# Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraq - you're pitted **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 24, 2006, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700 "2006-03-24T08:23:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/81 "2006-03-25T02:39:57Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] Goddamn straight. What the fuck are they thinking? What fuckhead came up with those fucking moronic ideas? Man, if I only knew the name of the dumbass fucking retard who dreamed up that fucked-up “love your enemy” pacifist shit, I’d nail the fucker to a tree and watch the asshole die. Whoever that stupid fuck was, he pissed all over a noble, noble faith. That goddamn bastard deserves to be stripped naked and fucked through the liver with a rusty knife. [/QUOTE] Zing! Since the meathead crowd is so tumescent with the notion that a high concentration of pacifists is an invitation to an asswhupping by an Evil Dictator, they probably shouldn’t mind pointing out a few occasions where that’s happened. Rwanda? Isolationism. It was political calculation of non-involvement by Clinton, from back when Spreading Freedom and Liberty wasn’t part of the GOP agenda. Tibet? Nope. I dispute the notion that a [rigidly feudal](http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) society presided over by a theocratic regime with a history of slaughtering its religious opponents could be accurately called “pacifist.” There _was_ an armed resistance movement, but Tibetan society was so ass-backwards that they never had a prayer of waging any kind of extended war against the PLA. The Munich Agreement? Appeasement. Basically, Chamberlain sacrificied Chechoslovakia to save Britain’s collective ass, which is hardly pacifist. Anybody got anything else? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/82 "2006-03-25T02:54:21Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] Is this strictly true? It seems to me that a pacifist is perfectly consistent in assisting a victim of violence, \*so long as they do so non-violently. \* Surely there’s nothing to keep them from defending the victim by taking the attack upon themselves, is there? If I see someone being assaulted, would it be an act of aggression to shield the victim with my own body? [/quote] No, it wouldn’t be an act of aggression to shield the victim with your own body. But, you see, if the attacker kills you and then proceeds to kill his originally intended victim, then you actually haven’t done anything to protect the victim. \*\* Attacking the aggressor may in many cases be a much more practical course of action when it comes to protecting the victim. \*\* The problem I have with pacifism is that it assumes that there can’t possibly be any greater evil than the taking of a human life, not even when the taking of a life can clearly forestall some far greater evil. And that doesn’t strike me as some kind of profound commitment to moral principle. That strikes me as some kind of shallow, narcissistic obsession with one’s own moral purity rather than with \*\* doing what is right. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/83 "2006-03-25T03:32:29Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] I think it’s a silly choice, but it’s clearly yours to make. What I object to is Pacifism _as a philosophy_. To be consistent the pacifist must not only reject violence in his/her own defence, but in the defence of others. [/QUOTE] Pacifist speaking. Pacifists have no particular obligation to be consistent in their beliefs, nor do all pacifists hold the same beliefs. “Pacifism” is a range of beliefs, just like anything else, and believe it or not the definition of “Pacifist” isn’t decided by you. Pacifists are idealists. Peace in an ideal. Obviously we’ve sat down and though “Gee whiz, that isn’t really gonna work.” There are always going to be people who want to fight, for good and for evil. But we don’t have to be them. We are not presidents. We are not kings. We could not make pacifism in to a country-wide policy even if we wanted to. So we do what we can- hold up an ideal as a reminder that there is _something_ to strive for and that all is not just endless dumb struggle. What is the point of having an ideal if nobody believes in it? There is a time for war and a time for peace. And there are people out there to commit war and people out there to commit peace. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/84 "2006-03-25T03:36:54Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] I’ve really gotta go, but I just can’t resist pointing out that these aren’t good examples of successful pacifist countries. