Amish Pacifism

[The Seeker]

You are looking at the result of the action, rather than the action itself. I believe that actions in and of themselves are right and wrong. All killing is wrong, even if it may have a good result.

How can something be wrong if the results are "good"? Isn't allowing genocide wrong? Here's one for you: lets say you see a man advancing on a group of small children with a knife, he's going to kill them, you have a gun, and you could shoot him, but you could never run over there in time to stop him any other way. What do you do? Shoot one man or let him stab a bunch of kids to death?

How can you say that the ends justify the means if you don't know all possible ends? As flawed and imperfect beings, we do not know what the consequences of our actions will be. We cannot see the big picture. For instance, if you had killed Hitler in the scenario you suggested, perhaps the Bolshevists would have taken over Europe. We can't justify our actions by saying that they'll bring about a good result, because we don't know what the result will be. Only God is able to see all ends, and so only he is justified in killing.

So I take it that you sit alone in a dark room with only a computer and a food supply, so as to avoid any unintended consequences to your actions?

 

[Mustaphile]

How can something be wrong if the results are "good"? Isn't allowing genocide wrong? Here's one for you: lets say you see a man advancing on a group of small children with a knife, he's going to kill them, you have a gun, and you could shoot him, but you could never run over there in time to stop him any other way. What do you do? Shoot one man or let him stab a bunch of kids to death?

What is a pacifist doing carrying a gun around? Hehehe..this is a ridiculous scenario.

There is an important aspect of religiously inspired pacifism that you might be overlooking. Death is not final for those who believe in afterlife and the belief that riches in this life pale in comparison to riches in the afterlife. In the instance of Karmic beliefs, the good achieved in pacifism has benefit, in the next. The principle involved in violent retaliation is that what we have now is the thing we must value, and defend by violence if necessary, even if it is at the expense of what another has ie life or property. In taking this course, violence is justified by one, and so can be justified by another. So in assuming the right to violent retaliation, you give the same right to another. What is not addressed in violent retaliation is the conviction of conscience that occurs in the one espousing violence, when violence is not returned. Where does this conviction of conscience come from? We are all too ready to enter the fray when our sense of justice has been offended, but at the same time we mourn the senselessness of the act. When I say this, I'm referring to the conscience of the witnesses of the event, more so than the individual or group acting out the violence. It's when the conscience of the witnesses to the event are hardened and ignored, (rather than being expressed in action by non-violent resestance) because of a desire to hold onto what they have at the expense of conscience, that violence is allowed to run rampant. I think from this we could deduce it is in people acting on the urging of conscience, rather than ignoring it, that we will be better able to oppose violence in the future. Jimminy Cricket was onto something. What are the forces in society that suppress conscience might be a good question.

Without the component of afterlife and reward for action taken now in that afterlife, which is exactly the stance of naturalistic philosophies, pacifism has few legs to stand on and appears to be a wishful and unrealistic expectation. The faith compenent is a neccesary aspect of most pacifism, I would think.

 

[Subordinationist]

What is a pacifist doing carrying a gun around? Hehehe..this is a ridiculous scenario.

There is an important aspect of religiously inspired pacifism that you might be overlooking. Death is not final for those who believe in afterlife and the belief that riches in this life pale in comparison to riches in the afterlife. In the instance of Karmic beliefs, the good achieved in pacifism has benefit, in the next. The principle involved in violent retaliation is that what we have now is the thing we must value, and defend by violence if necessary, even if it is at the expense of what another has ie life or property. In taking this course, violence is justified by one, and so can be justified by another. So in assuming the right to violent retaliation, you give the same right to another. What is not addressed in violent retaliation is the conviction of conscience that occurs in the one espousing violence, when violence is not returned. Where does this conviction of conscience come from? We are all too ready to enter the fray when our sense of justice has been offended, but at the same time we mourn the senselessness of the act. When I say this, I'm referring to the conscience of the witnesses of the event, more so than the individual or group acting out the violence. It's when the conscience of the witnesses to the event are hardened and ignored, (rather than being expressed in action by non-violent resestance) because of a desire to hold onto what they have at the expense of conscience, that violence is allowed to run rampant. I think from this we could deduce it is in people acting on the urging of conscience, rather than ignoring it, that we will be better able to oppose violence in the future. Jimminy Cricket was onto something. What are the forces in society that suppress conscience might be a good question.

