# Why the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is Wrong



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

On a whim, recently, I purchased a copy of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship publication, _Turning Wheel_. The theme for the issue was "disarmament," which I could not resist exploring. Since the founding of _The Martialist_ it has been my assertion that *pacifism* is an unworkable, self-destructive, ill-conceived philosophy of false moral equivalence in which no distinction is made between the murderer and the murdered, the rapist and the raped, the aggressor and the defender. Pacifism is, therefore, a philosophy of overwhelming _evil_  a doctrine of inaction couched as moral superiority that expresses itself as contempt for the gift of our lives. Self-defense  and the willingness to take action towards success in self-defense  is necessary for any human being who appreciates the gift of her life. It is the responsibility of any law-abiding citizen who seeks to protect his family from harm. It is an *individual right* that is also an obligation for anyone who sees his or her fellow human beings' freedom of action as a _benefit_ rather than a _threat_.

Editor Colette DeDonato sums up quite eloquently the Buddhist Peace Fellowship's philosophy of evil. "When we look closely," she writes in her opening column, "we realize that arming ourselves is about self-preservation. ...We arm ourselves, both physically and emotionally, because at our core we feel vulnerable and fragile. Put simply, we are suffering and we do not want to continue suffering. Bombs are built to defend this notion of self-preservation..."







DeDonato quotes Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, whom she says opined that there is "no reason to kill our ordinary enemies" because "death will come to them naturally anyway." Gyatso asserts, and DeDonato agrees, that we should strive instead to destroy "the delusions that are the cause of all suffering." Buddhism holds at its core, you see, the notion that _attachment_  to the world, to our possessions, to notions about our physical health, to other people  leads to suffering and that all life is, in fact, suffering. To achieve Buddhist enlightenment is to free yourself from such attachments and thus to free yourself from suffering.

The end result, one presumes  particularly in the context of this issue of _Turning Wheel_, which consists largely of self-congratulatory and self-righteous screeds on disarmament  is that our attachment to delusions about self-preservation is what causes our suffering. By letting go of this  by disarming, by refusing to preserve ourselves, by adopting pacifism  we achieve peace and the cessation of suffering. This is absolutely correct  for when we refuse to preserve our lives, we are maimed, violated, and killed, the last stop along that particularly unpleasant route being the peace and cessation of suffering that is death. What manner of philosophy would teach that alleviation from anxiety over self-defense is simply to give up self-defense? What manner of evil is this that preaches acceptance in the face of brutality, of rape, of murder?

"As nations, we are indeed armed to the teeth," DeDonato laments. "But as individuals, we have the power to undo this. ...[A]s socially engaged Buddhists, we are moved  I hope  to work for an end to these instruments of destruction that threaten to do away with all humans, animals, and plant life."

I am no Buddhist, but the concepts of being "socially engaged" and pursuing freedom from "attachment" seem mutually exclusive to me. I recall a Buddhist anecdote in which a monk explains that he has no worries for his physical health  for he could die tomorrow, or he could wake up with a rooster for a left hand, and after all, what would it matter? Contrast this with the pictures of "socially engaged" Buddhist pacifists marching on Washington holding banners  pictures like those contained in this issue of _Turning Wheel_. Am I the only on who sees a contradiction here?

The rest of the issue contains several articles on the theme of disarmament that are disturbing to varying degrees. While the tone of most of the articles is, as I've said, smugly self-congratulatory, very few of the authors seem to understand the philosophical problems they are raising for themselves. They move blissfully through their narratives, telling us how proud they are of their pacifism and the ways in which they have chosen to apply it to their lives, while ignorant  willfully or otherwise  of the contradictions they ought to be confronting. 

In a reprehensible piece called "Raising a Son in the Dharma," contributor Mushim Ikeda-Nash decries the "rough and tough" mannerisms that are the cultural norms for men in American society, complaining that one such rude man told her it was time to wean her son Josh from breastfeeding because he was too old for it. One wonders just how old the boy _was_ that a stranger felt compelled to comment on it. When Ikeda-Nash proudly explains that her sixteen-year-old "Asian American" son is just over five feet tall, has hair down to his waist, and has refused to cut his hair or take notice of those at school "and elsewhere" who repeatedly mistake him for a girl, I begin to get a picture of the emasculated, sexually confused young "man" I have to believe she is ushering into the world  a world where other boys are "not dependent on female nurturance," according to her. 

What is most revolting about the article is the pride apparent in the author's glowing description of what, to any rational reader, is a damning account of how badly she has screwed up this boy  something of which she seems genuinely unaware. "I have thrown the term 'mama's boy' out the window," she declares. "Originally I was a single mother, so if my baby wasn't a mama's boy, he would have been an orphan." Such brilliant logic has not been seen since Burnham Wood came to Dunsinane and a man named Macduff  a man "not of woman born"  rearranged a certain Scottish ruler's priorities. 

Stephanie Kaza, in a piece called "Experiments in Disarmament," claims that environmental action and Buddhist practice "both aim to disarm." Disarming, she explains, "means willingly giving up mechanisms of self-protection to foster conditions for conflict resolution that will eventually lead to peace." Read through the doublespeak and what you have is someone calmly and proudly proclaiming that the way to peace is to _give up the means to protect one's own life_. This philosophy of appeasement, of inaction, of wishful thinking, certainly does reduce violence and conflict  for it makes it much easier for one party to a conflict to kill or enslave the other and thus resolve the issue with a minimum of fuss. If defending yourself  if protecting your life and stopping some thug from raping your wife or murdering your child  is "participating in the dominant cultural forces that produce violence and conflict on many levels," then sign me up for some dominant cultural forces.

Kaza's article affirms the commonly held conservative belief that certain radical segments of the green movement worldwide are simply the new home of socialism and communism in all its collectivist forms. Kaza equates product brands as "a new form of arms" in "today's marketing world," as conditioned consumers choose from among the marketed products by selecting the most aggressively shopped goods and services. Kaza's far-reaching and life-changing "experiment in disarmament," in this case, is to remove all the labels from the foods in her kitchen, banishing brand-name products (which she still _buys_, but whose corporations she apparently still fears) to the pantry, where they are out of sight and thus out of fragile mind.

In an article called "BPF Goes to Washington," Maia Duerr describes a September, 2005 march in D.C. that culminated in the usual candlelight vigil. I don't know what a candlelight vigil is ever supposed to accomplish, but Duerr proudly claims that 370 people (12 from her "affinity group") were arrested as they attempted to deliver the usual letters to the president demanding he end the war, bring the troops home, grow flowers on the front lawn of the White House, be kind to puppies and kittens, and generally do whatever it is that socially involved Buddhists want elected leaders to do. Among the "Direct Action Bodhisattvas" (a rather repugnant perversion of a Buddhist concept that owes its perversity to the left-wing political activists within the Peace Fellowship's Berkeley, California-based ranks), who waited more than five hours to accomplish their goal of being arrested, were Doctor Cornel West (whose "theatrics," according to John McWhorter, "reinforce racist stereotypes") and Cindy Sheehan, the "Gold Star Mother" who has worked so hard to shrilly disrespect the memory of her dead son, Casey Sheehan (a soldier killed in Iraq). The wide-eyed letter to President Bush is reproduced in its entirety and includes the obligatory references to Halliburton, racism destroying New Orleans levees, and quotes from the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

There follows a fragmented article entitled "Palestinians and Israelis Building Peace Together: How to Get Involved," by Lyn Fine and Annette Herskovits. I am at a loss to comment on this one; I can only return to the usual question I ask whenever the topics of Israel and the Palestinians are raised. Ask yourself: If the Israelis laid down their arms, parked their tanks, and stayed home, is there anyone who thinks the Palestinians would stop sending young men wearing bombs into Israeli pizza parlors and shopping malls? Now, turn it around: if the suicide bombings and other acts of terror stopped, does any rational human being think the Israelis would be bulldozing houses in Gaza or firing rockets into the neighbors just for the fun of it?