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I confess that they were chosen rather flippantly (hence the question marks). Nonetheless, the point itself was intended rather seriously; pacifistic communities, by their nature, should be perfect breeding grounds for despots. You argue that pacifism is ultimately insupportable because it is human nature to prey on each other. This certainly may be the case; but if so, then surely the predators that occur spontaneously in rigorously pacifist societies would flourish most successfully, due to the total lack of violent resistance. Yet somehow the media has overlooked the ongoing battle between the Feds and the Amish Mafia. It’s simply not true that “the Amish can live as pacifists because many other Americans don’t.” The Amish can live as pacifists _regardless of whether any other Americans do or not_. Whether they live _long_ or _successfully_ under different circumstances is their choice to make, and I freely grant that if the survival of the American nation ever hinges on a take-no-prisoners charge by the Amish, the country is probably screwed. However, I suspect that when America finally goes the way of all empires, future historians won’t blame the Amish. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/85 "2006-03-25T03:45:29Z")
[QUOTE=even sven] Pacifist speaking. Pacifists have no particular obligation to be consistent in their beliefs, nor do all pacifists hold the same beliefs. “Pacifism” is a range of beliefs, just like anything else, and believe it or not the definition of “Pacifist” isn’t decided by you. Pacifists are idealists. Peace in an ideal. Obviously we’ve sat down and though “Gee whiz, that isn’t really gonna work.” There are always going to be people who want to fight, for good and for evil. But we don’t have to be them. We are not presidents. We are not kings. We could not make pacifism in to a country-wide policy even if we wanted to. So we do what we can- hold up an ideal as a reminder that there is _something_ to strive for and that all is not just endless dumb struggle. What is the point of having an ideal if nobody believes in it? There is a time for war and a time for peace. And there are people out there to commit war and people out there to commit peace. [/QUOTE] Sorry, Sven. All I’m getting here is that you don’t care about the practical consequences of your supposed moral principles. All you care about is ideological purity. And that, to me, is monstrous. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/86 "2006-03-25T04:21:01Z")
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat] No, it wouldn’t be an act of aggression to shield the victim with your own body. But, you see, if the attacker kills you and then proceeds to kill his originally intended victim, then you actually haven’t done anything to protect the victim. [/quote] Yes, you have. You’ve sacrificed your own life, selflessly, in defence of another person. What if you fight the attacker, and you lose? Then he kills you and the victim anyway? Have you therefore done nothing to protect the victim? There’s a violent and a non-violent way to confront an attacker, neither of which has a guarantee of success. Your example seems to presume that the attacker is some sort of a robot, like a runaway bus, that can’t be swayed by example or pity or mercy or conscience or anything but physical force. I’m guessing that this is why pacifism only applies to people, not to killer robots or buses. > [@](#): > > \*\*Attacking the aggressor may in many cases be a much more practical course of action when it comes to protecting the victim. \*\* Agreed. Practicality versus morality can be a tough choice to make. From a strictly practical standpoint, the surest way to protect the victim is to kill the attacker, yes?\* Then they can’t ever attack the victim again. The neat thing about this solution is that it’s equally effective for any degree of conflict. Remember, if you choose to use nonlethal force, you’re leaving the possibility open that the attacker might be able to continue his assault. > [@](#): > > The problem I have with pacifism is that it assumes that there can’t possibly be any greater evil than the taking of a human life, not even when the taking of a life can clearly forestall some far greater evil. And that doesn’t strike me as some kind of profound commitment to moral principle. That strikes me as some kind of shallow, narcissistic obsession with one’s own moral purity rather than with \*\* doing what is right. \*\* Or, possibly, pacifists believe that pursuing nonviolent resolution to conflict is **doing what is right.** To be fair, it seems that most non-pacifists believe this as well, up to a point, but they reserve the right to give up if it gets too difficult. \*–Or is it “shoot the hostage?” God, I hate that movie. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/87 "2006-03-25T04:30:02Z")
[QUOTE=Case Sensitive] Perhaps they sought martyrdom? I mean, Jesus would have been pretty pissed off if some troops had rescued him from the cross: “Nail me back up! I’m doing this for _your_ sins - I don’t _want_ to be rescued!” Personally, I think they were just grandstanding dumbshits: like going to Iraq to preach Christian tolerance was going to achieve anything except get themselves blown up or taken hostage. [/QUOTE] Yeah. Their words sound good but their actions are asshattery. I think I’m going to judge them on their actions instead of their words. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/88 "2006-03-25T04:35:13Z")
