Vocal Pacifist Actually a Damn Sissy

A special report released earlier this morning revealed that prominent antiwar activist and conscientious objector Dwayne Radcliffe isn’t in any way morally opposed to the use of force to accomplish political ends, but is in reality an irredeemable pussy paralyzed by the fear of dying a painful, grizzly death. Or so says Daniel Timons, Radcliffe’s longtime “best” friend and fellow activist.

Timmons’ suspicions were first aroused when he noticed Radcliffe’s penchant for violent video games, particularly the original Mortal Combat for Sega Genesis. “All we hear out of him is ‘nonviolent resistance’ this, ‘war is murder’ that. It’s hypocritical. In the privacy of his home, Dwayne doesn’t even flinch when the game commands that he ‘finish him.’ And he ‘finishes him’ by ripping Johnny Cage’s head off and punting it into the spiked ceiling. It’s horrifying.”

Inquiries into the reasoning for Timmons’ betrayal of a fellow pacifist revealed tensions dating back 18 months, started by an incident in which Radcliffe publicly chastised Timmons for using bold, aggressive lettering on one of his protest signs. Radcliffe felt the signs seemed angry and forceful in their message, and perpetuated violence against Magic Markers.

Reached for comment, Radcliffe was indignant (and quite cowardly). “I’m doing my part to bring about peaceful resolutions to world conflicts. By avoiding death at all costs, by refusing to become horribly disfigured by roadside bombs or maimed by automatic gunfire, I’m saving innocent lives. Some people think the best way to fight cruel regimes is to fly into combat zones and physically protect the suffering children. I say let’s all stand on clean, safe American soil, find a soapbox on a friendly street corner, and hold up signs. Most importantly, let’s all avoid being beheaded at the hands of merciless guerilla fighters, left to die in a pool of our own blood and tears. That’s the pacifist way.”

Thanks for reading.

Free Burma

More Thoughts on Pacifism

I’ve had a little more time to contemplate and all it has brought me is more confusion…What I have left to offer is my personal ethic as clearly as I can formulate and articulate it.

Very rarely could I be convinced that violence is the solution to any problem. Violence begets violence, and more often than not change brought about through violent means only serves to establish new pathways for violent acts. Just look at the current situation in Iraq, the countless violent coups throughout the histories of Asia, South America and Africa, or The Troubles of Northern Ireland.

These nation’s identities are rooted in a history of bloodshed and the minds of the people have become engrained with the paradigm that violence is the only means available to accomplish ends (this is also true of gang culture in the US).

That said, I don’t believe pacifism as an inflexible moral policy is feasible either. As Mr. Antagonist poignantly and aptly stated, it’s “a borderline criminal stance when confronted with genocide.” In response to a terrifying and destructive regime such as Nazi Germany, pacifism amounts to nothing more than apathy, which at its core is no better than condoning the atrocity.

Herein lies the trouble: my ethic walks a precarious line on which we entrust ourselves to determine right moral action. The problem is that A) we most often are only given bits and pieces of the larger story (whatever the media wants us to see), and therefore lack the complete information necessary to make educated decisions, B) as a species, we have proven ourselves time and again to be irredeemable fools, and C) my moral determinations have absolutely zero impact on the decisions of the country and its leadership.

The current situation in Iraq is a prime example. At the time of the invasion, the majority of America supported President Bush and his decision to go to war. At the time, we were told Saddam Hussein had vast supplies of WMD’s and was aiding Al Qaeda. Both of these points were later revealed to be false, but we had incomplete information. Very few people foresaw the chaotic civil war that became the result of the invasion. We should have, the signs were all there. Bitter sectarian divides, years of oppression, economic hardship. But we were foolish. And to complete the trifecta of point C, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference had I been vocally opposed to the war at the outset.

I believe it’s nearly impossible to determine the “justness” of a war from the beginning. Only in retrospect will the full truth be revealed and will the consequences (good or bad) be realized

The “justness” of war is determined by posterity, not by its actors.

To go back to Mr. Antagonist’s statements, there are notable exceptions in cases of clear cut genocide (Nazi Germany), but in this regard we as Americans are enormously hypocritical. For all of our big talk about fighting “just wars,” we fail to act in most cases where mass murder has predetermined justness. Think of the countless examples of American indifference as hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered across the globe. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Darfur, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda (do you want me to keep going with the African nations?) Murderous regimes in Latin and South America have been funded and trained by the CIA, for God’s sake.

We stood by and did nothing. Why? Because we had no invested interest. Because none of these nations had oil. Don’t tell me America is concerned about “just war.”

P Corcs, following Monday’s post you stated that “we need to take each situation as it is and react how we believe we should,” yet you also disagreed with my position that pacifism is more applicable to individuals than it is to a country. I’m having trouble understanding your stance. The problem is that “we” (as in you and I) have little control over the actions of our country (unfortunately…but maybe soon…).

Since I have no control over the decisions or actions of our leaders, it is possible (actually probable) that my ideas of morally right action in any given situation will not be in line with the governmental stance. Do you see the disconnect? We determine morality individually, and therefore it can’t be applied nationally (unless you want to get into groupthink – 1984 anyone?). To react in the manner that we believe we should, it’s absolutely necessary for tenets such as pacifism to be individualistic, and nearly impossible for them to be applied to a country.

Thoughts?

