James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
lilithu said:Up until very recently, like the last couple of months, I insisted that I wasn't a pacifist. The reason being that I always had trouble with the scenario in which someone is being hurt and the only way to stop the attacker is to resort to violence. It seemed to me (and still does) that in that scenario, to do nothing to stop the attack would be immoral. But a friend of mine from church -80+ years old, former conscientious objector, and life-long pacifist - recently set me straight. He said that if someone broke into his house and was about to hurt his family he would have no trouble fighting or even killing the intruder if necessary in order to protect his family from harm. To him, pacifism allows for that kind of violence when absolutely necessary.
What do you think?
If that's pacifism then I'm a pacifist, but I voted No, because I don't believe it is. Of course it's preferable to use peaceful means over violence where possible but to be truly pacifist, in my opinion, you have to renounce all forms of violence always. I'm still unsure as to whether true pacifism is brave or cowardly, but I'm of no doubt that the stance you describe as pacifist is the bravest one one can take.
James