The next article is called "Whose Side Are You On? A Jewish Woman's Thoughts on Israel/Palestine." In it, Sandy Butler admits that she has "been armed to the teeth most of [her] political life." How does she then condemn her own Jewish family, she asks  for that is what her article does. Ms. Butler asks for our permission or our affirmation as a self-hating Jew breaking the taboo against criticizing fellow Jews. "I always thought I knew what side I was on and who was on it with me," she sniffs. "I thought those on the other side were misguided or ignorant." Now, it would seem, it is Jews who are misguided and ignorant  and Ms. Butler, the enlightened pacifist, who is on the side of right.

Having just returned from several weeks in what she calls "Israel/Palestine," attending the 13th Annual Women in Black Conference on Resisting War and Occupation, Ms. Butler is obviously flush with the moral superiority of the more than 700 people (that's right  seven _hundred_ people) struggling nonviolently "against all forms of militarism and nationalism." Butler condemns the "series of concrete barriers" separating Israelis from those who have repeatedly demonstrated an eagerness to murder them. She recounts the usual whitewashed and propagandized visions of Israeli discrimination against Palestinians (forgetting, yet again, that this "discrimination" is generally aimed at _stopping the poor, mistreated Palestinians from murdering Israeli women and children_ as they go about their lives shopping, eating, or going to school). Butler paints overwrought pictures in her prose, describing how she joined "international activists" at the entrance to an Israeli settlement. Surrounded by Israeli soldiers and armored vehicles (there to protect the protestors from the settlers, she asserts  the idea that the settlers might find protestors at their gates at all threatening does not occur to her), she and her fellow "international activists" are said to have "stood in the fierce noontime sun... as the cars streamed past us, drivers and passengers cursing, waving their fists, children peering out through the back window, looking bewildered." I share those children's bewilderment; I share the anger of the Israeli settlers when confronted by a fellow Jew who sides with those who are only too open in their desire to see the Jewish people swept into the sea.

From this heady material we are treated to a real gem from Gary Lark, called "Breaking the Chain: Getting Guns Out of My Life." Gary tells us a story decades old in explaining what an enlightened, peaceful Buddhist he is. It seems Gary, back in 1979, spent a spring morning destroying a 12-gauge double-barrel, a Remington .22 semi-auto, a Stevens .410 shotgun, a lever-action .308 hunting rifle, a European Mauser, and a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. To anyone who knows anything about firearms, these are not exactly weapons of warfare and destruction. They are, instead, the rather mundane accoutrements of any man in the Midwest who enjoys hunting and some target shooting. They hardly constitute an arsenal  but, to Gary, who seems still to be shaking off the effects of the marijuana he admits to smoking during his National Guard days, these are the embodiment of all violent horror. One of the guns was used by his father-in-law to commit suicide, apparently; another was carried by Gary himself as he stalked someone as an angry 21-year-old looking for payback after a brawl. 

At no time does it seem to occur to Gary that he is describing tragedies in _human behavior_, rather than some evil inherent to guns; no, Gary has "gotten guns out of his life," and he is very proud of that fact. Gary is, from all indications, a little emotionally unbalanced, so I applaud his decision. "One morning," he says, "as I was driving to the monthly Guard meeting, I felt an itch on my nose, scratched it, looked into the mirror, and hallucinated that my nose had come off... That night, after the meeting, I put on the Rolling Stones, smoked half a joint, poured a glass full of wine, and sank into a hot bath. But that still wasn't enough... I wondered why no one talked about what really goes on in military training." Gary was apparently reeling from the thought of using .50-caliber machineguns, to which he was exposed during that traumatic training. 
"That day in 1979," Gary proudly tells us, "in the process of finding myself, I destroyed all my guns. I quit alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and caffeine..." In the years that followed, Gary glimpsed "the open door of compassion," and who among us would not be grateful that a dope-smoking, boozing, caffeinated ex-hippie who spent the Vietnam war in the National Guard and admits to plotting something close to (but not quite) premeditated murder took the time to disassemble a handful of hunting guns and target plinkers? Thank heavens for Buddhist enlightenment; pass the weed, man.

If that was disturbing, the next article is even more so. Billy Tyler, writing from High Desert State Prison in Calipatria, California, describes how he has given up knives (improvised shivs and shanks) in prison thanks to his Buddhist devotion to pacifism. Oh, he'll still use his fists to defend himself, but he won't use a knife, so that means he's following the path of Enlightenment... right?

Billy describes using "a diluted form of violence" to save a friend from being stabbed. It seems Billy (who even now hopes to write to his friend, transferred to another prison, to explain that their relationship is still intact despite Billy's actions) attacked a fellow inmate in order to prompt the transfer process. The inmate, a friend, was targeted for a good ol' prison shanking when Billy got wind of it and took decisive (and sort of Buddhist, kind of) action. Oh, and the reason the friend was targeted for stabbing was because it came out that he was a child molester who had raped a fourteen year old girl. Billy wonders if he would have made friends with the fellow if he'd known from the start, but that's all water under the bridge now... right? The moral distinction between using your fists for violence and using an improvised knife for violence is somehow lost on me but, to be honest, I am not a prison inmate or a child molester, so I probably lack the compassion necessary to understand.

Melody Ermachild Chavis writes longingly of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the convicted murderer whose pleas for clemency were refused and who is now, one presumes, occupying some ring of Hell reserved for those who found notorious street gangs that even today plague the streets of Los Angeles. The willingness of leftists and peace activists to support the most violent and unrepentant of murderers never ceases to amaze me; news surrounding "Tookie's" attempts to forestall his execution was full of revelations regarding the horrible nature of his crimes  and his refusal to take responsibility for them or to disavow fully the Crips gang that is his most lasting legacy.

There's more, much more, in this issue of _Turning Wheel_, from the usually absurd "No Nukes" pleas for unilateral disarmament to pontifications on the "Middle Way to Peace." A contributor named Michele Benzamin-Miki pontificates on the natural of "martial" arts in describing her training in Aikido as some sort of spiritually liberating experience. "I have come to realize that by disarming my fear, hatred, and negativity in the moment it arises, I am free to act from a place of love," she writes. One presumes this is the excuse she uses to reconcile training in a martial art  and with katana  while also claiming to be a pacifist.

If I was tempted to forget that the true theme of this issue of _Turning Wheel_ is self-congratulation, Lin Jensen's "Peace on the Pavement: My One-Man Vigil" was enough to remind me. "Someone has to do it," Lin says humbly. "I just happened to be the one." "It," in this case, turns out to be a one-man peace vigil on the corner of Third and main streets in Chico, California. Jensen, a self-described Zen Buddhist, has apparently spent a day here and a day there on various street corners in his area, sitting cross-legged with a sign propped nearby proclaiming his peace vigil and imploring whomever might be reading it to support notions of nonviolence, justice, and mercy. "Like other peace activists," Jensen says, "I protest the violence of war in any way I can... I've also written every 'Letter to the Editor' protesting this tragic war that I could get the conservative _Chico Enterprise-Record_ to print, feeding them a letter a month until the paper's editor began imposing censorship, claiming that my viewpoint on peace was repetitious and no longer timely."

War, Lin tells us, is the "failure of compassion, a failure to realize one's inherent sympathies." I have to admit that he's right; there are many people with whom I fail to sympathize. Among these are people who strap bombs to their bodies to murder women and children, thugs who stalk the weak in order to steal from them, men who rape women, and totalitarian dictators who "institutionalize" such violence as torture and the imprisonment of political prisoners. I don't doubt that actually taking action to _fight_ any or all of these evil forces is a "failure of compassion," to Mr. Jensen. If that is so, you may consider me greatly lacking in compassion.

Stumbling to its conclusion, _Turning Wheel_ treats us to Tova Green's description of visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In my own home town, the local peace activists marched to protest the anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings  completely dismissing, one supposes, the bombing of Pearl Harbor (there were no marches of protests on the anniversary of _that_ minor incident) and failing to hold in any regard the lives of the thousands of soldiers who were spared further, tortuous ground warfare during what became the end of World War II. No, it is far easier to weep over the innocents who suffered because their government initiated war against an opponent it could not defeat. Some book reviews, advertisements, and still more material on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rounds out the issue.

