Nonviolence or Pacifism?

[arthra]

To me this seems to be a more pacifistic approach than it does nonviolent as described in the OP, and appears to contradict another's Baha'i's views in post #3 of the thread. So are Baha'i pacifists or nonviolent? Or is it open to interpretation by the individual?

"Salix..."

Thanks for your post … From a "Staff Member"!

The interpretation as I gather that we have is as follows:

Shoghi Effendi feels that it should be explained that forbidding self defence by Bahá'u'lláh should not be taken too literally. To put it as bluntly as this, he fears that the question might be misunderstood. Bahá'u'lláh could surely have not meant that a Bahá'í should not attempt to defend his life against any irresponsible assailant who might attack him for any purpose whatever, whether religious or not. Every reasonable person would feel under such circumstances justified in protecting his life....

~ Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 427

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Non-violence and Pacifism are the same thing. It is the refusal to use violence as a means to solve a problem, even if non-violence/pacifism doesn't work.

As an ideal, it is immoral, because it disarms good in its fight against evil.

There is simply those occasions where violence is not only okay, but utterly necessary both practically and morally. If the barbarians are riding over the hills to burn down your village, kill your men, rape your women, and enslave your children, the ONLY moral response is to violently fight back.

 

[dybmh]

As an ideal, it is immoral, because it disarms good in its fight against evil.

I hear you. As a pacifist, my ideal is not to disarm the good. My ideal is to contain the evil.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I hear you. As a pacifist, my ideal is not to disarm the good. My ideal is to contain the evil.

Did you read my example of the barbarians riding over the hill into your village, killing your men, raping your women, enslaving your children, and setting everything on fire? You are not going to be able to contain that evil unless you use violence. They are not going to sit down to peace talks. They are not going to be moved by non-violent resistance.

And sir, if you sit idly by while they rape, maim, kill, and enslave, you share in the responsibility of those crimes.

Lev 19:16 neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.

 

[dybmh]

And sir, if you sit idly by while they rape, maim, kill, and enslave, you share in the responsibility of those crimes.

I am not proposing sitting idle.

I want to respond fully a little later. But please do not misunderstand.

I am not proposing doing nothing. I am proposing a shift in priority.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not proposing sitting idle.

I want to respond fully a little later. But please do not misunderstand.

I am not proposing doing nothing. I am proposing a shift in priority.

take your time my friend.

As long as you either quote one of my posts, or do an @Indigo Child in your text, I'll get the notification and be able to find your post.

 

[dybmh]

Lev 19:16 neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.

Most respectfully: Lev 19:17 and 19:18 puts limits on it.

 

[dybmh]

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Most respectfully: Lev 19:17 and 19:18 puts limits on it.

are you back and can discuss it now?

Yes, there are obviously limits. Torah is not simplistic. "What is hateful to you, don't do to others" is the overarching thrust of the Torah, as Hillel would say, but he also said, "Go study."

So we have two limits, or what I would call clarifications rather than limits.
1. Do it to help your brother who is in need, don/t do it out of hate.
2. Do it to help your brother in need, don't do it to get revenge.

We are still left with the scenario where someone (possibly even yourself) is in danger of life or limb, and the only significant thing you can do is intervene violently. You've considered other options. Perhaps you've even tried them. Non-violent resistance. Sitting down at the negotiating table. Taking the victim's hand and running like crazy. All fruitless or would be.

What do you do then?

If you are a woman being sexually assaulted on the street, which would you rather have happen?
A. Nothing, let him assault me. It's God's will.
B. Hope someone calls the cops. They'll arrive 10 minutes after he's done.
C. Hope someone intervenes, verbally at first, but if that doesn't work, with fists.

 

[dybmh]

Hello, Indigochild. Yes, I'm back. Thank you for your reply.

Here is a detailed description of why I believe in Pacifism and why your comment rendered a strong reaction in my heart.

I will address the specifics of your reply in a few moments.

Why I believe in Pacifism for Myself and Why I had a strong reaction to your comment:

There is another way. Breaking the cycle of violence by non-violence. Whatever the conflict, violence begets violence.

Violent war is only practical if one can kill all their enemies and their children while not giving up the moral high ground.

In primitive tribal areas, if they still exist, I cannot judge those who need to kill in order to prevent being killed. I cannot judge those who kill or do harm to prevent rape and torture for their loved ones.

