Talk:Pacifism

Judaism has never had any room at all for pacifism. Judaism is extremely pro-peace, true. But being pro-peace is not the same thing as encouraging mass suicide, by being pacifist in the face of murderers and killers, such as the Nazis. (but that of course is only one example) Consider what the blood-thirsty "pacifist" Ghandi had to say on this subject (and note that the following quote is copyrighted)

I am aware that for many not privileged to have visited the former British Raj, the names Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Deccan are simply words. But other names, such as Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, somehow have a harder profile. The term "Jew," also, has a reasonably hard profile, and I feel all Jews sitting emotionally at the movie 'Gandhi' should be apprised of the advice that the Mahatma offered their coreligionists when faced with the Nazi peril:

They should commit collective suicide. If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers' knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for "ages to come." If they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a "rich heritage to mankind." Although Gandhi had known Jews from his earliest days in South Africa--where his three staunchest white supporters were Jews, every one--he disapproved of how rarely they loved their enemies.

And he never repented of his recommendation of collective suicide. Even after the war, when the full extent of the Holocaust was revealed, Gandhi told Louis Fischer, one of his biographers, that the Jews died anyway, didn't they? They might as well have died significantly. Gandhi's views on the European crisis were not entirely consistent. He vigorously opposed Munich, distrusting Chamberlain. "Europe has sold her soul for the sake of a seven days' earthly existence," he declared. "The peace that Europe gained at Munich is a triumph of violence." But when the Germans moved into the Bohemian heartland, he was back to urging nonviolent resistance, exhorting the Czechs to go forth, unarmed, against the Wehrmacht, *perishing gloriously* --collective suicide again. He had Madeleine Slade draw up two letters to President Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia, instructing him on the proper conduct of Czechoslovak satyagrahi when facing the Nazis.

When Hitler attacked Poland, however, Gandhi suddenly endorsed the Polish army's military resistance, calling it "almost nonviolent." (If this sounds like double-talk, I can only urge readers to read Gandhi.) He seemed at this point to have a rather low opinion of Hitler, but when Germany's panzer divisions turned west, Allied armies collapsed under the ferocious onslaught, and British ships were streaming across the Straits of Dover from Dunkirk, he wrote furiously to the Viceroy of India: "This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man...."

Gandhi also wrote an open letter to the British people, passionately urging them to surrender and accept whatever fate Hitler' had prepared for them. "Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds." Since none of this had the intended effect, Gandhi, the following year, addressed an open letter to the prince of darkness himself, Adolf Hitler.

The scene must be pictured. In late December 1941, Hitler stood at the pinnacle of his might. His armies, undefeated anywhere ruled Europe from the English Channel to the Volga. Rommel had entered Egypt. The Japanese had reached Singapore. The U.S. Pacific Fleet lay at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. At this superbly chosen moment, Mahatma Gandhi attempted to convert Adolf Hitler to the ways of nonviolence. "Dear Friend," the letter begins, and proceeds to a heartfelt appeal to the Fuhrer to embrace all mankind "irrespective of race, color, or creed." Every admirer of the film 'Gandhi' should be compelled to read this letter. Surprisingly, it is not known to have had any deep impact on Hitler. Gandhi was no doubt disappointed. He moped about, really quite depressed, but still knew he was right. When the Japanese, having cut their way through Burma, threatened India, Gandhi's strategy was to let them occupy as much of India as they liked and then to "make them feel unwanted." His way of helping his British "friends" was, at one of the worst points of the war, to launch massive civil-disobedience campaigns against them, paralyzing some of their efforts to defend India from the Japanese.

The preceding quotes were excerpted from "The Gandhi Nobody Knows" by Richard Grenier, "Commentary," March 1983. Commentary is published monthly by the American Jewish Committee, New York, NY.