When I was done with _Turning Wheel_, I felt as if I'd dipped my head in a particularly fragrant can of garbage  a pile of refuse smelling of lilacs that was, for all its pleasant aroma, still just _trash_. _Turning Wheel_ is wishful thinking masquerading as moral superiority. It is a self-destructive and unworkable philosophy at the individual, community, and national level disguised as enlightened compassion.

I have said before that life is a struggle, or at least often so. It need not, however, be a _bleak_ struggle. For us to stand any chance of surviving and prospering, we must nonetheless recognize life's challenges for what they are and deal with them on the basis of what *is*  not on the basis of what we wish could be. While the pacifists of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship are well-meaning and probably perfectly nice people, their philosophy would have devastating consequences were it to be adopted by a majority of people within a given society. Such a society would collapse in short order  for no society endures and no individual survives if that society and that individual are not prepared to use force in self-defense. 

Self-preservation is not an illusion. It is a necessary fact of life  for there can be no life without it. Human beings are born with a survival instinct for this very reason. No amount of high-minded ideals and flowery poetry will change that. The Buddhist Peace Fellowship, in engaging in political activism for what it sees as right and good, is instead acting for everything that is wrong and evil in the world.

Pray that they remain the minority. Pray that notions of self-preservation remain "culturally dominant." When this is no longer the case, we will all suffer.

No amount of detachment from that suffering will alter it.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil, don't you have moderated forum where you can post your all-too-certain opinions?


----------



## Wild Bill (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil always manages to write what I think.  I wish I had the talent to make people understand on paper what goes on in my head.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil, I think that calling a set of philisophical and spiritual writings "evil" in the Philosophy and Spirituality in the Arts forum to be really quite distateful and offensive.

But the phrase "self-congratulatory and self-righteous screeds" is delicious irony.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2006)

So I imagine the next post will be what"The 10 commandmentswhat a load of hooey".


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Just because someone holds a belief doesn't mean that belief can't be evil.  If the three of you can't formulate a substantive response, don't take the coward's way out and start hurling insults.  Just acknowledge that you can't formulate an argument and keep quiet. 

Also, if you bother to read what I wrote, you'll see I'm not condemning Buddhism as much as I'm condemning this Berkley-based group's perversion of it to achieve their political aims.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

Wild Bill said:
			
		

> Phil always manages to write what I think.  I wish I had the talent to make people understand on paper what goes on in my head.


Thanks, Bill!


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2006)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-OnlyAnEgg
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil

I apologize; I do honestly try and stay out of your posts, because I believe we simply do not get along and any debate/argument would be a waste of time on both of our parts. But I couldn&#8217;t resist that one.

Once again I apologize


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2006)

Thread moved to The Study

-OnlyAnEgg
-MT Mod


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

No apology is necessary.  We would get along just fine in person; we simply would never agree on anything. 

Please do note, however, that this article condemns _this organization's use of Buddhism_, not the religion as such (unless we wish to address pacifism fundamentally).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No apology is necessary. We would get along just fine in person; we simply would never agree on anything.
> 
> Please do note, however, that this article condemns _this organization's use of Buddhism_, not the religion as such (unless we wish to address pacifism fundamentally).


 
Phil

I see that you are not condemning Buddhism

I have studied eastern religions and I have never liked most of the western interpretations I have seen in many books. And I am probably risking another slap on the wrist here, but a direct quote from me on the subject of Buddhism and the West, many moons ago, once was "leave it to the peace love and tie dye crowd to mess up Buddhism". 

By no means am I suggesting that you are messing up anything and I certainly would never refer to you as a member of that crowd, and I do mean that. 

As far pacifism, no I have no desire to debate it; as surprising as this may sound I am far from a pacifist.

My best to you.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 29, 2006)

That's something we agree on; you've destroyed my theory that we wouldn't.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 29, 2006)

to borrow style from aragorn in 'return of the king'...

the day may come when pacifism is the right approach to dealing with our fellow man.  but this is not that day.

i have great respect for many pacifists, but i can't help but notice that many (jesus christ, martin luther king jr, cardinal romano) keep dying by violence.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2006)

Yes, and look at the legacy they left because of it.

Peace only comes when men like them lay it all out and show everyone else that there is a real problem. If there where more people like that I think society would be much better


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 30, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> And I am probably risking another slap on the wrist here, but a direct quote from me on the subject of Buddhism and the West, many moons ago, once was "leave it to the peace love and tie dye crowd to mess up Buddhism".



I'm stealing that line. Try and stop me. :2xBird2:


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> If the three of you can't formulate a substantive response, don't take the coward's way out and start hurling insults.


 
Well, since we are throwing movie quotes about .... I reference the Klingon Ambassador from Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country.



> Just because we can do a thing, does not mean we must do a thing.


 
And no insult was hurled. You lease your own little corner of this site. I issued and observation that opinions might better be kept there. 

As it had been a time since you posted, my ignore lists were updated, and you were removed. My error. I apologize, and will rectify the situation immediately.


* * * EDIT * * * 

Actually, as you are a Moderator, I can not add you to the ignore list. Because of this, I think Bob should allow free reign of hurled insults.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

So you still can't formulate a substantive response?  A shame.  It's a lot easier to be childish.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 30, 2006)

*Second Mod Warning*:

Keep this discussion polite and respectful.  Sniping, insults, and personal attacks are not permitted.  Further ignoring of Moderator Warnings will not be tolerated.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT SuperMod-


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I'm stealing that line. Try and stop me. :2xBird2:


 
As long as I am sited properly based on the American Psychological Association Format Guidelines and you submit the paperwork in triplicate it is ok with me 

No problem, feel free, enjoy, I got a million of em'


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, since we are throwing movie quotes about .... I reference the Klingon Ambassador from Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Due to a quirk in the software, you can't set anyone who has a moderator privilege to ignore from your end. While Phil is not staff here, he does rent a spot which does prevent you from ignoring him, and anyone else who has a hosted forum.  If you would like any hosted forum mod set to ignore, let me know and I can hard-code it for you.

We're not going to allow free reign on the insult war front, but are contemplating stricter actions if the personal digs do not cease.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil, 
            I had to find time to read your essay.  I hate saying this, but after doing some quick research on this group, I think they are definitely misguided and your opinion has some validity to me.  They wear some nice rose colored glasses.   I am with you; I think pacifism is a waste.  I am a warrior and please dont wish that peace stuff on me.  I think of all the discipline required to be a warrior and wonder what they are thinking.  On the other hand, to be a pacifist must require the same amount, or more, discipline.  To me it appears to be a cowards way out but I can see how courageous one who practices pacifism might be.   The real ones do not have a political agenda like the group you mention.  At least you read the material; I do not think I would have.

ron


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

If your descriptions of the magazine's content is indeed accurate, then yes, much of it sounds hokey.

However, what I find disturbing is what appears to be a tremendous amount of hate aimed at a group that essentially has suggested that the world might be a better place if we all stopped shooting, bombing, and executing each other, and found other ways to resolve our differences.  While their interpretation of Buddhism may be screwy, their desire for peace is something that i can agree with.  I just don't understand the hatred that you preach.  It almost gives the impression that you are just hoping for an excuse to shoot somebody at a peace rally someday.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> However, what I find disturbing is what appears to be a tremendous amount of hate aimed at a group that essentially has suggested that the world might be a better place if we all stopped shooting, bombing, and executing each other


 
The problem is that you have to look out for wolves in sheeps clothing. There are people out there that preach against violence, which is at its essence a good thing, while simultaniously pushing forth a worldview that is at best not appliable to the real world, and at worst dangerous to our individual freedoms and contradicting to the philosophy of "non-violence" that they propose.

