Are you a Pacifist?

[joeb]

Quote:

So, your way of thinking is the only, infallible way of thinking? God doesn't work with each of us as individuals? He doesn't present things to us about the way He wants us to live in varying ways and at varying times in our lives?

You must think Abraham really sinned in rescuing Lot, despite his having obtained God's blessing before he started on his mission of warfare.

Please share with me what I might has said that would cause you to come to the above conclusions. AS I reject just about everything that you concluded, I need to learn how to communicate better.

Gregory,

If this was somehow posted to you it was inadvertent. It was meant to be posted to TextusReceptus.

[Tallmark]

Probably C. I served in the US Army as a Green Beret Medic. I can cut 'em up and sew 'em up! I pray for protection every morning and so far I have come through life without a scratch. Praise God. Thank you for your service, Gregory.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

If this was somehow posted to you it was inadvertent. It was meant to be posted to TextusReceptus.

Thank you. For whatever reason I thought that post was directed to me. At first I was going to ignore it. Then IL decided to ask. I am glad that I did.

[Kevin H]

Probably C. I served in the US Army as a Green Beret Medic. I can cut 'em up and sew 'em up! I pray for protection every morning and so far I have come through life without a scratch. Praise God. Thank you for your service, Gregory.

Thank you for your service!

[Gregory Matthews]

All are welcome. The government has been good to me. It was not all fun and games. But I have been rewarded and I would do it again.

[Kevin H]

Thank you for your service too Greg

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Tallmark

Probably C. I served in the US Army as a Green Beret Medic. I can cut 'em up and sew 'em up! I pray for protection every morning and so far I have come through life without a scratch. Praise God. Thank you for your service, Gregory.

Thank you for your service!

[phkrause]

All are welcome. The government has been good to me. It was not all fun and games. But I have been rewarded and I would do it again.

[phkrause]

Thank you for your service too Greg

[Sojourner]

I don't know what I would do, and you don't either.

True, but I do know that I would be doing whatever it took to stop it from happening. If that involved the use of force or of a weapon then so be it then.

In my view it comes down to what I understand as Pacifism, my thoughts are that its acceptable to defend yourself or other people if they are attacked and controversially if you have credible information that someone is planning to attack you like in Iran on Israel, then its probably not unreasonable to take a first strike if necessary. What I feel is not okay is being the actual first cause of any violence, if all people lived that way, then there would be no problem.

[lazarus]

s.

In Great Britain, for example, self-defense of person and property is a prosecutable crime. People are told to retreat, if possible, or told to allow the criminal his way.

Factually incorrect.

In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

* The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 enshrines the right of people to use “reasonable force” to protect themselves, others or property. Any act of self-defence, for example against a burglar, must be “reasonable in the circumstances” as perceived by the victim.

* Crown Prosecution Service guidance emphasises that homeowners are not expected to make “fine judgments” in the heat of the moment. Acting in a way that you believe is “honestly and instinctively believe is necessary” is the foundation of self-defence and extends to chasing an intruder.

Q and A: Self defence and burglars

Info readily available on Google......Not sure why the statement "...In Great Britain, for example, self-defense of person and property is a prosecutable crime."...keeps hanging around as if it is a 'truth'. The statement 'is a prosecutable crime' leaves out what the conditions are for prosecution and those conditions exist in this country also.

[debbym]

Quote:

True, but I do know that I would be doing whatever it took to stop it from happening. If that involved the use of force or of a weapon then so be it then.

there is not set rules in the sda church how you handle such a situation.

you Pray and give your life and your family into God's care every day.

when the situation unfolds you do the best you know and trust God is with you.

no one will be there to judge and condemn you if you use force to protect your family. we are not mennonites who feel they are obligated to do nothing and let the wrongdoer have their way.

I do not believe the sdarm is this kind of pacifist either. i think their issues were a bit different.

military is planned use of arms, not the same as an unexpected criminal event.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

* The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 enshrines the right of people to use “reasonable force” to protect themselves, others or property. Any act of self-defence, for example against a burglar, must be “reasonable in the circumstances” as perceived by the victim.

* Crown Prosecution Service guidance emphasises that homeowners are not expected to make “fine judgments” in the heat of the moment. Acting in a way that you believe is “honestly and instinctively believe is necessary” is the foundation of self-defence and extends to chasing an intruder.

Q and A: Self defence and burglars

Info readily available on Google......Not sure why the statement "...In Great Britain, for example, self-defense of person and property is a prosecutable crime."...keeps hanging around as if it is a 'truth'. The statement 'is a prosecutable crime' leaves out what the conditions are for prosecution and those conditions exist in this country also.