Without the component of afterlife and reward for action taken now in that afterlife, which is exactly the stance of naturalistic philosophies, pacifism has few legs to stand on and appears to be a wishful and unrealistic expectation. The faith compenent is a neccesary aspect of most pacifism, I would think.

Well said.



.

 

[Nevin]

Here's one for you: lets say you see a man advancing on a group of small children with a knife, he's going to kill them, you have a gun, and you could shoot him, but you could never run over there in time to stop him any other way. What do you do? Shoot one man or let him stab a bunch of kids to death?

The classic quandary for a pacifist. Yes, many have presented me with such unlikely scenarios before. I will respond the same way now: I would try to stop him nonviolently, but if the only way that I could keep him from killing was by killing myself, then I would not do it.

I would also like to point out, for the record, how ridiculously unlikely such a scenario is. A situation where one cannot use nonviolent means to accomplish something is practically non-existent. And as was said, I wouldn't exactly be walking around with a gun anyway.

So I take it that you sit alone in a dark room with only a computer and a food supply, so as to avoid any unintended consequences to your actions?

No. Rather, I do all the good that I can with my limited knowledge, but without resorting to sinful actions myself.

 

[Dukey]

Namaste!

Could someone please explain why the Amish are pacifist? What excerpt within the bible are they following?

Thanks in advance.

my brother visits the amish regularly and stays with them on vacations....they dont believe in the secular system of government....even amish marriages are not legally registered

 

[The Seeker]

There is an important aspect of religiously inspired pacifism that you might be overlooking. Death is not final for those who believe in afterlife and the belief that riches in this life pale in comparison to riches in the afterlife. In the instance of Karmic beliefs, the good achieved in pacifism has benefit, in the next. The principle involved in violent retaliation is that what we have now is the thing we must value, and defend by violence if necessary, even if it is at the expense of what another has ie life or property. In taking this course, violence is justified by one, and so can be justified by another. So in assuming the right to violent retaliation, you give the same right to another. What is not addressed in violent retaliation is the conviction of conscience that occurs in the one espousing violence, when violence is not returned. Where does this conviction of conscience come from? We are all too ready to enter the fray when our sense of justice has been offended, but at the same time we mourn the senselessness of the act. When I say this, I'm referring to the conscience of the witnesses of the event, more so than the individual or group acting out the violence. It's when the conscience of the witnesses to the event are hardened and ignored, (rather than being expressed in action by non-violent resestance) because of a desire to hold onto what they have at the expense of conscience, that violence is allowed to run rampant. I think from this we could deduce it is in people acting on the urging of conscience, rather than ignoring it, that we will be better able to oppose violence in the future. Jimminy Cricket was onto something. What are the forces in society that suppress conscience might be a good question.

Without the component of afterlife and reward for action taken now in that afterlife, which is exactly the stance of naturalistic philosophies, pacifism has few legs to stand on and appears to be a wishful and unrealistic expectation. The faith compenent is a neccesary aspect of most pacifism, I would think.

So basically it all okay because the little kiddies get to go to heaven? If there's nothing morally wrong with letting people die when you could have prevented it, why is it morally wrong to kill?

And nobody has said what they would do about Hitler, btw? How about Mosley, should the anti-fascists at the battle of Cable Street have sat in the middle of the road till everybody turned into a peace loving hippy?

 

[Mustaphile]

So basically it all okay because the little kiddies get to go to heaven? If there's nothing morally wrong with letting people die when you could have prevented it, why is it morally wrong to kill?

And nobody has said what they would do about Hitler, btw? How about Mosley, should the anti-fascists at the battle of Cable Street have sat in the middle of the road till everybody turned into a peace loving hippy?