A good example is the PETA organization. This group claims to be an animal rights activist group. I essentially agree that animals should be treated humanly, and am an animal lover myself. However, Peta is responsable for Euthanizing thousands of pets per year, is an advocate of breed specific legislation and policy that has been responsable for the Euthanisation of millions of animals, and group members have been responsable for violent terrorist acts on humans (animal testing facilities and such).

So, you see, there are many groups out there who will take something that is essentially good, like peace or animal rights, and will advocate getting there by any means necessary, regardless of who gets hurt or what is lost in the process.

And in these cases, these groups are morally and ethically wrong, regardless of how good their cause may seem.



> It almost gives the impression that you are just hoping for an excuse to shoot somebody at a peace rally someday.



Well, isn't everyone? 

lol sorry, couldn't resist...

Paul


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 30, 2006)

I once went spear fishing in a swimming pool...does that count? 


Seriously though, I think both pacifism and militarism have their places. These fringe groups aren't representative of the larger whole. Just as Al Queda isn't representative of the majority of Muslims, neither is this group for Buddhism.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> That's something we agree on; you've destroyed my theory that we wouldn't.


 
I'm just as shocked as you are 

My Best



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> We're not going to allow free reign on the insult war front, but are contemplating stricter actions if the personal digs do not cease.


 
And I am not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I did apologize for what was the dig, if you will, and I acknowledge that is was out of line. 

But if this is in reference to what Don Roley said he would steal that was neither a personal dig at me, nor was what he is stealing a personal dig at anyone. As a matter of fact it made the above response possible.

If it was not directed at me, I will quietly return to my padded cell and keep quiet


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 30, 2006)

I think this all comes down to creating something and then declaring it is the only way. That is what bother's people and why sniping happen's. Just because someone and I do mean anyone has an opinon does not make that opinion right or the only way. Let's all discuss peacefully without the sniping because that is one of the great thing's about MartialTalk!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> If your descriptions of the magazine's content is indeed accurate, then yes, much of it sounds hokey.
> 
> However, what I find disturbing is what appears to be a tremendous amount of hate aimed at a group that essentially has suggested that the world might be a better place if we all stopped shooting, bombing, and executing each other, and found other ways to resolve our differences. While their interpretation of Buddhism may be screwy, their desire for peace is something that i can agree with. I just don't understand the hatred that you preach. It almost gives the impression that you are just hoping for an excuse to shoot somebody at a peace rally someday.


 
No rational person wants a world torn by violence.  My point is that this group, in attempting to push its _totally unworkable and unrealistic beliefs_, is actually doing much more harm than good.  Their philosophy is self-destructive and ultimately morally evil for the reasons I have described.  THAT is what I _hate_ about them.

Please do not project onto me some morbid desire to harm another human being.  That does us both a disservice.



> Just because someone and I do mean anyone has an opinon does not make that opinion right or the only way.



A single individual's opinion has only as much power as you are willing to grant it.  If you don't like an opinion, no matter how forcefully or passionately stated, you will feel much better about your dissenting views if you present them in a cogent fashion, presenting a rebuttal to the ideas with which you disagree.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The problem is that you have to look out for wolves in sheeps clothing. There are people out there that preach against violence, which is at its essence a good thing, while simultaniously pushing forth a worldview that is at best not appliable to the real world, and at worst dangerous to our individual freedoms and contradicting to the philosophy of "non-violence" that they propose.
> 
> Paul


 
good point.

The truth is, I am not familiar with this group, and what their overall goals are.  My suspicion is that in the greater scope of the world this is probably a small and ineffectual group that has little real impact and hardly warrants the kind of attention that Phil has given it.

This kind of essay really does give the impression that Phil just has a tremendous amount of hatred and fear for anyone who is ideologically different from him.  One of the greatest lessons he might have to learn one day is that most of the world does not run the way he would like it to, and that isn't going to change.  He pushes his views as thoughts on "self defense" and "National Defense", but perhaps he is the dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing.  He preaches hatred, fear and paranoia, and I think it is just really misplaced and inappropriate, and even dangerous.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

This group boasted the presence of Cindy Sheehan at one of its rallies (at which Sheehan and members of the group were arrested).  Cindy Sheehan is someone whose name is a household word.  The group puts out a regular publication that I found in a small bookstore in Upstate New York, about as far removed from Berkeley, California, as you're going to get in the United States.  The group even has a chapter in the city where I work.  I'd call that representative of a fair amount of political influence compared to other organizations.



> This kind of essay really does give the impression that Phil just has a tremendous amount of hatred and fear for anyone who is ideologically different from him.



No, it really doesn't.  This kind of essay _should_ give the impression that I despise pacifism because I believe it to be self-destructive and therefore harmful to humanity.  This "hatred" and "fear" business is you projecting your own suppositions onto me.  I would appreciate it if you'd stop doing that because it's really very annoying.



> One of the greatest lessons he might have to learn one day is that most of the world does not run the way he would like it to,



No, the world isn't rational, the world isn't reasonable, and the society in which I live places increasing emphasis on victims over victors, equating self-defense with immorality and marginalizing those who understand its place in a dynamic, assertive, and _full_ life.  This is a lesson I learned a long time ago when I first starting having arguments like this.  It comes as no surprise to me.



> and that isn't going to change.



It probably won't; those with your attitude outnumber those with mine.  I believe, however, that some battles are worth fighting, even if they cannot be won -- because at the end of the day I have to live with myself and I can't do that if I haven't exerted the fullest effort possible to do what is _right_.



> He pushes his views as thoughts on "self defense" and "National Defense",



I don't "push" my views on anyone.  I don't see anyone with a gun to your head demanding, "Read Phil Elmore's opinions!  Read!  Read now or else!"  You are free to dismiss anything I write; you are free never to open a single thread I start; you are free never to post in response.  In a medium that is entirely text-based, it is impossible for me to "push" anything on anyone.

I have chosen to write in the field of self-defense because it is important to me.  There are many reasons this is so, first and foremost because I believe strongly in the sanctity and the sovereignty of the individual and in individual rights.  Quite honestly, however, I also really _enjoy_ the martial arts.  I enjoy training.  I enjoy learning new things.  I enjoy increasing my skill base, becoming more prepared, becoming more broadly competent.  I also enjoy sharing what I know and what I've learned and I am blessed with skill where writing is concerned.  I do this for my own enjoyment, when you come right down to it.  It wouldn't be worth it if it wasn't, ultimately, gratifying in many ways.



> but perhaps he is the dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing.



I am dangerous to no one.  Wait, no, that's not true -- I'm dangerous to people who aren't secure or confident in what they believe.  I threaten them, as do my opinions.  I'm dangerous to the watering down of "martial" arts in favor of commercial or ideological concerns.  I'm dangerous to popular cultural trends that support this.  So, yes, in that sense alone, I am dangerous.  This is fair and understandable.

I am no danger to anyone physically. It is extremely insulting for you to claim this.  Unfortunately, those right of center must often contend with this claim from those left of center. 



> He preaches hatred, fear and paranoia,



I preach rationality, awareness, and preparation.  There's a difference.



> and I think it is just really misplaced and inappropriate, and even dangerous.



You are wrong -- and you are projecting your _feelings_ onto me.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> This "hatred" and "fear" business is you projecting your own suppositions or inner feelings on to me. I would appreciate it if you'd stop doing that because it's really very annoying.


 
Sorry, Phil, I'm gonna call it the way I see it.  It's just my opinion, of course, which I am entitled to, but you don't have to agree with.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

Of course.  Your opinion of me is, unfortunately, wildly speculative.  It cannot be supported in an intellectually honest fashion.  It is also a logical fallacy; you are attacking me as a person instead of addressing my arguments.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Of course. Your opinion of me is, unfortunately, wildly speculative. It cannot be supported in an intellectually honest fashion. It is also a logical fallacy; you are attacking me as a person instead of addressing my arguments.


 
Well, I have conceded that this group sounds like it has a wacky interpretation of Buddhism, but I doubt they are such a big danger that you seem to think they are.  Having their publication sold in New York and other places is hardly proof of world domination.  Any schmoe with a website can potentially reach anyone around the world, as you have discovered with your own website.

