume that pacifism is about "making a point", which in most cases it is not, thus suggesting that you are not qualified to write on the topic. Thirdly, your claim that pacifism is about "mass murder" is just a hysterical and nonsensical and emotional response to the subject. I am not going to debate pacifism with you--this is not the place for it. What matters is not whether pacifism is morally correct or not, but whether this article should be turned into a forum for you to trash it. -- Egern
I reject your claims. In order to maintain NPOV, this entry needs to present a counter to the morally extreme demands made by pacifists. You, without meaning to, are deleting NPOV to push a pacifist ideology. Look, if you want to renounce all violence, in all cases, then fine. But there are often horrific consequences to such actions, and this is precisely the entry to discuss them. There is a reason that this ideology is criticised and rejected by so many. If you think that you have a better way of doing so, then propose it...but don't just accuse me of "trashing" the entry. RK
I agree with RK, though perhaps in a qualified way. Granted (as I think the article clearly expresses) there are different aspects of pacifism, different forms that it takes, and different reasons people are drawn to it. One -- only one, but a significant one -- form of pacifism is pacifism as a political tactic in a struggle by oppressed people against an oppressor. It attempts to provoke violence in order to reveal the extent to which seemingly non-violent political regimes in fact do rely on violence. In provoking such a a revalation, pacifism de-legitimizes the oppressive regime.
whether this tactic is right or wrong, works or does not work, it is an important form of pacifism.
if I understand RK correctly, he does not believe that this form of pacifism is always effective, and in some cases where it is ineffective, it is wrong. Given the example he provides, I understand his position.
I just want to add that, although for RK this form of pacifism is objectionable, for others it is precisely what makes pacifism so appealing and powerful. My point: whether one aproves or disaproves of this form (or interpretation or use) of pacifism, it is important and must be included in the article. I think it is implicit in the current version of the article but could perhaps be developed.
finally, it would be useful and appropriate to discuss where such a pacifism has worked and why, and where it might not have worked. -- SR

SR, you often offer calm and reasonable takes on some of the articles in this encyclopedia. Now that I have calmed down a bit (although I have not changed my decision not to edit Wikipedia articles because I believe that the fundamental problem of partisanship and pursuit of agendas has not been solved), I want to comment on what some of these issues. Certainly you raise some valid points, but I feel that certain things need to be said. First, it seems to have been suggested that merely to describe a philsophical point of view without condemning it is somehow an endorsement of that philosophy. I disagree.

Egern, I agree that the mere description of a point does not equal endorsement, but the article as it stood didn't merely describe pacisim. It truly endorsed it. It made all other forms of philosophy sound out to be pro-violence. RK
Well, as a matter of fact, any philosophy that endorses the use of violence is, by definition, pro-violence. The reasons for favoring the use of violence, such as for self-defense, may be perfectly sound and reasonable, but that doesn't make them any less pro-violence. -- Egern
The Nazis came to murder my people, and some of my distant relative were murdered by them. Yet most people believe that it was necessary to militarilly engage the Nazis in order to stop their violence genocide, you make the oppoents of the Nazis out to be "pro-violence"? You are using these words in an odd way.
Be practical. If a criminal comes to your house, would you really let him murder your mother, then your father, and then your wife, and children? Would you really refuse to use violence to stop him? Of course not. But if someone did so, most people would argue that the word that they use to describe their tactic (pacifism) is what many people might call aiding and abetting a murderer. I just don't understand your language. Standing by and allowing violence to continue is not in any way pro-peace; victims have a right to defend themselves from murderers - and this is certainly not pro-violence Your are twisting words around to meant the precise opposite of what they really mean. RK
What I would or wouldn't do in a hypothetical situation like that isn't relevant. (By the way, do you think that pacifists don't get asked those sorts of hypothetical questions all the time?) Whether or not you believe that people have "a right to defend themselves" through the use of violence isn't relevant. What is relevant here is whether we accurately characterize in this article what pacifism believes. I would contend that, just because you pesonally believe that the use of violent force is necessary or good or justified , that doesn't change the violent nature of a forceful response.
But that isn't really the point either. The important point is not to quibble over the use of the word "violent"; the important point is to accurately describe what pacifism believes. To claim that pacifism relies on, depends on, or supports the use of mass murder is completely false. For one thing, this article spends a lot of time focusing on non violent civil disobedience as if that were one and the same as pacifism, when in fact nvcd is just one manifestation of pacifist beliefs, and not all pacifists even engage in that tactic. And then it claims that nvcd endorses the use of mass killing to make its point. This is simply untrue. You are not an American, but if you had some exposure to the peace movement in the US over the last few decades, you would have seen that nvcd was used commonly in demonstrations, with the expectation of arrest, yes, but with no expecation of anyone getting murdered. Demonstrators are trained in advance to react nonviolently to a police presence, and it isn't so that people will get killed in order to make a point. Phillip Berrigan (and his brother) have managed to survive many arrests without ever getting killed.
I don't know of any pacifist who wants anyone to be killed. Every pacifist that I know seeks world peace--an end to warfare. You may disagree with their tactics, you may claim that it defeats its own principles, but that doesn't justify misstating its principles. Statements about "mass murder" are just emotional words, they serve to discredit pacifism, and they just plain aren't true.

Second, this article did not even begin to address the philsophical arguments in favor of pacifism before all the negative arguments were poured into it. RK, who does not come from a pacifist religious tradition but who nevertheless claims to be an expert on the subject

You are attacking things that I never said. It was you, not me, who wrote claims about my knowledge of the subject, and then when I pointed out that I knew something about it, you resorted to attacking me by falsely saying that I claimed to be some sort of expert. You are having an emotional response to a philsoophical discussion, and this is unnecessary. RK
Your exact words were that you knew pacifism "full well", which suggested to me that you were claiming to be an expert. However, since you have clarified this point, I withdraw my comment and apologize if I mischaracterized your self-understanding on the subject. -- Egern

(and who presumably thinks that he knows more about it than I do, even though I do come from a pacifist religious tradition) would disagree, perhaps. Up to the point where RK began inserting his attacks on it, in my view it really sidestepped the arguments for or against to any serious degree. In fact, to the extent that it addressed these arguments at all before RK's changes, it leaned towards the "anti" side because it really mentioned only one aspect of the question,

This is nonsense. You wrote a very pro-pacifist article that left little room for disagreement. So you are now outraged that a contrary point of view exists? I suggest that my additions add NPOV. Let's let some other people look them over, and see what they can add. RK
A clarification. I did not write the article. I made modifications to an article that someone else started. The article was clearly incomplete even with the few changes that I made. -- Egern

...a particular take on the "effectiveness" issue, which is probably the the main point that critics of pacifism concern themselves with, while in fact many supporters of pacifism would counter that the way the whole "effectiveness" question is addressed is largely a canard, for a variety of reasons. In the tradition I come from pacifism is not merely a "tactic", and to reduce it merely to a tactic gives it short shrift and really doesn't capture its essence. There is no question that the article needed more information, but if we are going to describe the arguments pro and con, it didn't even come close to describing the "pro" arguments.

If that is true, then why is that somehow my fault? Egern, just do a better job of writing the "pro" arguments. Others will help.
We are all human and our biases often show through in what we write. To the extent that we all try to write an objective article but fail, then others can help. However, it is worthwhile to remember the comments below concerning "writing for the enemy". We are all responsible for at least trying to write objective articles. -- Egern

Third, to the extent that Ghandi is well known and popular, it is true that his conception of pacifism as a tactic designed to is well known and what people associate with it. But the pacifist tradition goes back well before Ghandi, and includes people like George Fox, the founder of Quakerism in the 17th century.

There may be some misunderstanding. I am talking about the pacifism that most people know of today. While its origins are quote old, the modern conception of it has long been since popularized and used by many other people, and it has come to exist in other forms. I don't disagree with the facts behind what you are saying, but I am poining out that I am talking about real-world pacifism in the last century, and not a theoretical discussion of what some people believed 300 years ago. RK
I am also talking about the pacfism of today. There is much real-world pacifism out there that has nothing to do with Ghandi that is consistent with what people believed 300 years ago. Many of them still believe those same things today. Quakers still exist today. There are conscientious objectors today. Ghandi may represent the most well known expression of pacifism, but he is not the only one, and that includes in the present age. -- Egern

Fourth, there is a principle in the "neutral point of view" article which I would recommend for RK to review, which is "writing for the enemy". Accusing pacifism of "endorsing mass murder", using turns of phrase like "points out" whenever critics of pacifism are cited, and so forth, are hardly examples of "writing for the enemy". Fifth, to state in an encyclopedia article as a "fact" that pacifism has "horrible consequences" is not NPOV. I think it is perfectly fair to state that critics of pacifism believe this; but there is a difference between citing criticism and embedding it in the language of the article. What I see instead is the viewpoint that because RK takes it as an indisputable fact that pacifism is bad, the article should also take that point of view.

