That review is the Charleston Law Review. President-elect Obama's foreword to volume 2, issue 1 (2007) is available here.
As for my own article in Charleston, it's forthcoming in volume 3, which is at the printer. But available now in final form at SSRN: Pacifist-Aggressives vs. the Second Amendment: An Analysis of Modern Philosophies of Compulsory Non-Violence.
The article begins with the observation that, domestically and internationally, there are many religious organizations and leaders who denounce self-defense, and who seek to ban or drastically restrict guns in order to impose their own morality. The article examines some leading religious pacifist philosophers, and some historical examples of how pacifism has worked in real-world conditions.
The article has high praise for John Howard Yoder (perhaps the greatest pacifist writer of all time), and for Thomas Merton (an influential advocate of non-violence, but not a pacifist). The article is more critical of Stanley Hauerwas, more critical still of Leo Tolstoy, and dismayed with the shallow and factually inaccurate writings of Tony Campolo.
The article sets the record straight on the Danish rescue of the Jews during World War II. King Christian X never wore a yellow star. The Danish response to the Nazis was very cowardly at the start, at a time when bravery might have changed the course the war. The 1943 rescue of the Danish Jews, smuggling them to Sweden, was very noble, but it was not an example of successful pacifism in action. Switzerland, which was armed to the teeth and ready to fight, ended the war with even a better record of protecting its native Jews than did Denmark.
The American Civil Rights Movement used pacifist tactics at some times, even as civil rights workers armed themselves for protection against Ku Klux Klan attacks. The slogan "violence never solves anything" is the ethical equivalent of flat-Earth geography. It is a purportedly empirical claim which is contradicted by ample and obvious evidence.
In the real world, there are plenty of brave pacifists, including the Moriori tribe of the Chatham Islands, who chose to suffer genocide rather than use violence. The article does not attempt to refute arguments that pacifism is mandated by Christian scripture, or by other sources of religious authority. Rather, the article suggests that the argument which some pacifists make--that pacifism always, necessarily, leads to better real-world results, is empirically false. In a free society, the government should not force pacifists to use force. Likewise, pacifists should not attempt to use government force to deprive other people of the means or the right of self-defense.
VC readers saw a draft version on this article on SSRN a little over a year ago. The Charleston staff did a great job with the article; it's a tighter, more precise piece thanks to their cite-checking. Thanks also to Eugene Volokh, for coining the term "pacifist-aggressives." He too has been published in a law journal which has also published Obama, namely the Harvard Law Review.
Only One Law Review Publishes BOTH Obama and Kopel:
While I was apparently unique as a child in being enamored with Martyr's Mirror and all that implies, it still seemed that martyrdom in the face of tyranny was seen by the Mennonite church as one of the highest ideals, and being willing to risk one's self in the service of others even more so.
(Hmmm... I wonder if that's where much of my post-religious libertarian bent comes from.)
Good call. Don't know if this might be of some use, or this.
Both touch on the gap between the Christian, and specifically pacifist, ethos and that of the Polis, and what to do about the gap.
However. (uh oh) I found it very unbalanced. You're political beliefs shine clearly through and hostility towards the left is quite clear.
One notable potion I noticed (and have discussed on a separate thread) is when talking about pacifists reactions to Hitler and Stalin you asked "What would you do about Hitler?" and "What would you do about Communism?". Communism and Stalin are not one in the same. You should have said, "What would you do about Stalin or Mao Tse-tung?". The difference between the two questions shows a basic disdain for anyone who believes in Socialism. (I am not one of them). In my opinion it equates Hitlers beliefs with Socialist beliefs. It also crops up earlier when you show clear disdain for Sojourners calling it a "hard" left magazine. Sure you can debate that, but I think we all know how you feel based on that characterization.
Furthermore, the entire section dedicated to Danish lack of resistance is saturated with what ifs and is full of things that are both unknowable and very unlikely. You also characterize Denmark as Germany Aryan little brother. Almost everything you said in this entire article is utterly conclusory. You state your conclusions before you ever provide any reason for them. I don't see any proof that the story about King Christian X was fabrication...I may believe it was, but there is no proof supplied, it is just stated.
Your slight assertion that Danish Jews might have been saved by the Atomic bomb is absurd in the best of light. I hardly could take that seriously. Your entire assertion that the possibility of violence was part of the reason for Danish success if at best on thin ice, not nearly enough for consideration for an article. You also rely entirely on a book written by a partisan man who clearly would have a biased view of history. Proving more the conclusory nature of the article.