But for me, I cannot imagine killing or harming another human being.

It is like imagining running and jumping from a tall building. I can imagine doing it, but in reality, I don't think I could actually do it.

Killing or harming someone because my family, friends, or loved ones is in danger... if I was compelled to do that, I think it would change me. I do not think I would be the same person after. I do not know if I would want to be that person. I do not know if my children would want me to be that person.

If my loved ones were being tortured, and I took violent action, it would be insanity. I don't know if I would ever come back from it. In this way, after I took violent action, the old me is dead.

But this not just my opinion as foolish immature optimist.

It is not uncommon for soldiers to become peace activists.

The best example, IMHO, is the organization Combatants For Peace

"Combatants for Peace is an Israeli-Palestinian non-profit. It is an egalitarian, bi-national, grassroots movement committed to non-violent action against the “Israeli occupation and all forms of violence” in Israel and the Palestinian territories."

Combatants for Peace - Wikipedia

The founders of Combatants for Peace are former Israeli Soldiers and Palestinian Fighters.

Their stories are documented on the Combatants for Peace website and in an award winning documentary "Disturbing the Peace".

Combatants for Peace | There is another way!
http://disturbingthepeacefilm.com/about/#Combatants for Peace

IndigoChild, The last thing I want is to sit idle while people are being killed or tortured.

Pacifism to me, is not non-action. It's about maintaining the moral high ground. It's about not surrendering myself to violence. In my heart, I feel like violence is evil. People are not evil. Evil is what people do, it is not who people are.

That is why I said, Pacifism for me is about containing evil. I'm not talking only talking about other people. I am talking about containing the potential evil that lives in me. What is that evil, it is potential for violence.

Being a pacifist; making that personal choice, if G-d Forbid I ever have to make it, is about executing my own personal independence / empowerment of my own goodness over my own potential for evil.

Please forgive this somewhat strong reaction to your words.

Pacifism, as I define it for myself, is not immoral.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hello, Indigochild. Yes, I'm back. Thank you for your reply.

Here is a detailed description of why I believe in Pacifism and why your comment rendered a strong reaction in my heart.

I will address the specifics of your reply in a few moments.

Why I believe in Pacifism for Myself and Why I had a strong reaction to your comment:

There is another way. Breaking the cycle of violence by non-violence. Whatever the conflict, violence begets violence.

Violent war is only practical if one can kill all their enemies and their children while not giving up the moral high ground.

In primitive tribal areas, if they still exist, I cannot judge those who need to kill in order to prevent being killed. I cannot judge those who kill or do harm to prevent rape and torture for their loved ones.

But for me, I cannot imagine killing or harming another human being.

It is like imagining running and jumping from a tall building. I can imagine doing it, but in reality, I don't think I could actually do it.

Killing or harming someone because my family, friends, or loved ones is in danger... if I was compelled to do that, I think it would change me. I do not think I would be the same person after. I do not know if I would want to be that person. I do not know if my children would want me to be that person.

If my loved ones were being tortured, and I took violent action, it would be insanity. I don't know if I would ever come back from it. In this way, after I took violent action, the old me is dead.

But this not just my opinion as foolish immature optimist.

It is not uncommon for soldiers to become peace activists.

The best example, IMHO, is the organization Combatants For Peace

"Combatants for Peace is an Israeli-Palestinian non-profit. It is an egalitarian, bi-national, grassroots movement committed to non-violent action against the “Israeli occupation and all forms of violence” in Israel and the Palestinian territories."

Combatants for Peace - Wikipedia

The founders of Combatants for Peace are former Israeli Soldiers and Palestinian Fighters.

Their stories are documented on the Combatants for Peace website and in an award winning documentary "Disturbing the Peace".

Combatants for Peace | There is another way!
http://disturbingthepeacefilm.com/about/#Combatants for Peace

IndigoChild, The last thing I want is to sit idle while people are being killed or tortured.

Pacifism to me, is not non-action. It's about maintaining the moral high ground. It's about not surrendering myself to violence. In my heart, I feel like violence is evil. People are not evil. Evil is what people do, it is not who people are.

That is why I said, Pacifism for me is about containing evil. I'm not talking only talking about other people. I am talking about containing the potential evil that lives in me. What is that evil, it is potential for violence.

