Do you think religion should teach more about the use of pacifism?

Pacifism

There are several different sorts of pacifism, but they all include the idea that war and violence are unjustifiable, and that conflicts should be settled in a peaceful way.

The word (but not the idea) is only a century old, being first used in 1902 at the 10th International Peace Conference.

People are pacifists for one or some of these reasons:

religious faith

non-religious belief in the sanctity of life

practical belief that war is wasteful and ineffective

Many believe that pacifism is more than opposition to war. They argue that it must include action to promote justice and human rights. (Consider for example whether the preservation of peace throughout the British Empire justified the human rights violations of that colonial regime.)

Religion and Pacificism

Some religions, such as Buddhism, promote pacifism. Others have strong pacifist elements, such as Christianity, but have accepted that war is inevitable and sought to provide moral guidance in dealing with conflict.

Judaism, like other religions, is strongly opposed to violence, and where violence is permitted the minimum necessary should be used.

But Jewish law does occasionally argue that violence may be the only solution: it imposes a moral obligation to save the life of a person who is being killed, even if the only way of doing so is to kill the attacker. (This demonstrates that Judaism regards going to the aid of someone who is being attacked as a higher moral duty than not injuring people.)

Jewish law also specifically obliges Jews to use violence on the Sabbath as a response to an invasion.


Do you think religion should put more effort in the teachings of pacifism?

<--- Not a Pacifist

I could imagine with the screenname you carry.

I am amazed that no one has anything to say on this one.

that's because pacifism couldn't survived without using violence to protect those that practice it

religions with Gods can not teach pacifism unless the God is a pacifist and a pacifist God is an impotent God ...believers require that their God come down and kick a little butt every now and then or atleast help their favorite sports team to win

Philosophies that teach pacifism only do because the believers exist within a soceity that does the fighting and violence to protect their right to be a pacifist

on a planet in which everyone have their own beliefs and some are willing to defend those belief with violence makes pacifism in reality just another fantasy

I just saw this, right after I posted a new thread asking what we really EXPECT of Christian behavior.

Smiless said


Buddhism has pacifist inclinations, not as a religion but as a logical course of interaction that should benefit the world. Not to please a god or in defense of some godly dogma.

On the other hand, where in the world do you get that the Judio-Christian religions have any inkling toward pacifism at all?

I have never seen this within the religious, however, there are some 'designer' Christians who hold to such ideals, but they are neither dogmatic, ritualistic nor do they, very often, read the Bible or other Scriptures as if they contained words directly from their gods mouth.

No wonder no one has really responded, you have confused them with something they are not.

Hello sir,

You say:

that's because pacifism couldn't survived without using violence to protect those that practice it


Question: I don't understand this. Could you explain further for me? I thought pacifism doesn't use violence at all? Aren't these people who don't even defend themselves if attacked? They don't practice or promote any violence? If not please explain to me to further understand this.

You say:

religions with Gods can not teach pacifism unless the God is a pacifist and a pacifist God is an impotent God ...believers require that their God come down and kick a little butt every now and then or atleast help their favorite sports team to win.

reply: It surely seems like it. I always wanted to have the impression that religion is the opposite of violence, yet when I see a priest bless a battleship or a soldier, I always wondered why he or she is blessing someone who is going to go and kill for a living?

you say: on a planet in which everyone have their own beliefs and some are willing to defend those belief with violence makes pacifism in reality just another fantasy.

reply: It seems like it as not many claim they are pacifists. I can only think of one who truly found a way to not use violence and succeed. Mahatma Ghandi, yet I would have to truly study his history to see if he really didn't use anykind of violence to achieve his goal of reclaiming India against imperial English control.

Thank you for replying.

As most of the religious forum is heavily influenced by christians and jews, I wanted to use a lighter approach by not bashing (like I usually have using atheist views) to enable a chance to discuss this debate peacefully.

As I read parts of the Bible, Quran, and even some of the Torah, I realized that more then half of the book indicates the many wars these groups have endured talking the oppossite of pacifism.

Although there are some accounts that there were pacifism used. I think one part in general talks about how the Roman Emperor would throw christian believers in the colloseum to be devoured by the wild animals he had. The Christians then only sang in a group and let it happen. If it is true, I wouldn't know for I wasn't there.

but yes I must agree that a true godly figure who represents pacifism is not easy to find. Perhaps if I research in Mythology I may find one who truly represents such as.


I personally believe that religion should represent peace, wisdom, and understanding of different idealogies. For some reason I see more disagreements, assaults, prejudice, and even racism at times. It truly is sad at times to observe this in the religious forums.

It seems when one is confused many resort to violence also. If only we would change our attitudes when we don't understand something and put more effort in trying to understand. If this would happen we may have a peaceful means of understanding each other as humans and not by a representation of somekind of a group foundation.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your wisdom all the time.

Then why do most Aetheists condemn people of faith for believing in something so heineous? If you use Atheist views as a counter to their pacifism, wouldn't you be just as hypocritcal as the arguement they are making?

Meaning that why be so angry? People of faith are just that. They have an ideology that is contrary to yours. Is that wrong?

I am not a atheist. I was using critical points of atheist thinking for educational purposes. I find atheists have very good questions concerning religion. That is why it is called a debate to try understand why or what had happened.

If you have found them offensive then its intent wasn't to destroy your belief system, but to find deeper answers to the questions.

Im not sure most atheists condemn people of faith for believing.

Most atheists just understand how people can believe when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary

People who know me know that I am not a angry person. I haven't posted a atheist question in a long time. I am a non religious spiritual person or a agnostic. I simply seek deeper understanding.

There is nothing wrong with those who speak their mind and explain what they believe. I invite it all the time and hope to learn something from them.

Perhaps I should ask the question if it is possible to be a pacifist and non religious??

or could a atheist be a pacifist?


With that hopefully being clarified

we could perhaps continue with the debate by asking why the practice of pacifism shouldn't be one of the highest commandments a religious book should teach?

I am not here to defend those who believe or bash the people who condemn believers(?), I just find it a little hypocritical that the non-believers are the majority of the hostile sect towards believers of pacifism. It is almost as if they are being baited into being aggressive. Shouldn't one have the ability to defend what trhey believe in, especially in this forum, an nonviolent one? It could be worse, we could be in Iran or China where we wouldn't be able to have this discussion. Talk about Dogma!

I agree one should be able to defend what they believe, but I also believe one should keep a open mind. Absolutely!

I don't agree that nonbelievers are a hostile sect baitend into being aggressive. I just think they don't believe in religion. Doesn't mean they don't believe in anything and many that I know are not for violence.

Now it is funny that you mention China. I have actually had the opportunity to visit this great country. The people I met do speak openly about religion. There are Buddhists, Taoists, and many atheists who are very peaceful, so I can't agree with you on that issue.

Now to defend what you say I agree that there are many critical people both religious and nonreligious who use dogmatic methods or even favor violence.

because anyone can claim to be a pacifist but usually a pacifist will exist within a society that has laws that does or can protect them from violence ...

Pacifism can not be based on any individual but only if the entire soceity are pacifists which more than likely either a pacifist society would be wiped out by another society or ruled by another soceity



religions have Gods and Gods are needed to instill fear and violence among it's believers



Mahatma Ghandi used the violence that the English unleashed upon his people to acheive his goal ..he used that violence to tug at the heart-strings of those within the English soceity to make them sympatheic to his cause ...in order for Ghandi to claim his acheive his objective using pacifism he would first have to hold more or atleast the same level of power as those he was negotiating with ...

Thank you for your insight sir. Have a great week

You will love you fellow man as you love your god

Anything that helps bring peace to humanity ought to be taught . I see no reason why religion should not encourage peace studies . The problem arises from the fact that every religion puts its own place above the rest of the others and not as equal . Early days education , high schools , colleges and universities are excellent places to learn about peace and its loving nature to all .
You can indeed love peace without believing in one God or many Gods . Also you can promote peace for the sake of humanity without belonging to any specific religion at all .To love and to work to achieve peace and oppose wars is a noble task that should be cherished by all man kind .