No entry on pacifism will be complete until it makes note that pacifism relies on mass murder in order to make a point. Without mass-murder and violence, pacifists can never make the public relations points that they need to achieve their goals. IOW, pacifism is not about non-violence; rather, it is about allowing violent people to murder non-violent people in order to make a point. IMO, this is hard to call "non-violence". RK

Since you clearly do not understand pacifism, you probably should not participate in the writing of this article. -- Egern

I understand pacifism full well. I cannot believe that you accused me of "trashing" the article; I did no such thing. I just stated a fact that the entry as yet had failed to note: Ghandi promoted mass-suicide (and perhaps mass-murder) in order to prove his point. This is not an exagerration in the slighest. Do all pacifists engage in such tactics? Nope...but the world's most famous one did, and this guy still is worshipped as a model by those who promote pacifism. If you propose a better way to discuss this point, that's fine, but don't act as if raising this valid point was vandalism of the entry.

The changes you introduced are not even remotely NPOV. First of all, the article before you trashed it made some attempt at describing pacifism as encompassing a wide range of views about the use of violence,

Nonsense. That part of the article was simply wrong. If you are willing to defend yourself with force, then by definition you are rejecting pacifism. What kind of pacifist will use a gun to kill people? You can't rewrite the dictionary and claim that pacifists are usually opposed to violence, but will sometimes kill if they feel that they need to. That's not pacifism; that's just common sense. RK

and you stepped in and simply launched into an attack on only one brand of pacifism, namely that which Ghandi advocated. Secondly, you assume that pacifism is about "making a point", which in most cases it is not, thus suggesting that you are not qualified to write on the topic. Thirdly, your claim that pacifism is about "mass murder" is just a hysterical and nonsensical and emotional response to the subject. I am not going to debate pacifism with you--this is not the place for it. What matters is not whether pacifism is morally correct or not, but whether this article should be turned into a forum for you to trash it. -- Egern

I reject your claims. In order to maintain NPOV, this entry needs to present a counter to the morally extreme demands made by pacifists. You, without meaning to, are deleting NPOV to push a pacifist ideology. Look, if you want to renounce all violence, in all cases, then fine. But there are often horrific consequences to such actions, and this is precisely the entry to discuss them. There is a reason that this ideology is criticised and rejected by so many. If you think that you have a better way of doing so, then propose it...but don't just accuse me of "trashing" the entry. RK

I agree with RK, though perhaps in a qualified way. Granted (as I think the article clearly expresses) there are different aspects of pacifism, different forms that it takes, and different reasons people are drawn to it. One -- only one, but a significant one -- form of pacifism is pacifism as a political tactic in a struggle by oppressed people against an oppressor. It attempts to provoke violence in order to reveal the extent to which seemingly non-violent political regimes in fact do rely on violence. In provoking such a a revalation, pacifism de-legitimizes the oppressive regime.

whether this tactic is right or wrong, works or does not work, it is an important form of pacifism.

if I understand RK correctly, he does not believe that this form of pacifism is always effective, and in some cases where it is ineffective, it is wrong. Given the example he provides, I understand his position.

I just want to add that, although for RK this form of pacifism is objectionable, for others it is precisely what makes pacifism so appealing and powerful. My point: whether one aproves or disaproves of this form (or interpretation or use) of pacifism, it is important and must be included in the article. I think it is implicit in the current version of the article but could perhaps be developed.

finally, it would be useful and appropriate to discuss where such a pacifism has worked and why, and where it might not have worked. -- SR

SR, you often offer calm and reasonable takes on some of the articles in this encyclopedia. Now that I have calmed down a bit (although I have not changed my decision not to edit Wikipedia articles because I believe that the fundamental problem of partisanship and pursuit of agendas has not been solved), I want to comment on what some of these issues. Certainly you raise some valid points, but I feel that certain things need to be said. First, it seems to have been suggested that merely to describe a philsophical point of view without condemning it is somehow an endorsement of that philosophy. I disagree.