Being a pacifist; making that personal choice, if G-d Forbid I ever have to make it, is about executing my own personal independence / empowerment of my own goodness over my own potential for evil.

Please forgive this somewhat strong reaction to your words.

Pacifism, as I define it for myself, is not immoral.

Hello again, and thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Are you Jewish? I notice you spell G-d with a hyphen. Messianic perhaps? Just curious.

We do have a big disagreement over whether people can be evil. I believe that some people certainly are. We call them sociopaths/psychopaths. Because their brains are not properly formed, they lack a conscience. It's not that they can't be taught right and wrong, they just don't care. It's not that they don't understand another person is suffering, they just don't care. Their families, their pets, their friends, are simply adornments that they show off. Other people are their for their own use and abuse. If they are smart, they end up the CEO of a business or a successful politician. If they are dumb, they end up in jail. If they are morons, they still pull wings off of flies and try not to get caught breaking rules. If they are brilliant, they can galvanize entire armies and sweep over the planet without a care of the carnage.

They recruit damaged souls. Followers in need of purpose. Hearts with holes in them. Those easy to influence. Often, it is these sad creatures who get put out front for all the dangers while the sociopath stays back keeping safe. These victims end up in jail keeping the silence code while Senor Psychopath is getting his ring kissed.

And they are the cause of damaged souls. They leave a trail of broken hearts and twisted minds... All victims of their manipulation and abuse. If you've ever read M. Scott Peck's "The People of the Lie," you'll have read examples of what I mean.

And they are incapable of feeling one iota of remorse or guilt.

They simply have a broken brain. It the amygdala and the frontal lobe. You should look it up some time.

If they are intimidated enough by a society with a strong justice system (ample police department, strict punishments, etc.) they go into professions where they are uselful for having no emotional responses -- they make great surgeons for example. If you think about it, there are any number of vocations where having "steady nerves" (meaning little emotional input) is required. That's where they excel. But they have to be threatened into a socially respectful lifestyle. You can't just send them to their room for a time out and expect it to work. They will sit in their room and plot their revenge. There has to be teeth in the consequences.

Getting back to pacifism,

Violence does not always beget violence. Sometimes violence just ends the fight and everyone can go home.

You seem to think that the idea of a just war only happens in ancient tribalism.

What about ISIS? These terrorists were intent on taking over the world and setting up a caliphate with which to impose their severe form of Islam on everyone. They are the 21st century version of "the barbarians riding over the hills." They burned villages, killed the men, raped the women, enslaved the children... It didn't matter who you were. My pacifist brother found out that they had tortured to death the peacekeeping team that he had worked with -- he is no longer a pacifist. ISIS is about as real as it gets when it comes to an example of a just war.

If you can think of some other way short of warfare to defeat Islamic State, I'd sure love to hear it.

 

[dybmh]

If you are a woman being sexually assaulted on the street, which would you rather have happen? A,B,C, etc...

That is a very good question. I had not thought of this sort of circumstance. For me Pacifism is an opposition to violent warfare and armed combat. But now I'm thinking about it a little deeper.

In the case you described, assuming I don't have a weapon, I would fight back.

If possible I would detain the rapist, if I had the clarity and presence of mind.

To me this represents containment. My priority, if possible, would be do minimal harm while at the same time detaining the rapist to prevent the rapist from assaulting another person.

But all this is coming from my perspective as a man. It's very hard for me to imagine being raped.

Question: For defending against rape and other assault does pepper spray work? If so, I would support use of pepper spray, I don't think it does any harm to the rapist, and it hopefully would detain them long enough for police to intervene.

Taking it a step further:

If a woman is being assaulted, let's assume it's attempted rape, and the women is armed with a gun. Let's say the woman successfully fights back with her fists, and then the rapist starts to run away... what next?

Should the women shoot the rapist in the back while the rapist is running away in order to prevent the rapist from hurting other people?

What do you think?

 

[dybmh]

Are you Jewish? I notice you spell G-d with a hyphen. Messianic perhaps? Just curious.

Yes. Not messianic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is a very good question. I had not thought of this sort of circumstance. For me Pacifism is an opposition to violent warfare and armed combat. But now I'm thinking about it a little deeper.

In the case you described, assuming I don't have a weapon, I would fight back.