Um, I think that all agree that mass-murder is a horrible consequence. Except for the Taliban and Nazis, who disagrees? In any case, didn't Ghandi and other Indian pacifist leaders explicitly say this themselves? They repeatedly stated how horrible these events of mass beatings and killings were. They simply were willing to live with the consequences, because they viewed a greater good as coming out of all the violence and death. For them, the ends justified the means.RK
I don't want to get drawn into a rathole of debating the pros and cons of pacifism here, but to claim that pacifism endorses mass murder seems to be simply your own anti-pacifist spin on the issue. Pacifists would generally argue that the notion that "the end justifies the means" is precisely the viewpoint of modern warfare that they object to, and in fact they believe that the ends are the means. That is sort of the whole point of pacifism. That is fine if you think that pacifists are being illogical about it or have their heads up their asses or whatever, but don't mischaracterize what pacifists themselves believe about their philsophy. -- Egern

Sixth, if someone went into any article pertaining to Judaism and attacked one of its moral beliefs, RK would be screaming about it, and rightfully so. I have generally tried to be respectful of religious traditions that I don't like. I, for example, have no use for Roman Catholicism, but I have striven to be fair in describing its beliefs in other articles here. I would suggest that he consider the ancient Jewish formulation of the Golden Rule, of not doing to others what you wouldn't have others do to you might be a good lesson here.

I am summarizing a political and philosophical debate about the pros- and cons- of pacifism. I am insulted that you would falsely claim that this is an attack on someone's religion. Which religion? Christianity? Only a small minority of Chrisitians have such views. Are the rest of Christians in the world anti-Christian? Come off it. We're not talking about using NPOV to disagree with someone's theological belief system or their rituals or ceremonies. We are specifically talking about pro- and con- arguments in regards to massive civil actions which lead to beatings, and sometimes deaths. Since when is this off-topic for NPOV discussion?! Further, many people both within and without these religions have had such concerns about pacifism. Even many of Ghandi's own followers said these things. Are you going to accuse all of them of attacking someone's religion? Come off it. RK
I already stated that I come from the tradition of one of the peace churches, namely Quakerism. In the Quaker faith, the "peace testimony" is an important part of the Quaker faith. The fact that only a small minority of Christians are pacifists is irrelevant; only a small minority of the world's monotheists are Jews, but that doesn't mean that attacking Jewish moral beliefs on some theological or moral point is acceptable. -- Egern
Here is a useful quote from the "neutral point of view article" that pertains here: 'Those who constantly attempt to advocate their own views on politically charged topics (for example), who seem not to care at all about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the nonbias policy ("write unbiasedly"). This entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just represent our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be much, much weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.'

It just seems to me that this discussion is limited sometimes by oversimplifyint "pacificism means" "pacifism endorces." I know that it is awkward always to say "some pacifists believe" or "pacifism sometimes leads to" but I think that such language might also help people work through debates, and it would leave behind a more nuanced view of "pacifisms" that would be more educational for readers.

For the moment I want to suggest that we consider a punnett square with peace and violence on one side and means and ends on the other. Beacause minimally, I think, soe pacifists see pacifism as a stragey or even a tactic to achieve some other goal; for others it is a moral committment to a way of life, regardless of the consequences. Most people I know think pacifism is just the second one. But I know pacifists who are the first kins.

With this punnette square you have some people who see violence as a means to a peaceful end. E.g. Woodrow Wilson's War to end all wars, or those communists who think their revolution will establish a utopia. Are these people pacifists? Not in the conventional sense of the word, but I think by separting means and ends we can at least clarify some of the differences. Many of course believe that violence will lead to violence -- for some this is not a good or bad thing but a necessary thing; if people are naturlly aggressive and life is naturally violent, some forms of violence may simply be necessary.

Now, I admit I think almost all pacifists see peace as an end. But when pacifism is a means to that end, the distance between means and end can still often be long and rocky. This was certainly the case for King and Ghandi, whose non-violence provoked violence on the part of the police. But for them that provoked violence was only a short term end, the long term end was real peace (so maybe I am oversimplifying myself, and we need to distinguish betwen short term objectives and long term goals) (as RK earlier siad, the ends justify the means -- eventually). In any event, underatanding pacifism as a means allows one to consider how it might lead to more violence. The debate now is whether it is a means that will provoke more violence but eventlually lead to peace, or provoke more violence without leading to peace? Perhaps this is what is at stake in a debate between Wilsonians and Ghandians?

I am not sure if this little exercise is the way to go -- at least I'd like to suggest that there may be a more analytical way to start sorting out the various important issues you have all raised so far. A good article should be able to specify different kinds of pacifisms (e.e. different reasonsfor being a pacificst, different expectations, different uses) and only then explore debates about pacifism. SR

Unfortunately, I don't have any of my old back issues of "Friends Journal" (a Quaker magazine), but there was an article written some 10-12 years ago by Elise Boulding that attempted to categorized different kinds of pacifism--I think she basically had four general categories. I think it was a very useful way of looking at the topic. But, alas, the article is long gone from my own possession. (I also used to have a book on Quakerism by a member of the "programmed" Friends community, where the author also gave a very general definition of pacifism that encompasses a variety of views.)
Any general definition of pacifism would have to, I believe, approach it from several angles. Some aspects of pacifism include: an activist commitment to world peace through various forms of political expression; a belief that all forms of killing are wrong; a belief that personal conduct must reflect this commitment to peace (through nonviolent behavior in one's life, refusal to participate in the military through being a conscientious objector, refusing to own a weapon, etc.); the use of civil disobediance (CD) as an means of accomplishing political goals--CD can involve anything from nonviolent demonstrations to the witholding of war taxes. It should be stressed that often the last of those items--CD--gets confused with pacifism, but it is not identical with it. A pacifist's political action might be a less risky activity like writing a letter to the editor or attending a legal peace rally. CD occurs often in conjunction with peace rallies, as a seperate action by a small group of people trained in CD. This is the sort of thing that the Berrigan brothers did all the time, and which got them arrested often. The point is that all of these things can be a reflection of pacifism. The actions of peace activists like the Berrigans is also an example of where CD is used as the means (a tactical expression of pacifism), to promote an end of world peace. In Ghandi's case, the end he was working toward was not to end a war or an arms race, but to obtain Indian independence; thus his example is a little different than that of peace activists who use CD for the explicit goal of promoting world peace.
(As an aside, I once attended a meeting of peace activists in which the subject of witholding payment of a telephone tax was mentioned; for many years, many activists did this because of an association of this tax with payment for war. I actually don't remember the details anymore, but the point is that this was an act of defiance that could get people in trouble with the law. A lot of pacifists who agreed in principle with this type of action were nonetheless not willing to risk the consquences themselves, and no one in the activist community among pacifists considers it a requirement that everyone do things that can get them in trouble.)
Regarding the whole question of ends and means, that of course lies at the crux of the criticisms that people level at pacifism, and it is certainly worth describing. I think that most pacifists who participate in civil disobedience (CD) would argue that firing guns on people is just as likely, if not more likely, to provoke a violent response as CD is. That is one of several reasons why I don't agree with the idea that the purpose of CD is to provoke a violent response. Most critics of pacifism would of course argue that violence in self-defense is preferable to pacifism because it is more effective in the long run--in other words, the ends (of stopping the enemy) justify the means (using violent means to do so). Some points of disagreement between pacifists and non-pacifists are over whether this is really true or not, and also whether morally it is valid or just to take the position that the ends really do justify the means.
Anyway, those are my two cents worth. -- Egern
By the way, much my commentary above was really focusing on what Elise Boulding probably would have characterized as the strongest form of pacifism. To the extent that one can be called a pacifist and is actively commited to world peace but doesn't fall into that exact category, then much of the discussion doesn't necessarily apply. This gets back to SR's point about sorting out the different kinds of pacifism. -- Egern

Egern, what you write makes a lot of sense (and I am glad you pointed out my implied collapsing of pacivism and CD) -- could what you write here be a basis for revising the first few paragraphs of the article? It isn't that I strongly object to the introduction to the article as it stands, but you make some points that I think should be included, somehow. SR

Irony

Ironically, religions which are generally believed to promote pacifist ideas, such as Christianity, were in fact often spread by military aggression.

I'm considering removing this sentence from the final paragraph. Is there any irony at all, when non-pacifistic groups use agressive means to prosecute their idea of justice? "General belief" is irrelevant - in that case it's simply a generally held misconception. Real irony exists when pacifistic groups are found to be supportive of aggressive military acts - if an example of this can be found, that would be more interesting. Otherwise, I see no purpose for the sentence. Mkmcconn

At least rewrite it, taking out the "ironic" part -- which is clearly opinion. What we really need is an article about how religions are spread. I daresay most of the world's major religions:

  1. Preach peace, but
  2. Spread themselves via military aggression

Copious examples available on request from Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. --Uncle Ed

Actually, i'd be interested in hearing an example of Hinduism being spread via military aggression. Graft
The Marhatas are an excellent example Zak 04:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism

Forgive my ignorinse, but don't the "Martial Arts" owe quite a bit to Buddhism? In fact, in the West, the first exposure we get to Buddhism is likely to give the impression that it's a religion that excels above all others in teaching people how to fight. If there is any truth at all to this caricature, how is Buddhism pacifistic? Is there no truth at all to the connection between Buddhism and the Martial Arts? Mkmcconn