The last I recall, people in the USA are free to have whatever religious, political, and ideological beliefs they want, and are free to discuss and promote those beliefs.  This holds true even if they are beliefs that you disagree with, including pacifists, communists, socialists, and any of the other bogeymen out there.  Even if you believe they are "evil", or their beliefs are "evil", they have the right to have, discuss, and promote their beliefs, just as you have, discuss, and promote your own beliefs that others find offensive.  Just as you denounce them for their foolish beliefs, myself and others will denounce you when we perceive that you are promoting foolish beliefs.  It's a two-way road.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Well, I have conceded that this group sounds like it has a wacky interpretation of Buddhism, but I doubt they are such a big danger that you seem to think they are.


 
I wouldn't be so sure. If this is the kind of group that would rally and lobby for the disarmement of citizens, or rally in support against someone who uses "violence" (by their definition) in self-defense, then I would say they (and groups like them) are pretty dangerous to our civil liberties.

Paul


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 30, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> And I am not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I did apologize for what was the dig, if you will, and I acknowledge that is was out of line.
> 
> But if this is in reference to what Don Roley said he would steal that was neither a personal dig at me, nor was what he is stealing a personal dig at anyone. As a matter of fact it made the above response possible.
> 
> If it was not directed at me, I will quietly return to my padded cell and keep quiet



Just a general note to watch the personal shots to all involved. Nothing specific.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be so sure. If this is the kind of group that would rally and lobby for the disarmement of citizens, or rally in support against someone who uses "violence" (by their definition) in self-defense, then I would say they (and groups like them) are pretty dangerous to our civil liberties.
> 
> Paul


 
well, we can go down a whole long road in discussing who is dangerous to our civil liberties.  

With regard to this group, I just have serious doubts that they will have any real effect.  They may wish they do, but I doubt it will happen.  

Of course any group has the right to be involved and active politically.  That is a right, in this country.  Whether or not they represent something "dangerous" is all in perspective.  What you might regard as dangerous, another might regard as a noble cause.  There are no absolute truths here.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

There are indeed absolute truths here.  Disarmament is self-destructive and directly opposed to constitutionally protected civil liberties in the United States.

No one has said such a group does not have the _right_ to work for its self-destructive goals.  I have simply denounced them as evil, as they should be denounced.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> There are indeed absolute truths here.  Disarmament is self-destructive and directly opposed to constitutionally protected civil liberties in the United States.



That's not a absolute truth, that's your opinion, nothing more.

And some will consider your goals the evil ones, and they are just as sure of them as you are of yours, provide just as good of arguments as you.  Why are they evil and you not?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Why are they evil and you not?


 
The constitition does protect the rights of the citizens to be armed, that much is true.  Forcing disarmament of the population goes against the constitution, so that much would be illegal.  But ideas that promote something that is illegal is not the same as evil.

But Andrew has proposed a good question.  I mean, while these people may propose something that is unrealistic in today's world, at least they recognize killing as inherently wrong and something to be avoided.  Personally, I believe in the right to self defense, even if that might require killing an attacker.  But looking for other ways to resolve our problems, and getting away from shooting, bombing, and executing people seems like an inherently good idea to me.  I just don't see any logic in the idea that Pacifism is "evil".  Not wanting to kill people is evil?  Sounds pretty twisted to me.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

Opinions can be judged by the degree to which they correspond to objective reality.  Those who believe disarmed citizens are "safer" are evading that reality; their opinions are not statistically nor logically supportable.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

> But ideas that promote something that is illegal is not the same as evil.


 
Actually, they are.  NAMBLA -- the "North American Boy Love Association" -- advocates the molestation of underage males.  This is both illegal AND immoral.  It is quite evil.  By your definition, this advocacy is not the same as _actually molesting a child_.  I, on the other hand, contend that such advocacy is every bit as evil because of the results its promotes and encourages.



> But looking for other ways to resolve our problems, and getting away from shooting, bombing, and executing people seems like an inherently good idea to me.



Understanding that force is sometimes necessary does not mean one does not reserve it as the last resort; all rational people seek to avoid armed conflict if a better way can be found that still solves the problem.  This does not change the fact that the pacifism of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is an unworkable, self-destructive philosophy that would have disastrous consequences for any society that attempted to implement it at the governmental level (which is what the organization seeks).

In a society comprised of only pacifists, pacifism can work.  Such a society has never existed and never will exist.  It is a utopian fantasy.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Actually, they are. NAMBLA -- the "North American Boy Love Association" -- advocates the molestation of underage males. This is both illegal AND immoral. It is quite evil. By your definition, this advocacy is not the same as _actually molesting a child_. I, on the other hand, contend that such advocacy is every bit as evil because of the results its promotes and encourages.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Apples and oranges.  Not the same thing.  Not everything that happens to be illegal is evil.

Your last line is true.  But again, does this make them evil?  Unrealistic idealists, perhaps, but certainly not evil.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> well, we can go down a whole long road in discussing who is dangerous to our civil liberties.
> 
> With regard to this group, I just have serious doubts that they will have any real effect. They may wish they do, but I doubt it will happen.
> 
> Of course any group has the right to be involved and active politically. That is a right, in this country. Whether or not they represent something "dangerous" is all in perspective. What you might regard as dangerous, another might regard as a noble cause. There are no absolute truths here.


 
So, kind of like the Klu Klux Klan and neonazi groups? We shouldn't denounce groups like that because they probably won't have any real effect, and after all they do have the right to assemble, and whether or not they represent something "dangerous" is really all in perspective because, hey, someone might consider their cause noble.....?

Yea, I guess your right. No absolute truths here...:erg:


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> So, kind of like the Klu Klux Klan and neonazi groups? We shouldn't denounce groups like that because they probably won't have any real effect, and after all they do have the right to assemble, and whether or not they represent something "dangerous" is really all in perspective because, hey, someone might consider their cause noble.....?
> 
> Yea, I guess your right. No absolute truths here...:erg:


 
Sorry Paul, the KKK and Neonazi groups actually promote violence, discrimination, and hatred directed toward certain groups of people.  This Buddhist group, while perhaps misguided in their efforts, promotes NOT killing, NOT discriminating, and NOT hating others.  There is a world of difference here.

Yes, they have a right to hold their beliefs, promote their beliefs, and assemble, but if anyone were to view a group as potentially dangerous, I think these would be more reasonable targets than a bunch of misguided hippy Buddhists who happen to want people to not kill each other.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 30, 2006)

Non violent beliefs are fine, and something I'm in support of. (The irony of being a wargamer, a martial artist and a paintballer who is also a pacifist at heart).

The problem is, there are too many others who aren't, and a group of pacifists are little more than a speedbump to a tank, much less someone without the moral or ethical resistance to inflicting harm.  Ghandi would have been trampled under Attila's calvary, simply put.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges. Not the same thing. Not everything that happens to be illegal is evil.


 
No one said it was.  You're arguing in circles and missing the point.  The advocacy of something that is evil is every bit as bad as the evil being advocated.

Unilateral disarmament and pacfisit governmental policies are every bit as harmful as race hatred and the advocation of unprovoked and unjustified violence -- because the end result of such "idealistic and unrealistic" policies is suicide.  _That_ is why what the Buddhist Peace Fellowship preaches is evil.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No one said it was. You're arguing in circles and missing the point. The advocacy of something that is evil is every bit as bad as the evil being advocated.
> 
> Unilateral disarmament and pacfisit governmental policies are every bit as harmful as race hatred and the advocation of unprovoked and unjustified violence -- because the end result of such "idealistic and unrealistic" policies is suicide. _That_ is why what the Buddhist Peace Fellowship preaches is evil.


 
No Phil, you are missing the point.  being misguided and mistaken is not evil.  It is being misguided and mistaken, plain and simple.

A pacifist movement would hope that ALL would disarm and stop killing each other, not just one to be left defenseless.  Realistic?  Probably not.  A nice idea?  Sure.  Evil?  Nope.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 30, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Unilateral disarmament and pacfisit governmental policies are every bit as harmful as race hatred and the advocation of unprovoked and unjustified violence -- because the end result of such "idealistic and unrealistic" policies is suicide.  _That_ is why what the Buddhist Peace Fellowship preaches is evil.



