Talk:Pacifism/Archive 1

message: I would like to see a sharpening of the current definition:
:Pacifism is opposition to war. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from a preference to use non-military means for resolving disputes through to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, in any circumstance.
A preference to use non-military means for resolving disputes would make almost everyone a pacifist, not? I don't have a suggested change, but came here originally to find solid ground for removing Caregory:Pacifists from Nobel Peace Prize Winners, e.g. Jimmy Carter.  If Jesus wasn't a pacifist, neither is Jimmy (see discussion below). --  JonHarder 02:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: :Ironically, religions which are generally believed to promote pacifist ideas, such as Christianity, were in fact often spread by military aggression. 
I'm considering removing this sentence from the final paragraph.  Is there any irony at all, when non-pacifistic groups use agressive means to prosecute their idea of justice?  "General belief" is irrelevant - in that case it's simply a generally held misconception.  Real irony exists when pacifistic groups are found to be supportive of aggressive military acts - if an example of this can be found, that would be more interesting.  Otherwise, I see no purpose for the sentence. Mkmcconn
At least rewrite it, taking out the "ironic" part -- which is clearly opinion. What we really need is an article about how religions are spread. I daresay most of the world's major religions:
#Preach peace, but
#Spread themselves via military aggression
Copious examples available on request from Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. --Uncle Ed
:Actually, i'd be interested in hearing an example of Hinduism being spread via military aggression. Graft
:: The Marhatas are an excellent example Zak 04:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: Forgive my ignorinse, but don't the "Martial Arts" owe quite a bit to Buddhism?  In fact, in the West, the first exposure we get to Buddhism is likely to give the impression that it's a religion that excels above all others in teaching people how to fight.  If there is any truth at all to this caricature, how is Buddhism pacifistic?  Is there no truth at all to the connection between Buddhism and the Martial Arts?  Mkmcconn
:Buddhist monks developed martial arts in China as a form of exercise, but also as a form of self-defense. Of course, this can be taken in a few ways: first, the martial arts were never meant to be used aggressively: this is why the monks called it 'self-defense'; second, Buddhism spread across a vast area and assumed many different forms, not all of which were pacifist. For example, Buddhist 'monks' in Japan frequently married, took up weapons and were, for all practical purposes, warriors who happened to enjoy tax-free status due to their priesthood.
:: Regardless of the spiritual motives behind learning how to kick, punch and wield weapons with effect, even in self-defense, there is nothing pacifistic about this, is there?  If Buddhism really is pacifistic, can there be anything more ironic then, than that these priests of pacifism have distinguished themselves above others as legendary teachers of the arts of war?  Pacifism is not the name for this, and therefore in my opinion it doesn't sound true to say or to imply that Buddhism, referred to generally, is a pacifist religion/philosophy/discipline.  On the other hand, I'm sure that there are Buddhist sects or teaching-lineages that are truly pacifistic.  If these pacifistic sects can be identified, and it is true of them that they have relied on bloodshed to advance their aims as the article currently says, then the statement only needs to specifically identify the pacifistic sect that has employed aggression in this way.  Mkmcconn
:::There is a big difference between styles intended for self-defense and styles intended for attacking, and especially styles suited for war. Plus, there is a great deal more that is involved in war than merely knowing how to wield a weapon or how to throw a fist - arguably this is the least important aspect of war. Furthermore many of the Chinese martial arts are highly stylized in ways that emphasize form and meditative aspects of the art rather than pure attack and defense (like, say, ninjutsu, or derivatives like wing chung do). Finally, as I said before, Buddhism was spread out over a vast region, and it had differing forms in differing regions. It is not surprising that some of the traditions practiced by some Buddhists should contradict traditions of other Buddhists. I don't think this is ironic in the least, unless you view the evolution of religion and the perversion (not meant in a derogatory sense) of the founding message of a religion to be ironic. Graft
:::I see no difference here, so far as its "pacifist" character is concerned.  Virtually all peoples resort to violence only reluctantly, and often with great uncertainty about the morality of their action if it results in harm to another, even in defense of themselves.  All you are saying about the Buddhist teachers of martial arts is that there is a big difference between them and criminals, tyrants, thugs and other career predators - but this is basically the same difference that exists between that violent class and most of the rest of us.  That doesn't mean all who are not violent criminals are pacifists.  It simply means that people do not typically intend to do harm to others, and will typically resist doing so unless they perceive themselves severely pressed, and then more likely for the defense of others rather than for the defense of oneself.  Surely, that is in contrast to pacifism, isn't it?  Mkmcconn
