XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: Gotta_lose@this_spam.com   
      
   AJA wrote:   
      
   > Read 'Why I Am Not a Pacifist' in _The Weight of Glory_ for Lewis'   
   > actual take on Pacifism.   
   > It is a most carefully reasoned case against pacifism.  This case is   
   > distinctly not about grumblings of a veteran.  And beside this argument   
   > _by_ a veteran of a terrible war, my more complacent pacifism is more   
   > like cowardice.  That is the context in which I made my comments.   
      
   O.K. In that case maybe he was more parochial in some ways   
   than I had previously surmised. But then again, how you label   
   such things is going to depend on one's own view of the world.   
   I have not read this essay and I am not sure I'm clear exactly   
   what we're talking about here when we say 'pacifism'. The   
   popular political movement called 'pacifism' that existed   
   between the wars turned out to be a very bad thing indeed. But   
   it is not the same thing as, say, a Quaker who refuses combat   
   service because of his beliefs. Would CSL be opposed to men   
   like this as well? What about those who are drafted and choose   
   ambulance duty instead? In WWI that was a very dangerous job.   
      
   > Just a comment.  Lewis was the ultimate reasoned realist, imo.  That is   
   > why, though I sometimes like not to agree with him, I'm continually   
   > drawn to his arguments.  For instance he writes:  "I think the art of   
   > life consists in tackling each immediate evil as well as we can.  To   
   > avert or postpone one particular war by wise policy, or to render one   
   > particular campaign shorter by strength and skill or less terrible by   
   > mercy to the conquered and the civilians is more useful than all the   
   > proposals for universal peace that have ever been made; just as the   
   > dentist who can stop one toothache has deserved   
   > better of humanity than all the men who think they have some scheme for   
   > producing a perfectly healthy race."   
   > He sees this imperative in light of writings of church fathers,   
   > Scripture and informed first and foremost by Divine Reality.  (WG 52-   
   > and the entire case against pacifism WG 53+)   
   >   
   > As much as I would like Lewis to have come out squarely against war, he   
   > did not.   
   > He never advances facile answers to the thorniest of human problems.   
      
   It's funny but I was just discussing something similar to this   
   in another group. We were talking about Ecclesiastes 3.   
      
      8 a time to love, and a time to hate;   
        a time for war, and a time for peace.   
                Ecc 3:8 NRSV   
      
   There is a lot of the politics of the period in what you have   
   quoted above. The catastrophe at Munich ("Peace in our time"),   
   the treachery of Stalin, the late entry of the United States   
   into the conflict. All of this to facilitate a yearning to   
   avoid war at all costs. This was a time for war. There was no   
   getting past it. The propensity of the world to endeavor to   
   put it off or, perhaps, cancel it altogether only succeeded   
   in pushing it to the point that it became the world's greatest   
   nightmare. Nobody wanted a war (least of all the German people.   
   Read Shirer's 'The Berlin Diary for this story) but it 'was'   
   a time for war.   
      
   On the other hand, the period leading up to the conflict that   
   became WWI was just the opposite. Everybody wanted a war. This   
   was not a case of dark clouds growing over certain territories.   
   It was a case of everybody spoiling for a rumble so that some   
   long missing glory could be gained at last. The declaration of   
   war caused millions of people all across Europe to gather in   
   the streets and cheer. But this was 'not' a time for war. If   
   ever there was a time for peace the opening decades of the   
   20th century were it. It was the end of the industrial   
   revolution and the beginning of a great deal of social and   
   political change. What the world needed at that time, for the   
   good of all it's citizens, was a whole lot of cooperation and   
   good will to tidy up the chimney billowing mess of the previous   
   century.   
      
   Now, had we been able to avoid the first war it seems very   
   unlikely that we would have had to endure the second (at least   
   not one like the one we did endure). When I read what you   
   have written by CSL above I just 'have to' agree with him.   
   But the only context in which I can see those remarks having   
   any reasonable meaning is in the situation surrounding the   
   Third Reich and Japan. If you give me something that   
   demonstrates that Lewis shared the attitude that others have   
   proclaimed, that the 'Hun' were an evil menace and had to   
   be stopped just like Hitler then ol' CSL and I are going   
   to have some words. The 'Hun' were no different than anyone   
   else during that war and they only achieved their bad   
   reputation because they managed to lose.   
      
   Of course none of this assigns blame to active veterans of   
   the first war. You are faced with war, you fight it and, if   
   you are smart, you fight it in a way that will end it as   
   quickly as possible. The men who fought it may be culpable   
   in that they wanted it and they cheered for it but they are   
   no more culpable than anyone else (did you ever notice that   
   WWI, when viewed from a certain perspective, was really a   
   family spat among Queen Victoria's grandchildren?). However,   
   if one holds the view that WWI was somehow unavoidable or that   
   the world couldn't have used a few pacifists in powerful   
   political positions during the time that led up to the   
   conflict then they're not going to get any agreement from me.   
      
   Yours in Christ   
      
   John   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)