I will say your section on Tosltoy was both effective and logical. I enjoyed it. Specifically the analysis of the little girl deserving her life while the murderer does not is quite to the point and to me correct.
Your Campolo section was again full of animosity. You seem to characterize the belief that the war in Iraq was illegal or unwise and "far-left"....when in actuality it was actually reasoned and well...wise. Additionally, while I won't defend Campolo, the section seems entirely like some sort of grudge. It seems to me, a complete deletion of the section would add to the piece rather than take away.
It is quite difficult to defend use of the Atomic bomb and your article is no different. Your analysis of Hauerwas once again displays your disdain for the left, it's clear, even if you can't see it, which I would predict you do.
You seem to like Yoder, but this section seems more like a clear attempt to make up for the partisanship of the preceding section. It, in fact, contained very little analysis and more condescending opinions of other writers.
Your section discussing Martyrdom is wholly illogical and circular at times. Yoder did not suggest making yourself a martyr, but when put in the position you should not fight it because the martyrdom is better in the long run than fighting and not have any effect. You state saints didn't try to get diseases, this is completely devoid of a point. In no way did Yoder imply this kind of action.
Your argument against Yoders claim of preventing the killer from going to Heaven again deals in a lot of what ifs and doesn't acknowledge that Yoder is theory prescribes going on what they know for sure, that they will be preventing someone from going to heaven who would later have a chance of doing so.
Your agrument in the violence section in regards to the successes of violence basically ignore the arguments you credit earlier and ignore the foundational basis for the "violents begets violence" argument and Yoders argument of the benefits of Martyrdom, which would all apply succinctly in most of those examples.
Finally, your conclusion ignores your inability to deflect many of Yoder's statements and claims. You credit the Moriori, correctly, but seemingly ignore the hole created by Yoder's martyrdom argument, which I would have to say is not dealt with anywhere in the article. Additionally, your discussion seems wholly unrelated to any serious second amendment arguments as the central argument against gun rights don't involve pacifism and in fact I would argue religious organization and there support for the right of politics have done more for gun rights than a lot of other groups.
With all that said...I am not a pacifist. Merely a critical reader. For disclosure purposes I would tell you I am more aligned with someone closer to Merton, a Just War practitioner. And I am in favor of strong gun control including banning non sporting guns. And I am skeptical of the 2nd amendment. I am also not religious...I am in fact an agnostic.
My analysis is by no means personal and likely isn't helpful, but I needed to do something as I was reading it. I enjoyed reading it a lot, and learned a great deal of history at the least. It made me think at the most.
Not fantasy land stuff about what if they had gone from a lightly armed and sized army to panzer tank divisions in five years.
Actual real life how they could have held out bravely and beaten back the armored divisions.
For bonus points, tell me why they should have got all their army destroyed and infrastructure destroyed in a forlorn hope to give Norway a little better chance? (Same Norway who wouldn't enter into mutal defense pacts with them).
For double bonus points, why in the name of all that is smart would they have passed up a chance to self govern when England came within a month of being lost?
Heavy resistance by the Danes would have resulted in the destruction of the country, and may have delayed the Germans for a day or two instead of the hours that it took to conquer the country.
Another point is that the Germans did not have to go to war with Switzerland beacause they were already getting most of what they needed from Switzerland already.
It sounds like you think military bases are just an example of individuals independently exercising their own moral choices, with these aggressive pacifists impeding them.
You are disregarding the fact that these pacifists have been forced to participate in these (to them) reprehensible military activities through their taxes and other government actions.
The first imposition of morality came from the government militarists forcing the pacifist taxpayers to cooperate in military preparations.
Because of this, it's dishonest to criticize the pacifist tactic of sabotaging military equipment or blockading/interfering with military actions on the basis of that somehow involving an aggressive initiation of force against people who just innocently want to be left alone to pursue their own moral vision of military political action.
If it is moral to eschew violence, the results are irrelevant.
If you are interested in the results, you're a circumstance judger like everybody else.
Yes, as my favorite bumper sticker says:
Which reminds me of the time when Huckabee was asked during the Republican YouTube debate what Jesus would have done in his seat when, as Governor of Arkansas, he allowed people to be executed: "Jesus never had to run for public office."
As far as Denmark is concerned, even if we grant the dubious list of cascading effects that supposedly would have caused Germany so much more problems, the benefits would have been to other countries, not Denmark. Is pacifism a mistaken choice if you are better off, but someone else winds up worse off?
Does anyone have a link for the picture of the bunny with a pancake on its head?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.