Buddhist monks developed martial arts in China as a form of exercise, but also as a form of self-defense. Of course, this can be taken in a few ways: first, the martial arts were never meant to be used aggressively: this is why the monks called it 'self-defense'; second, Buddhism spread across a vast area and assumed many different forms, not all of which were pacifist. For example, Buddhist 'monks' in Japan frequently married, took up weapons and were, for all practical purposes, warriors who happened to enjoy tax-free status due to their priesthood.
Regardless of the spiritual motives behind learning how to kick, punch and wield weapons with effect, even in self-defense, there is nothing pacifistic about this, is there? If Buddhism really is pacifistic, can there be anything more ironic then, than that these priests of pacifism have distinguished themselves above others as legendary teachers of the arts of war? Pacifism is not the name for this, and therefore in my opinion it doesn't sound true to say or to imply that Buddhism, referred to generally, is a pacifist religion/philosophy/discipline. On the other hand, I'm sure that there are Buddhist sects or teaching-lineages that are truly pacifistic. If these pacifistic sects can be identified, and it is true of them that they have relied on bloodshed to advance their aims as the article currently says, then the statement only needs to specifically identify the pacifistic sect that has employed aggression in this way. Mkmcconn
There is a big difference between styles intended for self-defense and styles intended for attacking, and especially styles suited for war. Plus, there is a great deal more that is involved in war than merely knowing how to wield a weapon or how to throw a fist - arguably this is the least important aspect of war. Furthermore many of the Chinese martial arts are highly stylized in ways that emphasize form and meditative aspects of the art rather than pure attack and defense (like, say, ninjutsu, or derivatives like wing chung do). Finally, as I said before, Buddhism was spread out over a vast region, and it had differing forms in differing regions. It is not surprising that some of the traditions practiced by some Buddhists should contradict traditions of other Buddhists. I don't think this is ironic in the least, unless you view the evolution of religion and the perversion (not meant in a derogatory sense) of the founding message of a religion to be ironic. Graft
I see no difference here, so far as its "pacifist" character is concerned. Virtually all peoples resort to violence only reluctantly, and often with great uncertainty about the morality of their action if it results in harm to another, even in defense of themselves. All you are saying about the Buddhist teachers of martial arts is that there is a big difference between them and criminals, tyrants, thugs and other career predators - but this is basically the same difference that exists between that violent class and most of the rest of us. That doesn't mean all who are not violent criminals are pacifists. It simply means that people do not typically intend to do harm to others, and will typically resist doing so unless they perceive themselves severely pressed, and then more likely for the defense of others rather than for the defense of oneself. Surely, that is in contrast to pacifism, isn't it? Mkmcconn
I fail to see the importance of distinguishing between styles meant for self-defense, attack, and general war, when we're talking about pacifism. All three types of styles are still using violence or force to accomplish their ends, unless their techniques consist exclusively of dodging, running away, and hiding sorts of techniques. Many styles include these, but also include more forceful blocks and strikes. These aren't pacifistic or non-violent; they would fall somewhere on the "just war" or "just self-defense" spectrum. Wesley
I don't mean to imply that Buddhist martial arts as a form of self-defense are appropriate for pacifism, since I know only a little about pacifist philosophy. But, as I also said, Buddhism is not monolithic, and there are certainly non-pacifist traditions within what we can properly call Buddhism. I don't think this is ironic. Graft
The question I still have though, Graft, is whether the sentence really means anything, which says that Buddhists have often resorted to bloodshed. Deciding whether this is worth mentioning depends on whether the Buddhists who have supposedly done this are pacifists. If Buddhists in a pacifist tradition have resorted to violence in seeming conflict with their principles, then it appears to me that it's important to identify the group. This is because it seems to me to be a peculiar use of the term to call Buddhism in general a pacifist religion (although there are pacifist Buddhists, no doubt). The implied issue being addressed in the final paragraph, is how difficult and rare it is to live consistently with the pacifist ideal. But if Buddhists aren't pacifists, it doesn't make sense to include them in that list of pacifists who, not surprisingly, have sometimes fallen short of their ideals. Mkmcconn

There is a difference in saying that "Buddhism is a pacifist religion" and "Buddhists are pacifists". The former is true while the latter may not be. One thing is certain; no one was ever killed or murdered in the name of Buddhism. Sure, there will be Buddhists that are murderers and rapists, but these Buddhists are acting in conflict with the teachings of, not in the name of, Buddhism.

The view that Buddhism is not pacifist just because martial arts originated from it is a very myopic way of seeing this matter. You have to understand what "martial art" truly is; In point of fact, Martial art, in so far as they relate to traditional Chinese/ Buddhism based forms is very much a misnomer. Martial Art is not an art of street fighting, where the goal is to strike down your opponent as quickly and brutally as possible. Martial arts entails much more than that, it uses physical movements in harmony with spiritual cultivation as a means of strengthening the body and develop inner strength. The fact that it was practiced by monks living in secluded wilderness means that practitioners will have to defend themselves from being devoured by wild animals.

Also, repeating what Graft said, there is a big difference between purely defensive forms and offensive forms. The defensive forms only seek to neutralize an attacker’s threat without harming him. A defensive form does not have any techniques to gouge out opponent’s eyes, fracture an attacker’s limb, or otherwise delivering killing or maiming blows.

You need not look any further than history to see the pacifist nature of Buddhism … Geographical zones abound that had once been rife with Buddhism. But upon the intrusion of the later and more militant monotheistic faiths, Buddhism has all but disappeared.

styles meant for self-defense, attack, and general war - What kind of foolishness is this? This is like the difference between a "defensive gun" and an "offensive gun." There's no such thing. There's fighting and there's fighting, and how you go about it makes no difference whatsoever. The only difference is in how badly you choose to hurt your opponent. 72.178.131.225 04:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference. Just compare Aikido with another 'hard' style martial arts like Karate, although ultimately it is the practitioner himself who will decide whether to hurt his attacker. If someone attacks me and I am determined not to hurt my attacker, I will just use grappling techniques to ward him off. But if my attacker persisted in attacking me then I will be left with little choice but to disable him more thoroughly (like breaking a bone or two...) Still, the choice is in me on how serious an injury I should inflict on my attacker. If you use the analogy of a gun, then a "defensive" gun is not a gun but a taser, which aims only to subdue but not to kill. BeyRel (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when is Buddhism any more connected to martial arts than anything else? Buddhism teaches pacifism. A very, very small (but very famous) minority of Buddhist monks practice martial arts, and I imagine a proportion of Buddhist lay-people similar to that of any other religious or ethnic group practice martial arts for unrelated reasons in their spare time. Christianity teaches pacifism, yet the Catholic church maintains a (small) standing army, martial arts have existed in Europe for centuries and many Christians own guns. What a few monks and individuals do as a consequence of indvidual choice is surely irrelevant to Buddhism's overall stance on the matter, especially since there's no evidence that the martial arts in question have any theological or liturgical connection with Buddhism. Leushenko 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghandi philosophy

I wonder if the article is being fair to Ghandi and his philosophy. How would a subtler reading about Ghandi and genocide in Europe be different?

I'm going to read the talk page and join right in. 64.229.14.142

Removed the following sentences, because as a member of one of the pacifist denominations in question, I know a thing or too about this subject, and I consider the ad hominem assertion that religious pacifists hide their ideological leanings behind a false facade of pacifist rhetoric to be just plain insulting (not to mention untrue). Let's stick to the facts about pacifism, rather than questioning the integrity, sincerity, or motives of those who profess and live by pacifist principles. soulpatch

Mennonites and other pacifists, although they typically take non-combative roles, have sometimes been directly supportive or notably uncritical of revolutionary regimes. The Shining Path of Peru and the Sandinistas of Nicaragua enjoyed this kind of support for a time, leading critics to question the actual motivations of some forms of religious pacifism.

I think that it's a good decision to remove it; on the other hand, I think that on the same argument the whole final paragraph is pretty useless, and wish that you would have used your rule to spare the rest of those who ought to be insulted by what it says, by removing the whole thing. Mkmcconn
Well, there was nothing stopping you from removing the whole thing since you feel that way.  :) soulpatch
I don't know - there are lots of paragraphs like that one on Wikipedia; whole articles come to mind. But, the NPOV thing is a fuzzy concept to me. I've let it boil down to trying to express opinions I disagree with as well as I can. So, I am more inclined to try to improve the paragraph, rather than remove it, even though I disagree with much of what it says (thanks for the invitation, though :) Mkmcconn
Would it be appropriate (i.e., NPOV) to note that Ghandi's methods only could have succeeded in India against a crippled British Empire? His approach probably would never have worked against France, and most certainly not against Japan. Just thought I'd ask. BT Aug 2 06.
In a section described as criticism, fine but you would require a citation of a journalist or someone such as for example [1] making this observation. Also you should explain this in a neutral manner, indicating that critics have commented this and so forth. Addhoc 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pacifist religious denominations

Not all "pacifist religious denominations" are historic peace churches. I think that the Baha'i qualify as one of those. As for the Unitarian Universalist Association, apparently some in the UUA think that it is a "peace church", although not one of the historic peace churches. As seen from the talk above, however, there seems to be difference of opinion about what "pacifism" is. Some want to include pragmatists under the label. Well then, if pragmatists can be pacifists, (if Woodrow Wilson makes the List of pacifists!), then at the top of the list of pacific pragmatists should be the UUA, don't you think? Alongside them, perhaps we'll have to put Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, whom I believe at least at one time were successful in making their case for conscientious objection to combatant roles in the military on religious grounds. Here is a statement which puts the UUA alongside the peace churches in a practical sense: http://www.uua.org/actions/peace/79call.html . And, of course, there are many statements that can be found with a search engine, distinguishing UUA pragmatic peace-ism from peace church pacifism. However, I think that editors here will need to work toward agreement on what the entry uniformly defines pacifism to be. If it is pragmatic, then the UUA should be listed in my opinion. But if pacifism is not pragmatic, then Ghandi is not a pacifist, and neither is the UUA. Mkmcconn 00:23 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the link to the Quakers, Brethren, and Mennonites to say "historic peace churches". If you want to add the Unitarians to a different link category, such as "churches with pacifist leanings" or something similar, that would be fine with me, but since Unitarians are so diverse and don't agree with one another on anything, I don't think they should be put in the same category with the historic peace churches; in the case of the latter, peace is inherent to their fundamental theology, whereas UUs don't have a fundamental theology that to which pacifism could be be considered inherent. I've even met Unitarians who vote Republican, after all.  :) soulpatch

Pacifism, Non-Violence, and Non-violent resistance

Is anyone else aware of the talk going on in non violence?

