Nowadays, it is extremely hard to imagine the world where there is no war, no blood and no struggle for power and influence. We get upset when we turn on the TV. However, it is important to remember that people were at war with each other from the very beginning of civilizations. People were militant because they wanted to conquer new lands and prove their strength to their neighbors. Many wars, including the legendary Trojan War, were fought for women. The entire nations were brought up prepared to go to war with other empires, including Spartans, Persians and Romans, who were considered to be one of the most professional warriors of all times. Children grew up knowing that their lives did not have another value but to serve the governments and help the rulers expand their territories. This might seem wild and ugly for a modern reader, but it is important to remember that even today, there are nations that require all men to serve in the military. It seems that militarism was born together with the humanity, while pacifism became known to the West only after the introduction of Christianity.
Pacifism is opposed to militarism and encourages people to stop fighting and killing each other for something that they cannot even define. Pacifism promotes the absence of violence and blood and considers peace to be the key to successful and happy existence. “The word “pacifism” is derived from the word “pacific,” which means “peace making” (Pacifism, 2006). After the coming of Jesus, whether one believes in his holiness or not, people started to think about the value of live and the meaning of death. The prophet taught them to love each other and help those in need instead of killing each other for material things, such as wealth, lands and physical relationships. Jesus Christ can surely be called one of the first pacifists, since before him, the Roman Empire was triggering off wars in the name of pagan gods that often demanded blood. It cannot be surely said, however, that Christianity is a purely pacifist religion; if one remembers God the Father from the Old Testament, one can clearly realize that forcing a father to kill his own son is not the most peaceful approach. However, with Jesus, things seemed to be different: many people followed his path in promoting love for each other, and many even left the humanly pleasures and decided to live as hermits. As a result, many lives were saved and many wars avoided. But it is known that there is another side of the coin in any situation.
Pacifism, however, is not always as positive as it might seem first. When he was the president of the United States, Richard Nixon referred to himself as a pacifist, even when he continued to support the Vietnam War (Pacifism, 2006). This created a paradox, since Nixon told the press that “a term like “pacification” could be employed in military usage to describe a violent process of suppressing violence, as when an enemy territory is “pacified” by killing or disabling the enemy”. (Pacifism, 2006) There were many ‘pacifists’ like that in history who declared that their actions were in the name of pacifism, while in fact, oppressed certain groups of people. This brings us to the disadvantages of pacifism, the first one of which includes the submission to power. Often, in order to establish ‘peace’ (under which many politicians hide the word ‘silence’), there had to be oppression of the weak and making certain groups of people voiceless. It can surely be said that slavery was one of the results of false pacifism; the imported slaves did not struggle at first, which made the slave owners free of guilt and ultimately established the situation where everyone was quiet. Back people worked for free, and white Americans did not argue over the division of hard labor and wages. This quietness, however, did not mean satisfaction of both sides. There were winners and losers. But it was how the American government successfully coexisted with something that was disapproved even in some of the ancient societies – human slavery.
Let us know have a look at how different religions or, better to say, cultures, viewed pacifism. Hinduism and its most famous leader Mahatma Gandhi was always associated with a nonviolent approach. Gandhi gave speeches all over the world, promoting self-sacrifice, love, and concentration on one’s inner self rather than on humanly pleasures. In fact, the whole India was then viewed as an extremely pacific country, where there was no place for violence and war. However, this image was destroyed after the Indians detonated five nuclear bombs on several countries in May 1988 (Hashmi and Lee, 2004). It became clear that it was impossible to say that one nation was purely nonviolent, while other nation was constantly eager to spill blood. Moreover, one should not forget that in Hindu tradition, there are gods who destroy and gods who create, and often, they are united in one, e.g. Krishna, who is a Creator and a Destroyer simultaneously. Krishna creates the world, but he is also in charge of destroying things and bringing death. This proves that the nature of Hinduism is just as controversial as any other faiths, and it is biased to judge the whole country based on the faith of a certain group of people (since India is very populated, there are people from different backgrounds and heritages).
One may think that Buddhism can surely be called one of the most peaceful faiths that have ever existed on earth. This might be partly true, keeping in mind the story of how Buddhism began. Buddha, who is considered to be the founder and the main teacher of Buddhism, was born to a royal family, and his parents intended to bring him up without letting him see the disasters of the humankind. They removed all of the sick, crippled and old from the territory on which Buddha was raised. When Buddha accidentally discovered that age and diseases existed, he decided to give up all of the wealth that he possessed and left to seek enlightenment. Self-punishment did not help him achieve his goal, and he realized that peace and quietness were his best friends (Study guide for political theories for students, 2015). Although Buddhism includes the notion of suffering, which is it inevitable for any human being, it can be said that compared to other religions, Buddhism does not include either holy wars or forceful conversion. One of the reasons is its detachment from the political world. While other religions have strong ties with the government, Buddhism tries to take its own route. It puts a lot more emphasis on “inner qualities and a correct moral attitude” and pays less attention to “political strategies or techniques” (Study guide for political theories for students, 2015).
When it comes to Islam, many people consider it to be purely militant religion and are often afraid of it. This comes from Islamophobia which spread greatly in the United States after the 9/11 attack that caused a wave of hatred towards Muslims. The fact that Islam is connected with the military is not false: since the very beginning, the religion was deeply political, and even its first leader Prophet Mohammed was both a religious and a political leader. Prophet Mohammed not only forcefully converted pagans to Islam, but also conquered many lands that too were made Muslim. For Islam, it is impossible to view religion and government separately, which the Western world fails to understand. Moreover, Muslims are required to defend Islam by military means, which include jihad – the holy war (Alles and Ellwood, 1998). The holy war is among those things that every Muslim must complete if necessary in order to prove himself to be a faithful servant of God. However, would not be fair to call Muslims violent; today, some Muslims perceive jihad to be “not a military but a personal struggle against temptation” (Alles and Ellwood). Moreover, it would be wrong to consider Christianity peaceful with its history of Crusades and the slaughter of unconverted pagans in Rome at the times of Constantine. Every religion has a history with violence. Today, there are many Muslims who work for peace and promote pacifism, which tells us that people are not to be judged based on their religious identity, or, better to say, on the history of their religion.
Reference:
Ellwood, R. S., & Alles, G. D. (1998). The encyclopedia of world religions. New York: Facts on
Hashmi, S. H., & Lee, S. (2004). Ethics and weapons of mass destruction: religious and secular
perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pacifism. (2006, July 06). Retrieved January 26, 2017, from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/#1.1
Study guide for political theories for students. (2015). Detroit: Gale, Cengage Learning.
