Why the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is Wrong

[Flying Crane]

Interesting. How do you feel about NAMBLA?

For those of you outside the US, that stands for the North American Man- Boy Love Association. They advocate sexual relationships between men and young boys. They do not want people who sleep with 12 year old boys to face punishment. They work toward, and advocate, the goal of the abolition of any law that prevents that.

Are you suggesting that a bunch of idealist hippie buddhist pacifists, however unrealistic their goals may be, are somehow on the same moral level as NAMBLA?

 

[Don Roley]

Are you suggesting that a bunch of idealist hippie buddhist pacifists, however unrealistic their goals may be, are somehow on the same moral level as NAMBLA?

I am saying that people that advocate certain things are on the same moral level as those that carry the acts out. I think that the teachers who taught me to help others share at least as much credit for any acts of kindness that I have given as myself.

At the same time, those that preach and promote a form of evil are just as evil as those that allow those acts of evil to happen.

In this case, what are the possible consequences of giving up all acts of violence? Many of these hippie buddhist pacifists would not have us defend ourselves or punish child molestors. They see no difference between agressive violence and the self protection we do as martial artists, or in the deterent effect that punishment can have. It has been said that the only thing decent men need to do to insure the triumph of evil is to do nothing. It sounds like these guys are doing just that. If someone were to not turn someone in for molesting a child because of what they say about them dying anyway- are these people partially responsible for the future attacks against children?

If they were against the agressive use of violence, then that would be one thing. Many of them might be only concerned with that. But to be afraid of weapons themselves instead of the way they are used is what concerns me. Our martial arts skills are equivelent to weapons in that they can be misused for harm. But I would rather concentrate on the way that we might use violence and not the possibility itself as they are.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I am saying that people that advocate certain things are on the same moral level as those that carry the acts out. I think that the teachers who taught me to help others share at least as much credit for any acts of kindness that I have given as myself.

At the same time, those that preach and promote a form of evil are just as evil as those that allow those acts of evil to happen.

In this case, what are the possible consequences of giving up all acts of violence? Many of these hippie buddhist pacifists would not have us defend ourselves or punish child molestors. They see no difference between agressive violence and the self protection we do as martial artists, or in the deterent effect that punishment can have. It has been said that the only thing decent men need to do to insure the triumph of evil is to do nothing. It sounds like these guys are doing just that. If someone were to not turn someone in for molesting a child because of what they say about them dying anyway- are these people partially responsible for the future attacks against children?

If they were against the agressive use of violence, then that would be one thing. Many of them might be only concerned with that. But to be afraid of weapons themselves instead of the way they are used is what concerns me. Our martial arts skills are equivelent to weapons in that they can be misused for harm. But I would rather concentrate on the way that we might use violence and not the possibility itself as they are.

I see what you're saying, and agree that "evil flourishes when good men do nothing" applies here. I spent a long time studying the Third Reich and one of my greatest frustrations was the large number of passive onlookers that enabled the Nazi thugs to obtain and keep power. However, as much as I disliked them (the passive onlookers), I could not hold them to the same level of moral abhorrence that I held the actual pepetrators of the Holocaust to. Same here.

BTW, for those of you who have read "The Hiding Place", I knew Corrie Ten Boom when I was a small child and was present when several of her talks were recorded for distribution by a Christian Bookstore. She WAS NOT a passive onlooker.

 

[Hand Sword]

Right! Don't shoot the cow because he saw the fox kill the chicken.

 

[Don Roley]

I see what you're saying, and agree that "evil flourishes when good men do nothing" applies here. I spent a long time studying the Third Reich and one of my greatest frustrations was the large number of passive onlookers that enabled the Nazi thugs to obtain and keep power. However, as much as I disliked them (the passive onlookers), I could not hold them to the same level of moral abhorrence that I held the actual pepetrators of the Holocaust to. Same here.

In this case, I do not think that this group is in the same catagory as those that just sit on the sidelines and do nothing. I am talking about people advocating things being just as guilty as those that commit the acts. So I would hold the people that urged the Nazis to send the Jews to the death camps responsible for the deaths that happened. The people you are talking about probably did not urge the acts, they just did not do anything to stop it. In some cases, they probably were afraid to try and stop things. In others, they may have thought there was nothing they could do. And in some cases, they may just be stupid and not realize the full extent of what was going on. There are times when there is more to the story. But those that urged the goverment for the final solution have just as much blood on their hands as the death camp guards IMO.

 

[Phil Elmore]

You make some pretty blanket assumptions about the behavior of pacifists-that one would place himself between his wife’s would-be rapist and his wife, rather than actually hurt or kill the rapist, for example-that are not necessarily true of pacifists, or,at least, all pacifists. My Quaker forebears embraced pacifism as part for their religion, yet variously utilized violence when circumstances dictated its necessity.

This is why my article defines what I mean by pacifism right up front. When I speak of pacifism, I am speaking of philosophically consistent pacifism. If you say, "I am a pacifist, except for when it's necessary to use force," that's fine -- but you're not a pacifist. You're either a rational human being (most of us would only use force when it is absolutely necessary) or you're simply being hypocritical or (philosophically inconsistent, if we don't want to use a pejorative term to describe the same thing). I covered these concepts in the article, too, or at least I think I did.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

In this case, I do not think that this group is in the same catagory as those that just sit on the sidelines and do nothing. I am talking about people advocating things being just as guilty as those that commit the acts. So I would hold the people that urged the Nazis to send the Jews to the death camps responsible for the deaths that happened. The people you are talking about probably did not urge the acts, they just did not do anything to stop it. In some cases, they probably were afraid to try and stop things. In others, they may have thought there was nothing they could do. And in some cases, they may just be stupid and not realize the full extent of what was going on. There are times when there is more to the story. But those that urged the goverment for the final solution have just as much blood on their hands as the death camp guards IMO.