It seems to me that we have three articles on essentially the same subject: pacifism, Non-Violence, and Non-violent resistance. -- Soulpatch
Well, I think those are similar but not the same. -- Juan M. Gonzalez 04:08 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
Hmmm, well, there might be differences of emphsis, but in any case it seems like there is a lot of overlap between the three articles.

They are more than just similar; we have three articles on the exact same subject. This is ridiculous. An encyclopedia will be useless if every topic is fragmented in such a fashion. There should be one main entry, on pacifism. All the topics mentioned in this page should be moved there; the same goes for everything in non-violent resistance. If one of the sections in this article becomes specialized and lengthy, then at that point it would be appropriate to spin-off that one particular topic into its own entry. RK

End of cross post.

Pacifism and non-resistance are not the same thing. To put them both under the same heading would disenfranchise both, and confuse the readers. glocks out 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Satyagraha

If we had a clear understanding of satyagraha then duplicate discusion would cease across so many separate talk pages. With the talking over, we could go back to being genre authors with brilliant prose in our very near future. A standard model article would ripple through wikipedia articles, as we updated the pages to reflect a new authoratative article.


Q: Could you give me a concrete example of what you mean from this article?

A: Well yes, if you can answer this correctly," How would the view point of the article change if we understood Ghandi better?
Answer to Answer: How could I possibly know until I understand?

Could people let me know what they think? Two16

UUA

  • Removing reference to the UUA altogether would be fine with me, if you think that reference to them makes the entry more confusing (which, after all, soulpatch has convinced me that it does).
  • I've read that the United Church of Christ has recently declared itself a "Just Peace Church" - a little bit of rhetoric-in-a-slogan signifying antithetical disapproval of the just war doctrine, perhaps; but, according to the articles this is some kind of historic "fourth paradigm", as opposed to pacifism, just war, and crusade/holy war theories. This article supposes a distinction between pacifism and the "just peace movement", but according to our entry there is no meaningful difference. Which approach does more to clarify what pacifism is? Mkmcconn 20:46 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

What about new ideas to prevent unilateral attacks without the UN agreement??.Mac


Indeed... Well, personally I think that pacifism is certainly a very ideal philosophy--however, it appears that such a small number of humans practise it today that behaving pacifistically will not generally result in holistic non-violence (rather, something more along the lines of suicide). I think that Gandhi was trying to demonstrate the power of mind over matter, in the sense that he believed that, essentially memetically, an ideology such as pacifism could be fertilised in its growth by people such as the Jews overtly submitting to violence. Unfortunately, he seems to have ignored the fact that most of what happened to the Jews happened covertly, and very few were aware of it outside of Nazi Germany whilst it occured. In the end, it appears, the Holocaust actually doesn't seem to have made very much of a bad example in the hearts of average humans, as they seem to lack the ability to make the comparisons with the modern world necessary to prevent something along those lines from happening again. The fact that we still have millions of religious dogmatists fighting over what book contains the secrets of the universe is a sad testament to humanity's current state as a diseased entity, which has not yet fully recovered from its many infantile sicknesses. Khranus

Anti-War

The article as it is now seems to me to be badly off track. There seems to be a muddled confusion of pacifism and non-violence, begining with a mis-definition. See eg: m-w definition; an old encyclopedia of mine's article on pacifism begins by defining it as a doctrine for "the suppression of wars between nations". Much of the material in this article IMO would better belong in the non-violence article. -- Infrogmation 07:18, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are right. It has drifted, during the last few months. I do think that it has bone off track, now, and has become equivalent to anti-war. Mkmcconn 17:59, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would rather define a pacifist as one opposed to deliberatly injuring another human being in any situation, war or not, and regardless of reasons for doing so. Moravice 12:00, 19 June 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Moravice. I think the difference between pacifism and anti-war is that anti-war is a macro concept, dealing with nations and armies. Pacifism can be macro, but it can also be micro, dealing with interpersonal violence and conflicts between individuals. Infrogmation's definition from an old encyclopedia of "the suppression of wars between nations" sounds a little antiquated to me. mennonot 08:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

H.G.Wells

Thanks to Daniel_Quinlan for fixing my hasty and inaccurate edit, and for being so gracious about it. Final results excellent IMO, and I'll try to be more careful checking my sources in future. Andrewa 04:22, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You're welcome. Armistice would indicate WWI, but the rest of your addition was aimed at WWII (or at least that's how I read it), so it seemed worth investigating further. Daniel Quinlan 07:04, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Mohism

Nothing about Mohism? Its method to maintain peace is to be a professional helping the weaker states to defend wshun 06:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Rewritten speculation

Gandhi was naive enough to advocate that Europeans - even Jews - should not resist the Nazis. In this situation non-violence fails as the Third Reich - an openly evil empire which felt no 'need' to be liked - could murderously crush any opposition to their rule without compromising its own ideology. The science fiction author Harry Turtledove wrote a short story "The Last Article" in which Gandhi attempts to use non-violent resistance against India's Nazi occupiers after an Axis victory in World War II. Needless to say, it doesn't work.

This is clearly speculation and personal opinion, I'm rewriting it to be more NPOV. Kim Bruning 18:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder about ghandi *not* being capable of preventing violence during the split between india and pakistan. I had always thought that when violence started, ghandi started to apply his methods and eventually managed to reduce or stop further violence. (So he actually *was* succesful) What's the truth of the matter? Kim Bruning 18:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's odd! There's no article on Ahisma. I suggest creating the article, and adding all the stuff about Ghandi to there at some point. Kim Bruning 18:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nope wait, there it is, it's actually Ahimsa. having read that article, it might be helpful to point out that Ahimsa as practiced by Ghandi was a religeous principle rather than just a pragmatic one. Okay, that means we can boldly edit.

Based on that, the critics named misinterpreted Ghandi (And since they're not actually referenced, they can go). Ghandi probably belongs better under religeous pacifism (though he applied it practically). I'll leave a reference to Harry Turtledove since he's specifically named. Kim Bruning 18:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moving the removed stuff to talk:pacifism/removed Kim Bruning 18:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, since Ghandi only needs a single paragraph here (there's much more on him elsewhere) I'm at a bit of a loss what to do with Harry Turtledove. I'll tack the bit about him to the end of the Mahatma Gandhi for now, but that's not really a good place either. Kim Bruning 18:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know these posts are long dead but... Harry Turtledove is irrelevant because he is a speculative fiction writer. He does not deal in objective facts. And yes, Ghandhi did nothing to help his people. His strategy was to intentionally provoke his opponents into committing acts of violence so that he could claim the moral high ground. And it is quite correct that Ghandi's WWII strategies were useless because he was telling people to just lie down and accept their own deaths. I don't know about you, but I would prefer to be living soldier than a dead pacifist. 72.178.131.225 04:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Radical

As wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, pacifism should not be directly referred to as radical. Chewyman 21:11, 3 Oct 2004 (NZT)

how many ways must it be explained?

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV) "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you," "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

Anti-war?