Tomorrow, I’ll be exercising pacifism by participating in an online protest with a group of bloggers around the world. The aim of the protest is to show support for the people of Burma. For those of you not familiar with the situation, a brutal military junta has been controlling the country and oppressing the people for years. Recently, protests lead by Buddhist monks took to the streets following an unexplained 500% increase in the price of gas, and the military has met their nonviolent resistant with unrestrained force; arresting, beating, and killing monks and citizens nationwide. To learn more, check out these links:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/10/reports-4000-mo.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22515138-661,00.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-02-voaburmaun.cfm

http://www2.free-burma.org/index.php

As part of this nonviolent protest, there will be no formal post tomorrow. In its place, I will be displaying one of the images created for the campaign. Visit Zizzle-Zot, etc to show your support.

Thanks for reading.

Canada on the Warpath

After yesterday’s post and the ensuing conversation on pacifism it became clear to me that we all face internal conflict on the issue and it may take more time to gestate before any of us can develop a complete, cohesive personal ethic.

To allow for this time, I’ll follow in the strain of armed conflict by talking a little about a potential struggle that I found extremely interesting.

In recent years, the warmer climate has resulted in the recession of ice formations in the Arctic Circle. As more land and ocean has been cleared of ice, vast stores of oil, diamonds and other minerals in the region have become accessible.

Technically, the Arctic Circle is international territory, meaning that any nation bordering the region (Russia, Canada, the US, Norway, and Denmark (which owns Greenland)) can drill or mine within 200 miles of their territory.

But now Russian President Vladimir Putin and his scientists are claiming that an underwater ridge near the North Pole is actually a part of Russia’s continental shelf. They assert that the 1,220-mile long Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian Continental Platform, is similar in structure, and is therefore under Russian sovereignty. In recent weeks they sent a submarine to the ridge to plant a Russian flag encased in titanium on the ocean floor.

If their claim is determined valid, Russia will have exclusive access to an area five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

The UN maintains that no nation can claim sovereignty over the Arctic Circle and has rejected efforts to do so in the past. But unlike the typically impotent UN, Canada has actually taking action. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently took a trip to the north to reassert Canadian Sovereignty, the Canadian military performed the largest exercise in the history of the Arctic, and the country has announced plans to build its first deep sea port and military base in the region. In addition, Canada is revamping its navy with a fleet of ice-breaking patrol ships to prevent encroachment on its northern frontier.

Canada has also pointed out that they planted a flag at the North Pole in 1999 as part of a mission led by explorer Jack MacKenzie to set up a postal outlet for Santa Claus (seriously).

What will come of all this hullabaloo? A lot of posturing and harsh rhetoric, but ultimately probably nothing more. Still, it’s fascinating to see Canada stepping up to the military plate. I wonder what they will do if Russia uses force to solidify their claims on the Arctic. I wonder if the US will step in even though our military is already spread dangerously thin in Middle Eastern conflicts.

To me, it’s an apt real world example for the pacifism debate. So many of the world’s conflicts boil down to ownership, property. This is often meshed with ideological differences, but wars start over disagreements about which group has the “right” to be there. Israel vs. Palestine, Sunni vs. Shiite, the Union vs. the Confederacy.

My stance is that if we truly believe in God’s dominion, then we can’t call property wars “just.” I realize this contradicts some stories of the Old Testament, but I don’t have a problem with that. This is a whole new post (maybe for the future), but I have major issues with the OT. Namely, there are some 800 rules and for inexplicable reasons we have taken it upon ourselves to pick and choose which to follow. We’re willing to die for some, yet more than willing to completely ignore others. To me, it’s a major source of hypocrisy.

Back to the point, Jesus called on us to love our enemies, to feed them and give them shelter. This is explicit and undeniable. I don’t think loving an enemy includes killing him over a plot of land.

Thanks for reading.

Christian Pacifism

The idea of Christian pacifism is a concept that has always troubled, confused, and therefore beguiled me. Late Night, we have briefly discussed the topic before, but more as a tangent than as the exclusive focal point of conversation. So I’ll follow your lead and do my best to spark some debate on the issue.

The argument for Christian pacifism in the face of violence and oppression is deeply rooted in Biblical teachings. In the passage LNC offered up (Romans 12: 17-21) the command is explicit: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil,” “Never avenge yourselves,” etc.

The instruction to avoid violence at all costs seems to me to be one of the most clearly stated, inarguable orders in the Bible. Yet, when I think about it logically, placing pragmatism and realism above blind faith, it also seems to be one of the most impractical.

As individuals it may be realistic to live a life of pacifism. But we live in the most powerful, influential nation in the world, and as such we (as a country) constantly face the threat of attack from groups that disagree with America’s ideology, democracy, culture, etc. America, as a nation, simply can’t afford to be pacifistic. This would be seen as a weakness and exploited.

The problem is that America loves to think of itself as a “Christian Nation,” and here we face the sticky issue of trying to merge faith and politics (a problem that extends far beyond the idea of pacifism and has resulted in some utterly mind boggling legislations).

My honest opinion is that faith, and biblical concepts such as pacifism, are personal and only work when applied on an individual basis. While it may be realistic for you and me to be pacifists, it would be absurd for a nation to disband its army and adopt pacifism (one of many reasons that the idea of a “Christian Nation” is rubbish).

Here we face another problem: the majority of this country claims itself to be Christian. If everyone claiming to be Christian became a pacifist, America would find it difficult to assemble an army. I’m not really sure what to do about this. (Maybe an army of robots?)

I foresee this conversation at some point landing on the concept of the “just war.” I apologize for this preemptive strike, but I maintain that the idea of a “just war” simply doesn’t work. More often than not, the “justness” of a conflict is determined by whichever group holds the power in that time and place. Posterity determines which wars were just, but due to emotions and immediate interests we lack the objective reasoning necessary to determine whether the use of violence is justified.

I look forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.

Thanks for reading.