Religion and Peace

[°Leprechaun]

I wasn't sure where to put this since it involves both politics and religion.
So often wars are about even perhaps caused by religion..
But shouldn't religion be about peace?
What's the point of celebrating Christmas if you are not a pacifist?

Agnostics are atheists by definition. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in "god"
and agnostics don't believe in 'god'.

My answer is 'both'. I was curious how many others will answer 'both'.

[ElectionsGuy]

I am a borderline atheist, but I'm not a pacifist.

[Goldwater]

I'm an atheist, but I'm definitely NOT a pacifist.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm an atheist, but whether or not I'm a pacifist depends on how you see it.  Personally, I almost always avoid confrontation because it's overly dramatic and annoying.   Life should be fun whenever and however possible.  Confrontation is just irritating.  When I see people yelling at each other it almost always brings a feeling of... I can't even pinpoint it... just bad, unless the argument is intellectually stimulating.  

[°Leprechaun]

I'm an atheist, but whether or not I'm a pacifist depends on how you see it.  Personally, I almost always avoid confrontation because it's overly dramatic and annoying.   Life should be fun whenever and however possible.  Confrontation is just irritating.  When I see people yelling at each other it almost always brings a feeling of... I can't even pinpoint it... just bad, unless the argument is intellectually stimulating.  

Very common to feel this way, I suspect most introverts are like this.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

While I consider militarism extremely difficult to reconcile with Christian teachings, I don't consider it possible to apply pacifism in such a violence-centered world.  I suppose I would have to vote "neither," if only because pacifists tend to be absolute in their position no matter the cost.

[°Leprechaun]

While I consider militarism extremely difficult to reconcile with Christian teachings, I don't consider it possible to apply pacifism in such a violence-centered world.  I suppose I would have to vote "neither," if only because pacifists tend to be absolute in their position no matter the cost.

While I think pacifism can be defended, I also think that it is possible to promote peace without being an absolute pacifist. Part of the problem is that people are too quick to support war without patience in finding alternatives. Another thing is that I hope that it is clearly to many that we spend far to much on 'defense' when there are other priorities being neglected.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nice try, but your post and poll are both independently somewhat questionable in their premises already, you post making as it does a generally totalizing set of claims about 'religion' albeit not necessarily the ones that I was fearing clicking on the thread, and your poll as it does indulging in a dichotomy that you're tacitly very much aware is so false as to make asking the question functionally pointless. Add to this the only casual, somewhat forced-feeling correlation between the subject matter of the post and that of the poll, and in general I can't say that I think this is a very accomplished piece of work. D+, and see me after class.

Scott, I think you have a somewhat narrowed and stereotyped view of what constitutes pacifism. There are certainly strains of pacifist thought that are very much all-or-nothing, but there are also those that admit shades of grey. The line of argument that you seem to be taking also smacks of Christian realism to me, which is an approach to moral theology that always struck me as essentially a fig leaf for an least partial surrender to sin.

[angus]

Neither.

[TJ in Oregon]

Scott, I think you have a somewhat narrowed and stereotyped view of what constitutes pacifism. There are certainly strains of pacifist thought that are very much all-or-nothing, but there are also those that admit shades of grey. The line of argument that you seem to be taking also smacks of Christian realism to me, which is an approach to moral theology that always struck me as essentially a fig leaf for an least partial surrender to sin.

Nathan, would you include belief in something along the likes of Just War Theory pacifistic? I would have thought pacifism meant an opposition to all war.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Scott, I think you have a somewhat narrowed and stereotyped view of what constitutes pacifism. There are certainly strains of pacifist thought that are very much all-or-nothing, but there are also those that admit shades of grey. The line of argument that you seem to be taking also smacks of Christian realism to me, which is an approach to moral theology that always struck me as essentially a fig leaf for an least partial surrender to sin.

I'm mostly speaking from experience.  I've encountered few people who, even those adamantly against the US being involved in the wars it has been involved in, would say that "pacifist" is an accurate label for themselves, although part of it is likely due to the stigma associated with the word and its far-reaching implications (i.e. Is it justified for a pacifist to use violent force to stop a rape?).  The bare definition of "pacifist" is, of course, a blunt one to judge by, but I don't consider using force as a means of defense of self or others to be morally wrong.

Also, I disagree with your approach to Christian realism.  At least, I think that calling it a "fig leaf for an at least partial surrender to sin" is an unfair characterization.  Remember that with free will, moral imperfection is inescapable.  I don't think that realization of that fact necessarily qualifies as a compromise on Christian beliefs.

[TNF]

I am an atheist.