Egern, I agree that the mere description of a point does not equal endorsement, but the article as it stood didn't merely describe pacisim. It truly endorsed it. It made all other forms of philosophy sound out to be pro-violence. RK

Well, as a matter of fact, any philosophy that endorses the use of violence is, by definition, pro-violence. The reasons for favoring the use of violence, such as for self-defense, may be perfectly sound and reasonable, but that doesn't make them any less pro-violence. -- Egern

The Nazis came to murder my people, and some of my distant relative were murdered by them. Yet most people believe that it was necessary to militarilly engage the Nazis in order to stop their violence genocide, you make the oppoents of the Nazis out to be "pro-violence"? You are using these words in an odd way.

Be practical. If a criminal comes to your house, would you really let him murder your mother, then your father, and then your wife, and children? Would you really refuse to use violence to stop him? Of course not. But if someone did so, most people would argue that the word that they use to describe their tactic (pacifism) is what many people might call aiding and abetting a murderer. I just don't understand your language. Standing by and allowing violence to continue is not in any way pro-peace; victims have a right to defend themselves from murderers - and this is certainly not pro-violence Your are twisting words around to meant the precise opposite of what they really mean. RK

What I would or wouldn't do in a hypothetical situation like that isn't relevant. (By the way, do you think that pacifists don't get asked those sorts of hypothetical questions all the time?) Whether or not you believe that people have "a right to defend themselves" through the use of violence isn't relevant. What is relevant here is whether we accurately characterize in this article what pacifism believes. I would contend that, just because you pesonally believe that the use of violent force is necessary or good or justified , that doesn't change the violent nature of a forceful response.

But that isn't really the point either. The important point is not to quibble over the use of the word "violent"; the important point is to accurately describe what pacifism believes. To claim that pacifism relies on, depends on, or supports the use of mass murder is completely false. For one thing, this article spends a lot of time focusing on non violent civil disobedience as if that were one and the same as pacifism, when in fact nvcd is just one manifestation of pacifist beliefs, and not all pacifists even engage in that tactic. And then it claims that nvcd endorses the use of mass killing to make its point. This is simply untrue. You are not an American, but if you had some exposure to the peace movement in the US over the last few decades, you would have seen that nvcd was used commonly in demonstrations, with the expectation of arrest, yes, but with no expecation of anyone getting murdered. Demonstrators are trained in advance to react nonviolently to a police presence, and it isn't so that people will get killed in order to make a point. Phillip Berrigan (and his brother) have managed to survive many arrests without ever getting killed.

I don't know of any pacifist who wants anyone to be killed. Every pacifist that I know seeks world peace--an end to warfare. You may disagree with their tactics, you may claim that it defeats its own principles, but that doesn't justify misstating its principles. Statements about "mass murder" are just emotional words, they serve to discredit pacifism, and they just plain aren't true.

Second, this article did not even begin to address the philsophical arguments in favor of pacifism before all the negative arguments were poured into it. RK, who does not come from a pacifist religious tradition but who nevertheless claims to be an expert on the subject

You are attacking things that I never said. It was you, not me, who wrote claims about my knowledge of the subject, and then when I pointed out that I knew something about it, you resorted to attacking me by falsely saying that I claimed to be some sort of expert. You are having an emotional response to a philsoophical discussion, and this is unnecessary. RK

Your exact words were that you knew pacifism "full well", which suggested to me that you were claiming to be an expert. However, since you have clarified this point, I withdraw my comment and apologize if I mischaracterized your self-understanding on the subject. -- Egern

(and who presumably thinks that he knows more about it than I do, even though I do come from a pacifist religious tradition) would disagree, perhaps. Up to the point where RK began inserting his attacks on it, in my view it really sidestepped the arguments for or against to any serious degree. In fact, to the extent that it addressed these arguments at all before RK's changes, it leaned towards the "anti" side because it really mentioned only one aspect of the question,

This is nonsense. You wrote a very pro-pacifist article that left little room for disagreement. So you are now outraged that a contrary point of view exists? I suggest that my additions add NPOV. Let's let some other people look them over, and see what they can add. RK

A clarification. I did not write the article. I made modifications to an article that someone else started. The article was clearly incomplete even with the few changes that I made. -- Egern

...a particular take on the "effectiveness" issue, which is probably the the main point that critics of pacifism concern themselves with, while in fact many supporters of pacifism would counter that the way the whole "effectiveness" question is addressed is largely a canard, for a variety of reasons. In the tradition I come from pacifism is not merely a "tactic", and to reduce it merely to a tactic gives it short shrift and really doesn't capture its essence. There is no question that the article needed more information, but if we are going to describe the arguments pro and con, it didn't even come close to describing the "pro" arguments.