I want to expound on the ‘asshattery’ in the previous comment thusly: Half the reason these people are all stirred up is because of all the “Crusaders” coming in and meddling in their Islamic paradise. They’ve spelled it out for us, they don’t want whitey in their holy lands. Any peacemaker who is truly sensitive to how we need to behave toward these people is going to realize that no Muslim is going to say “I just know in my heart there are good Christians out there, what we need is a few of them to come in and show their love and charity.” Pure asshattery. These guys were just mugging for the camera. If they really wanted to make a difference and demonstrate sincerity, they should have made their protest in a place where it’s really dangerous to express your opinion, like in front of the white house. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/89 "2006-03-25T05:00:25Z")
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat] Sorry, Sven. All I’m getting here is that you don’t care about the practical consequences of your supposed moral principles. All you care about is ideological purity. And that, to me, is monstrous. [/QUOTE] Who said that I don’t care about the practical consequences? I’ve carefully evaluated them. There are none. I have no political power. I have never experienced violence and it is fairly unlikely that I will experience a violent situation where I have a chance at fighting back. And if I do, I’m not all that principled and there is a good chance I’d fight back on instinct alone. There is no purity to my beliefs, just hope. Somebody has to hope around here. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/90 "2006-03-25T05:01:48Z")
[QUOTE=Brain Wreck] I want to expound on the ‘asshattery’ in the previous comment thusly: … If they really wanted to make a difference and demonstrate sincerity, they should have made their protest in a place where it’s really dangerous to express your opinion, like in front of the white house. [/QUOTE] You should have left well enough alone. When was the last time a Quaker was murdered in front of the White House? I am vaguely pacifistic, with the knowledge that I will use force to defend myself and/or to defend others from immediate harm. Nevertheless, I give true pacifists such as these folks full points for putting their bodies where their mouth is. I believe that they would truly have been regretful had anyone been killed during their rescue, and though that is a belief I cannot aspire to, it is a belief I can admire. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/91 "2006-03-25T05:08:10Z")
[QUOTE=Brain Wreck] I want to expound on the ‘asshattery’ in the previous comment thusly: Half the reason these people are all stirred up is because of all the “Crusaders” coming in and meddling in their Islamic paradise. They’ve spelled it out for us, they don’t want whitey in their holy lands. Any peacemaker who is truly sensitive to how we need to behave toward these people is going to realize that no Muslim is going to say “I just know in my heart there are good Christians out there, what we need is a few of them to come in and show their love and charity.” Pure asshattery. These guys were just mugging for the camera. If they really wanted to make a difference and demonstrate sincerity, they should have made their protest in a place where it’s really dangerous to express your opinion, like in front of the white house. [/QUOTE] I direct you to the Globe and Mail [article](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060324.whostag0324/BNStory/International/home) that I posted on the first page of this thread: > [@](#): > > The kidnappings triggered calls from religious groups — **including prominent muslim organizations** — from around the world calling for the release of the men, citing their opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of the country and their efforts to work with the people of Iraq to achieve peace. (emphasis added) I don’t know precisely what those guys were doing over there, nor what reaction their work received from the ordinary folk they interacted with. Neither do you. I expect you know almost nothing about it, actually. Except, you know, that it was pure asshattery, mugging for the camera. Now I’m curious, and I’m going to see what I can find out about what they were actually doing with these teams. Knowing what I do about Quakers, I’m betting there was very little mugging for cameras involved, though. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/92 "2006-03-25T05:29:29Z")
> [@](#): > > **roger thornhill** : It’s so easy to misrepresent the spirit (small “s”) of God by using his name manipulatively to serve one’s (political) ends. Interesting. I tend to view the politicians on the right in the United States as using religious fundamentalism to manipulate the people to serve one’s own political ends – especially in recent years. I’ve never thought of genuine _peacemakers_ as misrepresenting the Prince of Peace. I wouldn’t dream of questioning the motives of the Quakers who put themselves in such a dangerous situation as these did in Iraq. (It does put holes in the notion that pacifists are cowards.) > [@](#): > > **Lonesome Polecat** : That strikes me as some kind of shallow, narcissistic obsession with one’s own moral purity rather than with doing what is right. Whose morals are _you_ concerned with in choosing to do what is right? Are you more interested in choosing what is right for someone else? Pacifists can certainly defend themselves and others. Some study _akido_ which allows one to neutralize the force of the attack. _Akido_ means “Way of Spirit Harmony.” It is purely defensive. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/93 "2006-03-25T06:55:57Z")