Yes, how dare they want everyone to stop killing each other, those evil little buggers.  Work of the devil I say.  If they had there way and everyone started being friendly and not killing each other it would be like hell on earth.  I say we hit them with there own sort of evil and be nice to them, that will teach them.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 30, 2006)

Careful, Andrew...there was this one guy, went around telling everyone how great it would be if we all just stopped fighting and started being nice to each other, how much greater the world would be.  Got nailed to a tree for His troubles.


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2006)

I hate it when pacifists transform perfectly good airplanes in to bombs and fly them in to buildings and stuff.  That really rattles my cage.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

well, that wouldn't be a pacifist, would it?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 30, 2006)

True...that's the powerful, yet lunatic, fringe of Islam.  Akin to abortion clinic bombers found in edge-dweller Christianity.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

yeah, that's the problem, often the mainstream guys are OK, but the fringe people tend to be a bit out there.


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> well, that wouldn't be a pacifist, would it?


 
No...no, I guess not.  And that whole thing called "insurgency", I guess that's not pacifism either.  Yep, abortion clinic bombing...that's evil, too.

Those thugs that busted in to a makeshift recording studio in Boston and shot 4 musicians, that's evil, too.

Call me old fashioned, but personally, I don't think there's much more evil than killing people.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 30, 2006)

Sadly, I can think of a number of things more evil than killing.  In some cases, it's a kindness. Which puts some into ethical dilemmas.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 30, 2006)

> The advocacy of something that is evil is every bit as bad as the evil being advocated.


only in your mind  but maybe not in mine  or in my belifes


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> No Phil, you are missing the point. being misguided and mistaken is not evil. It is being misguided and mistaken, plain and simple.
> 
> A pacifist movement would hope that ALL would disarm and stop killing each other, not just one to be left defenseless. Realistic? Probably not. A nice idea? Sure. Evil? Nope.


 
So....then their just stupid?

See, I don't buy it. Sure, there may be individual people who are misguided and who belong to the group, but I don't think that fits the group as a whole, and I especially don't think that fits it's group leaders and writers. I think they have well thought philosophies that I simply don't agree with.

I used the example of the KKK to prove a point that I don't think your seeing. That is that if a group is morally or ethically wrong and intends to lobby our government and society to make their ideas more of the "norm," then speaking up against their ideas and policies is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. So, I don't understand why it wouldn't be O.K. to speak up against the group if one believes them to be morally wrong, by your (and others) standards, with the exception that this is a happy hippy "buddhist" group promoting "peace."

And as to this notion...


> Yes, how dare they want everyone to stop killing each other, those evil little buggers.


 
That is the problem. Because the group supposedly is promoting "peace" then they must be a good group that we shouldn't worry about. However, if this is the same type of group that would lobby for someone to go to jail for the rest of their life because they shot someone in self-defense, for example, then we absolutely should "worry" about them. 

Just because they claim to promote "peace" that doesn't mean speaking out against them means that you don't promote peace. I am an advocate for peace myself, and I think most rational people are. I just don't think giving up our civil liberties or that ignoring the realities of self-defense is going to get us there.



> Careful, Andrew...there was this one guy, went around telling everyone how great it would be if we all just stopped fighting and started being nice to each other, how much greater the world would be. Got nailed to a tree for His troubles.


 
Dude, you can't be serious!? 

Well, as far as religion goes, I don't recall most sects of Buddhism that I have studied or Christianity for that matter advocating government forced pilfering of our civil liberties for the sake of a "common good." I do recall both Buddhism and Christianity philosophically supporting individualism and personal choice, issues that this particular groups seems to have overlooked. You remember, "personal relationship with Christ" and "The way to enlightenment is solitude," and all that jazz? Guess I could be wrong...

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, Kill him." - Zen Koan 

Paul


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 30, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Dude, you can't be serious!?
> 
> Well, as far as religion goes, I don't recall most sects of Buddhism that I have studied or Christianity for that matter advocating government forced pilfering of our civil liberties for the sake of a "common good." I do recall both Buddhism and Christianity philosophically supporting individualism and personal choice, issues that this particular groups seems to have overlooked. You remember, "personal relationship with Christ" and "The way to enlightenment is solitude," and all that jazz? Guess I could be wrong...
> 
> ...


 
Sure, I'm serious.  My illustration was to note the response that pacifism and decency tends to get, in a general sense.  Then and now.  This was posted more as a comment on the pacifist-bashing that surfaced over the last few pages than on the politics, hidden or not, advocated by the group in question.

Moreover, Christ said render unto Ceasar, obey your authorities and all that jazz.  They killed him anyways.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> So....then their just stupid?
> 
> See, I don't buy it. Sure, there may be individual people who are misguided and who belong to the group, but I don't think that fits the group as a whole, and I especially don't think that fits it's group leaders and writers. I think they have well thought philosophies that I simply don't agree with.
> 
> ...


 
It's possible that they are just stupid, but once again, certainly not Evil.  This whole thing is really quite comical in many ways.  This Buddhist group from Berkeley, that probably no one on this forum had ever heard of until Phil brought it up (I never heard of them, and I live in San Francisco!) is just not a threat to the fabric of our nation.  You think they have crackpot ideas, and if I knew more details about them I would probably agree with you, but I just can't see demonizing them over it.  They are small and ineffectual.  Do you really think they are going to hold sway over our lawmakers and turn this country into something different?  It won't happen.

But because of their ideology, they have incurred The Wrath of Phil.  OK, so Phil thinks they are crackpots too.  I don't have a problem with that.  But what I have a problem with is the preachy Righteousness, Anger, Hatred, and, yes, I'll say it again, Fear that Phil slings out in his soapbox monologue rantings and ravings.  Everything to Phil is polarized into Good and Evil, but the world isn't really like that.  Most things fall somewhere in the gray area between the two and it is not so simple as he would like us all to believe.

So feel free to view this group as a bunch of crackpots.  If you believe that, I can't change your mind and you are probably right, in this case.  But keep it all in perspective and lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill.  When people post rantings like Phil does, in my opinion, it makes him look like a crackpot, even if I might actually agree with some of what he is saying.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 30, 2006)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> Sure, I'm serious. My illustration was to note the response that pacifism and decency tends to get, in a general sense. Then and now. This was posted more as a comment on the pacifist-bashing that surfaced over the last few pages than on the politics, hidden or not, advocated by the group in question.
> 
> Moreover, Christ said render unto Ceasar, obey your authorities and all that jazz. They killed him anyways.


 
Well...O.K.. Fair enough.



> It's possible that they are just stupid, but once again, certainly not Evil. This whole thing is really quite comical in many ways. This Buddhist group from Berkeley, that probably no one on this forum had ever heard of until Phil brought it up (I never heard of them, and I live in San Francisco!) is just not a threat to the fabric of our nation. You think they have crackpot ideas, and if I knew more details about them I would probably agree with you, but I just can't see demonizing them over it. They are small and ineffectual. Do you really think they are going to hold sway over our lawmakers and turn this country into something different? It won't happen.
> 
> But because of their ideology, they have incurred The Wrath of Phil. OK, so Phil thinks they are crackpots too. I don't have a problem with that. But what I have a problem with is the preachy Righteousness, Anger, Hatred, and, yes, I'll say it again, Fear that Phil slings out in his soapbox monologue rantings and ravings. Everything to Phil is polarized into Good and Evil, but the world isn't really like that. Most things fall somewhere in the gray area between the two and it is not so simple as he would like us all to believe.
> 
> So feel free to view this group as a bunch of crackpots. If you believe that, I can't change your mind and you are probably right, in this case. But keep it all in perspective and lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill. When people post rantings like Phil does, in my opinion, it makes him look like a crackpot, even if I might actually agree with some of what he is saying.


 
Um....O.K. to you too. 

