"Moral imbeciles..."

Pacifists such as Loney have never accomplished anything in this world and never will, and they've certainly never created what they purport to love: Peace.

They believe violence never solves anything when, in fact, the judicious use of violence solves many of the large problems.

South Korea is free because men -- real men, not pacifists -- sacrificed to stop the North Koreans from enslaving it. Ditto for Nazi and Japanese aggression during the Second World War. Violence ended black slavery on this continent.

All of those achievements were won by men with guns, not the wimps on the sidelines praying and feeling smug about occupying the moral high ground.

So concludes Ian Robinson in a strongly worded article in the Calgary Sun Sunday, April 2, 2005. Speaking about James Loney, pacifists in general, and the escapades of the Christian Peacemaker Team in Baghdad, Robinson takes issue with what he sees as moral hyprocrisy amongst pacifists.

See, members of Christian Peacemaker Teams are pacifists and they don't co-operate with men with guns who might use the information to track down kidnappers and/or terrorists and shoot them in the head until they agree to stop kidnapping and/or terrorizing people.

Pacifists don't believe in violence and refuse to use it or abet its use. Pacifists are therefore moral imbeciles.

They're like the guy at the party who won't kick in for the pizza but sneaks a slice when he thinks nobody's looking.

Freedom and democracy come with price tags. They are unfortunately acquired and maintained with spilled blood. Individuals with a moral aversion to the violence of freedom have a right to their view; that's what freedom and democracy represent. But that right doesn't include turning away from the responsibility to assist those who may have to use violence to ensure those very rights. With freedom comes responsibility and vigilance. The burden has to be carried by all shoulders, not just those of a few we'd rather not know. You can't know freedom, until you know what it costs.

Steve Janke, in a current op-ed on Angry in the Great White North discusses pacifism, and the CPT, in more depth:

Ian Robinson has a column today in which he notes that pacifism can only exist where the state is ready to use violence to ensure that a pacifist's right to express an opinion and to act on that opinion is protected.

That helped me focus my thought. I'll take it a step further. Pacifism is myth. It cannot exist, since its existence requires violence to be undertaken. Since it inspires that violence it is responsible for it. Pacifism by violence is not pacifism at all.

Here is what I mean. Take it for granted that pacifism only makes sense against a backdrop of violence. In other words, pacifism can be recognized in contrast to violence. A pacifist is a pacifist because he chooses to forgo violence as a means of reaching his goal.

He goes on further to explore radical pacifism, and the apparent moral contradiction of radical pacifists:

But can a pacifist precipitate a violent act in someone else and still be called a pacifist? And by precipitate, I mean knowingly create the circumstances in which a violent act, or more likely multiple violent acts, were inevitable?

Wouldn't a true pacifist recognize that his own presence would be a trigger to violence, and so to avoid violence which he believes to be morally wrong in all circumstances, ensure that he was not present?

Simply deflecting aggression onto the back of someone else, does not make a moral argument for being pacifistic. Its a structured hypocrisy that may have more in common with cowardice than a strong principled stand. In a "perfect world", it might be possible to attain co-operative cultural benevolence, but a perfect world does not, never has, never will, exist.