[QUOTE=Brain Wreck] Yeah. Their words sound good but their actions are asshattery. I think I’m going to judge them on their actions instead of their words. [/QUOTE] Much the same as the govts of the coalition of the willing; “We must free the Iraqi people from their despotic leader”, “the Iraqi people will love freedom and therefore love us”, “We must spread democracy because democracy makes peoples lives better”, “We must invade Iraq to help free the world from terrorism”. Nice words/sentiments (and I know they are not quotes, just my summation of the goals). I think I will judge them on their actions and the outcome rather then the words. Is Mohammed Ordinary better off without Sadam? Can his children walk to school without fear of being caught up in an act of violence? Can Mrs Mohammed Ordinary go shopping without fear? Can the Ordinaries depend on the supply of safe water and reliable power supply? Does Mr Mohammed Ordinary have a job? Does the fact that Iraq now has an elected govt fill the Ordinaries with joy and make it possible to sleep peacefully at night knowing democracy is looking after them? Are they filled with joy at the fact that there would probably be a civil war if it wern’t for the presence of foreign troops? Are they overjoyed that those foreign troops have no idea when they will leave? Before the four were kidnapped I didn’t know they were there, it is likely few outside their organisation did. They were not there to highlight their beliefs, they were there to help people. Once they were rescued they continued to state their beliefs. They had every reason to turn on those who had abducted them but they didn’t. They were rescued by troops, I’m sure they are grateful but why should they change there beliefs? If an Iraqi against the invasion is taken prisoner is he supposed to suddenly agree with the enemy? If an American soldier is abducted is he suddenly supposed to agree with the enemy? Well done to those who rescued them and WELL DONE to them for sticking by their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/94 "2006-03-25T07:00:33Z")
[QUOTE=ralph124c] Are these people intenionally stupid? They owe their lives to rescue by American and British soldiers-then they act like their rescuers CAUSED their imprisonment? That isn’t heroism or devotion to a cause-it is gross stupidity. [/QUOTE] It doesn’t seem to me that the hostages or their organaization believe the people who rescued them also caused them to be kidnapped. I’m not sure where you get that. I think someone from their group (CP?) said/wrote that the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the USA/GB/others has resulted in kidnappings such as the kidnapping of the members of their group. My guess is that the troops involved in the rescue had never even heard of this group before they had members kidnapped and therefore could not have played any part in the kidnapping. I don’t think anyone believes or has claimed that the rescuers sought to get the dudes taken hostage. Why would the rescuers do that? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/95 "2006-03-25T07:28:41Z")
[QUOTE=Brain Wreck] … These guys were just mugging for the camera. If they really wanted to make a difference and demonstrate sincerity, they should have made their protest in a place where it’s really dangerous to express your opinion, like in front of the white house. [/QUOTE] The only camera I ever saw them “mugging for” was the camera belonging to their kidnappers. Did they mug for other cameras too? I’d like to see some of that video/photography if you can tell me where to find it. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/96 "2006-03-25T11:03:00Z")
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat] No, I don’t, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why anyone who is even remotely in touch with reality would consider it psychopathic to be willing to use deadly force to defend one’s life, or to defend loved ones, or to defend the community in general. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me. But then, I’ve actually had to face deadly violence on a number of occasions. Perhaps you haven’t. [/QUOTE] It’s one thing to be willing to use deadly force to defend one’s self, loved ones, or community, which I am. And I’ve defended myself from violent criminals, something I would not care to repeat or even think about. However, the invective you flung at people who have nothing to do with you gave me the impression that you’re harboring an unhealthy amount of anger. If you had simply stated your position differently, I would have likely agreed with you. Let me be clear: I am not a pacifist. I believe force is sometimes necessary for defense, deterrence and ensuring peace and stability. But it is all too often used imprudently, and cheered on as if it was a football game. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/97 "2006-03-25T14:24:36Z")
