rose forwarded the following email message to me and i thought it was worth sharing with everybody. i don’t think that she will mind. it made me think deeply about the concept of non-violence. my comments follow. the original text was sent by ericc@autobytel.com and begins here:

with all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter ‘peace activists’ who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on september 11, 2001. these activists may be alone or in a gathering…..most of us don’t know how to react to them. when you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. listen politely while this person explains their views. strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. they will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. they will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. in the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. when the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. tell them if they are really committed to a non-violent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. as soon as they do that, hit them again. only this time hit them much harder. square in the nose.

7. repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. there is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. it is unacceptable and must be dealt with. perhaps at a high cost. we owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. we must support them and our leaders at times like these. we have no choice. we either strike back, very hard, or we will keep getting hit in the nose [and worse].

i am grateful to rose for sending this. i am a borderline pacifist, but i spend a lot of time questioning my stand and wondering if it really is valid. the argument presented by eric is one of the best ones i have seen against strict pacifism. i spent four years of my life studying international relations and agree with eric that relations between countries are a lot like those between people.

but the picture he painted is too simplistic. the world does not consist of two people isolated in time and space, beating on each other.

if we were to make the analogy more appropriate to our current global situation, there would be a throng of people around the attacker and the one receiving the attacks. there would be a history of interaction between the two. the victim may have even paid for the puncher’s boxing lessons. everyone would be watching, waiting to see what would happen. there would be some people in the crowd who had strong affiliation with the one striking and others with the one receiving the blow. many in the crowd would remember perceived or real injustices in the past by the one who was hit against the puncher and wonder if the the puncher wasn’t provoked into hitting the other person.

there is the possibility that if the person strikes back, that the entire crowd of people will begin fighting one another, and that many people, including innocent bystanders who had absolutely nothing to do with the initial argument, will end up with broken, bloodied noses (or worse).

eric also assumes that the only choice of the pacifist is to hit back. i was a wrestler in high school. in a pinch, i could take someone down and immobilize them without causing harm to them. in a group situation, people might jump in to grab the aggressor’s arms and legs and drag him/her away, especially if they see that the victim is not striking back.

in our great system of justice in this country, a person does not seek justice by taking matters into their own hands. if someone murders my friend, and i hunt them down and kill them (and hurt a few others during the process, because it couldn’t be helped) then i have lost my moral high ground and am answerable to the same crime.

i am not opposed to justice. i am opposed to violent retaliation. everywhere i see revenge being equated with justice. the two concepts could be no farther apart. it is moral idiocy to assume that the two are one and the same. allow me to illustrate a situation in recent history where justice was obtained without resorting to violent means.

the independence of india was won after a group of determined protestors and followers of gandhi, as part of a peaceful demonstration, marched upon a salt plant owned by the british. they walked, line after line, into a group of police who stood waiting. they were beat horribly by the police. they did not strike back. women stood ready to drag away and tend to the wounded and to make room for the next line of protestors. the press reported the incident and the world was shocked by the unjust treatment of the indian protestors. this was the last battle (one of many) in gandhi’s nonviolent overthrow of the british occupation of india. was blood shed in this war? yes, but primarily by the british. because the indians, for the most part, did not resort to violent means of resistance, they held the undeniable moral upper hand. when they won their freedom against one of the world’s greatest military powers, they did it with the added satisfaction of knowing that they did not have the blood of british soldiers on their conscience.

true pacifism is not easy. true pacifism is not weak. true pacifism is not passive. pacifists have to be ready to stand their ground and receive blows, like those who won the independence of india. true pacifists defy injustice wherever it raises its ugly head. true pacifists have to be as ready as any dedicated warrior to give up their lives for the cause of peace.

pacifism is not for everyone. pacifism is not for the faithless: most people do not have faith enough to sacrifice themselves for a heaven on earth where the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the young lion with the calf. pacifism is not for the weak: it takes greater strength to not raise one’s hand in retaliation. one of the world’s wisest teachers once said:

ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

but i say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

this teaching is echoed by ‘idiots’ like gautama buddha, mohandas gandhi, and his holiness the dalai lama. i will stand with them. i am imperfect. i am not a true pacifist yet, but i am striving to be one, and i hope that one day i will have the faith, hope, courage and integrity to endure suffering and lay down my life for the cause of peace::