AKMA’s Random Thoughts

There's a time for every season.

Today's pacifists look like the Quakers during WWII. Which equates to turning a blind eye.

You do so at your own risk, and mine and at the risk of our off-spring (to those that have kids and grandkids). So yeah, it is an insult. I, personally, wouldn't say it is a loathsome disease but understand the pov that some hold that it is.

It is cowardice pretending to be brave, and is not like anything I've ever read or heard or felt about Jesus. Nor Ghandi, who I found out just a couple/few years ago was assassinated.

Guess the pen is NOT always mightier than the sword, and KNOW that homilies are often the opposite of wisdom.

YMMV. But we don't live in an age where everybody in the known world is on a first-name basis as it once was..

..other than in the FantasyWorld known as Blogaria, which you all created in your own (diseased) image.

Whether Jesus is a pacifist or not is actually a hotly debated topic. It's true that He taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" but there are also other scriptures that seem to contradict a pacifist view.

I’d be interested to know of a justification for thinking that Jesus ever advocated coercive violence on the part of his followers. . . .

I think that Carter knows who he is and knows that he choose politics over pacifism. I think he would make this choice again. I do think that Carter has a great deal of respect for pacifists and only regrets being called one because its not true. It cheapens pacifism to have it equated with Carter. But it also cheapens Carter’s way in the world to have it equated with pacifism.

Thanks AKMA for some well spoken commentary. It is not only interesting that "pacifism" has become a bad word but also that Christians on both sides of the political spectrum (Carter & Bush) would eschew it. You've said it before, it is difficult to get around this hard teaching of Jesus for his disciples.

AKMA,

When you ask for "a justification for thinking that Jesus ever advocated coercive violence on the part of his followers," you are in fact moving the burden of proof a good distance from where it naturally lies. What are the grounds for claiming that Jesus was a pacifist? Simply turning Jesus' statements about personal nonretaliation into a philosophy opposing military interventionism is a gigantic exegetical leap. And if sayings about going the extra mile, etc., have the Roman occupation in mind, one needs first to speciate the type of pacifism behind these statements, especially in the light of the nonideological, preservationist pacifism counseled by Josephus and the rabbis of Shapur II's Babylonia. (Note especially that Jesus' prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem are connected with his warning about the poorly calculated actions of the zealots.) As far as I can see, neither text nor context suggests that Jesus was an ideological pacifist.

Perhaps what Jimmy Carter finds insulting about being mistaken for a pacifist is the naive reductionism by which pacifists seem to assume that, in the end, peace is always less violent than war. (Just ask the 800,000 dead Rwandans about the horrors of pacifism.) It is this same type of reductionism, I assume, that causes pacifists to misread the Jesus tradition so badly.

John C. Poirier

An interesting bit from Mathew's Gospel:
"Ye have heard that it has been said, ‘Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.’ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven"

I would say this fits ideological pacifism fairly well as love should have no capacity for hacking at your enemy with a gladius, although it can be argued it is only not ideological, but necessary if humanity wishes to survive as MLK does here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/571117.002_Loving_Your_Enemies.html

Regardless, if you view that as idealistic doctrine as many do, then it seems this is strong proof, standing alone, that Jesus is an idealistic pacifist.

written by J. Toran:
"Guess the pen is NOT always mightier than the sword..."

That depends who's hand holds the pen and if they are engaged in a fencing match.

"It is cowardice pretending to be brave, and is not like anything I've ever read or heard or felt about Jesus. Nor Ghandi, who I found out just a couple/few years ago was assassinated."

I don't quite see how modern pacifists pretend to be brave...?

Sorry, wish I had more time.

Interesting, familiar some with Josephus but never heard-a Shapur II.

Thing is that people would use their views of Religion to justify any military and/or political situation.. one way or the other. I know "it's always been done", but wonder of the efficacy.

My point is that unless everybody agrees with pacifism, then those who don't WILL take advantage of those unable or unwilling to defend themselves. And when I say everybody, it only took 19 guys to bring down the WTC and bomb the Pentagon. So pacifism can so easily turn into victimism, again, unless everybody is a pacificist, unfortunately.

I was born and bred to be a pacifist, but this has been the case personally as well as in the larger political context. I was no longer a pacifist starting 9/12/01, but the changes had been occuring over the decades.

I will just say that pacifists are letting others do the dirty work for them, and if extraordinarily brave soldiers don't do their unsavory job, you'll be bowing down to the Mullah Omar in short order, is my guess.