:::I fail to see the importance of distinguishing between styles meant for self-defense, attack, and general war, when we're talking about pacifism. All three types of styles are still using violence or force to accomplish their ends, unless their techniques consist exclusively of dodging, running away, and hiding sorts of techniques. Many styles include these, but also include more forceful blocks and strikes. These aren't pacifistic or non-violent; they would fall somewhere on the "just war" or "just self-defense" spectrum. Wesley
::::I don't mean to imply that Buddhist martial arts as a form of self-defense are appropriate for pacifism, since I know only a little about pacifist philosophy. But, as I also said, Buddhism is not monolithic, and there are certainly non-pacifist traditions within what we can properly call Buddhism. I don't think this is ironic. Graft
:::::The question I still have though, Graft, is whether the sentence really means anything, which says that Buddhists have often resorted to bloodshed.  Deciding whether this is worth mentioning depends on whether the Buddhists who have supposedly done this are pacifists.  If Buddhists in a pacifist tradition have resorted to violence in seeming conflict with their principles, then it appears to me that it's important to identify the group.  This is because it seems to me to be a peculiar use of the term to call Buddhism in general a pacifist religion (although there are pacifist Buddhists, no doubt).  The implied issue being addressed in the final paragraph, is how difficult and rare it is to live consistently with the pacifist ideal.  But if Buddhists aren't pacifists, it doesn't make sense to include them in that list of pacifists who, not surprisingly, have sometimes fallen short of their ideals. Mkmcconn
There is a difference in saying that "Buddhism is a pacifist religion" and "Buddhists are pacifists". The former is true while the latter may not be. One thing is certain; no one was ever killed or murdered in the name of Buddhism. Sure, there will be Buddhists that are murderers and rapists, but these Buddhists are acting in conflict with the teachings of, not in the name of, Buddhism. 
The view that Buddhism is not pacifist just because martial arts originated from it is a very myopic way of seeing this matter. You have to understand what "martial art" truly is; In point of fact, Martial art, in so far as they relate to traditional Chinese/ Buddhism based forms is very much a misnomer. Martial Art is not an art of street fighting, where the goal is to strike down your opponent as quickly and brutally as possible. Martial arts entails much more than that, it uses physical movements in harmony with spiritual cultivation as a means of strengthening the body and develop inner strength. The fact that it was practiced by monks living in secluded wilderness means that practitioners will have to defend themselves from being devoured by wild animals. 
Also, repeating what Graft said, there is a big difference between purely defensive forms and offensive forms. The defensive forms only seek to neutralize an attacker’s threat without harming him. A defensive form does not have any techniques to gouge out opponent’s eyes, fracture an attacker’s limb, or otherwise delivering killing or maiming blows. 
You need not look any further than history to see the pacifist nature of Buddhism … Geographical zones abound that had once been rife with Buddhism. But upon the intrusion of the later and more militant monotheistic faiths, Buddhism has all but disappeared.
::styles meant for self-defense, attack, and general war -  What kind of foolishness is this?  This is like the difference between a "defensive gun" and an "offensive gun."  There's no such thing.  There's fighting and there's fighting, and how you go about it makes no difference whatsoever.  The only difference is in how badly you choose to hurt your opponent.  72.178.131.225 04:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference. Just compare Aikido with another 'hard' style martial arts like Karate, although ultimately it is the practitioner himself who will decide whether to hurt his attacker. If someone attacks me and I am determined not to hurt my attacker, I will just use grappling techniques to ward him off. But if my attacker persisted in attacking me then I will be left with little choice but to disable him more thoroughly (like breaking a bone or two...) Still, the choice is in me on how serious an injury I should inflict on my attacker.  If you use the analogy of a gun, then a "defensive" gun is not a gun but a taser, which aims only to subdue but not to kill. BeyRel (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is Buddhism any more connected to martial arts than anything else? Buddhism teaches pacifism. A very, very small (but very famous) minority of Buddhist monks practice martial arts, and I imagine a proportion of Buddhist lay-people similar to that of any other religious or ethnic group practice martial arts for unrelated reasons in their spare time. Christianity teaches pacifism, yet the Catholic church maintains a (small) standing army, martial arts have existed in Europe for centuries and many Christians own guns. What a few monks and individuals do as a consequence of indvidual choice is surely irrelevant to Buddhism's overall stance on the matter, especially since there's no evidence that the martial arts in question have any theological or liturgical connection with Buddhism. Leushenko 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism

message: I wonder if the article is being fair to Ghandi and his philosophy. How would a subtler reading about Ghandi and genocide in Europe be different?
  
I'm going to read the talk page and join right in.  64.229.14.142
Removed the following sentences, because as a member of one of the pacifist denominations in question, I know a thing or too about this subject, and I consider the ad hominem assertion that religious pacifists hide their ideological leanings behind a false facade of pacifist rhetoric to be just plain insulting (not to mention untrue).  Let's stick to the facts about pacifism, rather than questioning the integrity, sincerity, or motives of those who profess and live by pacifist principles.  soulpatch
Mennonites and other pacifists, although they typically take non-combative roles, have sometimes been directly supportive or notably uncritical of revolutionary regimes. The Shining Path of Peru and the Sandinistas of Nicaragua enjoyed this kind of support for a time, leading critics to question the actual motivations of some forms of religious pacifism.  
:I think that it's a good decision to remove it; on the other hand, I think that on the same argument the whole final paragraph is pretty useless, and wish that you would have used your rule to spare the rest of those who ought to be insulted by what it says, by removing the whole thing. Mkmcconn
:: Well, there was nothing stopping you from removing the whole thing since you feel that way.  :)  soulpatch
::: I don't know - there are lots of paragraphs like that one on Wikipedia; whole articles come to mind.  But, the NPOV thing is a fuzzy concept to me. I've let it boil down to trying to express opinions I disagree with as well as I can.  So, I am more inclined to try to improve the paragraph, rather than remove it, even though I disagree with much of what it says (thanks for the invitation, though :)  Mkmcconn
:: Would it be appropriate (i.e., NPOV) to note that Ghandi's methods only could have succeeded in India against a crippled British Empire?  His approach probably would never have worked against France, and most certainly not against Japan.  Just thought I'd ask. BT Aug 2 06.
::: In a section described as criticism, fine but you would require a citation of a journalist or someone such as for example  making this observation. Also you should explain this in a neutral manner, indicating that critics have commented this and so forth. Addhoc 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghandi philosophy

message: Is anyone else aware of the talk going on in non violence?
: It seems to me that we have three articles on essentially the same subject: pacifism, Non-Violence, and Non-violent resistance. -- Soulpatch
:: Well, I think those are similar but not the same. -- Juan M. Gonzalez 04:08 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
::: Hmmm, well, there might be differences of emphsis, but in any case it seems like there is a lot of overlap between the three articles.
They are more than just similar; we have three articles on the exact same subject. This is ridiculous. An encyclopedia will be useless if every topic is fragmented in such a fashion. There should be one main entry, on pacifism. All the topics mentioned in this page should be moved there; the same goes for everything in non-violent resistance. If one of the sections in this article becomes specialized and lengthy, then at that point it would be appropriate to spin-off that one particular topic into its own entry. RK
End of cross post.
:::Pacifism and non-resistance are not the same thing. To put them both under the same heading would disenfranchise both, and confuse the readers. glocks out 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacifism, Non-Violence, and Non-violent resistance

message: The article as it is now seems to me to be badly off track. There seems to be a muddled confusion of pacifism and non-violence, begining with a mis-definition. See eg: m-w definition; an old encyclopedia of mine's article on pacifism begins by defining it as a doctrine for "the suppression of wars between nations".  Much of the material in this article IMO would better belong in the non-violence article. -- Infrogmation 07:18, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. It has drifted, during the last few months.  I do think that it has bone off track, now, and has become equivalent to anti-war.  Mkmcconn 17:59, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-War 

message: Nothing about Mohism?  Its method to maintain peace is to be a professional helping the weaker states to defend wshun 06:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Mohism

