The Warrior and The Pacifist: Which Way is Right?

The Thing With Non-Violence... 

Peace Keepers and Piece Takers 

4 min read

A famous religious figure once proclaimed, ‘He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.’ We all know the phrase, along with the promoting peace, expressions like ‘turn the other cheek.’ Yet, in an odd paradoxic way, his apostles who were allegedly non-violent, met violent deaths. That fact props up the key argument of this post; it is the decision to do no violence that lead to violent endings. The early brand of spiritual pacifism ignited societal persecution against Christianity, but also other similar non-violent ideologies. 

How Is The Alternative to Peace Often The Most Peaceful Solution? 

Those scripture-based beliefs and philosophies were not common among the Germanic Pagan tribes. In contrast, to non-violent ideologies such tribes valued loyalty to their warlord, honoured bravery in combat, and vengeance, for example. Piety to them was martial discipline and defending their people. They embraced war and readiness to fight became a deterrent. These people also enjoyed what money could bring instead of denying it and fortified themselves, eventually defeating their Roman oppressors they retained a peaceful way of life. 

The Alternative to Aggression Does Not Always Bring Peace

It is strange how Christian ideals of forgiveness and martyrdom seemed to invite the worst kind of enemies. Why? Well, just because Christians refused to pay respects to Roman deities on the Saturnalia, it was no excuse to bully them, even if it required participation. Not only were Christians seen as weak by Rome for forgiving those who beat them, but also considered to be noncompliant sophists (possibly like insincere apologists of today). Those attitudes were concerning for the ancient authority who saw such things as unnatural and atheistic. In Acts, Stephen prayed for those who stoned him. It isn't all religiously themed; non-Christian pacifists were murdered like the Greek Stoics and Pythagoreans.

Changing Perspectives From Vikings To Christian Crusaders

So, strangely, it's the peaceful types with something to share with the world who often attracted violence? However, on a practical level it is right to say that viking families did benefit from plundering gold enriched monasteries. They were guarded by peaceful monks who didn't need it during an era of religious tension! Later, the dynamics totally changed with Catholic Crusaders slaughtering thousands of Christian Cathars for heresy—how does that even follow? The Cathars refused to fight back. 'Kill them all; God will know his own,' yelled a leading crusader. 

Quite an Alien Way of Seeing Things. 

As a non-religious individual, the ethos of: 'turn down the sword,' mentalities seem to be 'about dying or getting hurt' simply for a strong point. Let's be real, if making a point wouldn't work against an over the top global threat like an alien fleet, why use it against aggressive human oppressors? 

Forget Romans, imagine a sizable Avengers-style hostile alien invasion fleet; what would defend us most effectively: appealling to their alien ethics with our own notions of transcendental morality, or do we fight as ferociously as possible? 

You would have to ask yourself if what the crusader knights did actually undermines the entire cheek turning business. Take Joan of Arc for example, or even Saint Derfel, are examples of Christians who killed in war, literally as contradictory as waterproof teabags or rainbow coloured camouflage. So where would it go? Sharing the Buddha's wisdom with Thanos's goons or the xenomorphs, the tyanids? 

A Harsh Point

Yes, living by the sword could result with death, as Jesus himself warned, but peaceful submission didn’t spare many either! The Gospels all simply imply we shouldn't kill each other, but does that work? How can we love our enemies if it is so unhealthy to do so? Unless enemy love meant something else altogether; a way of expressing a love for the challenges they hurl at you? Maybe it's showing value or genuine interest in the words of our enemies? I don't know. 

     A.) Because those very enemies early Christian disciples were expected to 'love' were not interested in Jesus preachings. They all held various cultures and perspectives, often speaking languages unfamiliar to Jewish Aramaic or Hebrew, as we saw with St. Thomas's Kali worshippers who brutally speared him to death in India.

     B.) Non-violence was not exclusively taught by Jesus Christ. It was commonly held by ancient Greek philosophers like Epictetus, Pythagorus and Socrates, as well as the previously mentioned Jewish groups, but also Romans like Cicero and Seneca.    

I Guess That's It! My Conclusion... 

In the end, very few appreciated the early pacifist. Over time, we reverted back to our warrior ideals that dominate to this day. Just turn on the news and see US and UK borders and military posturing shows that our reliance on the sword has not faded (well, it's all machine gun now). But, if none of us had resisted the Hitlers and Napoleons of this world it would have succumbed to cruel monstrous leaders many times over! Compelling champions like Charles Martel, the Hammer of the Moors, the RAF during the battle of Britain or the Ukrainians in their fight for their country: they all make the use of force a valid case!

What do you think?