Although I think pacifism today implies anti-war pacifism in common usage, it is hardly the only form that exists. St. Augustine allowed war to be considered just if it fit certain conditions, but was staunchly opposed to any efforts of self-defense. That is generally considered another form of pacifism by philosophers, albeit one out of practice for some time. Likewise, pacifism is sometimes applied to relations between humans and other organisms, thus being linked with vegetarianism, veganism, and, at the very extreme, those who refuse to eat anything but fallen fruits. To say it's simply against war is an understatement. It's against violence. Sarge Baldy 23:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This edit moves things in the right direction but I think more work is needed. Is there a way to word the lead in a positive sense, not in opposition to something else. Something like "Pacifism seeks to transform conflicts through peaceful means, stressing diplomacy, cooperation and community building. Pacifism emphasizes the values of all life ..."
The phrase describing pacifists as those whose views include a "preference towards diplomacy in resolving international disputes" is a problem for me. Maybe I'm naive, but wouldn't that include nearly everyone on earth except perhaps arms dealers, military contractors and their stockholders? JonHarder 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't expect it to fix the overall problem, but at least serve as a guide for the rest of the article. I agree with your criticism of the line and reworded it accordingly. Sarge Baldy 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam

The underlying thrust of parts of this article seem to imply that Judaism and Islam have no tradition of peaceful non violence and in fact advocate violence as a means of resolving problems? I disagree with that argument, groups like the Khudai Khidmatgar and there are plenty of Islamic examples of patience under enormous abuse. The presence or absence of guidelines to fight do not make a pacifist. Zak 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mustn't forget ancient Judaic sects like the Essenes either.

there are plenty of Islamic examples of patience under enormous abuse. - Yep, because those Sunnis and Shiites are all one big happy family. 72.178.131.225 04:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Eurocenticism

Hi, I have made some changes to sections that were unnecessarily eurocentric. I'm aware that my changes are not perfect, so further improvements (but not just reverts) would be welcome. 80.189.87.165 12:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Addhoc 10:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Bias

This article demonstrates an anti-Catholic bias in two places. First, when it states that the Catholic Church's Just War Doctrine is in opposition to the Gospel, which, by extension, means that the Catholic Church is not Christian. Second, when it restates the old saw that the Church did not admit soldiers to Holy Communion until after St. Augustine, which is demonstratively untrue. This second point not only begs the question without providing supporting evidence, but is a direct rip off of old style anti-Augustine anti-Catholicism, employed by bigots since the 19th century. --WAC

Before you vandalise another editors work perhaps you would would like to show where Jesus in the gospels supports the Catholic theory on a just war? My edit had nothing to do with anti Catholicsm but with scriptural fact. I suggest you support your remopval of this edit otherwise I intend to reinstate it! Mombas 11:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mombas, I support the removal of the edit. As an editor, your role is not to interpret material. You cannot say, 'the Scriptures do not support the idea of a just war as understood by Catholics.' There has been discussion before about whether Scripture presents Christ as a pacifist or not. And the discussion got quite hot, which demonstrates THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION ON THE MATTER. I repeat, it is not our role to interpret facts to the extent that it creates an unjustified bias. And for the record, there IS evidence in Scripture to suggest the idea of a just war. The Book of Maccabees, for example. Now even though Protestants regard this as apocrypha, Catholics do not. On this basis alone it is entirely incorrect to say that Scripture opposes just war theory. In fact, much of the Old Testament is a history of war mandated or at least supported by God. But even in the Gospels, there is nothing to suggest that Jesus condemned the right to self-defence, even by force of arms. Christian exegisits debate whether Christ intended 'turn the other cheek' to be taken literally in all circumstances. There is nothing to suggest he condemed the profession of the numerous soldiers mentioned in the gospels. In fact he ministered to them. And in the first few centuries of the Christian church, there were numerous Christians in the Roman army, many of whom were and re still venerated, eg. St George, St Sebastian,etc. If you want to make an edit stating that the Gospels are opposed to just war theory, the onus is clearly and obviously on you to prove that as an uncontroverted fact befitting an encyclopedia.And your reference to Catholics 'pre-Augustine' being refused the eucharist is glaringly without a citation. I agree with WAC tht is a highly dubious statement--Gazzster 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonym

The antonym to "pacifist" would be useful. --67.68.26.35 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC) You're right! It would. I guess it would be something like, 'one who believes that war may be used to acheive certain goals', but I don't know what word you would use. Belligerent? Bellicose? That's kind of vague, isn't it? It could cover anyone from Hitler to Ahmed in downtown Baghdad who wants the Americans out. It could imply anything from a reasonable viewpoint to a morally bankrupt one. Like pacificism, I guess. This discussion has demonstrated that it's one of those vague concepts that covers a range of ideas.--Gazzster 06:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The only words I find are emotionally charged (uncivilised, savage, et cetera). A label for those who advocate the use of military in disputes (this does not mean all disputes, for example, many pacifists have supported joining the Allies)? Militrarist seems to suggest something different. --A Sunshade Lust 20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Good point. That's why this discussion page is so busy. It is such an emotionally bagagged word. What we need is a clinical sounding Latin or greek word like bellity (from Latin, bellum-war). I wonder if Wikipedia would accept that in their dictionary? In any case, I doubt that there is such a thing as a pure pacificist or pure 'bellitan', whatever those terms might mean. I think contributors must define what they understand by pacificism before we can have fruitful discussion.--Gazzster 23:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There are pure 'bellitans' out there. One of them dropped by Virginia Tech one day. It's a good thing that whole non-violent resistance theory panned out so well. I would hate for someone to have opposed him and actually gotten hurt or something. Oh, wait, that happened anyway... 72.178.131.225 04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

this should be in section 3 above, but if it goes unnoticed...

it appears that some editors like to shoot first and read the talk page later. "pacifism" means different things to different people, but whatever it is, it is not synonymous with "passivism" nor antonymous with "activism". there is no record that Jesus used the whip on people, but there is a record he used a whip of his own making on sheep and cattle. there is no record that he "attacked" people, but he did drive out "vendors" (some scholarship suggests that these "vendors" were essentially racketeers taking advantage of pilgrims coming to the temple justifying the usage of the term "den of thieves".) nonetheless, to point to the Cleansing of the Temple as an act contrary to that of a practicing pacifist, one must ask "why a whip and not a sword?" (since they didn't have machine guns in the day.) r b-j 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Nintendo is clearly trying to inject his POV likely influenced by a Mormon, or a possibly conservative American "evangelical" theology that would like to be literalist with the biblical record but is uncomfortable with an understanding of Jesus preaching pacifism and practicing what he preached. It is evidently not enough the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount amoung other cases where Jesus was clear about loving ones enemies, praying for those who persecute you, doing good to those who maltreat you, etc. and that Jesus refused to defend himself and proscribed others (Peter) from doing so. To twist this story around into one where somehow by driving out livestock with a whip (nowhere does any text say anything about "Jesus violently driving out money changers from a temple using a whip" - those are Nintendo's words). This is a common misconception and deception done by mostly American conservative evangelicals (I guess some of the German "evangelicals" did it in the 1930's) because they're being "cafeteria" scipturalists but want to think of themselves as biblical inerrantists. The synoptic gospels say nothing about a whip. John says Jesus made a whip out of cords and drove out both the sheep and the cattle. Why wouldn't the text say that Jesus drove out both the vendors and animals? why would the text explicitly mention driving out both the sheep and cattle with the whip but leave out the people? Not using a sword, the lethal weapon of that time's technology to slay those irreligious profiteers (more likely racketeers lending meaning to the phrase "you have made it a den of theives"), how does this story translate at all to carrying the sword in a later context. There is no evidence that the first century church (or the 2nd or 3rd, not until Constantine) interpreted this as justification for the sword, and that is what this present issue is about. Is Jesus' behavior in the temple akin to the "Christian" soldier machine-gunning someone to death (or a "Christian" president sending the country to war or ordering the nuking of an enemy city, etc.) or is this behavior in the temple more akin to civil disobedience and "gumming up the works" as a consequence of righteous indignation of the wrongfulness of some widely practiced and officially condoned and supported injustice?