Co-Aspen and Laz,

Yes, info is very accessible on the 'Net. The reference you have placed is but one, and indeed a recent recent one, but it excludes British media reports/observations, British prosecutions, government documents, and international observations to the contrary over the last 20 years. It makes note of the terms "reasonable", "honestly", and "instinctively" - very subjective legal terms. What is reasonable and instinctive? Chasing off burglars with toy guns? That is documented twice as arrestable behavior in the following report:

Cato report on British self-defense

Oh, but that's right - Cato is a "right-wing" propaganda tank, right? This one is hardly a friend to the self-defense issue:

UK media also recognizes the limited self-defense of British subjects

If the issue was as clear cut as we are told it is, then this would not be an issue in Britain, now as late as last year:

Grayling's proposal greeted with dismay

I assure you, the Guardian is no friend to the conservative perspective. That outlet also has this one, dated just last November:

Can British householders really defend themselves?

I do presume you recognize this gentleman as Britain's Justice Secretary, and that the "conservative" British Tory party today is still to the political left of our "conservative" Republican party?

Here's another source, directly from the Library of the House of Commons, dated January this year. It is an Adobe Acrobat pdf file, which does not seem to link well in this reply window, but interested readers may Google this url:

url=www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02959

In this document, it very much apears the government there is reserving to itself the right to determine what that subjective term referred to above - "reasonable" - really means. Likewise, the laws referred to in that document are worded such that common people would find it risky to put up a defense of self and property, and would rather engage in the pacifistic behavior the laws aim to enhance. And I only touched just a few links within the first 2 pages of a Google search using the keywords "British self-defense prosecutions". The self-defense/pacifism issue within Britain is hardly the "InterNet rumor" you both portray this as. Even if slanted negatively by the press there, the self-defense IS STILL debated there in earnest, and people HAVE been arrested for merely flashing a TOY gun at criminals. And if the criminal is wounded or killed, the person self-defending IS prosecuted for an "unreasonable" use of force.

It seems that, rather than being the paragon of self-defense nobility, Great Britain is still meshed in that quagmire it made for itself when they mandated a pacifist society (through their weapons and self-defense laws) over the last two decades. With the proposed knives legislation, Britain is still trying to mandate pacifism in the face of rising crime and evil, in spite of their justice Secretary's efforts to bring some sanity to the debate.

It's a nice little football that can be punted around at one's pleasure, as I'm sure you both can line up your own lists of sources denoting how squeaky clean the British are, but neither of you take away anything from my earlier point Britain has a huge problem with imposing pacifist responses to crime and evil upon its population, as observed with its self-defense arguments, laws, and prosecutions.

Great Britain is proving itself to be a classic case of what happens when God's natural law is thwarted by politicians mandating their vision of morality - in this case, self-defense vs. pacifism in the face of evil.

Blessings,

[lazarus]

Ted, your point was this:

"self-defense of person and property is a prosecutable crime"

This is clearly false. People are not prosecuted simply for trying to defend themselves. That's not true. How many people have been prosecuted in the last 10 years in the UK for defending themselves?

When you say "Yes, info is very accessible on the 'Net." Are you trying to suggest that we simply pick up information from the internet. I have iived in the UK for most of my life. Where did you get your information? It's not necessary to put others down in your response. Just deal with the issue.

"It seems that, rather than being the paragon of self-defense nobility, Great Britain is still meshed in that quagmire it made for itself when they mandated a pacifist society (through their weapons and self-defense laws) over the last two decades."

If that is the case for the UK what should you be saying about the USA. A bad year in the city I pastored for 2 years was four deaths by gun violence. They used to call that city iGunchester! Ted, you must be kidding. If the UK is in a quagmire because of it's weapon and self-defense laws the US must be in hell as a result of its weapons and self-defense laws.

[Ted Oplinger]

Ted, your point was this:

"self-defense of person and property is a prosecutable crime"

This is clearly false. People are not prosecuted simply for trying to defend themselves. That's not true. How many people have been prosecuted in the last 10 years in the UK for defending themselves?

When you say "Yes, info is very accessible on the 'Net." Are you trying to suggest that we simply pick up information from the internet. I have iived in the UK for most of my life. Where did you get your information? It's not necessary to put others down in your response. Just deal with the issue.

"It seems that, rather than being the paragon of self-defense nobility, Great Britain is still meshed in that quagmire it made for itself when they mandated a pacifist society (through their weapons and self-defense laws) over the last two decades."

If that is the case for the UK what should you be saying about the USA. A bad year in the city I pastored for 2 years was four deaths by gun violence. They used to call that city iGunchester! Ted, you must be kidding. If the UK is in a quagmire because of it's weapon and self-defense laws the US must be in hell as a result of its weapons and self-defense laws.

