• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

horrors of religion

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Once again, bad application of what I am talking about, these people are only in protest. Actually it would take more courage to oppose an armed force with a weapon, stupid maybe, but certainly more courage than sticking a flower in the muzzle of a gun.

Why a bad application? These are Pacifist Protesters, much like the pacifists guned down in Ohio. Or the pacifists killed in Burma, Tienanmen Square, etc....

You are saying it takes more courage to raise a weapon in protest against an armed force than to face them weaponless?:confused:
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
If your premise cannot stand pacifistic protesting, then perhaps the premise is flawed.

You may protest all you want, it doesn't take a pacifist to protest, many of my friends protested the war in Viet Nam and were not pacifist, hell I even did a little protesting of my own, but ended up over there anyway.
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
I think you definition of a pacifist is overly simple.

A pacifist avoids conflict when possible. This does not make them a coward in the face of adversary.

As a former member of the US Military, I know of that which I speak.;)

I disagree, I have been told that a pacifist simply will not kill another human regardless of the circumstances. Are there varying degree's of pacifism?
 

J Bryson

Well-Known Member
I think you know what I am talking about, and its not a battle of words, but if it were then of course I would rather have a strong pen rather than a sword.

Exactly. What I'm saying is that not all battles are fought with guns, and not all bravery involves the willingness to commit violence against another.

I'm still hoping for the examples of Gandhi using violence when it suited him. I suspect that my request got lost in the flood of responses to your posts.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
It was stared by two leaders who sought world domination, call them warmongers if you like, pacifists lack the courage to start a war.

So then Hitler and the Japanese Emperor were courageous? They had the courage to start wars?

As I said before, a pacifist will avoid conflict when possible. But this does not exclude them from facing adversary when necessary.

True courage is avoiding a fight when possible.
You are confusing courage with aggression, and pacifism with cowardliness.
 

J Bryson

Well-Known Member
You may protest all you want, it doesn't take a pacifist to protest, many of my friends protested the war in Viet Nam and were not pacifist, hell I even did a little protesting of my own, but ended up over there anyway.

I never said that it took a pacifist to protest. What I stated was that the young man in the picture was a pacifist, and that he showed remarkable bravery in the face of possible death.
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
Why a bad application? These are Pacifist Protesters, much like the pacifists guned down in Ohio. Or the pacifists killed in Burma, Tienanmen Square, etc....

You are saying it takes more courage to raise a weapon in protest against an armed force than to face them weaponless?:confused:

I'm saying to get yourself killed in protest is an act of stupidity when one could remain alive and look for more affective ways of protesting. Walking into cannon accomplishes nothing other than martyrdom.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
On those that "ran to Canada", there were indeed those that avoided military service for no other reason than they were afraid, and then there were those who felt the entire war in Vietnam was morally wrong, and refused to participate.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
I'm saying to get yourself killed in protest is an act of stupidity when one could remain alive and look for more affective ways of protesting. Walking into cannon accomplishes nothing other than martyrdom.

Martyrdom can be a brave and effective tool at times.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
When Reagan was Governor of California he stated that he was about to use heavy force on protesters to the Vietnam war. After the student deaths in Ohio, he backed down.

The effectiveness of passivisim.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
A Pacifist sits and watches as two men surround a family, young mother, father, and three young children, two girls and a boy, both men have guns and begin to torture the mother and children as the father is forced to watch, after raping the young mother she is slowly strangled to death, the attackers now turn on the young girls, soon all will be killed in a most horrible way, the pacifist has access to a gun and at anytime could stop this slaughter, but only by killing both men. In my opinion to sit idly by a do nothing is a criminal offense as well as a moral offense, by doing nothing the pacifist has done as much evil as those who murdered.

No.

The pacifist would not stand by idly.

Even us pacifists know that violence is sometimes the only way. After a quick 911 call, we'd do what we can.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I disagree, I have been told that a pacifist simply will not kill another human regardless of the circumstances. Are there varying degree's of pacifism?

I am a pacifist, and I admit that the second world war was a war that needed to be fought.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
On those that "ran to Canada", there were indeed those that avoided military service for no other reason than they were afraid, and then there were those who felt the entire war in Vietnam was morally wrong, and refused to participate.

Or felt that America was not worth fighting for, as whatever ideals the founding fathers had in mind were lost, but could be found in Canada. (I do believe that Canada, based on what I know thus far, does a better job with American ideals than America does.)
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Those who would have followed gandhi would have set the country back a hundred years, millions would have starved, he walked around in rags but had visions of grandeur. I have no respect for ignorance, dogmatic thinking, those who are unpatriotic, and cowardly deeds.

Where do you get your information about Gandhi, anyway? (Be specific.)
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
Why a bad application? These are Pacifist Protesters, much like the pacifists guned down in Ohio. Or the pacifists killed in Burma, Tienanmen Square, etc....

You are saying it takes more courage to raise a weapon in protest against an armed force than to face them weaponless?:confused:

If your in the vast minority with little or no chance for victory, then yes.
 
Top