Nintendo Boy can't just expect to barge onto this article and substantively reverse the meaning of some part so that it fits his preferred POV. he has to expect to convince people first. r b-j 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i have made an attempt to bring out the obvious fact that many Christians (in fact, most Christians) are not pacifist and that, throughout the history of the Church, there have been made credible cases for the use of arms in the service of justice and even peace. if someone wants to make that section better, with historical support, please, be my guest and do that. the edit of [2] is just silly. not only does it "stretch" the written biblical record, it's contrary to WP:NPOV regarding equal weight and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. the references virtually portray Jesus as an American green beret who votes Republican. it's silly.
again, before rewriting some part that essentially reverses the meaning of it, editors need to use the talk page. r b-j 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You are free to hold whatever opinions you wish regarding the held perceptions regarding pacifism and Christ. There is nothing that "stretches" the biblical record about mentioning both the money changer incident and the numerous examples of violence connected with the Old Testament. The doctrine of the trinity, which by most standards considers Jesus and God to be the same individual, and even by association, raises monumental challenges to Jesus being a full pacifist. Anyone who has read the Bible can verify that the actions of Jehovah during the course of the Old Testament were extremely violent, ranging from simply instructing his followers to destroy a town to outright obliteration of the world during Noah's time. To ensure that a claim of Original Research doesn't find a foundation, I also included numerous Christian-based sources that all specifically say the same thing- that Christ, though his teachings were largely pacifistic in the New Testament, is held to the standard of his actions and associations. If anything, I would say that you yourself, Rbj, are the one in violation of the "equal weight" clause; by retaining the ideal of Christ as a direct pacifist while erasing sourced information that give weight to the opposing viewpoint, you violate that policy and NPOV as well. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
this is not a religious encyclopedia for any particular religion nor denomination. we are free to hold whatever opinion we want, but we are not free to inject whatever opinion we want into this encyclopedia. your facts must be sourced and relevant. there simply is no record of the historical Jesus (that is the person who walked this earth 2000 years ago) using a whip on any human being. no record at all. 3 gospels don't mention a whip at all lending more doubt. they protray Jesus as overturning tables and reaffirm Jesus driving the animals out.
the well-known historical context of the Christian church is what goes into this PUBLIC encyclopedia, not YOUR personal opinion, Nintendo. r b-j 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend you follow your own advice, bub. There is no "opinion" in any of my edits, regardless of how you would attempt to portray them. What there is, on the other hand, is empirical evidence AND sourcing that clearly demonstrate that substantial public opinion exists to the viewpoint that Jesus was not a pacifist, both by his physical and spiritual associations with Jehovah and by a doctrinal standpoint, something you seem to be ignoring in your rush to erase my edit. Furthermore, in regards to the whip incident, the edit merely states that Jesus drove out the money changers, with a whip- it does not say that he whacked them with a whip, and it is made clear that the manner in which they were driven was violent, what with the tables being overturned and all. I have reverted your erasure, and I will maintain the integrity of my edit, regardless of how much POV you wish to insert into this article. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
that's either a bald-face lie or a delusion. you make extraordinary claims and that requires evidence just as strong, not simply some reference to a right-wing web site that doesn't like the history and wants to rewrite it. you have not responded to any of the points. In fact i kept one of your references as an example that there are people who deny that Jesus was a pacifist. you have a problem telling the truth, don't you? your edit has no integrity to maintain. you are trying to bend history to suit your point-of-view. r b-j 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding your slanderous statements in your response, I rebut what you say. I am not making "extraordinary claims"- I am simply stating these points: that there are people who believe Jesus was not a pacifist,
no you didn't say that. in fact, that is what i said and you have removed. you made factual claims such as the NT "portrays Jesus violently driving out money changers from a temple using a whip". nothing about what people believe about it. if you had, that would be a qualification that would make the more NPOV, but you didn't and, in fact, replaced such with your POV pushing.
and that there are specific instances within the text of the Bible that support this conclusion. The reference links I provided support this- regardless of how you view their political affliations, they do serve as valid as per Wikipedia's sourcing. You've not only deleted the entire paragraph and supporting text, but replaced the common-use links with a Geocities mark, knowing full-well that geocities pages are not a valid source. Furthermore, the links are such like http://www.christiananswers.net, which is based from Eden communications, a non denominational ministry. And finally, I don't appreciate your personal attacks. Saying my edits "have no integrity", and that "I am trying to bend history", violates Wikipedia policies and I advise you to cease. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
your next revert is a WP:3RR vio. i'll report it. r b-j 23:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized the paragraph, hopefully as a compromise. There are verifiable sources that state that Jesus thought some things which were not pacifist (and there is nothing wrong with that, non-pacifist does not equal bad, in my personal opinion, being totally pacifist can cause problems, but my opinion has nothing to do with it). The book I've cited has shows both points of view, and I've used it through out the paragraph. Hopefully this edit will be acceptable to both parties. Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your effort, Jeff. it's a compromise of an attempt at a compromise (my edit of 23:23, 19 October 2006). the problem is that, in trying to make peace, pacifists are always forced to go 95% or more (not 50-50) and the non-pacifists opponents know that and have no compuction to take advantage of that. i guess that's what is meant by going the 2nd mile.
as far as content, there are factual errors in statements like "There is no definite teaching in the New Testament to show if Jesus was a pacifist or not." (there is definitive teaching, it's just not popular with the Christian conservatives). i changed it to "There is no widespread agreement about whether the New Testament portrays if Jesus was a pacifist or not." and added an important point about Jesus's actions and words when he was apprehended himself.
there is confusion, or at least a misrepresentation, of the Christian pacifist stance in that they are expected to be "attempting dialogue" with evil and wrongdoing. that's not what Christian pacifism is about. this attempting dialogue with evil is a misconception and often people simply substitute words like "passivism" or the like. Christians, living a life of obedience in the context of this rebellious world should expect to be "reviled and persecuted and have all kinds of evil uttered against them falsely". this doesn't normally happen if they are not confronting evil without compromise. the main point of pacifism is that violence and hatred is not returned to the enemy for doing that and there is no record whatsoever of Jesus doing that nor teaching his followers to do that. it really is definitive that the historical Jesus (by that we are leaving out the OT and predictions of what the "2nd Coming might be like, since that is so speculative), while on earth, was a pacifist and taught his followers to do the same. he practiced what he preached. it's just that this is not convenient for Christians wanting to defend themselves, their homes and property, and people and a national/people order that they love. take a look at the John Howard Yoder page and see what you think. r b-j 06:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


One should not assume that Jesus was not a pacifist on the basis of violent Christian and Judaic history. To presume that Jesus lashed out with a whip at the money changers is preposterous and without foundation; historically, theologically and doctrinally. If you presume that he condoned violence then one is clearly denying the central tenet of his belief system as is clearly recorded in the gospels. There is more evidence existing in the gospels that JC was a pacifist, (fundamentally opposed violence against the person).

In my view Jesus was a no nonsense person who believed and practiced direct action and civil disobedience. Hence his trashing of the money changers. But there is no supporting evidence that he acted violently against the individuals and to assume so is clear POV. In fact the evidence supports contrary.

Consider these words of pacifism by Jesus himself from the gospels. One could hardly claim on this basis that JC was NOT a pacifist.

  • Though shall not kill.
  • While you have heard it said that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a

tooth (referring to Leviticus), I am saying to you turn the other cheek.

  • Live by the sword and die by the sword.
  • While Jesus did value his life and took some measures to ensure his

security like advocating carrying a sword as a deterrent to would be assassins, he never advocated that one should use such extreme violence to defend ones self. When Peter sliced off the ear of the soldier Jesus seriously reprimanded him, telling him to put away his sword.

  • Forgive and you will be forgiven.
  • Love your enemies and pray for those who abuse you.
  • "Most assuredly I tell you, in as much as you did it to one of the least of

these my brothers, you did it to ME."

  • Blessed is the one who has suffered.
  • Happy are those who are merciful towards others.
  • Blessed are the peacemakers.
  • Happy are those who are humble.
  • The first will be last and the last first.
  • If one would have your coat then let him have your cloak as well.
  • Love one another.
  • Blessed are the meek.
  • Blessed are the destitute.
  • To save your life is to loose it, to loose your life is to save it.
  • Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
  • Then the king will tell them on his right hand, "Come blessed of My

Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave Me food to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me." Then the righteous will answer Him saying, " Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and gave You a drink? When did we see You as a stranger and take You in or naked and clothe You? When did we see You sick or in prison and come to You?" The King will answer them, " Most assuredly I tell you, in as much as you did it to one of the least of My brothers, you did it to me."

  • You WILL reap what you SOW

To assume that Jesus was not a pacifist is to disagree with the large volume of his views on violence, civil and human rights. There is NO middle ground on this and Jesus like Buddha etc was an ardent pacifist and this Wikipedia article needs to reflect this fact. Mombas 08:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, Mombas; Jesus loved peace, not war. No arguments. But do you really think that he meant that if someone was trying to hurt us, physically, emotionally or psychologically, we would not be allowed to defend ourselves? OR SOMEONE ELSE WHO WAS BEING ATTACKED? Let us assume that he did not, because it's a reasonable assumption. Now, apply the principle of self-defence, or coming to the defence of another, not just to individuals, but to societies. If an entire society is attacked, may it defend itself? Or, if another society is being attacked, may another come to its defence? There you have the justification of Just War theory in a Christian context. In fact, advocates of just war theory might argue that love of neighbour may MANDATE us to go to war. So was Jesus a pacifist? In an uncontextualised reading of the Gospel, perhaps. But did he make reference to any particular war? No. Was Judea at war at the time? No. Did he say, 'I forbid my disciples to take up arms?' No. Even the words to Peter, 'he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword', is open to inerpretation. He made no direct statement on the subject. As with many matters regarding Jesus's doctrines, it was left to future generations to interpret what he wanted. Remember too, that regardless of your faith views, which I respect, Jesus is, as far as an encyclopedia is concerned, a historical figure about whom little is actually known.Now you obviously don't agree with that. But please, don't bias the article to favour your ideas. It is obvious there is room for discussion on the matter. For the record, I am a Catholic, but I certainly wouldn't think of pushing my views here.--Gazzster 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that all Christians accept this (in fact, a small portion does which might suggest it's compatible with the "narrow way"), but there are certainly Christian arguments that Jesus advocated and taught exactly that. take a look at: John_Howard_Yoder#Living_the_Disarmed_Life. now, i am not saying that this is what anybody would expect to do in horrible situations where some loved one was being attacked. but, when viewed alongside of the subsequent self-sacrificing actions of Jesus (and Jesus knew and predicted that other people would also suffer, why not defend them with legions of angels also?), this peace church interpretation of these teachings of Jesus is that they simply meant what was uttered. that there was no tricky word play or metaphorical qualification to these teachings. r b-j 00:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Rbj, can I ask you not to place your intervention, which I respect, in the middle of mine? It means that the discussion is diverted before reading my other points. If someone were to read the rest of my points, they would see that I am making precisely your point, that is, that there are diversity of views on the subject. As far as an encyclopedia is concerned, no one religious view can claim to own Jesus. Mombas should not bis the article to favour his particular owning of Jesus. NOw read on if you wish.--Gazzster 00:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

howzat? r b-j

What are you asking? And please, reply beneath the next paragraph. I asked you not to interrupt my contribution.--Gazzster 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I beg your pardon. You've shifted your text. Thank you. Now what was your query?

