In terms of resources and distribution probably not because a worldwide theocracy would probably be quite efficient. In terms of freedom of thought and action then yes.
The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name
interesting thoughts Laika but I think there is a problem with the secular argument because in a very important context secularity puts the person at war with themselves.
Cofty I accept it is your opinion that pascifism is wrong - the glaring fault of pacifism is that it assumes nobody will ever make war. This is, unfortunately, completely unrealistic.
Sure, peace is better than war and wars should not happen without very good reason.
Take the Falklands war (1982). Pacifists believe British troops defending the islands from the Argentine imperialists was wrong. Sorry if I'm going off-topic, but the pacifists would be wrong in that instance. Well wrong.
in a very important context secularity puts the person at war with themselves - Ruby
simple and easy to understand but perhaps goes against your cherished beliefs cofty?
JWs are not really pacifists.
Yes JWs will not take up arms to shoot a home invader. But they will call the police to do it for them. And interestingly they are allowed to administer hard blows to attackers....which may result in death...accidentally of course.
If Argentinians were pascificts there wouldn't have been a war. It's funny how those who argue against pascifism always insist on a scenario where the aggressors can't possibly be pascifist in order to get their example off the ground. And then insist it's perfectly plausible that all the defending nation could turn into pascifists and invite disaster, in order to make their point. In any scenario that allows for everyone to become pascifist then wars wouldn't get off the ground. And if you don't allow for the scenario that everyone could become pascifist, then why invoke the scenario of a whole defending nation turning pascifist? If it's unrealistic on one side it's unrealistic on the other.
In reality it is healthy in democracies to have some people who refuse to fight. The alternative is not a free society. And in the long run elimination of war and universal pascifism should be the goal. Unrealistic? Maybe, but it's the only real chance humanity has got to survive.
Take the Falklands war (1982). Pacifists believe British troops defending the islands from the Argentine imperialists was wrong.
The Argentine army was made up mostly (entirely?) of baptised Christians, if they had followed the teachings of their God there would have been no Falklands war.
If Argentinians were pascificts there wouldn't have been a war - of course, but that's the unrealistic part.
If the Argies of the time were genuinely peaceful pacifists, they'd have had to accept the Falklands as British.
I didn't put it well in my previous post but what I meant is this: the following is a glaring fault of pacifism (& pacifists) - pacifists assume that the pacifist meme will defeat the 'let's-change-things-by-war' meme.
This is naïve in the extreme.
A meme doesn't necessarily care about the individual that holds it. Memes only care about spreading themselves.
Being pacifists and willing to be martyred might not be as popular as killing 'the other' (people who hold different opinions and beliefs).
In reality it is healthy in democracies to have some people who refuse to fight - sense.
in the long run elimination of war and universal pascifism should be the goal. Unrealistic? Maybe, but it's the only real chance humanity has got to survive - nonsense.
Humans have waged war for possibly hundreds of thousands of years. And in this same period of time our species has thrived.
For hundreds of thousands of years humans haven't had access to weapons of mass destruction, in the age of nuclear weapons a commitment to peacemaking and a refusal to fight seems increasingly sensible, as more countries gain access to nuclear weapons (which seems inevitable) the 'naivete' of pacifism will continue to seem less and less 'extreme'