The question asked in my post indirectly, is what steps have you taken in the leading of your conscience to promote peace, both peace amongst individuals and peace amongst nations? What part of your conscience do you suppress to ignore the plight of others that might lead them to take violent action against you or those you care for?

Important questions go unanswered when we resort to violence. Why is the man attacking the kiddies with a knife? Why was Hitler so bent on war? These are the questions that need be asked and this is the dialogue we are called to enter into. The option of violence is the obstacle to peace, because it brings to an end the dialogue leading to understanding. The search is cut short because we find it more expedient to simply kill someone than to talk to them and possibly make sacrifices in our own lives in an attempt to find a way of living together peacably.

Our conscience calls us to act, but our comfort and security in the things we wish to keep for ourselves in this world leads us to ignore our conscience. The more noble option is to make a stand and speak out when your conscience moves you, and to practice the renunciation of violence in your life. The attitude of those who feel violence is an option, is to complain about those who wish to promote a dialog and call them bleeding hearts liberals or peace loving hippies, because the things the bleeding heart liberals and peace loving hippies are asking for might lead to you or others having to make a sacrifice in your life that your not prepared to make for the sake of others. You have your comforts, you have your security. Someone doesn't have them. Why don't they have them? What measures can we take to allow them to have them? What can we give of ourselves to bring greater relative security to all people? Hard questions? They are hard questions and that is why pacifism is the more courageous path. Violence is the path of least resistance. What you are saying, by default, in your support of violence is that you would rather take the easy road and just shoot people, because you don't like facing hard questions. Is that noble of you?

 

[The Seeker]

The question asked in my post indirectly, is what steps have you taken in the leading of your conscience to promote peace, both peace amongst individuals and peace amongst nations? What part of your conscience do you suppress to ignore the plight of others that might lead them to take violent action against you or those you care for?

Important questions go unanswered when we resort to violence. Why is the man attacking the kiddies with a knife? Why was Hitler so bent on war? These are the questions that need be asked and this is the dialogue we are called to enter into. The option of violence is the obstacle to peace, because it brings to an end the dialogue leading to understanding. The search is cut short because we find it more expedient to simply kill someone than to talk to them and possibly make sacrifices in our own lives in an attempt to find a way of living together peacably.

Our conscience calls us to act, but our comfort and security in the things we wish to keep for ourselves in this world leads us to ignore our conscience. The more noble option is to make a stand and speak out when your conscience moves you, and to practice the renunciation of violence in your life. The attitude of those who feel violence is an option, is to complain about those who wish to promote a dialog and call them bleeding hearts liberals or peace loving hippies, because the things the bleeding heart liberals and peace loving hippies are asking for might lead to you or others having to make a sacrifice in your life that your not prepared to make for the sake of others. You have your comforts, you have your security. Someone doesn't have them. Why don't they have them? What measures can we take to allow them to have them? What can we give of ourselves to bring greater relative security to all people? Hard questions? They are hard questions and that is why pacifism is the more courageous path. Violence is the path of least resistance. What you are saying, by default, in your support of violence is that you would rather take the easy road and just shoot people, because you don't like facing hard questions. Is that noble of you?

No what I am saying is that sometimes violence is the lesser of two evils, and hence not evil at all. By all means ask why people do bad things, but that doesn't mean we should give everybody free reign to hurt others by refusing to accept the necessity of violence in stopping greater violence.

 

[Mustaphile]

No what I am saying is that sometimes violence is the lesser of two evils, and hence not evil at all. By all means ask why people do bad things, but that doesn't mean we should give everybody free reign to hurt others by refusing to accept the necessity of violence in stopping greater violence.

What your saying, in effect, is you've given up on peace. If you really think hard about it, and go over what I have posted, you'll get my point. The lesser of two evils is not, no evil. It's still evil. If your happy to condone and support evil, that's your choice. The evil won't stop until more people act on their conscience and seek to promote peace and promoting peace is a big task, and we need more people working on it. Your effectively standing in the way of peace and feeling quite justified in doing so.