And how many more years has Britain been subjected to the drumbeat of "pacifism is noble, armed defense is not?" For many decades longer than here in the US.

You declare my claim false - yet I can Google up cases rather easily demonstrating people arrested for merely flashing a toy gun against criminals. One man imprisoned for life for shooting burglars with a legally owned shotgun, ending one criminal's life and wounding another. Another man prosecuted for defending his family and property - having been burglarized several times before - with a cricket bat. He swung once, incapacitated the criminal - and was arrested and prosecuted. What is worse, injured criminals are allowed to sue defenders of private property. They win.

Why? Because it has become part of British culture that criminals should not have to suffer the full consequences of their behavior - much as the Left here in America is very determined to instill here in America.

portrayed to be through the media. Switzerland also is European, small, and continental. They have quite the opposite view as Britain...and much lower crime, as well.

Regardless of your experience there, Laz, saying there is no issue there does not mean it goes away. Even your own media outlets detail the issue quite well.

So, you have lived in the UK most of your life. Every city has its "good protected side" and its "seedy side". Do you purposely seek out to live only in the high-crime areas? Or do you shy away from those areas shady areas, in order to provide a better neighborhood for your family? You DO do what you can to protect your family.

Before castigating the US for its view on weapons and self-defense, it might be better to investigate just where the acceptance of Britain's pacifism came from. We look at the issue from decidedly different cultures.

Blessings,

[lazarus]

.

You declare my claim false - yet I can Google up cases rather easily demonstrating people arrested for merely flashing a toy gun against criminals. One man imprisoned for life for shooting burglars with a legally owned shotgun, ending one criminal's life and wounding another. Another man prosecuted for defending his family and property - having been burglarized several times before - with a cricket bat. He swung once, incapacitated the criminal - and was arrested and prosecuted. What is worse, injured criminals are allowed to sue defenders of private property. They win.

I remember the Tony Martin case well. You can learn a lot from google but not the whole story. His firearm was not legally owned. The jury concluded that his use of force was not reasonable. I don't think he should have be convicted. He only served three years.

Here are the facts about self defense cases in the UK:

Between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight.

Of course there are stories where homeowners are arrested for defending themselves. These exceptional cases were greeted with public outcry. Britons understand that people should defend themselves. That also happens in the USA. I wonder if more than 11 Americans were arrested for trying to defend themselves.

Quote:

Regardless of your experience there, Laz, saying there is no issue there does not mean it goes away.

I did not say there was no issue. It has been a big issue in the UK for a while but to suggest that to merely defend oneself is a crime is obviously false and to cite three or four examples of prosecutions does not make it a crime.

Quote:

So, you have lived in the UK most of your life. Every city has its "good protected side" and its "seedy side". Do you purposely seek out to live only in the high-crime areas? Or do you shy away from those areas shady areas, in order to provide a better neighborhood for your family? You DO do what you can to protect your family.

Even in the most seedy neighborhoods in the UK police routinely conduct their duties without guns. The most violent neighborhood in the UK is safer than many US "safe" neighborhoods. Americans have to resort to more desperate considerations which is of course is a result of "living by the sword".

[debbym]

Quote:

Even in the most seedy neighborhoods in the UK police routinely conduct their duties without guns. The most violent neighborhood in the UK is safer than many US "safe" neighborhoods. Americans have to resort to more desperate considerations which is of course is a result of "living by the sword".

there is high violence in the usa domestic quarters, and studies have been done to understand it.

it has a generational component. our entertainment and sports violence is high. we seem addicted to violence.

we have horrible police brutality, under stress cops really have lost control. Like with high speed chases, adrenaline is running so high.

domestic violence shelters have sprung up in every large city and in most cities over 30,000 in size.

we have huge prison populations, and only 10% of all rapes are reported, and only 10% of those reported receive a conviction.

and of course we are hot to violently protect ourselves, we know how violent everyone else is too.

with these conditions i do not see any gun control in sight for the usa, and pacifist have little respect.

[CoAspen]

Lest I jump to conclusions....

Quote:

Great Britain is proving itself to be a classic case of what happens when God's natural law is thwarted by politicians mandating their vision of morality - in this case, self-defense vs. pacifism in the face of evil.

What exactly are you saying that God wants? My reading/perception is that you believe God stands behind the non-pacifist.

[CoAspen]

Hmmm, what exactly are you trying to say...

You make multiple statements about violence being everywhere, pointing a finger or two, even blaming police, etc, etc. Then your conclusion(?) is, of course we need to violently protect ourselves, because everyone else is so violent.

