From: jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: SUNDAY
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:35:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr12.022654.25751@ccu.umanitoba.ca> youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:
>   Then there are the anti-war
>   people who will...oh, yeah, but they don't subscribe, do they?

Sorry... We subscribe and we've been keeping track of the discussion with
great interest.

>   Basically, you are wasting your time and my space by doing this.  
>   While I agree that if we could abolish war, the world would be a
>   better place, it seems that we can't do it so far.  There will be war
>   as long as our leaders tell us that "they" are a threat to "us".  There
>   will be war as long as there is religion.  And there will be war as long
>   as there is prejudice.  

As a pacifist, you will get no argument here.  I think the big problem with
the "stereotype" about pacifists is the idea that we believe we're going to
totally abolish war.  Obviously, many of us subscribe to this position, but
there are a great number of us who do not.  It is not a black and white
thing.  There is a great deal of grey area involved.  I did not become a 
pacifist in order to eliminate war from the Earth.  I think it would just as
easy to get all parent to stop naming their children "John".  People, being
what they are, will always go their own way and do what they want.  No laws,
morals, or any other virtue has ever stopped them in the past.  What I have
decided is that, for reasons of morality and my religion, I refuse to be
a part of something I see as immoral on any grounds.

For example, how many people would argue the virtues of selling cocaine in 
order to give the money to charity.  The immorality of selling drugs does not
make up for whatever benefits may be derived from their sale.  Now, I made a
decision a long time ago the war is another form of immorality.  I suggest that
the bone of contention between our two sides is this concept and this concept
alone. 

>   Believe it or not, most of the people who read this group are not warmongers
>   and many of them are not violent poeple.  Most (myself included) have an
>   interest in either the technology of warfare or the strategy and tactics
>   aspect of war.  While I enjoy wargaming, I don't go out and shoot people
>   for real.  

I think this is a bit obvious.  It goes without saying that the average 
individual does not wish to be involved with a modern day, full scale war.  
I would suggest, and I think most readers would agree with me, that such an
individual belongs in an institution.  Again, I think the real dispute is
over whether war is a necessary form of evil or not.  I made a decision a
long time ago, mostly on religious grounds, that there is no such thing as
a necessary evil.  Simply because people do not agree with my position, however,
does not mean I label them as "warmongers".  Personally, I think this 
stereotype of pacifists has gone on long enough.  We are not ignorant fools and
we do have reasons for our positions.  Simply because we are in the minority
does not take away the validity of our arguments.

>   Sorry this went on so long.  (How long?  Tonight...)

No problem... I'm prone to long diatribes myself... :-)
(No malice intended)


-Jon Anderson


  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
  Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
      "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
       You've just got to see me through another day.
       My body's aching and my time is at hand,
       And I won't make it any other way. "                 -James Taylor
  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><