[Freed Kember thanks rescue troops](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4844800.stm) > [@](#): > > Freed hostage Norman Kember thanked the soldiers who rescued him from kidnappers in Iraq as he arrived home. > > But, in a statement released as he was reunited with wife Pat at Heathrow airport, he said he did not believe armed force achieved lasting peace. > [@](#): > > Christian Peacemaker Teams, the group all three men were campaigning for, insisted it had thanked the soldiers. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, Mr Kember’s church has said UK authorities gave an assurance the men would not be rescued unless they were reasonably confident no-one would be killed. They were prepared to stand by their beliefs even if it ment they would not be rescued. ---
**Author:** ![Grelby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@Grelby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grelby)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/98 "2006-03-25T15:31:35Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] Bin Laden is still at large, but Milosevic was stopped a long time ago, mostly thanks to the actions of the U.S. military, belated though they may have been. Many Kosovars owe their live to military action. [/QUOTE] Ironically enough, Milosevic was ousted mostly due to a nonviolent student-led movement. Pacifism does not in any way preclude protecting the innocent or fighting for a cause. I daresay that armed rebellion would have ended bloodily indeed, but Serbian students and eventually other citizens were able to force elections without resorting to violent action. India and Ghandi, Denmark in WWII, the American civil rights movement, Chile in the 1970’s, Serbia in 2000, and there are plenty of other examples - nonviolent action has a long and **successful** track record of working for justice and social change, often succeeding where violence has previously failed. It hasn’t gotten the attention that flashier, more orthodox military or other violent action has, but it certainly doesn’t appear to be any less successful, especially since it doesn’t have nearly the same propensity for triggering vengeance-driven endemic violence. Pacifists and nonviolent movements get a bad rap, and this puzzles me. It _works_, it does so in a way that unites people instead of dividing them, and furthermore, it’s fucking hard. To participate in a movement like Ghandi’s or those Serbian students’ requires conviction and courage. The movements themselves require organization and a level of strategy to make any general proud. The danger of death or at least imprisonment are VERY real in some movements. Pacifist nonviolent action is not the route of a coward, not if they want to make a difference. Look, I’m not saying that it always works or is always appropriate, but I’m a little bit tired of all the bullshit. If you still want to argue against pacifism, that’s fine, but argue against the real thing, which DOES have principles and DOES have a success stories, not this pathetically vulnerable straw man that you’ve constructed for your walloping pleasure. As for myself, I’m living proof that pacifism represents a range of beliefs. I’m a birthright Quaker who grew up attending meeting. I also happen not to be the strictest pacifist around; I think that a police force, regulated and monitored but strong, is a necessary condition of keeping the peace in a community, especially a large one. I also think that it is justified to use violence in personal defense, _as necessary_, though running away is preferred when possible (this is a pragmatic assessment: I, for example am small and fast. My chances of successfully escaping are much greater than my chances of handing out a beat-down to my assailant). I deeply admire those that take their beliefs to the extent of never practicing violence. I do not have that level of commitment. These people are quite capable of protecting and defending others, but I will readily agree that they are sacrificing a certain element of pragmatism in the options open to them. You know, pacifists can’t afford to be foolish about the way the world works. There will _always_ be bad people in the world - people who want to harm, oppress or kill others. That’s obviously true. That doesn’t mean that there is no other means to fight back but with violence. A lot of the kids I grew up with would say “there’s no way I would join the military or fight in a war, because I know I couldn’t kill somebody.” You might dismiss this as foolish - and I agree completely. I have a moral opposition to violence because in part because I KNOW that I am quite capable of it, that I am human like anyone else, and that this can lead me to do terrible things. I don’t want to do terrible things, but I do want to stop other people from