Why I can't call myself a pacifist.
So my MLK reading got me thinking about the whole non-violence and why I struggle with it.
I've always struggled with pacifism. My struggle doesn't come from myself...I'm convinced that following Christ demands that I give up all rights to defend my possessions and even my life. I struggle with the holocaust. People were dying overseas. Watching cannot be the right answer. If you have the power (or if you don't) to stop something horrible how can you not? Does Christan pacifism mean we don't rise to the defense of other people? I'm not down with that. Holding a sign in downtown Atlanta that says "Hitler, please stop killing Jews" is NOT sufficient. Signing a petition is not enough. Praying is not enough. Action MUST be taken.
I thought i'ld found my answer in this quote from Ghandi "Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood." (18) This of course is talking about Ghandi's own people...applied to the holocaust (just the example of the day) this tells me that we fly to germany not to kill germans but to get in the way of them killing Jews? We essentially go to Germany to die with the Jews? I hate to sound like a traditional anti-pacifist kid because I desperately want to be against every single act of violence but that seems idealistic at best. I don't see Hitler stopping his actions because some Americans decided to get shot too. When someone is truly, homicidally mad and they have an army at their fingertips non-violence seems like a great way to usher in the Hitler world order.
I'm down with non-violence when it comes to people attacking me personally...it is the only biblical answer. If an army rose up thats goal was to break into houses and kill babies...I would have to do more than just ask them politely to stop. I have trouble accepting that "please don't" is the right answer in that situation. When the people being oppressed can't defend themselves or even choose not to resist how can standing by be the right thing to do? How is THAT love?
Thoughts?
Comments
1. War is destructive and self serving to borrow a line from Linkin Park - it's the poor who suffer when the rich wage war - War is nationalistic, it isn't about what's best for the poorest, it's about oil, land, resources. WW! was purely nationalistic - two allied teams against each other. WW2 was that at it's core, we've just managed to tack the whole Holocaust thing in there. The US was not involved until it served them - and death camps not found until areas of Germany, Austria and Poland were liberated - well into the campaign. In the end the US took land - and WW2 became the Cold War - a war about power not about ideas and freedom of people. Vietnam and Korea followed in that vein and now Iraq times 2 has followed under the guise of saving the masses and yet the issue is strategic position and power - not poverty and equal rights.
2. The people who we hail through history have realized the fundamental truth that a gun solves nothing - Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Margaret Mead, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, the man in Tianamen Square - they are iconic images or people who we look to as the best of society. The individuals who have raised weapons either forgotten altogether or scorned - Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, the Bushes etc.
3. As to watching people die - we're doing it all over the world - dirty water, starvation, AIDS etc - so maybe we should put down the over priced pieces of metal we use to make ourselves right and channel it into something so counter intuitive to our culture and so much like Christ.
@1. I understand that WW2 was not started because of the holocaust and that the primary motivation of the leaders was not freedom. It was a major positive consequence though. One worth dying for. Throughout history wars have not been fought for the right reasons very often (if ever)...we're in Iraq but we ignore Rwanda and Darfur. I guess I'm thinking idealistically...but if a country like America stepped into those situations there would be much less death if it was handled properly. Its completely unrealistic i guess...but a 100,000 soldiers confiscating machetes could have kept an entire people group from being wiped out and probably wouldn't have even been attacked (surely the leaders would have realized that the troops/murderers so effective at murdering unarmed women and children wouldn't stand a chance against an army).
@2. I agree. I'ld rather be on the side of pacifism than the side of war-mongering...but I just crave a step from pacifism...the "I'll never take up arms to defend myself but I'll stand up for the helpless and the defenseless if need be" position. An unlikely position for a nation to take I guess...we'll fight when we won't gain anything and we won't fight when it will cost us everything.
@3. Right now I'm just as much of a pacifist as anybody else. Iraq sucks. War sucks...I hate it. I hope it never happens again. I'm NEVER for starting a war. I just think in a few cases joining on the side of the oppressed may be the right thing to do. I guess when dealing with a country its pretty much impossible to expect them to hold to that though.
Thanks for posting...I was curious to hear your opinion on the issue.
Being a pacifist is difficult for reasons such as your personal upbringing. i.e. what television you do watch, and what toys you play with. I believe that pacifism is good, its a model of Christ. We should always be non-violent in our manner of protest, and daily actions. But there is a cause for war. I disagree with the Iraq war, for reasons known and unknown. But war is biblical, it will occur and we shouldn't try and stop it, only pray that its Gods' will. As for raising arms to defend ones self, I am uncertain how I feel. I am for and against it. Personal servival is the most basic human desire, and it is hard to deny. I suppose issues such as pacifism are ones that are dealt with till death.