I guess I really don't have much to else to say on the subject. There are a lot of opinions to go around, and I made mine clear. I'm not sure that people even disagree that much with my opinions for that matter.

As far as this debate goes, the issue for some people seems to be with the arguer rather then the arguement, and personal issues between people is something I don't really like getting involved in. So...thanks for the discussion, all.

Paul


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> No Phil, you are missing the point.  being misguided and mistaken is not evil.  It is being misguided and mistaken, plain and simple.



No, you are missin the point.  One's intentions are irrelevant if the outcome of one's misguided, mistaken actions is harmful to society, to individual rights, to national sovereignty, and to general public safety.



> A pacifist movement would hope that ALL would disarm and stop killing each other, not just one to be left defenseless.  Realistic?  Probably not.  A nice idea?  Sure.  Evil?  Nope.



Utopian fantasies that facilitate self-destructive behavior based on wishful thinking surely are evil.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Well...O.K.. Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough.  I think you are right, we probably all agree more than we disagree about this.  I guess It is just that the presentation can be so extremely opinionated and offensive and it doesn't need to be that way.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, you are missin the point. One's intentions are irrelevant if the outcome of one's misguided, mistaken actions is harmful to society, to individual rights, to national sovereignty, and to general public safety.
> 
> 
> 
> Utopian fantasies that facilitate self-destructive behavior based on wishful thinking surely are evil.


 
nope.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 31, 2006)

Yep.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2006)

heh heh heh.  I think we must be done here.  It's been fun.  cheers!


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 31, 2006)

Am Not
Are Too
Am Not
Are Too
Am Not
Are Too

I know you are but what am I.
I know you are but what am I.
I know you are but what am I.
I know you are but what am I.
I know you are but what am I.
I know you are but what am I.
I know you are but what am I.

I triple dog dare you.   (The dreaded triple dog dare, my reputation is at stake, perhaps even the fate of the free world! How could I face my mother if I fail a triple dog dare? Better to live on the streets.)

I think this sums up much of the debate. *Passes Red Rider BB Guns and sunflowers around to those engaged in battle*. Just don't shoot your eyes out kids.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 31, 2006)

I dunno, I just don't think it works....


> Generals gathered in their masses,
> just like witches at black masses.
> Evil minds that plot destruction,
> sorcerers of peace construction.
> ...


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 31, 2006)

War Pigs...that song still gives me chills.

I am, however, reminded also of Metallica's 'One', based, of course, on 'Johnny Got His Gun'.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Am Not
> Are Too
> Am Not
> Are Too
> ...


 
you are crackin me up! :rofl:


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 31, 2006)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> War Pigs...that song still gives me chills.



No no no, that's "Peace Pigs"


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 31, 2006)

Oh, my goodness...so it is!

It's been a weird week and, you're right, it doesn't work.


----------



## Ray (Mar 31, 2006)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> War Pigs...that song still gives me chills.
> 
> I am, however, reminded also of Metallica's 'One', based, of course, on 'Johnny Got His Gun'.


Ah, but what ever happened to those has-been-never-were's; the Ruttles:  "I know you know what you know, but you should know by now that you're not me."  I think that was from "cheese and onions."


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 31, 2006)

I am really trying to be behave and stay out of this, but......

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

Once again Edmund :asian:


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 31, 2006)

Hey...wait a second...*I* am the eggman


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2006)

Cu Cu Ka Chu?


----------



## Carol (Mar 31, 2006)

_daed si luaP_


----------



## elder999 (Apr 1, 2006)

Phil, brother-I often agree with you. I appreciate and enjoy your posts, and *owe* you- in more ways than you know- but I have to take issue with a few things here, for better or worse. First off, this:



> What is Pacifism?
> 
> Pacifism is the doctrine of non-violence. It is the philosophy that the use of force is always wrong. It is the credo that one may not hurt or kill another human being even when that person uses physical violence against you or those you love. Pacifists may engage in "nonviolent" resistance -- that is to say, they may actively resist even though they will not use what we would normally consider force -- but they will not fight.
> 
> ...


 
only barely matches this:




			
				Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual said:
			
		

> _(that&#8217;s engineerspeak for &#8216;dictionary&#8217[/I_





			
				Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual said:
			
		

> _
> 
> 
> Main Entry: *pac&#183;i&#183;fism*
> ...


_



You make some pretty blanket assumptions about the behavior of pacifists-that one would place himself between his wife&#8217;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. The pacifist, the pragmatic one, at any rate, *will* resort to violence in defense of life when it is the last means necessary. Witness the historical (and relevant) example of the Shaolin monks, trained to use martial arts to defend themselves and others, yet constrained in most of their behavior to seek an alternate means to settle a dispute, including acquiescence, or running away. Witness again, the historical example of Sgt. York, a WWI hero who went from conscientious objector and religious pacifist to efificient killer and captor of Germans when it was necessary to saqve his comrades, and returned to embrace pacifism when the war was over for him.

I tried to be a pacifist-it didn&#8217;t work for me. I had a teacher who said to be like the gorilla:&#8221;Of course, you know I&#8217;m a vegetarian, but, if you *insist*&#8230; I thought that was funny. You know, at least, I think you know, that bears are sacred to me. I recall a time when I picked raspberries on one side of a patch, while the sow who lives up the hill from our house calmly ate on the other side. I often tell my students to defend themselves and others, &#8220;like a mother defending her cubs,&#8221; which, as anyone who has observed ursine behavior can tell you, is, in spite of their formidable strength and ferocity, pretty much only violent when necessary, and usually entails running away.

I can only look in awe at the example of non-violent resistance that history has for us-Ghandhi&#8217;s example-did you know that the first &#8220;sit-in&#8221; occurred because he and his fellow protesters were about to be trampled by policemen on horseback, and one of them knew that the horses would not trample them if they simply lay down, and how confounding this must have been to those South African policemen. My parents, and, I&#8217;m told , I (though I was only a small child, and don&#8217;t remember at all), marched on Selma and Washington with Dr. King, and I am struck by how much he accomplished, simply by bearing the suffering that was directed towards him. I might also point out the often misconstrued example of Jesus, a man who was not necessarily a pacifist, and whose Turn the other cheek is so often misinterpreted as not resisting, when, for its time, it was the very height of resistance and confoundment against an oppressor who could not realistically be resisted with violence.

I couldn&#8217;t find the magazine you picked up, even after a day in Boulder -the very epicenter of American Buddhist folly-and yes, much of what you said *is* the same sort of folly that makes me scorn aikido-bunnies who forget (or never knew) that the founder was a butcher in Mongolia who went on to speak of being possessed by &#8220;angry kami,&#8221; but I have to say that I think their vision of pacifism is just as skewed and misguided as yours appears to be. At any rate, I can understand your anger with some of what was presented, and while I have little tolerance for the sort of self-righteousness and moral equivalency presented, I also have to wonder at your anger at a man who decided to &#8220;remove guns from his life.&#8221; It is, after all, his life-and it was, by your own admission, probably a sensible decision. 

I think about the men I&#8217;ve known and worked with who put their lives on the line for all of us, men in law enforcement and the military, who do not have the luxury of being pacifists of any sort, pragmatic or otherwise, and how what they see and experience has changed them-affected them in ways that are, generally, not good, over the years, and how I&#8217;ve borne witness to that change, and wish, and pray that they could know peace, and be peaceful. I wish and pray that I could know peace, but there is no place for it in the world I&#8217;ve chosen to live in, or for the person I&#8217;ve become, and I do not, and will not, suffer fools, gladly or in any other way&#8230;.