I am called, as a follower of Christ, to be a peacemaker. There is no amount of words that can be spoken on your part to lead me to disobey my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth, the life. There is no more straighter path to what is truth, than Christ. I don't say just because someone told me that. I say that because I have come to know the complete wisdom in the words of Christ. This is the way to truth. Any other principle is leading to destruction. I pray you might come to realise the wisdom of Christ too. Until that time, I don't think we have any chance of agreeing on this subject. I'll leave you to rebutt my argument, and have the last word. I think I have had the sufficient time on the soapbox to have my say, and it should be clear what my stance is, and that I won't be moved. I've enjoyed having the opportunity to speak on this matter, as it's allowed me to, more clearly express the message, than I have been able to do before, and affirmed in my conscience the way forward. I appreciate you taking the time to have this dialog with me. God bless you and keep you, The_Seeker.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

So you'd rather Hitler was allowed to carry on ordering genocide than somebody (horror of horrors) formed an opinion about somebody else and took action based on it? Pacifism=bourgeois wibble.

Resistance does not require violence. A large group of people resisting without violence is quite powerful.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I'm a Pacifist myself, although I'm not Amish (I'm Mennonite). I believe that Jesus did teach Pacifism, and that we as Christians are called to be non-violent.

It is true that Pacifism is not practical. But then, was Jesus ever concerned with practicality? It seems to me that he was always more concerned with whether or not something was right than whether it was practical.

It seems to me that pacificism is quite practical. Only by responding with peace can we hope to create lasting peace.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

How is it "right" to allow genocide but not right to kill one man? Surely in such a case inaction is far worse than action?

This is a false dillemma. It is not violent action versus inaction. Nonviolent resistance could include helping Jews escape Nazi controlled territory or by joining with others to remove all support of the Nazi regime in order to render it unable to act.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I grew up in Pennsylvania, about an hour from Lancaster county where many Amish live. I was also raised as a Moravian in Bethlehem, PA. They also were pacifists--much to George Washington's chagrin. They refused to fight in the revolutionary war, and they would treat anyone--American, British, French, or Native American, in their hospital. Their gravestones are also flat and the same size for everyone because they believed everyone was equal under God. When someone died, they were put into the next available grave, so a Native American might be right next to a prominent community leader.

Even though I eventually rejected Christianity, I still hold those values as very important and special.

Also, my understanding of pacifism isn't that one never fights, but only uses it as a last resort. Which verse has Jesus saying something like, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"?

As for Hitler, what do you think about the American soldier who had him a bayonet point in a foxhole in WWI, but let him live? Just throwing it out.

Jesus's statement was an indication that he would cause division. Many of his followers would be rejected by their families. He is not refering to an actual sword with which he uses to conquer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe it is because most christians aren't really interested in what Jesus preached. They are interested in what they believe, and search christianity for support for their own position. It's known as 'cafeteria christianity', in that you take what you like and leave the rest.

Ugh, that's what I was afraid of. Even though I'm Buddhist, it hurts to see a good religion soured by selfishness.

There's nothing "selfish" about thinking for oneself. It's reassuring to see at least some signs of this among Christians!

What bothers me is the hypocracy of claiming to be Christian when one doesn't actually believe all the Bible has to say.

 

[The Seeker]

This is a false dillemma. It is not violent action versus inaction. Nonviolent resistance could include helping Jews escape Nazi controlled territory or by joining with others to remove all support of the Nazi regime in order to render it unable to act.

Sometimes nonviolent action isn't sufficient. The true believers wouldn't have suddenly decided to give up on fascism, they would have merely upped their level of violence until somebody did more than run away.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Sometimes nonviolent action isn't sufficient. The true believers wouldn't have suddenly decided to give up on fascism, they would have merely upped their level of violence until somebody did more than run away.

The true believers would have very little power if good people did not cooperate with them. If the people withdraw all support, the tyrant can do very little.