My bad. I didn't READ your original post carefully, and thus, disagreed with something you did not say. Apologies.

I have read and agree with this one, though!

 

[elder999]

[/font]

This is why my article defines what I mean by pacifism right up front. When I speak of pacifism, I am speaking of philosophically consistent pacifism. If you say, "I am a pacifist, except for when it's necessary to use force," that's fine -- but you're not a pacifist. You're either a rational human being (most of us would only use force when it is absolutely necessary) or you're simply being hypocritical or (philosophically inconsistent, if we don't want to use a pejorative term to describe the same thing). I covered these concepts in the article, too, or at least I think I did.

I understood that;it's why I quoted the dicitonary as a counterpoint to your view. While there are pacifists like the ones you define as "philosophically consistent," they don't live in the real world-they are either delusional twits like the ones in your magazine article, who have no real experience with violence, only a viewpoint, or they live in monastaries, and such-even then, I'm reminded of how the retreat of the Dalai Lama from Tibet into India was backed up by armed monks who fought of the pursuing Chinese, and how those same monks stayed armed and resisted for short time with the help of the C.I.A.

I can't accept your definition of pacifism; I've known too many true pacifists in the course of my life who I'd hesitate to call hypocritical simply because they recognize the need to defend themselves or others in the face of violence-they simply think, and I happen to agree, that whatever it solves, war is inherently wrong, and that if you are forced to resort to violence as a solution-on any level, personal or national-then in some way you've failed to find an alternate solution to the problem.

The use of violence, when necessary, should represent a failure of a sort, no matter the outcome, and I've usually felt it to be such.

 

[Flying Crane]

Very good post, Elder999. thank you for that viewpoint.

 

[Phil Elmore]

How can doing something that is, by definition, necessary, constitute a "failure" of some kind?

 

[elder999]

How can doing something that is, by definition, necessary, constitute a "failure" of some kind?

Well, it depends upon how it became necessary. In my case, it almost always was a failure of vigilance, of being where I shouldn't, or not paying enough attention to what was going on around me. WHen I was a bouncer, you might have chalked it up to a failure in diplomacy, or tact, or my simply having the wrong job, as I was too skinny and inexperienced to have the...presence of a bouncer, to project the proper attitude, even if I did have the other necessary skills.

Vigilance should always be the first word in self-defense, and violence usually becomes necessary due to a failure in vigilance, of one sort or another.

Ditto warfare: warfare is the result of a failure in diplomacy.

 

[Cruentus]

The use of violence often represents a failure, but not always on the person rightfully defending themselves.

 

[elder999]

The use of violence often represents a failure, but not always on the person rightfully defending themselves.

Agreed-we sadly live in a world where it is often unavoidable.....as in the break-ins I experienced in N.Y. (though there was no "violence," only burglars fleeing from the sound of my shotgun)
....with hindsight, though, violence most often isn't unavoidable..

 

[Phil Elmore]

If something is unavoidable, how can confronting the unavoidable be a failure on the part of the person confronting it?

 

[elder999]

If something is unavoidable, how can confronting the unavoidable be a failure on the part of the person confronting it?

It's not, if it really was unavoidable-it often is avoidable, though, Phil.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I would contend that particularly in the case of physical self-defense, judgments about how "avoidable" the violence used might have been are made with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight.

 

[elder999]

I would contend that particularly in the case of physical self-defense, judgments about how "avoidable" the violence used might have been are made with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight.

..and I would simply state that not only have I resorted to using violence when necessary, but that I have also succesfully avoided it.....

 

[Flying Crane]

Phil, I don't think anybody who is reasonable would try to argue that we should not defend ourselves when necessary, including defending our loved ones, and our Nation as well. But I do think that the Pacifist movement believes that many people, including Governments, are all too often quick to jump on violence as a solution, often claiming "self defense", when such claims are dubious. I think their beliefs center more around the thought that violence really should be the LAST resort, when all other options have really and truly been exhausted. They simply see too many examples where violence is clearly NOT the LAST resort.

 

[Chris Thompson]

Sometimes you find yourself in a situation where you have to make a big decision very quickly. You don't have time to weigh everything up and figure out the best possible way to resolve the situation- you just have to make your decision, act on it, and deal with the consequences. But, while your decision was the best you could do at that time, it may not have been the best solution, because the best solution may not have occurred to you under the pressure of the moment. So, while you did what you had to do, there was still a failure on your part.
How often are violent situations truly unavoidable? Speaking as a person who's seen a lot of them, the answer is "very rarely." 90% of the time, both parties to the conflict were in some way at fault, even if one of them was much more at fault. For every truly random attack there are many cases of two people acting more or less like idiots, often with tragic consequences.
Phil, if you're discouraging people from second-guessing themselves, you have a point but you should be careful. In the moment, you sometimes have to act decisively, and you don't want to be paralyzed with doubt when it could get you or someone else killed. You're right about that. But if you've ever seen how horrible the aftermath of a fight can be, you'll know that the decision to use violence on another human being should *always* fill you with the greatest reluctance and regret, even if there are times when you just have to set that aside and take care of business.

-Chris Thompson

 

[Phil Elmore]

All rational people abhor violence. Life is about dealing with reality, however, and that reality is sometimes unpleasant.