doing them. I also don’t want to die, which is an obvious advantage to being opposed to military service, but I would also like to hope that, when the chips go down, that I would be willing to lay down my life for what I believe in, like those Christian peacemaker teams. We all have an obligation to fight for what’s right, and a pacifist who isn’t willing to put herself in harm’s way for her beliefs is, IMO, not really doing it right. No one said it had to be easy, you know. ---
**Author:** ![jlzania](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jlzania](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jlzania)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/99 "2006-03-25T15:33:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Brain Wreck \*\*- Any peacemaker who is truly sensitive to how we need to behave toward these people is going to realize that no Muslim is going to say “I just know in my heart there are good Christians out there, what we need is a few of them to come in and show their love and charity.” Pure asshattery I suspect you and the majority of folks in this thread had no idea that the CPT were even in Iraq until Tom Fox was abducted. The CPT in Iraq were the **first** to expose the abuses in Abu Ghraib. Tom Fox also worked very hard with the hospitals in Falluja, to bring medical supplies in for the Iraq people. He had worked in Palestine prior to going to Iraq and was highly regarded by many Moslem organizations there. The Moslem religious community did not regard them as Crusaders. From statements issued when Fox was abducted: > [@](#): > > Ikram al-Sabri, Head Mufti of Palestine > “There is a duty for all Palestinian people, institutions and factions to commit to sending a call to release these people who have been kidnapped. They are very important for us to help continue our struggle, whether here in Palestine or in Iraq, to gain our country’s freedom. We repeat our call to release all the civilian people who have been kidnapped all over the world, not only these four.” > > Yemen Statement by Al-Quds International Foundation, a gathering of Middle East religious leaders > **We, the undersigned, call for the immediate release of the four Western peace activists who were kidnapped in Iraq last week.** We have been saddened by the kidnapping of these peace activists whose only mission in Iraq has been to express solidarity with the Iraqi people and see for themselves the devastating effects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They were intending to return home to inform the public opinion in their own countries about the destruction and havoc brought about by the invasion of Iraq by the United States of America and its allies. > > \*\*We have come to learn that the Christian NGO to which these four activists belonged is a peace-loving organization that is well-known for its support for the just causes of oppressed nations around the world and particular for its sympathy with the Palestinian and Iraqi peoples and its support for their struggle for emancipation from the shackles of occupation. \*\* > \*\*Such peace activist should have been welcomed into Iraq and treated as honourable guests instead of being kidnapped and used as a bargaining chip. Neither the hostages nor the organization they represent possess the means of forcing the occupation authorities to free the Iraqis held in its detention centres across Iraq. \*\* > While fully supporting the right of the Iraqi people to resist occupation with all legitimate means, we denounce as illegitimate any act of aggression against innocent civilians irrespective of their religion or nationality. We therefore call for the immediate release of these four hostages and of all other Western civilians kidnapped in Iraq and urge whoever has the ability to play a role in the endeavour to secure their release and their safe return to their countries to spare no effort in this regard. All illegitimate acts of aggression against innocent civilians, including kidnappings, indiscriminate killing or other forms of harm inflicted upon non-combatants, only harm the just cause of the Iraqi people and their legitimate struggle for freedom and independence. > > Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Chairman of Al-Quds International Foundation > Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, Secretary General of the Islamic Group in Lebanon > Sheikh Harith Al-Dari, Head of Association of Muslim Scholars, Iraq > Khalid Mishaal, Head of Hamas Political Bureau, Palestine > Musa Abu Marzuq, Deputy Head of Hamas Political Bureau, Palestine > Maan Bashur, Secretary General of the Arab Nationalist Congress > Hasan Hudruj, Hezbollah, Lebanon > Mahmud Al-Qumati, Hezbollah, Lebanon > Father Antwan Dhao, Lebanon > Sheikh Abdulhadi Awang, Islamic Party, Malaysia > Professor Aleef-ud-Din Turabi, Kashmir > Dr. Mohamed M. O. Jamjoom, Businessman, Saudi Arabia > Dr. Khalid Abdurrahman Al-Ajami, University Professor, Saudi Arabia > Dr. Muhsin Al-Awaji, Islamic writer and thinker, Saudi Arabia > Dr. Abd Al-Quddus Al-Midwahi, Yemen > Muhammad bin Ali Ijlan, Yemen > Dr. Abdullatif Al