# Is Absolute Pacifism Dangerous **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721 "2010-10-10T21:19:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/61 "2010-10-12T15:00:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > Fail, fail and fail. overturning tables is not anywhere near the same as beating someone up. > > I don’t know why I bother with cites… You’re not the only one. > [@Shodan](#): > > Oh well. You can lead a horse to water… ..but you can’t make it provide valid cites. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/62 "2010-10-12T15:13:25Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I read it and anticipated that people would cite that verse, which is why I said that there’s a difference between being pacific and being passive. No one claimed Jesus was passive. > [@](#): > > Jesus overturns the tables and drives out the sheep and cattle; none of your cites say “And Jesus pummelled the moneylenders into insensible pulps and dropkicked them out of the temple” unless you meant to cite the Gospel According to Chuck Norris. I meant to cite the Gospels where Jesus drove out the money lenders as well as their animals, and kicked over their tables, and the one where He made a whip. He used violence. That’s what the cites say. Are you claiming that this is pacifism? If you are, you have a rather different definition of the term. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/63 "2010-10-12T15:17:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > I don’t know why I bother with cites… > > You’re not the only one. > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > Oh well. You can lead a horse to water… > > ..but you can’t make it provide valid cites. So according to you, if Martin Luther King Jr. had charged onto the buses in Selma, kicked the bus driver out of his seat and onto the street, and then had the bus overturned, you would agree that this is pacifism? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/64 "2010-10-12T15:26:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Gyrate](#): > > > > I read it and anticipated that people would cite that verse, which is why I said that there’s a difference between being pacific and being passive. > > No one claimed Jesus was passive. > > > [@](#): > > > > Jesus overturns the tables and drives out the sheep and cattle; none of your cites say “And Jesus pummelled the moneylenders into insensible pulps and dropkicked them out of the temple” unless you meant to cite the Gospel According to Chuck Norris. > > I meant to cite the Gospels where Jesus drove out the money lenders as well as their animals, and kicked over their tables, and the one where He made a whip. > > He used violence. That’s what the cites say. Are you claiming that this is pacifism? If you are, you have a rather different definition of the term. Your cite says he drove the sheep and cattle out, overturned the tables and yelled at the people selling doves. Not absolute pacificism by any means but are you assuming he whipped the people as well? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/65 "2010-10-12T15:52:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > OK then, define “absolute pacifism” so we are on the same playing field. > > Pacifism (to me) is the belief that violence which causes or could cause death should never be used on other human beings. \*\*Absolute \*\*pacifism allows no exceptions for self defence or “just” war (as opposes to _contingent_ pacifism). > > I am an advocate of absolute pacifism. I’m also an advocate of _universal_ pacifism (I believe it’s best for everyone) and _active nonviolence_(I believe that pacifists achieve more when they are organized - into an _anti-army_, if you will, that uses the resources currently wasted by the military to achieve social goals nonviolently) OK, so then if we use your definition, then you would agree that it’s OK to restrain or control someone who is dangerous. I’m OK with that. I agree that we should not set out deliberately to kill every criminal or insane person that presents a threat. There are as they say, other ways. Where we might differ, is when the situation is so extreme, the choice of sparing the person is taken away by that person (he’s actively trying to kill you or others, and there’s no other way to stop him). ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/66 "2010-10-12T15:57:20Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > > [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > > > They can passively disobey him or just tie him up and put him in jail or something. > > How are they going to physically restrain him to jail him? Obviously they’re not going to stop ME from doing it. And I of course will be shooting him in the back. ---
**Author:** ![FasterThanMeerkats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/278dde/32.png) [@FasterThanMeerkats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FasterThanMeerkats)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/67 "2010-10-12T16:01:35Z")
I think branding Jesus as an absolute pacifist might be a little iffy only because the question was never posed directly to him on a “If every Jewish man, woman, and child was going to be raped and killed, would it be ok to resist?” or “If you wake up in the night and your family is being murdered by a serial killer, is it ok to defend them with possibly deadly force?” Instead we have mild anecdotes which are vague enough to be interpreted however the reader wants. E.g. -The market place incident -“Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s” (Taxes pay for soldiers for national security) - General discontentment among some because he wasn’t advocating rebelling against the romans ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/68 "2010-10-12T16:52:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > You’re not the only one. > > ..but you can’t make it provide valid cites. > > So according to you, if Martin Luther King Jr. had charged onto the buses in Selma, kicked the bus driver out of his seat and onto the street, and then had the bus overturned, you would agree that this is pacifism? If I recall correctly(and I do), your “cites” were a _direct_ response to this: [QUOTE=Gyrate] So there’s a Bible passage of Jesus beating someone up? Sweet! [/QUOTE] Cloud the issue all you want-your cites still fail. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/69 "2010-10-12T17:31:48Z")
