[don-o]

See, members of Christian Peacemaker Teams are pacifists and they don't co-operate with men with guns who might use the information to track down kidnappers and/or terrorists and shoot them in the head until they agree to stop kidnapping and/or terrorizing people.

I know you have thought of these matters. Would you agree that these people are way off base in refusing to cooperate with the authorities in the cited instance?

My two cents: I believe they are free to believe as they choose, right up to the point that their beliefs place others in danger. They have crossed that line and should be held accountable for aiding and abetting.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Years ago, an Anabaptist theologian named John Howard Yoder wrote a book called "Nevertheless: The Varieties and Shortcomings of Religious Pacifism" (BTW available, used, for under $10 from Amazon.com) where he distinguished I think 14 kinds of Christian pacifism.

I only mentioned this to say that pacifists do not all believe or act identically; neither should they be painted with the same brush. Some will cooperate with their nation's military in an unarmed capacity (e.g. as battlefield medics; but some are members of religious denominations who are convinced that they are forbidden by Christ to take ANY part in war (Amish, for instance.)

I would argue that those who use force justly (important adverb alert: justly) to stop aggressors and protect life and liberty --- that would be good soldiers and good police --- are doing necessary and morally upright work. They should be able to count on everybody's cooperation in some capacity. That doesn't mean everybody has to tote a gun, but that does mean that everybody should support them through cooperation, taxes, prayers, etc. because this is our obligation in order to defend the common good.

Comments?