If that is true, then why is that somehow my fault? Egern, just do a better job of writing the "pro" arguments. Others will help.

We are all human and our biases often show through in what we write. To the extent that we all try to write an objective article but fail, then others can help. However, it is worthwhile to remember the comments below concerning "writing for the enemy". We are all responsible for at least trying to write objective articles. -- Egern

Third, to the extent that Ghandi is well known and popular, it is true that his conception of pacifism as a tactic designed to is well known and what people associate with it. But the pacifist tradition goes back well before Ghandi, and includes people like George Fox, the founder of Quakerism in the 17th century.

There may be some misunderstanding. I am talking about the pacifism that most people know of today. While its origins are quote old, the modern conception of it has long been since popularized and used by many other people, and it has come to exist in other forms. I don't disagree with the facts behind what you are saying, but I am poining out that I am talking about real-world pacifism in the last century, and not a theoretical discussion of what some people believed 300 years ago. RK

I am also talking about the pacfism of today. There is much real-world pacifism out there that has nothing to do with Ghandi that is consistent with what people believed 300 years ago. Many of them still believe those same things today. Quakers still exist today. There are conscientious objectors today. Ghandi may represent the most well known expression of pacifism, but he is not the only one, and that includes in the present age. -- Egern

Fourth, there is a principle in the "neutral point of view" article which I would recommend for RK to review, which is "writing for the enemy". Accusing pacifism of "endorsing mass murder", using turns of phrase like "points out" whenever critics of pacifism are cited, and so forth, are hardly examples of "writing for the enemy". Fifth, to state in an encyclopedia article as a "fact" that pacifism has "horrible consequences" is not NPOV. I think it is perfectly fair to state that critics of pacifism believe this; but there is a difference between citing criticism and embedding it in the language of the article. What I see instead is the viewpoint that because RK takes it as an indisputable fact that pacifism is bad, the article should also take that point of view.

Um, I think that all agree that mass-murder is a horrible consequence. Except for the Taliban and Nazis, who disagrees? In any case, didn't Ghandi and other Indian pacifist leaders explicitly say this themselves? They repeatedly stated how horrible these events of mass beatings and killings were. They simply were willing to live with the consequences, because they viewed a greater good as coming out of all the violence and death. For them, the ends justified the means.RK

I don't want to get drawn into a rathole of debating the pros and cons of pacifism here, but to claim that pacifism endorses mass murder seems to be simply your own anti-pacifist spin on the issue. Pacifists would generally argue that the notion that "the end justifies the means" is precisely the viewpoint of modern warfare that they object to, and in fact they believe that the ends are the means. That is sort of the whole point of pacifism. That is fine if you think that pacifists are being illogical about it or have their heads up their asses or whatever, but don't mischaracterize what pacifists themselves believe about their philsophy. -- Egern

Sixth, if someone went into any article pertaining to Judaism and attacked one of its moral beliefs, RK would be screaming about it, and rightfully so. I have generally tried to be respectful of religious traditions that I don't like. I, for example, have no use for Roman Catholicism, but I have striven to be fair in describing its beliefs in other articles here. I would suggest that he consider the ancient Jewish formulation of the Golden Rule, of not doing to others what you wouldn't have others do to you might be a good lesson here.