Let me first start by saying that I completely believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I also believe that He taught, as you both eloquently quoted above from the New Testament, that one should live a life of kindness and to love one another. However accepting and following those teachings, and believing that Jesus was/taught pacifism is a different thing. For one, the academic "idea" of pacifism, is a more recent thing, and trying to encapsulate all of Jesus's teachings in this one narrow definition does not consider the greatness of Jesus and His teachings. As I mentioned above, I don't think being a complete pacifist is a great thing, and I think for justice (small j) to be applied one cannot be a complete pacifist. For example, if one continues to be kind to a thief, it encourages him to becoming worse, and may not awaken him to the spiritual reality; instead one would have to give out some justice (at times in a form of a penalty) so that hopefully the person could learn and change and gain spiritual attributes for the next world. So, I accept that you two believe that Jesus was a pacifist and taught pacifism, but I would like you to both consider that there are also people, who in a non-polemical or non-attacking way, believe that Jesus was not a complete pacifist. This view, which, in my understanding, in no way degrades or tries to put down Jesus, does have some place in this article, and I think this is what I strove for in my edits. Regards, -- Jeff3000 11:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Jeff with respect, on what basis (proof) do your support the theory that Jesus was not a complete pacifist? If it is a question of your belief or faith or even the result of some sectarian doctrine may aspire to, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned this is POV and so perhaps your view would be better placed under the Christianity title. All we have to go on to support the pacifist tag are the gospels, and as I have already demonstrated these overwhelmingly prove that the man was clearly a pacifist. Any diviation from these supporting facts are in my view personal opinion! Mombas 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with my POV, but a reliable source that I've cited for the statement in the paragraph. As you know, inclusion in Wikipedia is not based on "truth", but verifiabiliy, and given that there are non-polemical and reliable sources that dispute Jesus' complete pacifism, that statement can and should be in the article to remain WP:NPOV. -- Jeff3000 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, it’s abundantly clear that you are attempting to project onto Jesus your personal Bahai views where there is little connection between the teachings of both men. It would be the same for me to go edit the Bahai Wikipedia article and to refer to the scandals that have plagued that religion. I would probably not do this because the vast majority of Bahai people are decent human beings. In much the same way the vast majority of thinking people DO believe Jesus to have been a pacifist and so any feelings contrary are not sourced in the gospels but are of the unsubstantiated opinions of commentators and publishers. Because someone publishes a particular take on scripture, it does not render it right? Any doubt cast over Jesus’ pacifism, are opinions, because the only link to the man, the gospels, dispels all doubts. Mombas 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
one thing that i would suggest for all, is to set any belief/faith issues aside in determining what is the neutral thing to write about this. this is a secular document about the historical Jesus. the divinity of Jesus ("alledged divinity" for the non-believer), the resurrection of Jesus ("alledged resurrection" for the non-believer), the OT record, the tradition of the church (outside of the early 1st century church which would have members that were personally acquainted with Jesus), all of that is non sequitur. the question is, from the historical record (the gospel writings and also those of Josephus [3], what is the evidence, from Jesus' words and actions of his position regarding what is normally thought of as pacifism? like Mombas, i also think it's pretty clear. you have to massively contort and distort what the guy said and did to come to a conclusion of the opposite. but that's my opinion, too. it's just that what Nintendo was putting down was - how shall i put it diplomatically - not a very good case. there are plenty of defensible cases for the Just War Theory, but simply declaring that "Jesus was not a pacifist" and citing the Cleansing of the Temple, is a very poor case. if Jesus went in with a sword and slew a few of those recalcitrants (in a manner that might be similar to Gideon or one of the "judges"), then you would have a very good example of Jesus approving of the use of lethal force to accomplish certain justifiable aims. it's like saying some Mennonite or Quaker who occasionally spanks his kids is not a pacifist because he is known to spank his kids. r b-j 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The point, however, is that some people, who have published material, state that some of Jesus' actions were not pacifist. We're not concluding anything here. Read the paragraph in question, it doesn't conclude anything but gives different POV, and also notes that most people state that Jesus was pacifist. There is even a rebuttle to the statement that people don't believe Jesus was a pacifist. What else do you want? complete removal of the belief, that wouldn't be NPOV. -- Jeff3000 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So what Jeff? Many people have published material claiming that the Bahais are an evil cult. Does that make them right...NO! Mombas 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't bring my religion into it, it has nothing to do with my edits which are in good spirit. As I stated above I have a great respect for Jesus. And the Baha'i belief is not to put Jesus down, since we look at him as the same level as our our founder, so if I put Jesus down, I put Baha'u'llah down, and I have no intent to do so. Go look at my edits, you can definitely see that there is no malintent implied and I clearly state what the sources state; that most believe Jesus was a pacifist, but that some believe otherwise, and I even included a rebuttal against those that believe he was a non-pacifist. Note that there are many Christian denominations who also believe that Christ was not pacifist, so in no way am I anti-Christian. That you do not believe so is one view, held by most which is what I wrote in the article, and which is stated in sources, but there is a non-small minority who believe that Christ was not pacifist, and these are peer-reviewed and non-polemical sources. -- Jeff3000 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I lay down my edits as proof that I have no mal-intent. After reading more papers, and that most understand Christ as pacifist, I removed some non-pacifist statements for undue weight [4]. Then in this edit [5] I start the paragraph by stating that most believe that Christ was a pacifist (instead of that there are different views), and add a rebuttle to non-pacifist statements (to strengthen the Pacifist view of Christ). -- Jeff3000 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with that Jeff providing r b-j accepts this as a reasonable compromise. I must also apologies if I appeared a bit belligerent for bringing your religion into this; however I felt I needed strengthen the assertion against any presumption which seemed to propose that Christ was a violent being. I know that some Christian groups have argued that he may have been violent, given this justifies the historic violence and wars within their own sectarian dominations. Incidentally, I am not a Christian myself, however I have the greatest respect for Christ whom I happen to believe wasn’t a Christian either. But that’s quite a different matter.Mombas 08:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
of course Jesus wasn't a Christian. he was a Jew.
i'm fine with it, as it is. the references that Nintendo put in are not there. he won't like that, but they were both a little silly and a little rabid. there is no doubt that the great majority of Christendom has rejected pacifism as necessary to the faith, and that fact deserves to be there. there are those who deny that Jesus was a pacifist and that fact should be in the article also (and it is). it's just that we need to keep the scholarly quality to a higher level than to just toss in some stuff from whatever right-wing propaganda as cited evidence. there is a similar problem at Intelligent design. some of those links are just garbage. r b-j 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Corrections

I have made some corrections to the section on Catholicism. There is no such thing as the 'Roman Church'(except in the Diocese of Rome). The term Wikipedia uses is Roman Catholic Church, though Catholics themselves generally do not use that term. I have removed the reference to Catholic soldiers before Augustine being refused the eucharist. This is glaringly without a citation, and is demonstrably false. There was no reference to the official RC position, which supports Just War theory. I added this.--Gazzster 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Current section seems to have gotten a little out of hand. I propose setting up category for pacifist organizations and focusing this list on links that provide the best encyclopedic information about pacifism (rather being about how to get involved in pacifism). So:

This does get rid of a lot of links, but nothing that seems to add encyclopedic value to someone wanting to understand pacifism rather than someone wanting to get involved in pacifism. It should help focus readers on the content that is encyclopedic.

I there are a few areas that could benefit from good external links. I didn't see anything that pointed to non-Christian faith traditions of pacifism, nor anything that rebuts pacifism, and we could use a link to a good academic portal that looks at pacifism as a whole (if one exists), preferably not from a single religious or philosophical perspective.

If no one comments in the next couple of days I'll go ahead and make the changes I suggest. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would delete the above external links right away. There's no need for them to be here. -- Jeff3000 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Update - I've gone ahead with the deletions and removed the clean up tag. I added Industrial Workers of the World and Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship to the category:Peace organizations. Other orgs either didn't have articles or were already in an appropriate category. Could still use someone to look over the two links by not obviously qualified academics. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacifism and religion

This sentence is full of slightly inaccurate and ambiguous statements:

“In particular, many Buddhists, Hindus and Jains are pacifist, as are Unitarian Universalists and some Christian groups including Religious Society of Friends, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren.”

1.) Unitarian Universalists are non-creedal and historically have not been associated with a peace position (e.g. the CIA Vietnam controversy).

2.) The Mennonite Church, and Church of the Brethren, and Religious Society of Friends are three of the historic peace churches, but all members are not necessarily pacifist. Many would classify themselves as nonresistant which is different than pacifism in that it also takes issue with coercion.

