Denys,
My stance on non-violence is well known to this forum. However, the real
reason I stressed the point was for self-protection. Since my next sentence
could have been construed as advocating hitting the president, which is
illegal even if it is only with a rubber chicken, I prefaced it with a
statement of non-violence.

I will not debate statistics with you. I will say that pacifism is not
"passive-ism." I do not believe in sitting idly by and watching wrongs
committed. I don't believe other pacifists do, either.

Indeed, the two major role models for pacifism in the 20th century, Ghandi
and MLK, were anything but passive. Pacifists are not afraid to take a
stand. Anyone that witnessed the protest at the Darishima Salt Works could
attest to the courage of the protesters. I personally can attest to the
courage and tenacity of civil rights protesters all over the south. I saw
people willing to lie down on the train tracks at Port Chicago, Ca. in order
to stop weapons of mass destruction, Napalm, getting to Viet Nam.

I do not know why you think the pacifist movement was not out in full force
against U.S. efforts in the Balkans. We most certainly were. The fact that
most people were not concerned about the military action in Kosovo probably
had something to do with the lack of coverage of the protest movement. More
people have an opinion about this military incursion therefore more people
will express their opinions both for it and against it.

My stand against war is not political. I do not care if my own mother
decides to go to war, I will not support her. My stand is not based on any
motive other than avoiding the perpetuation of violence. I can give reasons
why this war is not the best course of action in this case but the real
reason is because war and violence are wrong. My stand against war is based
on moral and theological convictions that I will not bore anyone with. (Lest
anyone try to anticipate me, it is not based on the mistranslation of the
commandment "Thou shalt not kill" which in fact should be translated "Thou
shalt not murder.")

I applaud anyone for not supporting war and violence in any case. Even the
only reason is because they did not like the political party in power at the
time. At that time for that case, one less person stood up for violence,
commendable indeed.

Any reason to commit an act of peace is a good reason. Peace is he only
vessel big enough to hold the largesse due to humankind. It will take all of
us to hold it.

Pray for Peace.

The opinions expressed herein, whether mildly held opinions or hardcore
opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt

-----Original Message-----
From: Denys Beauchemin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:25 PM
To: rosenblatt, joseph; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: OT: Terry Jones (from Monty Python) on War


Yosef wrote in part:  "I do not advocate violence in any form, against any
person, at any time, for any reason."

A laudable sentiment, which has led to untold suffering, massacres and
destruction over the centuries.

Last week, I was listening to an interview with Dick Morris, Clinton's
erstwhile political guru.  The interview was discussing the support for the
war option in the US.  After the state of the Union speech and the Powell
speech, it is running at upwards of 75% in the US.  Dick was explaining the
components of the poll.

Over the years, it has been found that about 11% of the population would not
support attacking or bombing anyone under any circumstances for any reason.
This seems to have held true for decades.  I would guess that Yosef falls in
that category, so Yosef, you are not alone, about 11% of the American public
are with you on this.

Conversely, about 33% of the population is for bombing or attacking at the
slightest provocation.  So if you add these two factions, you account for
44% of the population right there.  This leaves 56% who will make up their
minds depending on the situation.

Let's say that currently the number is 75% in favor of attacking Iraq and
25% against the attack.  You then have 41% of the population that has made
up its mind that in this instance if attacking is justified and 14% which do
not think attacking Iraq is justified in this case.

Before you ask, I am not in the 33%.  I was totally opposed to the invasion
of Haiti, the bombing of the factory in the Sudan and especially the Bosnia
and Kosovo attacks.  Certainly Slobodan Milosevich never did anything to the
US and never supported anti-US terrorists.  He was not desperately trying to
accumulate WMD nor did he have a track record of gassing and killing his
people or his neighbors.  Indeed, a number of years after he was forcibly
removed and we have been searching the territory on the ground, nothing of
the atrocities he has alleged committed has been found.  Whoops.  Where was
the supposed pacifist world opinion then?

Denys

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *