Source of a Pacifism Quote?


PDA






Radix
August 24, 2004, 03:29 PM
So I started a job in Boulder (Colorado) and over the last 9 months I have seen enough peace signs, "world peace" or anti-war stickers on cars to make me twitch. :banghead:

This has got me thinking about a message I would like to convey. While I think that peace is a great goal, I subscribe more to Regan's philosophy of pursuing peace from a position of strength. I remember a great quote from somewhere that says:

Pacifism is a Privilege of the Protected

After a bit introspection, this quote has a couple of meanings for me.

First, you can choose to be a pacifist only if someone else is willing to fight for your right to choose to be a pacifist. A point that hasn’t occurred to most of them I would guess.

And the more subtle meanings come from personal experience and some things I have seen written in these fora. There is a peace and comfort that comes from being protected. Deciding to be responsible for the protection of you and your family brings with it a peace that has roots in preparation. Whether at home or anywhere else, if someone means to do my family harm, we may not be 100% safe, but things are going to get damn exciting for a while for everyone involved.

As a third possible meaning, there is the pacifism in everyday encounters. If you carry a firearm, you have a responsibility to be more peaceful. When the minor things in life that can cause confrontation can escalate to dire consequences, they suddenly are no longer worth the confrontation. Conflict becomes reserved for the really important things.

I may have over thought this :scrutiny: but I needed something to ponder during my commute.

This brings me to my question…

I think I first saw the quote on THR, but I am not sure. Within the last 18 months to a year. I researched the quote, but came up with nothing. I am looking for the source. Anyone know? :confused:

Some day this may end up on a bumper sticker, and I would like to give the credit where it is due.

If you enjoyed reading about "Source of a Pacifism Quote?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mete
August 24, 2004, 05:40 PM
Remember that there have been many organizations with something like "world peace" in their title , that were in fact organized and funded by the russian communists.

tcdrennen
August 24, 2004, 05:58 PM
Visualize Whirled Peas! :evil:

FRIENDLY
August 24, 2004, 06:22 PM
Sheep need sheepdogs - which are you. Also remember the only true peace is in the grave!

Stand_Watie
August 24, 2004, 07:21 PM
Sounds like one of Spiro Agnew's speechwriters.

Sindawe
August 24, 2004, 08:41 PM
I see those too. Have for years since I worked in/lived just outside Boulder. Whenever I see those signs/bumper stickers, I'm always remined of this passage from the 'Notebooks of Lazarous Long'

An authentic buck pacifist has rarely been seen off Earth,
and it is doubtful that any have survived the trouble there... regrettable,
as the had the biggest mouths and smallest brains of any of the primates.
The small-mouthed variety of anarchist has spread through the Galaxy at
the very wave front of the Diaspora; there is no need to protect them.
But they often shoot back.

Online source: http://www.bobgod.com/writer/lazaruslong.html

strambo
August 24, 2004, 09:37 PM
True pacifism requires making a choice. Jesus was a true pacifist because he had the power of God yet chose a path of no resistance. Ghandi and MLK were extremely strong and brave individuals who chose non-violence at great peril to themselves.

90% of the weaklings that spew this pacifism garbage are not true pacifists, but future victims waiting to be victimized. If you do not possess the courage and capability to fight then you have no choice but to submit whether you want to or not. Only a person with the courage and capability to resist can then choose to be a pacifist IMO...

If you put a gun to a "pacifists" head and they do nothing is it because they would rather die for the conviction of their non-violent beliefs? Or because they want to live, but a life of comfortable denial has left them without the courage and/or skills to resist?

I think the minimum requirement for true pacifism is a high level of mental strength and courage which are traits that seem to be curiously lacking in most "peace at all costs" types from what I can tell.

pax
August 24, 2004, 10:14 PM
Don't know about that specific one. Here are some of my favorites, though.

Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. -- "John Joseph Bonforte," in Double Star by Robert Heinlein

Christendom has made two efforts to deal with the evil of war, chivalry and pacifism. Neither succeeded. But I doubt whether chivalry has such an unbroken record of failure as pacifism. -- C.S. Lewis, "God in the Dock" (1970)

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.

pax

Stand_Watie
August 24, 2004, 10:37 PM
True pacifism requires making a choice. Jesus was a true pacifist because he had the power of God yet chose a path of no resistance. Ghandi and MLK were extremely strong and brave individuals who chose non-violence at great peril to themselves.

I'm not sure your definition of true pacifism, but Jesus didn't always choose the path of peace (or appeasement). See John 2: 12 - 25


Rembrandt's depiction
http://www.masterpiece-paintings-gallery.com/rembrandt-images/rembrandt-christ-driving-lg.jpg

strambo
August 24, 2004, 10:59 PM
Stand_Watie, I was thinking of the arrest and crucifiction when I typed that. I'll look that verse up you referenced...Ah yes the "money changers in the temple" incident.

I define pacifism as choosing not to injure or kill another human life for any reason or the belief that killing is never justified. Pacifists can be strong (my point is they have to be) and can and do resist and change/fight the status quo. They just don't attack other humans to do it. The verse mentions a whip, but not Jesus' injuring or even attacking anyone (I picture it as him shooing them out and destroying the tables in a righteous anger.) Maybe Jesus did go after the people as well and wasn't a pacifist by my definition? I think he didn't intend or try to harm anyone, but this method was the successful one whereas, sitting on the temple steps with a protest sign wouldn't have accomplished the misson.

