[Dean's World] Scott Kirwin: Talking to A Quaker

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Scott Kirwin:
Talking to A Quaker
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1178152451.shtml


   Usually I work alone but sometimes I work alongside a nice family man
   who happens to be a Quaker. He knows where I stand, and I know where
   he stands so we get along fine.

   Today I mentioned something has been bothering me a lot - namely what
   to do about genocide in places like Darfur. I told him about the
   [1]Kid's query, and the Wife's visit with her son the Marine. I
   explained that I felt extremely conflicted by the idea that slaughter
   was occurring in this world, but I could not in good conscience place
   my stepson into harm's way to stop it. After all, he enlisted in the
   Marines to protect his country not a distant people from oppression.

   The Quaker didn't quite understand my position. I explained further
   that whenever you intervene on behalf of one party in a fight, you
   make an enemy of another. The blue-helmet peacekeepers didn't stop the
   slaughters in Rwanda or Srebrenica. They didn't stop Hezbollah from
   invading Israel. Therefore, the only true peacekeeper would have to be
   a fully-equipped US soldier.

   "The threat of violence isn't the answer." he said. Now I was puzzled.

   "If US soldiers dropped into Darfur and began protecting the people
   from the janjaweed militias sponsored by the government in Khartoum,
   you don't think the militiamen would be annoyed that we stopped their
   killing spree? You think they would see the error of their ways and
   put down their weapons?"

   "I believe that we could reach a solution with them without resorting
   to violence," he said.

   What followed was the usual path of arguments about pacifism which
   cited the Holocaust, al-Qaeda, wild chimpanzees, and more. It ended
   with the Quaker saying "I guess I have faith that God would open their
   hearts."

   And that's how it ended. After all, as an atheist, I find arguing
   about Faith pointless. However it did get me to thinking:

   If what the Quaker said is true, that "we could reach a solution"
   without resorting to violence, what are we waiting for? What is
   stopping pacifists from flying to Darfur and putting what they preach
   into practice?

   Non-violence does work. It worked for the Civil Rights movement in the
   US, and I believe it could have worked in the so-called "Occupied
   Territories" had Arafat been more like Gandhi and less like Gotti.

   Something has to be done about Darfur, but I don't see why that
   something has to involve the US government or men like my step-son.
   Why aren't the "human shields" who drove from London to Baghdad not
   driving to Darfur? Why the silence?

   I'm not being sarcastic here, but as often as I have heard that if I
   support the War in Iraq I should go there and fight myself, I believe
   it's only fair that I ask the following of non-violent, anti-war
   types:

   If you believe that war isn't the answer, fly to Khartoum and travel
   overland to Darfur. Put your beliefs in practice. And know that if you
   succeed, I will honestly be indebted to you because I too want the
   killing to end.

References

   1. http://www.therazor.org/?p=814