I am summarizing a political and philosophical debate about the pros- and cons- of pacifism. I am insulted that you would falsely claim that this is an attack on someone's religion. Which religion? Christianity? Only a small minority of Chrisitians have such views. Are the rest of Christians in the world anti-Christian? Come off it. We're not talking about using NPOV to disagree with someone's theological belief system or their rituals or ceremonies. We are specifically talking about pro- and con- arguments in regards to massive civil actions which lead to beatings, and sometimes deaths. Since when is this off-topic for NPOV discussion?! Further, many people both within and without these religions have had such concerns about pacifism. Even many of Ghandi's own followers said these things. Are you going to accuse all of them of attacking someone's religion? Come off it. RK

I already stated that I come from the tradition of one of the peace churches, namely Quakerism. In the Quaker faith, the "peace testimony" is an important part of the Quaker faith. The fact that only a small minority of Christians are pacifists is irrelevant; only a small minority of the world's monotheists are Jews, but that doesn't mean that attacking Jewish moral beliefs on some theological or moral point is acceptable. -- Egern

Here is a useful quote from the "neutral point of view article" that pertains here: 'Those who constantly attempt to advocate their own views on politically charged topics (for example), who seem not to care at all about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the nonbias policy ("write unbiasedly"). This entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just represent our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be much, much weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.'

It just seems to me that this discussion is limited sometimes by oversimplifyint "pacificism means" "pacifism endorces." I know that it is awkward always to say "some pacifists believe" or "pacifism sometimes leads to" but I think that such language might also help people work through debates, and it would leave behind a more nuanced view of "pacifisms" that would be more educational for readers.

For the moment I want to suggest that we consider a punnett square with peace and violence on one side and means and ends on the other. Beacause minimally, I think, soe pacifists see pacifism as a stragey or even a tactic to achieve some other goal; for others it is a moral committment to a way of life, regardless of the consequences. Most people I know think pacifism is just the second one. But I know pacifists who are the first kins.

With this punnette square you have some people who see violence as a means to a peaceful end. E.g. Woodrow Wilson's War to end all wars, or those communists who think their revolution will establish a utopia. Are these people pacifists? Not in the conventional sense of the word, but I think by separting means and ends we can at least clarify some of the differences. Many of course believe that violence will lead to violence -- for some this is not a good or bad thing but a necessary thing; if people are naturlly aggressive and life is naturally violent, some forms of violence may simply be necessary.

Now, I admit I think almost all pacifists see peace as an end. But when pacifism is a means to that end, the distance between means and end can still often be long and rocky. This was certainly the case for King and Ghandi, whose non-violence provoked violence on the part of the police. But for them that provoked violence was only a short term end, the long term end was real peace (so maybe I am oversimplifying myself, and we need to distinguish betwen short term objectives and long term goals) (as RK earlier siad, the ends justify the means -- eventually). In any event, underatanding pacifism as a means allows one to consider how it might lead to more violence. The debate now is whether it is a means that will provoke more violence but eventlually lead to peace, or provoke more violence without leading to peace? Perhaps this is what is at stake in a debate between Wilsonians and Ghandians?

I am not sure if this little exercise is the way to go -- at least I'd like to suggest that there may be a more analytical way to start sorting out the various important issues you have all raised so far. A good article should be able to specify different kinds of pacifisms (e.e. different reasonsfor being a pacificst, different expectations, different uses) and only then explore debates about pacifism. SR

Unfortunately, I don't have any of my old back issues of "Friends Journal" (a Quaker magazine), but there was an article written some 10-12 years ago by Elise Boulding that attempted to categorized different kinds of pacifism--I think she basically had four general categories. I think it was a very useful way of looking at the topic. But, alas, the article is long gone from my own possession. (I also used to have a book on Quakerism by a member of the "programmed" Friends community, where the author also gave a very general definition of pacifism that encompasses a variety of views.)