> [@Daylate](#): > > Often while referencing Gandhi one will hear his suppossed answer to the question “What do you think of Western Civilization?”, when he famously replied “It would be good if they would try some”. Or some such sentiment - I don’t remember his exact wording. > > This always irritates me; Gandhi succeeded because he was using his tactics against The British Empire, on of the formost perveyors of “Western Civilation”. If he had tried these same tactics against the Soviet Union or Maoist China he would have been shot or in a Gulag so fast it would have jerked him right out of his robe and slippers. “I think it would be a very good idea.” To understand Gandhi as primarily a philosopher is to misunderstand him. He was primarily a politician and a revolutionary. As a philosopher, he tends towards irrationality, hypocrisy, sentimentalism, and woo. As a religious or philosophical thinker, he borders on cheerful incoherence. But as a politician and a revolutionary, he was a genius in terms of conceptualisation as well as execution. He knew his opponents well, and he knew his supporters well and he was able to mobilise a gigantic force behind him. He was also a bit of a joker. This was a joke, and it had exactly the effect he wanted – to amuse his supporters and to annoy his opponents. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/70 "2010-10-12T17:52:50Z")
[Bible Study](http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/cheek.htm) Bible readers like myself, remember the turn the other cheek philosophy. It is even more . That’s how I like to live. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/71 "2010-10-12T23:26:53Z")
> [@FasterThanMeerkats](#): > > I think branding Jesus as an absolute pacifist might be a little iffy only because the question was never posed directly to him on a “If every Jewish man, woman, and child was going to be raped and killed, would it be ok to resist?” or “If you wake up in the night and your family is being murdered by a serial killer, is it ok to defend them with possibly deadly force?” > > Instead we have mild anecdotes which are vague enough to be interpreted however the reader wants. > > E.g. > -The market place incident > -“Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s” (Taxes pay for soldiers for national security) > > - General discontentment among some because he wasn’t advocating rebelling against the romans For that matter suppose Caesar asks for military service in the army as part of conscription? ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/72 "2010-10-12T23:49:11Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > > [@sleeping](#): > > > > FTR, Gandhi did not advocate non-violent resistance no matter what. He said that it would be ideal to engage in that form, but, if one lacked the courage for such perilous activity, it’s far preferable to stand up for one’s principles and resist _violently_, than not to resist at all. > > He said that if you would choose nonviolence out of cowardice, you’re better off resisting violently. I don’t see how “Go ahead and defend yourself… if you’re a coward,” translates to support for violent resistance. I don’t see any ambiguity in my statement; it was quite clear. For Gandhi, the ideal was nonviolent resistance; if that was not possible, then violent resistance, because violence resistance is still preferable to surrender. IOW, if you lack the courage to stand up to an oppressor and not fight them, then you should fight them; but defeat is the worst option. Clear? > [@](#): > > “I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.” > > –Gandhi, _Young India_, 11-10-1928, p. 342 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/73 "2010-10-13T06:16:18Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > OK, so then if we use your definition, then you would agree that it’s OK to restrain or control someone who is dangerous. Yes > [@](#): > > Where we might differ, is when the situation is so extreme, the choice of sparing the person is taken away by that person (he’s actively trying to kill you or others, and there’s no other way to stop him). no-one can take your choices away, just like no-one can force you what to think. You make your own choices, and accept the consequences. The consequence of a belief that violence solves anything, is a world where violence is used to solve damn near everything. Which is not the world I want for myself or my family. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/74 "2010-10-13T09:29:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > So according to you, if Martin Luther King Jr. had charged onto the buses in Selma, kicked the bus driver out of his seat and onto the street, and then had the bus overturned, you would agree that this is pacifism? > > If I recall correctly(and I do), your “cites” were a _direct_ response to this: > [QUOTE=Gyrate] > So there’s a Bible passage of Jesus beating someone up? Sweet! Cloud the issue all you want-your cites still fail. [/QUOTE] I should add that I’m not averse to being shown that Jesus had physically thrown out the moneylenders or whipped them or whatever as long as it doesn’t require an extreme interpretation, but it’s certainly not the way I’ve ever heard it told. