I think that JWs would prefer using the word conscientious objector over pacifist, as they oppose war but not defense of self and family. People like Mahatma Gandhi were true pacifists; he was opposed not only to war, but to any type of violence and would not even defend himself or others when attacked. Also, it should be noted, that Catholicism does not forbid one to be a conscientious objector.
Catholic "Just War" Doctrine vs JW Pacifist Doctrine
by rocketman 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
SixofNine
Six,
That's one of the neat things about being Catholic, we can disagree on which wars are "Just Wars" and which aren't. In Catholicism, ones INFORMED conscience outweighs church doctrine and dogma.
That is a feature I admire about Catholicism, and it is a point I first heard explained by my Lord and Saviour, Wesley Clark, who converted to Catholicism. Personally, my informed concience still leads me to question whether there even really was a historical, individual, Jesus.
-
heathen
I just looked up pacifist in my websters and all it means is peaceable not war like . Now didn't jesus say blessed are the peaceable , for they shall be called sons of God ? The amish are pacifist in that they won't even hit somebody in self deffense , I don't know how the WTBTS views that but I have heard of some dubs deffending themselves while being mugged . I think the word pacifist fits the jehovah witnesses and don't know why they refuse to realize it .
-
A Paduan
Haven't I seen old pictures of jws standing around with canes used for beating people ?
-
Yerusalyim
Six, That you consider Clark your Saviour explains a lot about your politics...YIKES is all I can say. Hey, the church has come a long way in 2000 years.
-
LittleToe
About five years ago I had to face this issue (actually I evaded it), when someone remonstrated with me that JW's were pacifists. They were right, of course, and as has so rightly been pointed out, the only reason they don't claim that title is because of the OT and Revelation. The conversation disturbed and niggled me, but I did my best to block out and ignore it.
About two years ago I finally did face the issue (now firmly out of the borg) and came to the conclusion that War can be just, and I would willingly participate in it if required.
it's only a difference of degree between using reasonable force to stop a murderer or rapist from attacking your family, neighbour, townsfellow, countryman, foreigner or other stranger...
There may be cases where an informed conscience might object to a given war, but that's a different case entirely from a blanket "I hate all war" stance.
As for those who conscienciously object due to pacifism, well that's their choice as well (and I still respect that, especially if it is truly their conscience), but call it what it is!!!
-
rocketman
Webstering (kind of like Googling) the word Pacifist yields this according to Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary:
Pacifist: Strongly and actively opposed to conflict and esp. war.
Pacifism: 1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specif: refusal to bear arms on religious or moral grounds. [Italics mine] 2. An attitude or policy of non-resistance
So maybe my use of this word to describe the jw doctrine does fit, even though, as TD pointed out, WT quotes show that they don't think it fits them.
-
Kenneson
A Paduan,
Yes, that was during the Judge Rutherford era, but canes were only used to maintain order during mob attacks. When provoked the Witnesses defended themselves.
-
TD
I think a major factor influencing the current stance of the Witnesses (Functional pacifism) was their refusal to salute the flag in the early 1940's. Prior to this, the most pacifisitic feature about the Witnesses was their refusal to be inducted into the military and this in and of itself was more an act of defiance than pacifism. J. F. Rutherford was an extremely caustic and confrontational individual and one only has to read the 1937 publication Enemies (where he defends the "canemen" at length) to see what I mean here.
The Witnesses therefore had no qualms at all about defending life and property. As the book Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution And The Dawn Of The Rights Revolution reports, Witnesses at times took their deer rifles to the roofs of Kingdom Halls in defense against mobs. Since the local law enforcement was as often as not actually part of the mob, at least one embarassing incident arose in which a police car was riddled with bullets fired by the Witnesses.
Always conscious of public image, I think those incidents led to the current paradox. The Witnesses (like any other decent human beings) have condemned those that stand idly and do nothing when a woman is stabbed to death in public. (An incident that happened at a bus stop in the early 60's) At the same time though, the Witnesses have published articles that effectively limit a Christian's range of response in the face of violence to: (1) Appealing to the authorities and (2) Praying. (See for example the July 15, 1983 issue of The Watchtower)
Well, neither the Witnesses, nor philosophical pacifists in general may have it both ways. The Witnesses for example have long held that a woman must scream if she is sexually assualted, even going so far as to say that if she didn't scream, she would be in effect, complicit in the act. However the value of a scream, especially a scream from a woman lies in the fact that it is a call for help. The assailant will be set upon and have his clock cleaned by every able-bodied man within earshot. With the average response time of the police in most metropolitan areas at or around 15 minutes, what value would there be in screaming if everyone followed the advice of the Witnesses and did nothing more in reponse than calling the police and praying?
-
gumby
The idea was that, if all people were Jehovah's Witnesses, carnal warfare would be eliminated.
Strawman.
If all people were Jehovah's Witnesses we would be in the New System because that's the only people who will exist according to them. That is the stupidest damn argument. Why not say....."if Satan hadn't fallen, we would all be in Paradise right now"!
If all people were dubs, there would be no preaching which would defy what god said they must do.
If everyone was like gandhi, or if everyone were Southern Baptist, or if everyone belonged to the First Church of Christ, I doubt there would be any killing of your fellowman either. Stupid argument.
Gumby