3.) “[M]any Buddhists, Hindus and Jains are pacifist” is there any indication that these groups have a higher number of practicing pacifist than other moral religious institutions?GMS508 02:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

the difference between Christian pacifism and Christian nonresistance is both subtle and variant between holders of either. particularly among Mennonites. sometimes what is meant by the difference is that Christian pacifism is a complete commitment to nonviolence not just in personal practice, but in advocacy whereas the "nonresistant" Mennonites are more clear about their own call to nonviolence than they are about someone else, even some other Christian. it means different things to different people. maybe you could call "nonresistance" a sorta "pro-choice pacifism". r b-j 04:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you have spoken to some Mennonites. Being a Mennonite myself I would warn you that they are not always the most reliable source of information about separating their personal beliefs from the greater community of Mennonites. I do not disagree with your statement “‘nonresistant’ Mennonites are more clear about their own call to nonviolence,” but in the greater Mennonite community the difference has to do with coercion. An example of this difference is that it is one thing to resist not your enemies, but I completely different thing to use the legal system to force others (coercion) to so something. Since pacifists often use protest as a form of coercion there is a definite difference. Within the Mennonite Church there is an ongoing debate and many members would consider themselves pacifist, and clearly not all of the church members are nonresistant, but the terms are not interchangeable.GMS508 14:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
i didn't say that the terms are interchangeable, only that the latter term, nonresistant, even in the greater community, is not well-defined. it means different things to different people. the lit in the church hardly uses the word and when it is used in the lit, meanings varied. most lit about one named concept hardly mentions the other, and still do not compare or contrast the terms e.g. Horsch while Wenger is an exception, but still, as i parse the language, i fail to get the distiction you have.
i also completely disagree with your characterization that "protest" is a form of coercion. it is, fundamentally, speech. but i do agree with the illustration. it is more likely that a Mennonite pacifist will come to a conclusion that the violent actions of some government or institution is wrong and publically take issue with it, where as a Mennonite identifying him/herself as "nonresistant" will say nothing, yet both refuse to act in participation with those violent actions the former protests against. but, the odd thing, i've known (politically) conservative Mennonites who identified as "nonresistant" demonstrate against abortion. so they clearly felt that the moral outrage of widespread abortion was worthy of standing up to (not coercively, they weren't blocking clinics), but not the wrongful actions (at least perceived as "wrongful") of the U.S. government in warlike behaviors ranging from invasion of Iraq to the harbor mining and threatened invasion of Nicaragua.
so the actual scope of the term varies. some "nonresistant" Mennonites are truly pacifist. they reject violence and call all persons to live in peace in a self-sacrificial manner (as is believed that Jesus had). other "nonresistant" Mennonites explicitly believe that such call to renounce the sword is for the elect and that it is fully proper for Caesar to bear the sword pretty much wherever and for whatever justification Caesar deems fit. but, again, i'm not saying that this is the defined differentiation between the terms, but from their words, that's often how it boils down to, among Mennonites. r b-j 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I can not defend some of my brother and sisters inconsistencies, but I believe you did do a reasonable job pointing them out. Whether or not all protest is a form of coercion, is debatable as you also point out.
Still the above sentence is ugly, and a new opening sentence needs to be written. Or do you disagree with me?GMS508 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, i probably should have mentioned that i, also, am Mennonite and have been all of my 50 years. about the "ugly sentence", let's parse it:
“In particular, many Buddhists, Hindus and Jains are pacifist, as are Unitarian Universalists and some Christian groups including Religious Society of Friends, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren.”
while one could be sophistic and ask if 1000 or 2000 Buddhists, Hindus and Jains are sufficient to be considered "many" (because i'm sure there are more than that many in the world who are pacifist), it would be more intellectually honest to ask whether or not a large percentage of the adherents to those religious traditions are pacifist. "many" does not need to mean a majority, but it might exclude a small minority. i'm sure there are at least a 1000 Southern Baptists out there who are pacifists, but i wouldn't say "many Southern Baptists are pacifist". but i might say that "many Hudderites are pacifist" if i could count 1000 among them as pacifist, since the group is so small (probably nearly every Hudderite counts themselves as either pacifist or nonresistant). so my question to you is: is there at least a large fraction of these groups that are pacifist? i don't know. the image of Ghandi or the Dali Lama certainly give me the feeling that these religious traditions, in the ideal, promote tolerance, peace, and self-sacrificial means to those ends. but i, frankly, do not know if the faiths demand a committment to peace or non-violence, or what fraction of adherents are so committed. i do know that many UU people are sorta left-wing activist/pacifists and that the historic peace churches are institutionally (an creedally, as far as there is a creed) committed to non-violence as an expression of obediance to the teaching and example of Jesus. so i am not sure what is wrong with the statement, but why not be WP:BOLD and fix it? the worse that can happen is it gets rewritten or reverted by someone else. r b-j 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The seond sentence of this section is inaccurate at best. I tried to rewrite it, but was told that my attempt was also inaccurate. Now it states that many Janis are pacifist. Pacifism is a societal belief and there are many subtle differences with individual religious beliefs.

Here are my problems with this sentence.

1.) Buddhist and Unitarian Universalists are not pacifist.

but perhaps it's true that "many" are. it doesn't sound lie patent nonsense to me.

2.) According to what I have been told Janis are pacifist. Though I question this, it is my understanding that they are opposed any type violence. Many pacifist support the work of police, an organize body that use force to keep peace—that does not sound very non-violent to me.

i think Christian pacifist can recognize that, at least in the ideal, government (which includes police) is there for reasons outlined in Rm 13 that evangelical Christians from not pacifist church traditions like to whack over the heads of those from the peace church traditions. i don't think that Christian pacifists have to embrace anarchy, so they recognize the reality that governments exist for legitimate reasons to keep the peace (i interpret that as also protecting the vulnerable against rule-breakers that would take advantage of and hurt them), punish the wrong-doers, and reward those who do right. and whether you like it or not Caesar does not bear the sword in vain (the law has teeth that should be respected for at least that reason and additionally if it actually serves justice). okay, so many pacifists support the existance of the policia class. doesn't mean that those who renounce all of it aren't pacifist.

3.) Mennonites are nonresistant the Confession of Faith article 22 states, “We believe that peace is the will of God. God created the world in peace, and God’s peace is most fully revealed in Jesus Christ, who is our peace and the peace of the whole world. Led by the Holy Spirit, we follow Christ in the way of peace, doing justice, bringing reconciliation, and practicing nonresistance, even in the face of violence and warfare.”

it's the least of common denominators. since pacifist is the stronger, more exclusive, creed, in terms of rejecting violence, it shouldn't be surprizing that the more inclusive position is taken in that statement. there is not a lot of creedal "fascism" in the Mennonite tradition as there might be in, say, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. if there is a functional difference between "nonresistance in the Mennonite context" and "pacifism" the confession of faith is inclusive of both.

I am sure the sentence was originally written by a pacifist. But the problem is that pacifism is an inclusive term and not dogmatic; a person can make pacifism say almost anything they want. Because it allows so much it makes it very hard for individuals to use it to describe their religious convictions. I do not think this sentence can ever be accurately written—it is my opinion no list is better than an inaccurate list.--GMS508 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

personally, i think when Mennonites argue about whether the church position is nonresistance or a commitment to pacifism, i think it's a lot like debating how many angel can dance on the head of a pin. but that's just me. other Mennonites are convinced that the difference in semantic is salient. r b-j 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your measured and thoughtful response. My response to your comments..
  • The current version could probabbly be improved.
  • From the perspective of Jainism, pacifism is not a societal belief.
  • The first vow (precept) a Buddhist takes is nonviolence. Buddhism could be reasonably be considered a pacifist religion. I agree that not all Buddhists are pacifists though.
  • Could you provide a reference for Unitarian Universalism?
  • In the context of this article, pragmatic pacifism is classified as a form of pacifism.
  • Nonresistance is a different article.
  • The current version of the sentence was last edited by me (I think). My concern was to avoid eurocentrism, pacifism exists in the Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions, but too much of this article discusses western culture and Christianity.
  • To reiterate, I consider the current version of the article gives undue weight to Christianity and insufficient weight to Jainism.
Addhoc 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar articles

Your input to Nonviolent resistance, Non-resistance and Non-violence would be appreciated... Addhoc 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
oh, i s'pose i could mosey over there, but i feel like Bilbo Baggins as butter scraped over to much toast. r b-j 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacifism and religion introduction

I propose the opening five paragraphs in the 'Pacifism and religion' section should be removed as they lack sources. Addhoc 12:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Take them out; we already have sections for the various religions. -- Jeff3000 16:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for removing them, I agree with Jeff3000, and feel that individual sections allows for specific an accurate statements to be made and cited.--GMS508 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be an external link to the outstanding international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with a complete updated list of all signatories, 1993 to 2007), official version with one of these website addresses: http://www.themanifesto.info (Manifesto against conscription and the military system) http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm (Manifesto against conscription and the military system) because it has already become part of the history of Pacifism. Chrbartolf 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

Perhaps you could start by suggesting a paragraph verified by reliable sources for the article about how and why this has become a part of the history of pacifism. That would be more appropriate for our readers than an external link promoting the website. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just have a look at the list of signatories - outstanding! This document should be added as external link! Chrbartolf 19:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

That you've managed to collect a lot of signatures doesn't automatically make you a significant part of the peace movement. And if that's the best reason you have to include it, well, it's not very compelling. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not have an idea what it means to collect "a lot of signatures" (without mentioning the uniqueness of this collection). That is why you can write in such a way ... - not very convincing with respect to the real document! Chrbartolf 11:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

Recent and Suggested Changes

    • Made first of some clean up changes I want to make. There's a lot of redundancy and excess verbiage and POV problems that need cleaning up, especially in those pragmatic and principled pacifism sections. Will get some more non-wiki citations in, both to what I added and to other stuff want to add. Also I am going to merge the "international aggression" and "pacifism and democracy" sections into one section called something like "Pacifism and Government" (right after religion section) to cover a number of issues referred to there and elsewhere that need more systematic exploration.

Carol Moore 01:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Christian pacifism

An article has been started called Christian pacifism and a new category Category:Christian pacifists. Editor inputs are welcome. nirvana2013 17:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pacifism/Archive_1&oldid=1136249472"