Look at the things that divide that we haven't heard about recently. They range for racial profiling, the wealthy, poison from Tommie the commie, to weak George, UN treaties, cutting defense budgets and so on. Yeah, the true Christian pacifist have been around a long time and will continue to be tolerated. The pacists that hide their true intent are the ones that we should **ss on.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
Jesus taught us to love our neighbor. He taught us to especially care for and come to the aid of the most unfortunate people in society, even if it requires risk and sacrifice on our part. That is why we are told to turn the other cheek when we ourselves are being harmed, and to forgive those who have harmed us. But faithfulness to Christ and consistent Christian living also requires us to not turn away, but rather become actively involved in the defense of those who are the innocent victims of violence and aggression.
"Christian Pacifists" claim to hold the high moral ground and to be faithful to Christ's teaching. OK, here is a simple test: If this is the case, then they should be the ones who are first to respond to anyone under attack, and they should always seek to interpose themselves bodilly between attacker and victim to shield and protect the innocent, even though this may put them in great peril.
I would respect anyone who claimed to be a "Christian Pacifist" if they did this, but I have very rarely heard of it ever happening. The COs from the Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker churches who volunteered for medic duty come closest, as they at least put their own lives at risk to try to save the lives of combatants.
But try this little experiment next time you encounter a "pacifist": If they oppose our military action in Afghanistan, ask WHY they have not already traveled over there to talk to the Taliban and Al Qaida people in an effort to persuade them to stop harming innocent people? There is only one TRUE answer, of course: They don't want to risk their own precious rear end. They would rather "turn the other cheek" by turning the other way, ignoring the plight of the future thousands or millions of innocent people who will become victims of the terrorists if not stopped. They would rather protest and criticize in personal safety those who are putting their own personal safety on the line.
And they are cowards, hypocrites, and contemptable scum.
This phrase is a particular bit of idiocy that never seems to die. And it is especially sickening given that it actually works against itself when invoked a deterrent.
If one is urged not to "react violently" for a violence already suffered, and obliges, the very phrase becomes untrue. Violence has stopped, and the original violence has not "begotten more violence." What then, does the peacenik say to discourage the original perpetrator from behaving violently again? That "violence will only beget more violence?" No, that's been stopped. There is no longer that deterrent. So the violence can now continue, undeterred by the squandered truth of the original observation.
Violence must always beget more violence. Otherwise it has no cost. And methods with no cost are used in great frequency, and never reserved for last resort.
Gandhi actually believed that Britain should have surrendered to Germany during WWII, and that Jews should adopt "active nonviolence" that "would melt the stony hearts" of Nazis stuffing them into ovens. That about says it all.