Am I misreading you? Sounds like an affirmation of why we need to be 'violent'? A rather bleak outlook!

[debbym]

in saying we, i was identifying myself as an american.

i was not saying i personally have any affinity for violence in sports or entertainment or domestic violence.

i just think the mentality of violence, the culture of violence in this country is very deep and very real.

fear of violence is very real, hence all the people who carry personal weapons.

i don't have a lot of hope of this changing. Like the deep racism in the country, i don't see that changing either. or the fanatic evangelicals.

i think these groups will persist till Jesus comes. not to suggest that individuals within these groups will not become Christian and be changed.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

Ted, your point was this:

"self-defense of person and property is a prosecutable crime"

This is clearly false. People are not prosecuted simply for trying to defend themselves. That's not true. How many people have been prosecuted in the last 10 years in the UK for defending themselves?

When you say "Yes, info is very accessible on the 'Net." Are you trying to suggest that we simply pick up information from the internet. I have iived in the UK for most of my life. Where did you get your information? It's not necessary to put others down in your response. Just deal with the issue.

"It seems that, rather than being the paragon of self-defense nobility, Great Britain is still meshed in that quagmire it made for itself when they mandated a pacifist society (through their weapons and self-defense laws) over the last two decades."

If that is the case for the UK what should you be saying about the USA. A bad year in the city I pastored for 2 years was four deaths by gun violence. They used to call that city iGunchester! Ted, you must be kidding. If the UK is in a quagmire because of it's weapon and self-defense laws the US must be in hell as a result of its weapons and self-defense laws.

And how many more years has Britain been subjected to the drumbeat of "pacifism is noble, armed defense is not?" For many decades longer than here in the US.

You declare my claim false - yet I can Google up cases rather easily demonstrating people arrested for merely flashing a toy gun against criminals. One man imprisoned for life for shooting burglars with a legally owned shotgun, ending one criminal's life and wounding another. Another man prosecuted for defending his family and property - having been burglarized several times before - with a cricket bat. He swung once, incapacitated the criminal - and was arrested and prosecuted. What is worse, injured criminals are allowed to sue defenders of private property. They win.

Why? Because it has become part of British culture that criminals should not have to suffer the full consequences of their behavior - much as the Left here in America is very determined to instill here in America.

portrayed to be through the media. Switzerland also is European, small, and continental. They have quite the opposite view as Britain...and much lower crime, as well.

Regardless of your experience there, Laz, saying there is no issue there does not mean it goes away. Even your own media outlets detail the issue quite well.

So, you have lived in the UK most of your life. Every city has its "good protected side" and its "seedy side". Do you purposely seek out to live only in the high-crime areas? Or do you shy away from those areas shady areas, in order to provide a better neighborhood for your family? You DO do what you can to protect your family.

Before castigating the US for its view on weapons and self-defense, it might be better to investigate just where the acceptance of Britain's pacifism came from. We look at the issue from decidedly different cultures.

Blessings,

Ted,

I used to be a member of a technical forum with a few thousand members that was based in the UK. We had more than a few discussions along these lines, and everyone UK person there acknowledged the truth of what you're saying. To a person they thought the situation there was crazy.

[CoAspen]

pacifism

noun

the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.

I have a feeling some here do not understand the definition.

According to some words posted in this thread, it is being suggested that not owning or using guns, in GB as compared to the US, is against God's natural law, which is undefined.

It is also being suggested that the US law is superior to GB laws.

What is missing is any data to suggest such ideas are based in facts, but rather random events. Those same random events can be found in the US also.

I find most troubling this mix of religion and politics by those that want a separation of church and state, or at least claimed or if it doesn't interfere with ones own personal belief system. I fail to see anything persuasive that pacifism is wrong or tied to a nation. I do see attempts to belittle a system takes a different approach to violence by limiting the use of certain items. But then we Americans know better than anyone else...seems to be implied, though not actually said.

Me thinks God is wondering why His name would be used to support........well, the list continues to grow!

[Tom Wetmore]

And it also seems to overlook the clear words the one we claim to follow about turning the other cheek, loving our enemies, etc. Loving our enemies strongly implies not killing them.

[joeb]

Am I a pacifist? No. Why? Because I've been on the receiving end of a lot of evil. That has taught me just how painful being on the receiving end is, and I will follow the Biblical advice that tells me I am to defend others, those who cannot defend themselves. No one defended me, that I know of, and I needed a defender big time. Thus, I will rise to the defense of others, even if it requires violence to do so. I see that as my Christian duty.

If you disagree with that, that's all well and good. But, do not think you are to educate my conscience on the matter. That is God's purview, and it is to His power and authority I bow.