Any general definition of pacifism would have to, I believe, approach it from several angles. Some aspects of pacifism include: an activist commitment to world peace through various forms of political expression; a belief that all forms of killing are wrong; a belief that personal conduct must reflect this commitment to peace (through nonviolent behavior in one's life, refusal to participate in the military through being a conscientious objector, refusing to own a weapon, etc.); the use of civil disobediance (CD) as an means of accomplishing political goals--CD can involve anything from nonviolent demonstrations to the witholding of war taxes. It should be stressed that often the last of those items--CD--gets confused with pacifism, but it is not identical with it. A pacifist's political action might be a less risky activity like writing a letter to the editor or attending a legal peace rally. CD occurs often in conjunction with peace rallies, as a seperate action by a small group of people trained in CD. This is the sort of thing that the Berrigan brothers did all the time, and which got them arrested often. The point is that all of these things can be a reflection of pacifism. The actions of peace activists like the Berrigans is also an example of where CD is used as the means (a tactical expression of pacifism), to promote an end of world peace. In Ghandi's case, the end he was working toward was not to end a war or an arms race, but to obtain Indian independence; thus his example is a little different than that of peace activists who use CD for the explicit goal of promoting world peace.

(As an aside, I once attended a meeting of peace activists in which the subject of witholding payment of a telephone tax was mentioned; for many years, many activists did this because of an association of this tax with payment for war. I actually don't remember the details anymore, but the point is that this was an act of defiance that could get people in trouble with the law. A lot of pacifists who agreed in principle with this type of action were nonetheless not willing to risk the consquences themselves, and no one in the activist community among pacifists considers it a requirement that everyone do things that can get them in trouble.)

Regarding the whole question of ends and means, that of course lies at the crux of the criticisms that people level at pacifism, and it is certainly worth describing. I think that most pacifists who participate in civil disobedience (CD) would argue that firing guns on people is just as likely, if not more likely, to provoke a violent response as CD is. That is one of several reasons why I don't agree with the idea that the purpose of CD is to provoke a violent response. Most critics of pacifism would of course argue that violence in self-defense is preferable to pacifism because it is more effective in the long run--in other words, the ends (of stopping the enemy) justify the means (using violent means to do so). Some points of disagreement between pacifists and non-pacifists are over whether this is really true or not, and also whether morally it is valid or just to take the position that the ends really do justify the means.

Anyway, those are my two cents worth. -- Egern

By the way, much my commentary above was really focusing on what Elise Boulding probably would have characterized as the strongest form of pacifism. To the extent that one can be called a pacifist and is actively commited to world peace but doesn't fall into that exact category, then much of the discussion doesn't necessarily apply. This gets back to SR's point about sorting out the different kinds of pacifism. -- Egern

Egern, what you write makes a lot of sense (and I am glad you pointed out my implied collapsing of pacivism and CD) -- could what you write here be a basis for revising the first few paragraphs of the article? It isn't that I strongly object to the introduction to the article as it stands, but you make some points that I think should be included, somehow. SR

There seem to be two competing pages, this one and pacifist. Is there a good reason for this? If not, I would have thought the text from both ought to be combined. GrahamN

Ironically, religions which are generally believed to promote pacifist ideas, such as Christianity, were in fact often spread by military aggression.

I'm considering removing this sentence from the final paragraph. Is there any irony at all, when non-pacifistic groups use agressive means to prosecute their idea of justice? "General belief" is irrelevant - in that case it's simply a generally held misconception. Real irony exists when pacifistic groups are found to be supportive of aggressive military acts - if an example of this can be found, that would be more interesting. Otherwise, I see no purpose for the sentence. Mkmcconn

At least rewrite it, taking out the "ironic" part -- which is clearly opinion. What we really need is an article about how religions are spread. I daresay most of the world's major religions:

Preach peace, but
Spread themselves via military aggression

Copious examples available on request from Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. --Uncle Ed

Actually, i'd be interested in hearing an example of Hinduism being spread via military aggression. Graft

Forgive my ignorinse, but don't the "Martial Arts" owe quite a bit to Buddhism? In fact, in the West, the first exposure we get to Buddhism is likely to give the impression that it's a religion that excels above all others in teaching people how to fight. If there is any truth at all to this caricature, how is Buddhism pacifistic? Is there no truth at all to the connection between Buddhism and the Martial Arts? Mkmcconn

Buddhist monks developed martial arts in China as a form of exercise, but also as a form of self-defense. Of course, this can be taken in a few ways: first, the martial arts were never meant to be used aggressively: this is why the monks called it 'self-defense'; second, Buddhism spread across a vast area and assumed many different forms, not all of which were pacifist. For example, Buddhist 'monks' in Japan frequently married, took up weapons and were, for all practical purposes, warriors who happened to enjoy tax-free status due to their priesthood.

