Waging Peace - What if the Amish were in charge of the "War on Terror"?

[KarlGauss]

I really am not trying to Godwinize this interesting thread, but I can’t be the only one wondering:

@what if European Jews had responded to Hitler in this way

First, some rabbis visited Adolf Hitler, to offer forgiveness. Then, the families of the slain Jews invited Eva Braun to their own children’s funerals. Next, they requested that all relief monies intended for Jewish families be shared with the Nazi party. And, finally, in an astonishing act of reconciliation, more than 30 members of the Jewish community attended the funeral of Heydrich.

Indeed. What would have happened? I wonder.

The moral of the story seems crystal clear and self-evident to me: if you value your own life and/or that of your children and/or your countrymen, absolute pacifism is absolute suicide.

[Kimstu]

@carnivorousplant

Forgive me, but how do we know that?

We don’t know it for sure, of course, but I read that description of her behavior in a Newsweek story, taken from the account of one of the victims who survived the shooting. I can’t find it online, but this ABC News story has a similar report.

@KarlGauss

The moral of the story seems crystal clear and self-evident to me: if you value your own life and/or that of your children and/or your countrymen, absolute pacifism is absolute suicide.

Not necessarily. As I said before, if you have enough pacifists and pacifist-supporters, you might be able to ultimately neutralize your opponents’ violent action with non-violent non-cooperation. Even the most Lex Luthor-y slimy scumballs, in the real world, need some kind of cooperation or at least neutrality from non-scumballs in order to carry out their slimy actions. If all the non-scumballs are actively resisting them, and hugely outnumber them, eventually the scumballs can be thwarted.

In the meantime, though—and it would probably be a long meantime—the non-violent non-cooperation doubtless would prove suicidal for many of the non-cooperators. Nobody ever said that nonviolence was easy or safe.

[FriarTed]

Gahndi, King & the British-Irish negotiators dealt with foes who professed to have a basically similar ethic of common decency &, yes, “Christian” values. They shamed their oppressors by upholding their oppressors’ professed values, exposing their oppressors as hypocrites. In Walker Percy’s words, they “out-Jesused” them.

Nazis, Commies & homicidal maniacs lack that higher value to which pacifist resisters can appeal. Islamists may have it but, like the more pathological
C’tians of the Crusades, witch hunts, Inquisitions, & varied persecutions, have twisted it into a homicidal zeal.

[Kimstu]

@FriarTed

Nazis, Commies & homicidal maniacs lack that higher value to which pacifist resisters can appeal.

Even if that’s true, “out-Jesusing” your opponent is not the only strategy available to non-violent resisters. As I noted above, if there are enough of the non-violent resisters and their supporters, they may be able eventually to isolate the violent attackers so they just can’t put their plans into execution.

Even the genocide of the Nazi death camps would not have been possible without the passive or active cooperation of many people who were not themselves Nazis and didn’t subscribe to Nazi ideology. And even homicidal maniacs need food, shelter and sleep. If enough people refuse to cooperate with them and keep stepping forward to shield their victims and destroy their weapons, they will eventually be helpless.

Like I said, though, it will probably take a long time and cost a lot of lives. Non-violent non-cooperation is not an easy or fast solution.

[Mangetout]

@KarlGauss

The moral of the story seems crystal clear and self-evident to me: if you value your own life and/or that of your children and/or your countrymen, absolute pacifism is absolute suicide.

The prevailing assumption here appears to be that the goal of pacifism is to overcome conflict; in at least some versions (including, apparently, the Amish version) it isn’t - the goal is simply not to become an active party in conflict, even if the cost of such abstention is terrible.