Sorry, I had a more detailed reply, but my computer here at work froze up. The short version is that Tom Fox was obviously a man of peace and there to help regular Iraqis. Killing him was an evil act. I understand that some insurgents are merely attacking a foreign invader by whatever means possible, and that’s just war. But indiscriminate killing of innocents is reprehensible, whether it’s done by insurgents or US forces. I think that the situation is so dire now that peace missions should pull out, I hope that innocent Iraqis note that they are missing out on help because of the atrocities of some insurgents, that there’s a difference between invading forces and people who actually want to help. Maybe it takes withholding that help to drive that point home.
I’m a bit conflicted here. I understand a pacificist stance, even if I don’t agree with it. And I understand the “love thy enemies” aspect of Christianity. But perhaps they need to consider the coalition forces their enemies, and then they could “love” them and not blame then for their kidnapping while letting the actual kidnappers off. I strongle disagree and take issue with this statement (from the OP):
*
We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.*
They were kidnapped because a bunch of jihadists or insergents don’t know the fucking difference between innocent civilains and the military. Actually, they do know the difference-- they just don’t care. This was a horrific act of terrorism for which no excuse or justificaction should be allowed to stand.
Traditionally, the Jewish explanation for this is that it was done so Pharoah wouldn’t be influenced by the plagues in making his decision. Just a little sidenote on the verse.
My issue is that the initial press release said the hostages had been “released,” as in, the terrorists let them go.
That’s not what happened. They were rescued by a deliberate effort on the part of the military.
The fact that the CP didn’t even acknowledge how the hostages got free, to me, is very telling. It was only after an outcry that they said, “Well, um, yes, now that you mention it, those big scary guys with guns and wearing camoflage did save our people from being beheaded live on Al-Jazeera.”
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.
As Grelby said-that’s not what pacifists preach-at least not those I know.
They preach instead that you should nonviolently prevent that man from flogging, by restraining him if possible but up to and absorbing the blows if necessary.
If you attend Meeting than you know that we must hold Tom’s killers in the Light as difficult as that may be.
Why thank you.
I would agree with you, I suppose, if they had said anything like that. Which they didn’t. So I don’t.
In the interest of full disclosure, I only attend meeting infrequently; I’m not a Quaker (my wife and kids are), though I was married in care of a meeting, etc. I only met Tom Fox once, though my wife knew him reasonably well.
No, I won’t be holding them in the light. I admire folks who have the spiritual strength to do that, but I’m not one of them.
So, what was the point of the plagues, then?
It’s very hard.
However, I have to wonder what the kidnappers have seen and experienced to be so hate filled that they could murder a man of such great goodness.
Did they lose family in the raids and bombing?
What hardened their hearts?
Perhaps one of them came home to discover his family buried beneath the rubble.
Perhaps he had to dig out the corpse of his son or daughter.
Perhaps his father or son was abused and tortured as a detainee.
Who knows?
I truly believe that the ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy only continues the senseless violence and will eventually lead to a blind world.
As flies to wanton boys…
Daniel
You can “truly believe” anything you want. You’re still a fucking idiot.
A purchase a pacifist never requested they make. And, in some cases like the group in the OP, a purchase the pacifists specifically implored others NOT to make. Christ was able to forbid his followers from using force in his defense, and they obeyed. Do you think the national guard would stand down and allow some hostile force to wipe out Amish communities? The Amish would ask them to, but it is hardly their fault nor does it reflect pooly on them or their ideals if others choose, unbidden, to take up arms in their defense.
Let’s say Peter and the other disciples had continued their armed resistance of the Roman soldiers, and succeeded in keeping them from taking Christ in the garden of Gethsemene. Would that have made Christ, who was the unwilling beneficiary of their actions, a foolish ideologue who was enjoying the luxury of having his own personal safety ensured while being surrounded by those who were being mained or dying?
This is a pretty strong statement. Mind showing how not harming people is immoral? I agree that protecting those weaker than ourselves from harm is a general moral duty, but how does it work when the only method of defense will inflict harm on someone else? As already noted, non-violent means of protecting others are perfectly in line with a strict pacifist ethical system.
Enjoy,
Steven
To punish Egypt for not letting the Hebrews go when God told Pharoah to.
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.
Christ was a liberal.
I can appreciate that you may not share my point of view but I’m not sure why you are so hostile.
If swearing at me makes you feel better, well ok then.
But it doesn’t prove that I’m wrong.
A pacifist is not willing to do what is necessary to defend and preserve the community in which he lives. Like a meateater who despises the butcher, the pacificist derives a benefit from the actions of others which he considers to be evil and beneath himself. A pacifist is free to sit back and utter his inanities about pacifism only because dangerous men stand ready to do violence on his behalf–and he figuratively spits on those who make his liberty possible. Like crooked lawyers or the idle rich, they are parasites who live off their betters–but unlike shysters or wealthy playboys, they have the temerity to claim that their parasitism is a moral virtue. While I have sometimes known pacifists I respected, it was in spite of their pacifism, not because it. The contempt I feel for pacifism is beyond words.
But what’s the point of the punishment, if God is specifically preventing Pharoah from taking it into consideration when he decides wether or not to let the Hebrews go? I mean, I get that people are supposed to obey God just because he’s God, and not because they’re scared of him. But if God is going to mete out divine retribution against people who disobey him, but is going to somehow blind them to the obvious consequences of their disobedience, what purpose does the punishment serve, except as capricious vengeance against a helpless enemy?
Wow. Peace be with you.
Enjoy,
Steven