message: Gandhi was naive enough to advocate that Europeans - even Jews - should not resist the Nazis. In this situation non-violence fails as the Third Reich - an openly evil empire which felt no 'need' to be liked - could murderously crush any opposition to their rule without compromising its own ideology. The science fiction author Harry Turtledove wrote a short story "The Last Article" in which Gandhi attempts to use non-violent resistance against India's Nazi occupiers after an Axis victory in World War II. Needless to say, it doesn't work.
This is clearly speculation and personal opinion, I'm rewriting it to be more NPOV. Kim Bruning 18:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten speculation 

message: The underlying thrust of parts of this article seem to imply that Judaism and Islam have no tradition of peaceful non violence and in fact advocate violence as a means of resolving problems? I disagree with that argument, groups like the Khudai Khidmatgar and there are plenty of Islamic examples of patience under enormous abuse. The presence or absence of guidelines to fight do not make a pacifist. Zak 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are plenty of Islamic examples of patience under enormous abuse. -  Yep, because those Sunnis and Shiites are all one big happy family.  72.178.131.225 04:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: Hi, I have made some changes to sections that were unnecessarily eurocentric. I'm aware that my changes are not perfect, so further improvements (but not just reverts) would be welcome. 80.189.87.165 12:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocenticism 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/pacifist-dictionary.htm
** In Pacifism on Mon Jul 17 14:59:23 2006, Socket Error: (104, 'Connection reset by peer')
** In Pacifism on Thu Jul 27 00:37:49 2006, 404 Not Found
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: This article demonstrates an anti-Catholic bias in two places.  First, when it states that the Catholic Church's Just War Doctrine is in opposition to the Gospel, which, by extension, means that the Catholic Church is not Christian.  Second, when it restates the old saw that the Church did not admit soldiers to Holy Communion until after St. Augustine, which is demonstratively untrue.  This second point not only begs the question without providing supporting evidence, but is a direct rip off of old style anti-Augustine anti-Catholicism, employed by bigots since the 19th century.  --WAC
Before you vandalise another editors work perhaps you would would like to show where Jesus in the gospels supports the Catholic theory on a just war? My edit had nothing to do with anti Catholicsm but with scriptural fact. I suggest you support your remopval of this edit otherwise I intend to reinstate it!
Mombas 11:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholic Bias 

message: The antonym to "pacifist" would be useful. --67.68.26.35 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only words I find are emotionally charged (uncivilised, savage, et cetera). A label for those who advocate the use of military in disputes (this does not mean all disputes, for example, many pacifists have supported joining the Allies)? Militrarist seems to suggest something different. --A Sunshade Lust 20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonym 