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/75 "2010-10-13T19:41:45Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > If I recall correctly(and I do), your “cites” were a _direct_ response to this:Cloud the issue all you want-your cites still fail. > > I should add that I’m not averse to being shown that Jesus had physically thrown out the moneylenders or whipped them or whatever as long as it doesn’t require an extreme interpretation, but it’s certainly not the way I’ve ever heard it told. Oddly, my sunday-school interpretation was always that Jesus HAD physically tossed out the moneylenders–it seemed obvious to me that if a dude with a makeshift whip starts ruining your place of business, if you’re then driven out then he’s probably at least credibly threatened you with violence. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/76 "2010-10-13T19:45:27Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > > [@Gyrate](#): > > > > I should add that I’m not averse to being shown that Jesus had physically thrown out the moneylenders or whipped them or whatever as long as it doesn’t require an extreme interpretation, but it’s certainly not the way I’ve ever heard it told. > > Oddly, my sunday-school interpretation was always that Jesus HAD physically tossed out the moneylenders–it seemed obvious to me that if a dude with a makeshift whip starts ruining your place of business, if you’re then driven out then he’s probably at least credibly threatened you with violence. Threatening to beat someone up and actually doing so are two _very_ different things. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/77 "2010-10-13T19:51:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > OK, so then if we use your definition, then you would agree that it’s OK to restrain or control someone who is dangerous. > > Yes > > > [@](#): > > > > Where we might differ, is when the situation is so extreme, the choice of sparing the person is taken away by that person (he’s actively trying to kill you or others, and there’s no other way to stop him). > > no-one can take your choices away, just like no-one can force you what to think. You make your own choices, and accept the consequences. The consequence of a belief that violence solves anything, is a world where violence is used to solve damn near everything. Which is not the world I want for myself or my family. So we have a philosophical (?) difference. Nothing more. At any rate, I doubt you would ever feel threatened or endangered by me, any more than I would feel endangered or threatened by you. As to choice, to give an extreme example (very extreme), if some maniac was shooting people, killing them, and I was armed, yes i would shoot him. Why? It’s as much about self preservation as it is about stopping him. Obviously, I can’t just rush him, that would just add to the body count. So I’d shoot him, given the “opportunity”. One possibly dead maniac vs who knows how many possible dead “other guys”. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/78 "2010-10-13T20:12:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Zeriel](#): > > > > Oddly, my sunday-school interpretation was always that Jesus HAD physically tossed out the moneylenders–it seemed obvious to me that if a dude with a makeshift whip starts ruining your place of business, if you’re then driven out then he’s probably at least credibly threatened you with violence. > > Threatening to beat someone up and actually doing so are two _very_ different things. In my opinion, that’s true if and only if we can know with 100% certainty that said threats wouldn’t be carried out. That is, had the moneylenders stayed, would Jesus have then proceeded to get Biblical on their bitch asses? We can’t ever know. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/79 "2010-10-13T20:24:50Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > Threatening to beat someone up and actually doing so are two _very_ different things. > > In my opinion, that’s true if and only if we can know with 100% certainty that said threats wouldn’t be carried out. That is, had the moneylenders stayed, would Jesus have then proceeded to get Biblical on their bitch asses? We can’t ever know. Wouldn’t you think Christians would assume the best of their leader, and not the worst, in the case of ambiguities like this one? Unless, of course, they _want_ to follow an aggressive Christ figure. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721/80 "2010-10-13T20:35:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Zeriel](#): > > > > In my opinion, that’s true if and only if we can know with 100% certainty that said threats wouldn’t be carried out. That is, had the moneylenders stayed, would Jesus have then proceeded to get Biblical on their bitch asses? We can’t ever know. > > Wouldn’t you think Christians would assume the best of their leader, and not the worst, in the case of ambiguities like this one? > Unless, of course, they _want_ to follow an aggressive Christ figure. I’d assume the aggressive Christ as default over the pacifist one, if the histories of Europe and the Americas are any guide. I’m not sure when, if ever, a pacifistic Christian society ever flourished without the sufferance and protection of a larger, more aggressive one. Sure, Christians might _say_ they like the meek lamb and all that jazz, but the rest of the time it’s “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-absolute-pacifism-dangerous/556721.md?page=5)