Pacifism is an utterly immoral creed that by it's very nature sides with the oppressor against the oppressed. The use of non-violence as a tactic is not of itself bad, however, and non-violence is effective in certain contexts and up to a point, at which case non-violence becomes reactionary and impedes struggle. I am not and will never be a pacifist because to be a pacifist is to renounce the aim of the abolition of the class system and capitalism proper. And I am under no illusions that the current group of leeches which rules from on high will go any more peacefully than did their predecessors in the feudal epoch.

[Mr. Illini]

I voted Pacifist and not atheist. I am ideally a pacifist although not entirely in reality. It's complicated, but I do identify with pacifism to an extent. Particularly that demonstrated by Christ.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Scott, I think you have a somewhat narrowed and stereotyped view of what constitutes pacifism. There are certainly strains of pacifist thought that are very much all-or-nothing, but there are also those that admit shades of grey. The line of argument that you seem to be taking also smacks of Christian realism to me, which is an approach to moral theology that always struck me as essentially a fig leaf for an least partial surrender to sin.

Nathan, would you include belief in something along the likes of Just War Theory pacifistic? I would have thought pacifism meant an opposition to all war.

Just war theory, probably not. What I mean is that pacifism can be defined as nonviolence or simply as non-aggression. In general pacifist groups have also historically been willing to make somewhat broader exceptions in times of civil and revolutionary conflicts than in wars between different nation-states (see: The American Peace Society's support of the Union cause during the Civil War).

Also, I disagree with your approach to Christian realism.  At least, I think that calling it a "fig leaf for an at least partial surrender to sin" is an unfair characterization.  Remember that with free will, moral imperfection is inescapable.  I don't think that realization of that fact necessarily qualifies as a compromise on Christian beliefs.

Realization doesn't, but using that fact to pretend that realpolitik is somehow compatible with Christianity does. I'm aware that this isn't strictly speaking what Christian realism is in its ideal form (word choice very much intentional), but it's difficult to look at the career of Reinhold Niebuhr--the only theologian of any trenchancy whom the Christian realist 'movement' actually produced, or, rather, who produced it--and conclude that this was anything other than someone who was just interested in bringing Christianity to bear in service of political realism. Insofar as Christian realism is legitimately theological, it isn't particularly distinct from much earlier, predominantly Catholic theories; insofar as it is distinct from these theories, it barely even counts as theology.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Scott, I think you have a somewhat narrowed and stereotyped view of what constitutes pacifism. There are certainly strains of pacifist thought that are very much all-or-nothing, but there are also those that admit shades of grey. The line of argument that you seem to be taking also smacks of Christian realism to me, which is an approach to moral theology that always struck me as essentially a fig leaf for an least partial surrender to sin.

Nathan, would you include belief in something along the likes of Just War Theory pacifistic? I would have thought pacifism meant an opposition to all war.

Just war theory, probably not. What I mean is that pacifism can be defined as nonviolence or simply as non-aggression. Historical pacifists have also historically been willing to make somewhat broader exceptions in times of civil and revolutionary conflicts than in wars between different nation-states (see: The American Peace Society's support of the Union cause during the Civil War).

Also, I disagree with your approach to Christian realism.  At least, I think that calling it a "fig leaf for an at least partial surrender to sin" is an unfair characterization.  Remember that with free will, moral imperfection is inescapable.  I don't think that realization of that fact necessarily qualifies as a compromise on Christian beliefs.

Realization doesn't, but using that fact to pretend that realpolitik is somehow compatible with Christianity does. I'm aware that this isn't strictly speaking what Christian realism is in its ideal form (word choice very much intentional), but it's difficult to look at the career of Reinhold Niebuhr--the only theologian of any trenchancy whom the Christian realist 'movement' actually produced, or, rather, who produced it--and conclude that this was anything other than someone who was just interested in bringing Christianity to bear in service of political realism. Insofar as Christian realism is legitimately theological, it isn't particularly distinct from much earlier, predominantly Catholic theories; insofar as it is distinct from these theories, it barely even counts as theology.

Oh, no, that is not what I mean to argue for at all.  (Despite how I often choose to convey my beliefs here, I'm not that much of a post-modernist. )  Indeed, while proper Christianity cannot accommodate itself for the social ills of the system of which we live under, it can make peace with its establishment as something we use to build on and seek to build a paradise that, while imperfect, is the best alternative to "human perfection."  Christianity was never meant to be seen as a 'means to an end,' anyway.  Society will never achieve perfection, but we will become more morally conscious.

[windjammer]

I'm obviously not atheist. And I'm not a pacifist. I like peace, but letting dictatorship do all they want, in name of peace and isolationnism: not my cup of tea.

[°Leprechaun]

Nice try, but your post and poll are both independently somewhat questionable in their premises already, you post making as it does a generally totalizing set of claims about 'religion' albeit not necessarily the ones that I was fearing clicking on the thread, and your poll as it does indulging in a dichotomy that you're tacitly very much aware is so false as to make asking the question functionally pointless. Add to this the only casual, somewhat forced-feeling correlation between the subject matter of the post and that of the poll, and in general I can't say that I think this is a very accomplished piece of work. D+, and see me after class.

I know that atheism and pacifism are too distinct things
and that bringing them together as I did may cause some confusion.

I wasn't sure which statement you are objecting to.
Is it the following?

"So often wars are about even perhaps caused by religion.."

I can see why you might think this statement is false.
If not, can you be more specific as to what I said  that is
false. I further realise that I am oversimplifying complex
philosophies and that I failed to make the connection
between atheism and pacifism, but I think that the connection
is, to some degree self evident. I am not sure which *dichotomy*
you are refering to.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Neither.  I'm a Christian, but I'm not a pacifist because as much as I hate war, I believe that it is necessary in many cases.  As George Washington once said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DemPGH]

Sir Francis Bacon wrote an essay in which he described atheism as inherently peaceful (it's either "On Superstition" or "On Atheism," forget which). Of course some of it is subject to some impressions he has about the empire at that time that we might regard as erroneous, but he makes some salient and interesting points about the peaceful nature of atheism that I regard as certainly reasonable.

Me? I don't go as far as either one, although I think violence should be in self defense or as truly a last resort.

[AggregateDemand]

Neither, I guess.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nice try, but your post and poll are both independently somewhat questionable in their premises already, you post making as it does a generally totalizing set of claims about 'religion' albeit not necessarily the ones that I was fearing clicking on the thread, and your poll as it does indulging in a dichotomy that you're tacitly very much aware is so false as to make asking the question functionally pointless. Add to this the only casual, somewhat forced-feeling correlation between the subject matter of the post and that of the poll, and in general I can't say that I think this is a very accomplished piece of work. D+, and see me after class.

I know that atheism and pacifism are too distinct things
and that bringing them together as I did may cause some confusion.

I wasn't sure which statement you are objecting to.
Is it the following?

"So often wars are about even perhaps caused by religion.."

I can see why you might think this statement is false.
If not, can you be more specific as to what I said  that is
false. I further realise that I am oversimplifying complex
philosophies and that I failed to make the connection
between atheism and pacifism, but I think that the connection
is, to some degree self evident. I am not sure which *dichotomy*
you are refering to.

None of the statements that you made in the OP are individually untrue, they're just strung together in a somewhat surreal way that took a couple of read-throughs for me to really made sense of.

I don't think there's an inherent correlation between religiosity and pacifism one way or the other, at least on an individual level, but your post seemed to vaguely imply that you perceive a positive correlation while the wording of the poll options sort of insinuates a negative correlation, so that was perhaps not very well done.

[°Leprechaun]

Nice try, but your post and poll are both independently somewhat questionable in their premises already, you post making as it does a generally totalizing set of claims about 'religion' albeit not necessarily the ones that I was fearing clicking on the thread, and your poll as it does indulging in a dichotomy that you're tacitly very much aware is so false as to make asking the question functionally pointless. Add to this the only casual, somewhat forced-feeling correlation between the subject matter of the post and that of the poll, and in general I can't say that I think this is a very accomplished piece of work. D+, and see me after class.

I know that atheism and pacifism are too distinct things
and that bringing them together as I did may cause some confusion.

I wasn't sure which statement you are objecting to.
Is it the following?

"So often wars are about even perhaps caused by religion.."

I can see why you might think this statement is false.
If not, can you be more specific as to what I said  that is
false. I further realise that I am oversimplifying complex
philosophies and that I failed to make the connection
between atheism and pacifism, but I think that the connection
is, to some degree self evident. I am not sure which *dichotomy*
you are refering to.

None of the statements that you made in the OP are individually untrue, they're just strung together in a somewhat surreal way that took a couple of read-throughs for me to really made sense of.

I don't think there's an inherent correlation between religiosity and pacifism one way or the other, at least on an individual level, but your post seemed to vaguely imply that you perceive a positive correlation while the wording of the poll options sort of insinuates a negative correlation, so that was perhaps not very well done.

ok, my wording is confusing, but to the point of the connection between Christianity specifically and a desire for
peace, the familiar quote in the Bible sums up my point,

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:14

It seems like a no brainer if people (regardless of religious belief) lived up to the spirit of these words,
we would have less war.

I wouldn't say that people are "basically good", but with education surely we can and over time have made
progress, not so much on bringing about peace, but improved life in other obvious ways.

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm an atheist, but I am not strictly a pacifist.