Mahmud, Islamic Society, Bahrain > Abdulmunem Jalal Al-Mir, Palestine Solidarity Association, Bahrain > Dr. Muhammad Al-Sheikh Mahmud Siyam, former Imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque, Palestine > Khalid Mahmud Khan, Pakistan > Dr. Zafrul-Islam Khan, India > Dr. Azzam Tamimi, Muslim Association of Britain, UK > Haitham Yassin Abu Al-Raghib, Jordan > Saud Abu Mahfuz, Jordan > Engineer Boulafaat Abdulhamid, Algeria > > Fariel Abu Haikel, Headmistress at Qurtuba Girls School, Hebron, Palestine > > “We still remember the nice moments while we were under curfew with the CPT members who we have known since 1995. \*\*They came and gave food to people under curfew and showed their love and solidarity with our schools and our children. We will never forget these moments, because the CPT were the only people standing with us at that time. \*\* As a women who works with them, I send my call for the Iraqi resistance to release these people because CPT are very important people for us. To Bush I say that democracy is not imposed - democracy is given by people, not given by armies. **We are sending our call for the faction that kidnapped these people in Iraq to release them immediately because we need them here.”** (Boldening mine) The CPT are also active in other countries. > [@](#): > > rayh- They were prepared to stand by their beliefs even if it ment they would not be rescued From CPT in Iraq Statement of Conviction, March 2005: > [@](#): > > Many Iraqi friends and human rights workers have welcomed us as a non-violent, independent presence. During the previous year they asked us to tell their stories, since they could not easily be heard, nor could most flee to a safer country. We continue to act as a resource to connect citizens of Iraq with human rights organizations, both local and international, as well as accompanying them as they interact with multinational military personnel and Iraqi provisional government officials. > > As a peacemaking team we need to cross boundaries, help soldiers and other armed actors be humane, and invite them to refuse unjust orders. We need to help preserve what is human in all of us and so offer glimpses of hope in a dark time. > > We unequivocally reject kidnapping and hostage-taking. In such an event, CPT will attempt to communicate with the hostage-takers or their sponsors and work against journalists’ inclination to vilify and demonize the offenders. We will try to understand the motives for these actions, and to articulate them, while maintaining a firm stance that such actions are wrong. If appropriate, CPT will work with diplomatic officials from our representative governments to avoid a violent outcome. > > **We reject the use of violent force to save our lives should we be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a violent conflict situation. We also reject violence to punish anyone who harms us. We ask for equal justice in the arrest and trial of anyone, soldier or civilian, who commits an act of violence, and we ask that there be no retaliation on their relatives or property. We forgive those who consider us their enemies. Therefore, any penalty should be in the spirit of restorative justice, rather than in the form of violent retribution** (Boldening mine) > [@](#): > > **LonesomePolecat** -Sorry, Sven. All I’m getting here is that you don’t care about the practical consequences of your supposed moral principles. All you care about is ideological purity. And that, to me, is monstrous. Pacifism is a subset of a greater belief system, at least among the Friends. It is not an end unto itself but rather a part of how we believe we are to live in accordance with the Light. Not all Quakers reject the concept of self defense either. > [@](#): > > **Brain Wreck** -These guys were just mugging for the camera. If they really wanted to make a difference and demonstrate sincerity, they should have made their protest in a place where it’s really dangerous to express your opinion, like in front of the white house. A small group of Quakers has stood vigil in protest of the war every Friday in Washington. ---
**Author:** ![Grelby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@Grelby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grelby)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700/100 "2006-03-25T20:36:58Z")
I decided I wanted to address the allegation that the CPT folks were “mugging for the camera,” also, since it reveals a misunderstanding about how Quakers go about these missions. Quakers are _very_ deliberate about examining their leadings and being sure that they are spirit-led and not selfishly motivated. The process for being given a meeting’s blessing for such a mission is self-reflective and lengthy enough (generally) to allow the person time to really examine their feelings and motivation. Quakers take this very seriously. It’s not impossible for someone to end up say, in Iraq, just to mug for the cameras - Friends are humans, too - but most Friends really deserve better even than the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-peacemaker-teams-in-iraq-youre-pitted/349700.md?page=6)