...Come to think of it bennie, on the subject of ‘being nice to each other’, one of the most acknowledged books on this theme suggests there’s a lot more to it than just being ‘nice’. Here's a 'good' bit. Not only should we be ‘nice’ but also we should suffer abuse, some degradation and a fair dose of humiliation. And if that isn’t enough, we should actually love our abusers – finally, if they take us to court on trumped up charges we should allow them to take us to court and submit to its ruling, even if unjust…but that’s entirely another issue.

However, the focus of the article is on the ‘doctrine’ of pacifism – a little different to just being nice. Let’s say for argument I reject, totally, the moral precept “Thou shalt not kill.” – for my own good reasons, naturally. My intent is to attack and kill you – and presumably I have the means. Would you prefer the law and society to defend you of my intent, with all means at their disposal? Or, in I successfully executing your murder, I merely be tried and found guilty (perhaps by reason of insanity) of a crime (perhaps murder) and locked away for a period? Remember too, the morality behind to principle not to kill is bound also to a strong Judaic-Western tradition where the sanctity of life and its preservation is important – a tradition which punished as it defended.

relda,
I take all 10 commandments very seriously, and I am NOT conservative.

Relda,

My take on the article can be summed up in some pithy little saying along the lines of “for evil men to succeed it takes good men to do nothing”. The thing is, evil isn’t restricted to the bad guys, but you wouldn’t read about it. ‘Eternal vigilance’ sounds passé but consider what happens in its absence.

If a court subjects you to an unjust ruling, is pacifism or the law at fault? If you’re not capable of withstanding sticks & stones, “abuse, some degradation and a fair dose of humiliation”, how are you going to get through life? Perhaps you’re thinking of those living under oppressive regimes, in which case there’s a lot else to consider. For a westerner such as you or me, living quite comfortably, who needs to be that precious? What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Alternatively, an eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

If you reject, totally, the moral precept “Thou shalt not kill” I’d say I’m the least of your problems and that rational argument is moot. And that I’d do my utmost to defend myself. In my opinion anyone advocating violence before all political measures are exhausted, however, is insane. Or has the middle name ‘W’. Or both. The fact that the vast majority of victims of violence are totally innocent should factor into your reasoning. I’ve never claimed killing in self-defence is unjustified. On this score “self defence” needs a bit of context. The relatively new idea of “preventative war” needs a bit of explaining - most of the world remains unconvinced.

bennie,
Well said, as John Lennon said "all we are saying, is give peace a chance" so far the U.S.A. and their deputy sheriff Australia under Howard have done anything but give peace a chance. Murdering 100's of thousands of innocent women and children on a pretence of WMD's then "oh well it's good we got Saddam" no WMD's have been found and Saddam is dead, the coalition of the willing have no more excuses, get out and leave it to the Iraqi's. We should be concerntrating on defending our our turf, somehow Aussies are always dragged into someone elses war on the other side of the globe.

Like Vietnam, another war the yanks dragged us into this one can't be won either, and if it is, what's the point? The ADF has seen enough overseas action, now is the time for peace, bring them home, as PM John Curtain did, all those years ago.

(cont…)

The suggestion “the morality behind the principle not to kill is bound to a strong Judaic-Western tradition where the sanctity of life and its preservation is important” begs many questions. Capital punishment in liberal/Christian democracies; the apparent belief that if something appears threatening, kill it; might is right; the failure to draw a distinction between one man’s freedom fighter & another man’s terrorist; the widespread conceit that the sanctity of life is less important in non Judaic-western countries. Perhaps you missed the irony in the Bush government denying they were responsible for 600 000 innocent Iraqi deaths; “No way, we only killed a tenth that many…” China on the other hand makes no apology, though a Chinese peasant feels the same pain as you or I would. In any case there’s much to be said for pointing out hypocrisy wherever it occurs.

So perhaps we should be talking in terms of administrations, not individuals? Here we often elect economists and lawyers as our leaders, one reason the Australian public is more financially literate (and peaceful) than most other countries. I’m generalising here but leaders do influence how countries are perceived, even behave. In America they elect entrepreneurs who have found, amongst other things, arms manufacture lucrative and war profitable. In China they appoint only apparatchiks; In Holland, progressives; In Iran, religious leaders; In Palestine, warlords; In Israel, generals…

Finally, would I prefer the law and society to defend me from your intent [to kill me]? Or, in you successfully executing my murder, merely be tried and found guilty? Well, all of the above. All three branches of government are there for my benefit.

There seems to be an unspoken assumption that people everywhere are representative of their government, or their faith, and deserve what’s coming to them. Mostly, they’re not and they don’t. They just want a little peace. But they need a great deal of help, some “eternal vigilance” from those in a position to help, from “good men” who have the choice to do nothing but don’t. So I simply plug away…

bennie,
You condemn the basis of Judaic Christian morality on a flawed part of western culture – just as it is equally wrong to denounce an entire Islamic culture on the actions of a fanatical constituent, albeit a threatening one.

The concept of peace is ancient. The Greek word eirene means absence of war. The expectation from ancient Judea was that swords will be beaten into plowshares and the lion will lay down with the lamb (Is. 11:6) The Hebrew word shalom includes such English ideas as peace, well-being, wholeness or health, welfare, prosperity, and safety. The New Testament includes all of the meanings of shalom: good relationships among peoples and nations - the needs of all persons are met where there is material well being, economic security, and prosperity for all. In short, there is no peace without justice. I will gladly enjoin with any culture exemplifying these values – our western culture perhaps shows a dismal failure in many of these areas, and to its detriment

Despite our blemished culture, we will not effectively address the danger fundamentalist terrorism poses to the western understanding of civil society unless we admit that we are not working from the same set of values. Trying to apply any of our ‘standards’ for peace (or even a ‘just war’ standard) to a situation in which one side views them as irrelevant won’t work. We should not tear up our own morality, for we become as the terrorist. Whether we accept it or not, we have all become ‘combatants’ in this war. Pacifism is a utopian ideal in today’s climate – perhaps quite relevant for Ghandi in the achievment of his political ends.

For the mind the danger comes in our finitude, our inability to think beyond our general sphere of reference; for the spirit, the danger is in the temptation to build our own theoretical ‘Babel’, rationalizing a comfortable way to deal with the uncomfortable. “A farmer is patient as he waits for the autumn and spring rains to water his crops.” - so it is for the coming of peace