It's got nothing to do with Christianity vs. Islam, btw, but victims and victimizers, entirely.

Question is open who is who, as everybody's done SOME of each.. I don't see it as that difficult a call, but there'd always be room for disagreement, no matter how small the community.

Globe is 6,000,000,000 and counting, so 'Universal Harmony' although intellectually/emotionally appealing is a no-go, afaik.

Wish I had more time, as I 'said'. I thought John C. Poirier said most of what I would, anyhoo, better than I jes did...;-D

Btw, I'll try to be a little more understanding of the "love thy enemies" facade when I see Democrats and Republicans loving each other.

I think there's a case for loving Charles Manson, and Lori Hacking's "alleged husband" also, to an extent, but I wouldn't go so far as to want either of them sleeping in the next room, for another example.

Get real, then we can discuss ideologies frankly.

I have less than no time!

But need to correct an egregious error: When I say "see Dems and Repubs loving each other", I mean in actual practice, NOT people SAYING they love one another.

OT: That'd be like believing what The Scobleizer is selling, which is snakeoil. (Doc Searls use an i5, since he's obviously an "influencer" and has influenced Robert?!? Just as badly as Robert's influenced Doc, back-and-forth.. each watching the other's back...)-;

J. Toran:

"I will just say that pacifists are letting others do the dirty work for them, and if extraordinarily brave soldiers don't do their unsavory job, you'll be bowing down to the Mullah Omar in short order, is my guess"

I don't recall asking others to do the "dirty work" for me. People are not fighting because I want them to. Quite the opposite actually.

Those of us who work on behalf of peace are also doing the dirty work for those who would rather fight. If you don't think that taking a stand against violence isn't both dangerous and effective work, you obviously haven't been watching. Tianamen Square comes to mind. In a more successful vein, Czechoslovakia is a useful case, dismantling Soviet terror with ideas rather than violence.

And I think none of us have the desire to bow down in front of the Mullah Omar. To claim that moral high ground for yourself is just plain greedy. Those that have been arguing against war have been doing so precisely because they don't want that outcome either.

Toran:
"Btw, I'll try to be a little more understanding of the "love thy enemies" facade when I see Democrats and Republicans loving each other...
Get real, then we can discuss ideologies frankly."

Start reading in context and I'd be happy to continue discussion. I'm not trying to apply this to any situation, that's completely up to you. I was just providing that quote as evidence Jesus was indeed a(n ideological) pacifist.
Althoug I wonder how would the interactions of other people affect your stance on the idea?

Toran:
"My point is that unless everybody agrees with pacifism, then those who don't WILL take advantage of those unable or unwilling to defend themselves. And when I say everybody, it only took 19 guys to bring down the WTC and bomb the Pentagon. So pacifism can so easily turn into victimism, again, unless everybody is a pacificist, unfortunately."

My question, is the inclination to take advantage of the defenseless human nature that we are all prone to or a characteristic that expirience and society teaches us? I don't know, and it probably doesn't matter since that's very idealistic in itself as it would take a great deal of time and effort for society all over the world to change.

Oh, and I strongly doubt those 19 guys could have completed that operation without the aid and planing of al qaeda which is an organization of thousands, just to keep things in perspective.

Torin:
"Globe is 6,000,000,000 and counting, so 'Universal Harmony' although intellectually/emotionally appealing is a no-go, afaik."

Which means it is wrong to try? If we give up on establishing a world peace and universal harmony (of some nature) then one will never be achieved and eventually, all that is left of human civilization will be a smoldering pile of dust.

I also wonder how you define 'universal harmony' as that in itself is very open to debate. This is sort of a leap in logic, but in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams a race of alien learns the answer to the Big Question (that should explain all of the universe) is 42, but they didn't know what the question was.

(Ofcourse, universal harmony and world peace are not the same thing so excuse me if I'm sticking words in your mouth.)

again, how do pacifists pretend to be brave?

How does one know who leaked the letter? Zell Miller might've found it to his advantage to do so. I'm not saying he did or he didn't, just that it's not really knowable to us on its face who did.

What I liked best about Carter's letter was its unapologetic embrace of party loyalty as a virtue. That's a contrarian position these days, at least on the left, and I admire it.

I'm humbled. Thanks for the link AKMA. Not a day goes by that I don't recognize that I don't belong in that exalted company... but I'm working on it.