Can Nonviolence be Used to Join and ARMED Force?
I have been following Soulforce’s actions in the “Right to Serve” campaign with much struggle in my mind. I support the idea of using nonviolence for social change. I also support the idea of challenging “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, but I start to have an internal struggle when we are talking about using nonviolence as a philosophy, using Gandhi’s principles to join an armed force who is at war (or peace).
I get the idea that the arrest of Soulforce protesters brings attention to the problem, brings dialogue on the issue, and hopefully will bring and end to the issue. I start to have a problem in some ways when we are talking about using nonviolence or Satyagraha the weapon of peace and UNARMED truth to join an armed force. The whole point of nonviolence is using peaceful means to bring a peaceful end to conflict, but in this case the peaceful means are for an unpeaceful end, joining an armed force that goes off and uses weapons and violence to bring peace. A contradiction to nonviolence.
I may never actually come to any real place of peace with this idea and by the time I do it will be over, but I thought I would voice my thoughts. Feel free to do the same.
Today, more arrests for Soulforce protesters in North Carolina. You can watch some footage here, and read more details from Pam’s House Blend.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:03 pm
I don’t know very much about Ghandi at all. But when I read this post, I looked up a couple of things, especially in terms of what he thought about WWII. He is quoted as saying to the British in 1940 when the Nazis were looking like they were going to invade England:
“I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions…. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.”
It is also said that he made the following words:
“The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”
The world would be a horrible place if people actually followed these particular non violent principles.
However, he also said:
“‘I do believe,’ he wrote, ‘that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.’”
I realize the dangers of quoting things out of context, so these may or may not reflect his truth thoughts…
My thought is that I have no problem defending what I think is right, with either violent or non-violent means. It really depends on the situation. If someone were to come up to me and hit me or Doug, and if I could hit back, I probably would. I would defend my country as well (despite Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) from something like the Nazis, but I would have nothing to do with something like this ‘war on terror’ where the U.S. has gone in and taken apart two countries with has left more enemies behind than what was there to start with.
I think there is a time for both actions, and never a time for just a single type of action.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:10 pm
I am not so sure the answer lies in Gandhi’s words either. Nonviolence, much like a religion or God lies in your soul and your heart. It is something inside you.
I think they answer to the question would come more after thought and meditation, not from the words of anyone.
I have read those quotes before about the Nazi’s. Some of them I actually agree with and some I find distrubing. I think some of the ideas and philosophies of nonviolence are to be found in the bible, the Koran, and in God. The answer is most likely there.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:48 pm
You have to realize Joe, that joining the military doesn’t necesarilly mean you support war. It could just mean you support our country, regardless of the path it decided to take to solve it’s problems.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Understand, I do realize that, but when you join the military you are picking up a weapon, the goal of nonviolence is to put the weapons down.
I think there are dozens of ways to support your country without picking up a weapon.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Something to try and remember, Joe, while you’re seeking clarity on this subject. What they’re protesting for, at least in the abstract, is the right to choose. Nonviolence, oddly enough, doesn’t work when forced. In order for nonviolent principles to fully display their power as an agent for change, they must be freely chosen. Indeed, most of their power lies in that choosing and in a life lived as an example of how one wishes the world to be.
That only comes about through a conscious choice, though. If you don’t have the option of violence, then nonviolent action quickly breeds oppression.
These men and women are petitioning in a nonviolent way to be allowed to make that fundamental choice. It is to be hoped that, as they see the power of nonviolence, in the future they will temper their actions with its lessons and eventually choose to use peaceful means to bring about their desired ends. However, even if they do not, they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves, not at the dictates of an arbitrary government policy.