Sunday, October 31, 2004

The television is constantly covering the message of George W. Bush, John Kerry, and terrorism. Though I dare not enter into that messy political arena on this blog, I do want to explore the way that it has affected my thoughts of late.

I was raised up within the Mennonite church. Though I no longer attend a Mennonite church, I do find many of the ideologies of that faith compelling, even personal. I consider it to be more a part of my heritage versus my spirituality. Throughout my life, the message of pacifism has been very strong - an integral prinicple to the faith. I certainly recognize that I lean towards a culture of pacifism, though I don't really believe that it something I actively see within the Mennonite culture today - at least those that are around me, namely Mennonites (family and otherwise). Are today's Mennonite pacifists activists? Or do many tend to be passive pacifists?

Within the Mennonite circles that I float in and out of, several people are not aware of global, political issues. Many do not read the paper, surf the net, read books, and/or watch the news. I do recognize the subjective material within each of those venues - but they are venues for information nonetheless. On an entirely different level, many of these same people do not condone the integration of culture, namely that of a 'worldly' culture. Therefore, movies, music, and technological change is something to be managed by a spirit of fear or isolation. A protective bubble of 'peace' covers all worldliness - in particular, war, environmental decay, sin, and consumerism. It is a bizarre reaction, which often isolates me from a decent conversation with them. I wonder, how can one hold onto the prinicple of pacifism without knowing the forces that peace must contend with?

I guess I'm stumbling into yet another discovery of my own culture - based on how I grew up, what I believe about those principles now, combined with the people I know who claim ignorance on global issues and yet align themselves with pacifism as an integral value - am I a pacifict? If so, I must be an active one - because the passive kind is not an option.



Comments:
I agree that pacifism has often been misunderstood as passive-ism, not doing anything in response to atrocity, to famine, to war, etc. The root word of pacifism obviously is "pacify." Pacify can have multiple meanings...the first thought in my context is that of a pacifier or soother meant to calm a baby. In a global context - to pacify would be to calm a situation in which emotions may be heightened. The other picture I have is restraining someone - keeping someone back from hitting another. This is obviously very hard to do globally but the idea of peace-keeping forces is perhaps the closest. A UN military or police presence is meant to deter conflict.

Unfortunately, I don't have a peaceful answer to the Israel-Palestine crisis, the Saddams & Osamas, the terrorists of the world - pretty hard to restrain someone with a bomb strapped to their chest or worse - at the control of a 747.

Just random thoughts on the subject...
 
Garth,

I feel as though I want to define my ideas and understanding about pacifism. Truly, the only conclusion I have come to so far is that I don't want to be passive about being a pacifist. This needs some research, understanding, and measures against personal values and beliefs.

Often, I find myself drawn to the Dalai Lama's ideas and teaching. How can I gain a better understanding of his joy and his unwavering belief of pacifism while knowing about his unjustly, dislocated country? It's a mind-balance worth exploring.

- Esther
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?