A High Toll on the Path of Righteousness

A few days after September 11, in an effort to help mobilize global support for nonviolence, a group called the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) initiated a global web appeal/pledge of nonviolence. Thus far, over 14,000 people from around the world have signed this online petition. In this petition COAT makes the statement: "We urge our political and religious leaders to heed our appeal for nonviolence." They go on to say: "Instead, we support the rule of international law. The perpetrators of these crimes, and all other crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes, should be brought to justice. No individual, group or government should have immunity from international law."

This is just one of many groups who urge pacifism in the face of violent aggression. Pacifism, even I must admit, sounds like the civilized answer to acts of aggression -- it sounds like what my Grandmother would have called "the Christian thing to do." (Sorry! Granny was not always politically correct.) But what, do you suppose would be the logical result if the United States' response to the September 11th massacre was a formal protest to the United Nations -- that and nothing more -- if the United States became a nation of pacifists? My considered opinion is, in a very short period of time, the United States would be completely conquered by an aggressive foreign government. Everything we love about America -- indeed, every freedom we take for granted, would be lost -- and without freedom, there is servitude. What a price to pay for taking the high road -- the righteous path.

We must understand that the rules are no different for governments than they are for individuals. We should always teach our children (and remind ourselves) that, on a personal level, violence, short of self-defense, is always a very bad choice and selfish, violent aggression shouldn't even be considered as an option. On a National level, self-defense is our government's charter -- it is its only authorized response to hostile foreign governments. Self-defense can take, and has taken non-violent forms: negotiations, treaties, conferences, participation in world bodies, and, when required it has taken more militant forms: military preparedness and violent retaliation.

I am not a supporter of our government's constant interference in every country's internal strife. Being the world's police force is not our government's constitutional duty or requirement and, I firmly believe, it is because of this interference, the United States has had this tragedy inflicted on it. But when attacked you (as an individual or government) must show that you are willing to actively defend yourself or you will be attacked again and again and, eventually, beaten into submission. If nonviolence is an effective option, it is always the correct one -- but if it is not, you have to fight for your freedom and fight for what you believe in.

Go To Page: 1