From above editorial:
Someone recently said to me: My pacifism stops when someone declares war on me.
I agree.
And, I read her editorial. She did not change my mind one bit.
Sorry, Kate. You sound to me like you are a nice person. But, when planes are hijacked, people murdered and the WTC destroyed, well, IMO, "peace" is not a rational response to such an attack.
1 posted on
10/21/2001 5:30:17 PM PDT by
summer
To: AmishDude
FYI -- And, the author is a Quaker.
2 posted on
10/21/2001 5:35:10 PM PDT by
summer
To: summer
"...When at risk, we want to destroy the enemy that has put us there. This is not our noblest option..." Kate, you're full of Bullsh!t.
Enemies are for vanquishing, if you can manage the grit and the will to do it. There'll be time enough for your putrid version of 'peace' in the grave.
3 posted on
10/21/2001 5:37:12 PM PDT by
DWSUWF
To: summer
Freedom. A human condition that arises from a generous sufficiency of food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, civil and religious liberties, and employment opportunities. It is a self-limiting condition; it breeds no desire for excess, whether material, behavioral, or political. A truly free person or nation sees that in a world of finite resources the drive for disproportionate wealth and power necessarily exploits or subjugates others and thus betrays humanity’s first principle. This sounds more like Marx's view of freedom than America's.
To: summer
It sees that all weapons are powerless against hatred, as our country’s massive arsenal was powerless against militants with knives and boxcutters.Only a pacifist wouldn't recognize that a sucker punch is just that - a sucker punch.
OK, call back the Rangers! They sucker-punched us. Wrap it up, time to go home...
To: summer
It's easy to be a pacifist in the United States. They have the rest of us to protect their rights. I wonder how long the quakers would last in a typical middle east dictatorship? If you're not willing to fight for your country then go somewhere else or, at least, shut up.
To: summer
We pacifists know that our definitions are not in common usage Unfortunately the poor silly goose does not realize that they are not shared by somone who casually kills 6,000 cubicle workers.
Further, such a society shares virtually none of her delusional goodness and has nothing but contempt and hatred for Western Civilization. There is no point of commonality and no possibility of dialogue.
One may as well discuss Thomas Aquinas with a reptile, for all the good it would do.
The killers do not even share some of the fundamental assumptions upon which Civilization is based.
I have a friend who came here from an old Warsaw Pact country, whose culture was nowhere as alien as that of the mass murderers. Yet, he told me, "The part I cannot express or get across to Americans, is that where I come from, a single individual human life does not mean sh!t!!"
8 posted on
10/21/2001 5:46:45 PM PDT by
Gorzaloon
To: summer
Basically a circular argument regarding equality. Would the author care to explain just how to achieve "equality"? Who decides what aspects are to be equalized? Who decides who gets/has how much? Sounds nice, but utterly worthless.
9 posted on
10/21/2001 5:49:22 PM PDT by
lds23
To: summer
Those of us who hang onto pacifist ideals, even in times like these, are dismissed, attacked, and mocked.
Could it be because there are those who are just whiney little twits who equate pacifism with blame America first, or just can't be bothered with helping to preserve and protect the nation where you can be a pacifist?
10 posted on
10/21/2001 5:53:13 PM PDT by
Valin
To: summer
No matter how it is dressed and garnished, a pacifist is still a coward and a parasite. And a self-deluded fool, I might add. Could you ever trust one?
12 posted on
10/21/2001 5:58:14 PM PDT by
Octar
To: summer
Freedom. A human condition that arises from a generous sufficiency of food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, civil and religious liberties, and employment opportunities. It is a self-limiting condition; it breeds no desire for excess, whether material, behavioral, or political. A truly free person or nation sees that in a world of finite resources the drive for disproportionate wealth and power necessarily exploits or subjugates others and thus betrays humanity’s first principle.No wonder their definitions aren't in general use. Here's a definition of freedom that has nothing to do with being free. By that definition, a well fed cow in a pen has freedom.
To: summer
A Pacifist Dictionary I wish I'd known this was a version of some pea-brained idea of Nirvana before I slugged thru it.
FMCDH
To: summer
We know this war will run over our ideals like a tank. And the fatal flaw in her argument is right there.
To: summer
We pacifists know that our definitions are not in common usage. Probably because the definitions are fatuous.
<> Freedom. A human condition that arises from a generous sufficiency of food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, civil and religious liberties, and employment opportunities. . . .
Here the author confuses the cause with the effect. Freedom does not result from sufficient food, clothing, shelter, etc., etc.; the sufficiency arises only as the result of freedom.
To: summer
I am a Quaker and a pacifist, and I just wanted to reply to a few of the responses here to the Pacifist Dictionary article posted above.
1) The original declaration of Quaker pacifism is thus:
"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatever; this is our testimony to the whole world. The Spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move unto it; and we certainly know, and testify to the world, that the Spirit of Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world." (George Fox, 1661)
Despite claims that Quakers aren't Christian, this is a stand made out of Quakerism's Christian theology.
2) Being a pacifist does not being anti-American, or that you do not want to help your country. My Quaker grandfather and mother volunteered for WWII, and served as nurses in Europe. Some of their friends went further, and signed up for combat duty, despite their reservations. Others filed as conscientious objectors, and served in the domestic service corps. All of them did their duty as they could best reconcile it with their faith.
3) Quakers and pacifists do not wish they were in another country. Posts have wondered how we would like Cuba or middle eastern dictatorships, and the answer is that we wouldn't. If we were there, however, we would argue for the same things that we do here: freedom from persecution, freedom for faith, and peace over war, as pacifists in repressive countries have done for hundreds of years.
4) Posts have called pacifists cowards and parasites for not being willing to fight. I disagree, and I think of pacifists in the Red Cross and in the AFSC, people go into war zones to help people knowing that they might be killed. I spent a little while helping war refugees in Asia, and I met Quakers there working on land mine removal, and pacifist Catholics who had lead familes out of battle zones, and I don't think they were cowards.
Ultimately, though, I'll accept being called a coward by people who are in the military- they've made a decision to put their life on the line in a way that I won't. But _only_ from people who have served (and my friends and relatives who have served don't say this); anyone else who calls pacifists "cowards" or "parasites" without having served in the military condemns themselves.
35 posted on
10/22/2001 5:44:06 PM PDT by
dan909
To: summer
Kate needs to put the crack pipe away...
To: summer
They forgot "naïveté".
48 posted on
10/23/2001 1:43:14 PM PDT by
B-Chan
To: summer
Freedom. A human condition that arises from a generous sufficiency of food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, civil and religious liberties, and employment opportunities. It is a self-limiting condition; it breeds no desire for excess, whether material, behavioral, or political. A truly free person or nation sees that in a world of finite resources the drive for disproportionate wealth and power necessarily exploits or subjugates others and thus betrays humanity’s first principle.
Wait a minute - Isn't freedom just another word for nothing left to lose?
51 posted on
10/30/2001 5:13:02 PM PST by
UncleWes
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson