I have been thinking about the debate over pacifism this week in anticipation of a reading group discussion. Reinhold Niebuhr wrote an essay in 1950 where he argued that if pacifism was claimed to be pragmatically effective, it was heretical in that it did not appreciate the sinful character of humanity. (I would guess he would explain the success of Ghandi and the later success of Martin Luther King as exceptions that proved the rule (though the Civil Rights movement was ultimately backed by the violence or threats of violence of the Federal government). To the extent, that pacifism is rooted in the “turn the other cheek” philosophy, it rules out not only war, but also police, courts, and law. Niebuhr argues that pacifists who point to the Sermon on the Mount justification are biblically correct, but, he suggests, this is not a pragmatic prescription for human life. Nonetheless, he suggests that the position of the Christian Church is not rightly pacifistic, but pragmatic. His argument for “Christian” pragmatism is unclear to me – at least in the essay I read.
I am told that Howard Zinn once gave a speech on Cape Cod in support of pacifism to a liberal audience. Zinn’s audience was with him when he described the reasons for the revolt against England and our own Civil War. But when Zinn got to WWII, he got significant pushback from the audience. They believed that resisting the monstrosity of the Nazis was worth any price. Zinn held his ground, but the going got pretty rough.
Whatever one things of pacifism, it should be recognized that the costs of World War II were truly devastating. It is easy for Americans to underestimate the horror of War II in Europe alone (thus leaving out the firebombing and atomic bombs used against on Japan): in other words, the human slaughter of millions of men, women, and children, the tens of thousands of rapes, the wanton pillaging of villages and destruction of cities across Europe, the untold numbers of homeless refugees and the concomitant loss of family members, the destruction of the economies, the post-war killings (often without trial) in retaliation of “collaborators” (a term applied to genuine criminals, but often as an excuse to kill those whose politics were inconvenient to the successive regime), and the general undermining of respect for human life For an excellent account of the staggering losses, the human tragedies, and the moral degradation, see Tony Judt’s Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945, chs. 1-2.
Without deciding the general issue of pacifism or not, in light of the probability and fact of killing innocent civilians in large numbers, modern warfare strikes me as indefensible. It surely cannot be defended by mouthing democratic slogans. It is now and has been for many years hard to believe that the populations of Iraq or Afghanistan are better off because the United States decided to give them a helping hand by raining destruction across their countries.
Steve, I know the piece and have it in an edited volume somewhere. Yoder's critique of Barth is in a volume called "Karl Barth and the Problem of War." Its a stinging critique. Yoder delivered something like this to Barth as his doctoral dissertation. Apparently pacifists are not as spineless as one might think!
Posted by: Clark West | 08/19/2011 at 07:45 AM
Clark
Taryn gave me a copy of the essay which I inadvertently left at a friend's house on the Cape. As I recall the essay is called "Why the Christian Church is Not Pacifist." But I do not know where it is from.
I would like to see the essay about Yoder and Barth.
Thanks for the comment.
Steve
Posted by: Steven Shiffrin | 08/19/2011 at 07:03 AM
I would like to share this blog with you
http://womanlondonblitz.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Vicki | 08/19/2011 at 03:39 AM
Well said, It's actually depict a good story. This is very interesting. By the way I just want to share this blog to you.
http://prime1-marco.blogspot.com/
This is more on politics and religion. This maybe help as well.
Many Thanks!
Posted by: catholic | 08/19/2011 at 03:02 AM
Steve,
What's the Niebuhr piece you're reading? I'm guessing, since I saw you've been reading Yoder, that you know of his critique of Niebuhr and Barth re: pacifism. Reinie's brother H. Richard also once had a remarkable exchange with his brother in the Christian Century over U.S. foreign interventions. They had quite a different take on things!
Posted by: Clark West | 08/18/2011 at 08:57 PM