What I do know is you better not sell cattle in a temple...:uhoh: :D

beemerb
August 24, 2004, 11:10 PM
""Remember that there have been many organizations with something like "world peace" in their title , that were in fact organized and funded by the russian communists."""""


If you want a real eye opener please read a book called the "game of foxs"
I just moved so I haven't found my copy of it so I can't tell you the author.The book is about German intel pre ww2. Most all of the peace groups of the 1930's where financed by the German goverment.
I think the above statement is a accurate discription of what is going on in the world today.
When I find my copy I will post the author here.
Bob

fistful
August 24, 2004, 11:20 PM
I have the answer!

Not really, I just thought I'd post another comment that comes nowhere near actually addressing the question. Oh, and just to fit in, I'll completely misread Radix's original post, and conclude that he/she is a pacifist, just like most of the other posters. Then I'll say something about pacifism...nevermind.

Stand_Watie
August 25, 2004, 01:06 AM
I define pacifism as choosing not to injure or kill another human life for any reason or the belief that killing is never justified.

Strambo, I don't believe Jesus was a pacifist by your definition. It's true he was peaceful and accomplished his goals generally without violence, but that is a long way from believing that killing is always wrong or never justified. I don't recall him making that claim anyway.

John 2 was just one example of physical violence. You might also see Matthew 18:6 where Christ describes a common method of capital punishment of his era as preferable to a particular type of sin, or when he describes his judgement of the world in Matthew 25.

p.s. I think I agree with your larger point about the differences of people who are pacifists by true principle and those who are just pacifists out of convenience.

strambo
August 25, 2004, 01:49 AM
Stand_Watie,
After more thought on the subject, I agree...I was just thinking of the arrest/crucifiction in my 1st post and that pacifist act as an example. Upon further reflection, I don't think Jesus necessarily meets the definition of a pacifist and I have never thought pacifism is the morally correct choice. I firmly believe that Jesus did not espouse pacifism as an ideal for us to follow due to references of "selling your cloak to buy a sword" and the lack of any condemnation of Peter when he cut off the centurians' ear. He just told him not to fight anymore. There is also no reference to soldiers as being immoral or an immoral profession in the Bible, especially the Old Testament!

-Shoulda just used Ghandi and MLK in my example and avioded the controversy...but it is something to do in this thread since no one knows where that quote came from.

Fistfull, the thread starters' post includes a lot of discussion/reflection on the concept of pacifism in general in addition to the question so I don't see how continuing that discourse is out of line. I don't see much evidence of most posters assuming the origional poster is a pacifist either. Might not belong in "General Gun Discussions" though.:scrutiny:

Stand_Watie
August 25, 2004, 02:15 AM
Strambo, just so you know I wasn't just trying to be contentious:D Christ certainly was a better example of pacifism than the anti-war types you see assaulting the police at WTO demonstrations:scrutiny:

And there is a good bit of debate even amongst Christianity over pacifism. Some of my neighbors, and as decent of people and Christians as I've met are pacifists (Mennonites), they and I just sincerely disagree. The apostle Paul in Romans also comments upon violence being acceptable (in his example it's in reference to the lawful state).

Like I said, I do agree with the point you were making in your original post on the topic, maybe I should have begun my reply with the caveat that I was nitpicking.

dsb
August 25, 2004, 09:26 AM
Stand_Watie:

I am actually a Mennonite and a Canadian, which probably puts me into a fairly unique segment on this board :p Even within the Mennonite culture, there is some disagreement on pacifism. I tend to regard pacifism as being opposed to the use of war as a tool for gain. However, I strongly agree with the great John Stuart Mill:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Ktulu
August 25, 2004, 09:50 AM
First, you can choose to be a pacifist only if someone else is willing to fight for your right to choose to be a pacifist.

I don't think this is true. One can choose to be passive at any time. It doesn't require the input or protection of others. You don't need to be free to make this choice. A pacifist only needs the protection of others if they wish to remain free or at a certain level in society.


dsb, great quote.

fistful
August 25, 2004, 10:02 AM
I have the answer!

Not really, I just thought I'd post another comment that comes nowhere near actually addressing the question. Oh, and just to fit in, I'll completely misread Radix's original post, and conclude that he/she is a pacifist, just like most of the other posters. Then I'll say something about pacifism...nevermind.

para.2
August 25, 2004, 12:38 PM
But...

I've found some interesting stuff that relates to my own signature, so...

In his essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942), Orwell wrote: "[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them."

And in his 'Notes on Nationalism' (1945) he wrote: "Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

These, and particularly the second, may be the source for your quotation and my signature.

My signature appears to be a misquotaion. Yours may be as well. :scrutiny:

Stand_Watie
August 25, 2004, 10:57 PM
DSB, that is very interesting, and I didn't know that, I'm glad you pointed that out as it looks like I'd painted with too broad a brush.

I'm pretty sure that many of the Mennonites here in Texas and the Amish that I've seen up north (Indiana and Michigan) hunt, which is kind of an ironic twist to the sterotype of pacifism and firearms.

That is a great quote by the way. I'd heard it paraphrased a million times (by my own father as a matter of fact), but wasn't aware of the source.

Burt Blade
August 25, 2004, 11:43 PM
Peaceful:
The gun stays holstered or the fist unclenched, until someone brings violence to you. See "non-initiation of force".

Pacifist:
Willing to be unresisitng food for predators. See "idiot" and "accessory before and/or after the fact".

If you enjoyed reading about "Source of a Pacifism Quote?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!