message: I have made some corrections to the section on Catholicism. There is no such thing as the 'Roman Church'(except in the Diocese of Rome). The term Wikipedia uses is Roman Catholic Church, though Catholics themselves generally do not use that term. I have removed the reference to Catholic soldiers before Augustine being refused the eucharist. This is glaringly without a citation, and is demonstrably false. There was no reference to the official RC position, which supports Just War theory. I added this.--Gazzster 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: Current section seems to have gotten a little out of hand.  I propose setting up category for pacifist organizations and focusing this list on links that provide the best encyclopedic information about pacifism (rather being about how to get involved in pacifism).  So: 
*Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship Delete. Put org in category if they have a Wikipedia article.
*Text of Dom Helder Camara's Spiral of Violence Keep. Classic text.
*ACTivist Magazine Delete. Not even solely about pacifism.
*Nonviolence.org Delete ?  I think one site like this would be good, but this one doesn't seem to be the best or the most notable.
*The Philosophy of Nonviolence Delete ? It kind of rambles.  There must be better David McReynolds (or similar, contemporary, living pacifist) writing than this.
*(Didn't Know I Was) UnAmerican Delete This is more activist than informational.
*A Look at the Cultural Roots of German Pacifism Keep ? Apparently scholarly look at pacifism in a particular setting.  Way more detail than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. This is good.  However, author appears to be a Mechanical Engineering student, not an expert in either Germany or pacifism.  Perhaps someone more familiar with German pacifism could check out how much the site represents the opinions of experts in the field.
*Writings on Christian Nonresistance and Pacifism from Anabaptist-Mennonite Sources Keep ?Again, apparently scholarly look at pacifism from a particular peerspective.  But again the author is a communications academic, not a noted expert on Anabaptist-Mennonites or pacifism.  If anyone else knows more about this, it would be helpful to know if this represents the opinions of experts in the field. 
*Anti-War Directory Delete Not particularly encyclopedic, actually links to a webring not a directory, and it's not open.
*A New Way Delete. More of a refutation of "Just War Theory" than being about pacifism per se.  Doesn't seem right for this article.
*Pacifism in 19th century New Zealand against the British and colonial invadersDelete. 
*anabaptist.org Delete Add to pacifism category if Wikipedia article for org exists,
*Anglican Pacifist Fellowship Delete Add to pacifism category if Wikipedia article for org exists.
* A Case against War Delete Self published opinion piece -  And an essay on why we should be pacifist rather than being about pacifism in a more general sense.
* Peace Pledge Union Delete. add org to category if they have a Wikipedia article.
* Source documents in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Delete. Not focused enough on pacifism.
*Manifesto against conscription and the military system, on official website Delete. Again - not really about pacifism so much as as a call to be pacifist.
*Manifesto against conscription and the military system, with online signature, official website Delete. As above - plus we certainly don't need two links to this.
*The IWW’s Position on War and Militarism Delete. Add IWW to category.
*  Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports  Delete. This is a site on all sorts of Catholic teachings, not just about pacifism.
*Jesus Christ, Gandhi and George Bush by Stephen Hand  Delete. Again, an essay about why we should be pacifist (in a particular situation) rather than beign about pacifism in general.
*Every Church a Peace Church Delete. Add org to category if there's a Wikipedia article for them.
This does get rid of a lot of links, but nothing that seems to add encyclopedic value to someone wanting to understand pacifism rather than someone wanting to get involved in pacifism.  It should help focus readers on the content that is encyclopedic.  
I there are a few areas that could benefit from good external links.  I didn't see anything that pointed to non-Christian faith traditions of pacifism, nor anything that rebuts pacifism, and we could use a link to a good academic portal that looks at pacifism as a whole (if one exists), preferably not from a single religious or philosophical perspective.  
If no one comments in the next couple of days I'll go ahead and make the changes I suggest. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would delete the above external links right away.  There's no need for them to be here. -- Jeff3000 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :::Your input to Nonviolent resistance, Non-resistance and Non-violence would be appreciated... Addhoc 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  oh, i s'pose i could mosey over there, but i feel like Bilbo Baggins as butter scraped over to much toast. r b-j 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar articles

message: I propose the opening five paragraphs in the 'Pacifism and religion' section should be removed as they lack sources. Addhoc 12:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take them out; we already have sections for the various religions. -- Jeff3000 16:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing them, I agree with Jeff3000, and feel that individual sections allows for specific an accurate statements to be made and cited.--GMS508 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacifism and religion introduction 

message: I think that there should be an external link to the outstanding international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with a complete updated list of all signatories, 1993 to 2007), official version with one of these website addresses: http://www.themanifesto.info (Manifesto against conscription and the military system)
http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm (Manifesto against conscription and the military system)
because it has already become part of the history of Pacifism.
Chrbartolf 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could start by suggesting a paragraph verified by reliable sources for the article about how and why this has become a part of the history of pacifism.  That would be more appropriate for our readers than an external link promoting the website. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That you've managed to collect a lot of signatures doesn't automatically make you a significant part of the peace movement. And if that's the best reason you have to include it, well, it's not very compelling.  -- Siobhan Hansa 20:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manifesto as External Link 

message: **Made first of some clean up changes I want to make.  There's a lot of redundancy and excess verbiage and POV problems that need cleaning up, especially in those pragmatic and principled pacifism sections.   Will get some more non-wiki citations in, both to what I added and to other stuff want to add. Also I am going to merge the "international aggression" and "pacifism and democracy" sections into one section called something like "Pacifism and Government" (right after religion section) to cover a number of issues referred to there and elsewhere that need more systematic exploration.
Carol Moore 01:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent and Suggested Changes

message: An article has been started called Christian pacifism and a new category :Category:Christian pacifists. Editor inputs are welcome. nirvana2013 17:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian pacifism