Lastly, Phil, you know, or at least I think you know, that years ago I had to cut someone in self-defense. In the end, I gave those young men my wallet, and they wanted to cut me anyway-money is almost nothing to me, but my blood was, and is precious. In the brief time afterward I experienced things-the transit police consoling me and telling me that I&#8217;d done &#8221;a good thing&#8221;, the actual smell of blood, and the smell of my vomit on my shoes, and watching a young man going through what I would later learn as an EMT was called Cheyne-Stokes breathing, as his life slipped away on a Brooklyn IRT platform-and none of the nightmares I&#8217;ve had in all of my life, real or imagined, not of being eaten alive by lions, consumed in the fire of a thousand suns, seeing a TV monitor with a video feed of a disarming crew fill with snow, not even watching the mother of my children drown-none of those things measures up to dreaming of blood, and my vomit, and the death of a boy younger than my son is now. I am not a pacifist, but I have that dream, and I wish, I pray that I had the strength to be one._


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 1, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Lastly, Phil, you know, or at least I think you know, that years ago I had to cut someone in self-defense. In the end, I gave those young men my wallet, and they wanted to cut me anyway-money is almost nothing to me, but my blood was, and is precious. In the brief time afterward I experienced things-the transit police consoling me and telling me that I&#8217;d done _&#8221;a good thing_&#8221;, the actual smell of blood, and the smell of my vomit on my shoes, and watching a young man going through what I would later learn as an EMT was called Cheyne-Stokes breathing, as his life slipped away on a Brooklyn IRT platform-and none of the nightmares I&#8217;ve had in all of my life, real or imagined, not of being eaten alive by lions, consumed in the fire of a thousand suns, seeing a TV monitor with a video feed of a disarming crew fill with snow, not even _watching the mother of my children drown_-none of those things measures up to dreaming of blood, and my vomit, and the death of a boy younger than my son is now. I am not a pacifist, but I have that dream, and I wish, I _pray_ that I had the strength to be one.


 
Damn, that is intense.  Thank you for sharing.  I can't hold a candle to any of that.


----------



## Shadow Wing (Apr 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Just because someone holds a belief doesn't mean that belief can't be evil. If the three of you can't formulate a substantive response, don't take the coward's way out and start hurling insults. Just acknowledge that you can't formulate an argument and keep quiet.
> 
> Also, if you bother to read what I wrote, you'll see I'm not condemning Buddhism as much as I'm condemning this Berkley-based group's perversion of it to achieve their political aims.


Exactly right, my friend. I honor and admire your courage. If nobody has the courage to call evil, evil, then the truth can never be found or even honestly examined. I find little in this world more dangerous and disgusting than moral relativism and intellectual cowardice.

Keep up the good work!


----------



## Don Roley (Apr 1, 2006)

> The advocacy of something that is evil is every bit as bad as the evil being advocated.





			
				tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> only in your mind  but maybe not in mine  or in my belifes



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.

Even though their members themselves may not be now engaged in relations with young children, do you think any better of them than the ones they are trying to defend?

I could bring other examples out. Those that call for the destrucion of other races, but don't commit violence themselves, etc. I know where I stand on the matter. I think it would be an interesting thing to debate. Maybe it even deserves it's own thread.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 3, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Apr 3, 2006)

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


----------



## Don Roley (Apr 3, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 3, 2006)

> You make some pretty blanket assumptions about the behavior of pacifists-that one would place himself between his wife&#8217;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 (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 5, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> [/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 (Apr 5, 2006)

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


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 5, 2006)

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


----------



## elder999 (Apr 5, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 6, 2006)

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


----------



## elder999 (Apr 6, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 6, 2006)

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


----------



## elder999 (Apr 6, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 6, 2006)

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 (Apr 6, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 6, 2006)

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 (Apr 6, 2006)

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 (Apr 6, 2006)

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


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 7, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

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


 
I have been reading along with this post, just trying to stay out of it. 

And this is making me a bit nervous, but I think I have some level of agreement here

The price of freedom is constant vigil pops in to my noggin after reading the above post.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 7, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I have been reading along with this post, just trying to stay out of it.
> 
> And this is making me a bit nervous, but I think I have some level of agreement here
> 
> The price of freedom is constant vigil pops in to my noggin after reading the above post.


 
Yup. War is ugly, and so is suicide. Sounds like the hippie peace and love crowd have taken too many bong hits.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 7, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Yup. War is ugly, and so is suicide. Sounds like the hippie peace and love crowd have taken too many bong hits.


 
But if a pacifist wants to be a pacifist in the USA it is his/her right to do so. I do not necessarily agree with them, nor do I fear them. 

For crying out loud their pacifists what are they going to do....All kidding aside.

Do I agree with what they are saying? ...no.

Do I think they are evil?...no

If some one comes after me am I going to sit back and let them beat me? ...highly unlikely

Am I a pacifist...I know many that would be rolling on the ground at the mear mention of my name and pacifism in the same sentence

But we are in Americaor at least I amI am not sure where all of the people posting hear are from. 

In America there is freedom of speech and that is why they wrote, published and distributed the book. 

It is also why Phil has the right to do the same to rebut, respond to, disagree or agrees with what ever anyone else says.


----------



## Chris Thompson (Apr 7, 2006)

What about Katsu Kaishu? An expert swordsman of the Meiji era, he kept his sword tied so tightly into his scabbard that he couldn't draw it even in self-defense. Despite which, he survived numerous assassination attempts and saw the triumph of his goals and policies while most of those who had tried so often to kill him only ended up dead in the street with their swords in their hands. Most pacifists are ineffective- but so is most violence. For the rare, effective pacifist like Kaishu or Gandhi, I have the highest admiration.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 7, 2006)

> But if a pacifist wants to be a pacifist in the USA it is his/her right to do so.



It certainly is.  It is thanks to those who are willing to use force when necessary that such a person can live and prosper under their aegis.


----------



## Don Roley (Apr 8, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> 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 there are some people that think that _any_ violence is wrong. You may respect those that think _agressive violence_ is wrong and I could understand. But some of the examples Phil gave were of people who thought that criminals should not be punished since they will die someday anyways.

There needs to be a distinguishing word for this kind of situation. Kind of like the difference between vegitarians and vegans. One resembles the other, but one is quite a bit more strict and the thinking is taken to more of an extreme.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 10, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> ...... some of the examples Phil gave were of people who thought that criminals should not be punished since they will die someday anyways.


 
Not so sure that that's what they meant-I think it was just an anti-death penalty thing. I don't think they necessarily ahve any problem with life imprisonment.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 11, 2006)

Actually, the argument they were making was for not taking action against those who wrong us.  The argument was instead to divorce ourselves from 'attachment' so that when people assault us we just don't feel badly about it.



> DeDonato quotes Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, whom she says opined that there is "no reason to kill our ordinary enemies" because "death will come to them naturally anyway." Gyatso asserts, and DeDonato agrees, that we should strive instead to destroy "the delusions that are the cause of all suffering." Buddhism holds at its core, you see, the notion that _attachment_  to the world, to our possessions, to notions about our physical health, to other people  leads to suffering and that all life is, in fact, suffering. To achieve Buddhist enlightenment is to free yourself from such attachments and thus to free yourself from suffering.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 11, 2006)

This is the classic disparity of the manifested, tangible, clear social need versus spiritual idealism and enlightenment.

To chastise people for struggling for the spiritual ideal is just as non-productive as it is for them to persecute fulfillment of societal need.

We see this manifest in arguments on abortion, gay marriage, spiritual idealism in society, capital punishment, corporal punishment, separation of church and state, oh the list is too long.

Reconciling spirituality in one's own deeds and vice-versa is a personal matter - the judgement of others is forbidden in the Bible and discouraged in other sacred writings.  To be a mortal and proclaim another entity (regardless of size, number or intent) as evil is destructive to one's own spirit ... that is to say unless one doesn't believe one has a spirit in which case they are already destroyed from the perspective of a spiritualist.

And if one isn't a spiritual person, then good and evil can't truly exist, right? only behavior that is legal or illegal because good and evil are adjectives of spiritual nature as are the terms moral and immoral.  

For peace-loving and peace-seeking people to be persecuted for striving towards their spiritual ideal is ... well ... heh ... classic and unsurprising, just as it is the other way 'round.

:yinyang:


----------



## Phil Elmore (Apr 11, 2006)

Struggling toward a spiritual idea that is self-destructive isn't a noble cause, in my opinion.


----------