Regardless of the spiritual motives behind learning how to kick, punch and wield weapons with effect, even in self-defense, there is nothing pacifistic about this, is there? If Buddhism really is pacifistic, can there be anything more ironic then, than that these priests of pacifism have distinguished themselves above others as legendary teachers of the arts of war? Pacifism is not the name for this, and therefore in my opinion it doesn't sound true to say or to imply that Buddhism, referred to generally, is a pacifist religion/philosophy/discipline. On the other hand, I'm sure that there are Buddhist sects or teaching-lineages that are truly pacifistic. If these pacifistic sects can be identified, and it is true of them that they have relied on bloodshed to advance their aims as the article currently says, then the statement only needs to specifically identify the pacifistic sect that has employed aggression in this way. Mkmcconn

There is a big difference between styles intended for self-defense and styles intended for attacking, and especially styles suited for war. Plus, there is a great deal more that is involved in war than merely knowing how to wield a weapon or how to throw a fist - arguably this is the least important aspect of war. Furthermore many of the Chinese martial arts are highly stylized in ways that emphasize form and meditative aspects of the art rather than pure attack and defense (like, say, ninjutsu, or derivatives like wing chung do). Finally, as I said before, Buddhism was spread out over a vast region, and it had differing forms in differing regions. It is not surprising that some of the traditions practiced by some Buddhists should contradict traditions of other Buddhists. I don't think this is ironic in the least, unless you view the evolution of religion and the perversion (not meant in a derogatory sense) of the founding message of a religion to be ironic. Graft

I see no difference here, so far as its "pacifist" character is concerned. Virtually all peoples resort to violence only reluctantly, and often with great uncertainty about the morality of their action if it results in harm to another, even in defense of themselves. All you are saying about the Buddhist teachers of martial arts is that there is a big difference between them and criminals, tyrants, thugs and other career predators - but this is basically the same difference that exists between that violent class and most of the rest of us. That doesn't mean all who are not violent criminals are pacifists. It simply means that people do not typically intend to do harm to others, and will typically resist doing so unless they perceive themselves severely pressed, and then more likely for the defense of others rather than for the defense of oneself. Surely, that is in contrast to pacifism, isn't it? Mkmcconn

I fail to see the importance of distinguishing between styles meant for self-defense, attack, and general war, when we're talking about pacifism. All three types of styles are still using violence or force to accomplish their ends, unless their techniques consist exclusively of dodging, running away, and hiding sorts of techniques. Many styles include these, but also include more forceful blocks and strikes. These aren't pacifistic or non-violent; they would fall somewhere on the "just war" or "just self-defense" spectrum. Wesley

I don't mean to imply that Buddhist martial arts as a form of self-defense are appropriate for pacifism, since I know only a little about pacifist philosophy. But, as I also said, Buddhism is not monolithic, and there are certainly non-pacifist traditions within what we can properly call Buddhism. I don't think this is ironic. Graft

The question I still have though, Graft, is whether the sentence really means anything, which says that Buddhists have often resorted to bloodshed. Deciding whether this is worth mentioning depends on whether the Buddhists who have done supposedly this are pacifists. If Buddhists in a pacifist tradition have resorted to violence in seeming conflict with their principles, then it appears to me that it's important to identify the group. This is because it seems to me to be a peculiar use of the term to call Buddhism in general a pacifist religion (although there are pacifist Buddhists, no doubt). The implied issue being addressed in the final paragraph, is how difficult and rare it is to live consistently with the pacifist ideal. But if Buddhists aren't pacifists, it doesn't make sense to include them in that list of pacifists who, not surprisingly, have sometimes fallen short of their ideals.