If possible I would detain the rapist, if I had the clarity and presence of mind.

To me this represents containment. My priority, if possible, would be do minimal harm while at the same time detaining the rapist to prevent the rapist from assaulting another person.

But all this is coming from my perspective as a man. It's very hard for me to imagine being raped.

Question: For defending against rape and other assault does pepper spray work? If so, I would support use of pepper spray, I don't think it does any harm to the rapist, and it hopefully would detain them long enough for police to intervene.

Taking it a step further:

If a woman is being assaulted, let's assume it's attempted rape, and the women is armed with a gun. Let's say the woman successfully fights back with her fists, and then the rapist starts to run away... what next?

Should the women shoot the rapist in the back while the rapist is running away in order to prevent the rapist from hurting other people?

What do you think?

Thank you for answering so openly and honestly. I feel like we are really sharing.

I hope you don't think I'm a brute. I'm advocating violence in some pretty extreme and extremely rare situations. I believe with all my heart that we should try to do the least aggressive thing possible to accomplish the good. I feel guilty if I just answer someone with sarcasm, just because I now that sarcasm is verbal aggression LOL.

I've lived through experiences, especially when I was young. Out of the hot caldron of our youth, our adult selves are formed. I'm going to share just one thing with you.

As a kid, I was very small and scrawny, very weak, and clumsy too. And I was sensitive. Add to that my frizzy hair, braces and glasses and I was a sitting duck to be bullied. It wasn't just that I was scared. I literally didn't know HOW to fight back and defend myself if I wanted to. In seventh grade I missed so many days of school pretending to be sick that they almost held me back (my grades were too high).

I don't hold it against the bullies. I kind of followed their lives and they are mixed up people who came from bad homes. I'm not making excuses for them. I'm just saying I forgive them.

But I have a much harder time forgiving all the self righteous kids who stood around and did nothing because they thought it wasn't their problem. Them I have to just not think about it, because when I think about it, it makes me angry all over again. If just one or two of the popular kids had stepped in and said something, it would have made a difference. If someone had fought for me, it would have stopped.

What is hateful to me, I don't do to others. I am to love my neighbor as myself. I take what I've learned from my childhood, and I put it into practice. I didn't have muscles as a kid. But I live in the nation that has the biggest muscles in the world. If Islamic State is burning and raping and pillaging, I say we send in some men. I actually really do care about those people over there. I want them to be able to walk down the street without fear. I want them to be able to raise their kids the way they want, to worship God the way they want... and not be afraid of whoever is walking towards them or worry if their mosque will be destroyed.

I couldn't live with myself if, knowing that my country had the power to save those innocent men, women, and kids, we did nothing because "it wasn't our problem."

Could I do it myself? I hope so. Would it change me? You betcha. That's a sacrifice I hope I would be willing to make for the welfare of others. That's what loving your neighbor means. Putting their well being above your own.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes. Not messianic.

You've been bageled!

 

[dybmh]

We do have a big disagreement over whether people can be evil. I believe that some people certainly are. We call them sociopaths/psychopaths.

I feel like these people are sick, not evil. The difference would be that someone criminally insane should be locked up, and an evil person, if they exist, would need to be put down.

If you've ever read M. Scott Peck's "The People of the Lie," you'll have read examples of what I mean.

I might read it, thank you.

They simply have a broken brain. It the amygdala and the frontal lobe. You should look it up some time.

I will...

My pacifist brother found out that they had tortured to death the peacekeeping team that he had worked with -- he is no longer a pacifist. ISIS is about as real as it gets when it comes to an example of a just war.

I don't think it's unjust. I don't think I could pick up a gun and kill someone. Maybe it's a personal flaw.

Violence does not always beget violence. Sometimes violence just ends the fight and everyone can go home.

You're right. Sometimes. I was not considering the example of the rape victim like you described earlier. I was speaking about warfare.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You're right. Sometimes. I was not considering the example of the rape victim like you described earlier. I was speaking about warfare.

Warfare ended the Third Reich. If it hadn't been for the war against Hitler, we'd be speaking German and goosestepping. Or you would be. I'd be incinerated.

 

[ManSinha]

Been following this lively debate actively - and I side completely with @IndigoChild5559

From the immortal words of the 10th Master - original written in Persian (He was a bit of a polyglot - wrote in six different languages)