Perhaps. Perhaps not. Pacifism is an act of faith that most early Christians understood to be part of Christianity. Perhaps they were wrong, but perhaps not.

Just pointing out that pacifism is not socially harmless.

Of course I believe they have the right to their conscience. Even if that means they’re doing something that would destroy society if everyone did it. But don’t think their right of conscience is any less socially costly than other, more controversial rights of conscience. If the pacifists had been in the majority, there would be no Jews left in the world today.

You might be describing some pacifists accurately, but Garry and Leftie are right that those groups who have identified themselves as pacifist have powerfully witnessed to Christian truth. Quakers, Mennonites, the Amish, Christians before Constantine—all are pretty pacifist.

Real pacifism includes being willing to sacrifice not only your own body but also your firstborn son’s body.

Sacrificing your own body for what you believe is noble. Being willing to sacrifice everyone else along with you? Not so much.

The reason so many national anthems are violent is because the most basic function of a state is defense.

Pacifists are “free riders”.

I didn’t read a complaint or the making of a big deal in the post.

Let tyrants shake their iron rod,
And Slav’ry clank her galling chains,
We fear them not, we trust in God,
New England’s God forever reigns.

…

The Foe comes on with haughty Stride;
Our troops advance with martial noise,
Their Vet’rans flee before our Youth,
And Gen’rals yield to beardless Boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_(song)

My take on that verse is that the meaning is uncertain. The Greek word can mean, generally, “sword” (i.e. long, bladed weapon), or it can mean, specifically, something analagous to a machete (heavy single-edged blade useful as a tool). The context of the that passage is insufficient, so it must be interpreted in light of Jesus’s other statements about how to treat your enemies. Either interpretation is possible, but which seems more likely? Given the beatitudes and the later behavior of the Apostles when persecuted, is it more likely that he told them to take a tool or a weapon?

And I think focusing on verse 36 misses the point of the passage, in the same way that the Disciples do in verse 38 (and earlier in verse 24). Jesus has just told them that he will be betrayed and counted among the transgressors, so the disciples argue about who is greater and focus on their equipment. One can, I think, detect a little exasperation in Jesus’s “It is enough” in verse 38.

Alabaster cities are white, and who knows what could be made of that?

Then, too, I suspect that in:
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved

that the liberating strife might have been a bit bellicose. (The original version was:
O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man’s avail
Men lavished precious life!)

Okay, so how about “Columbia, Gem of the Ocean”?
“Thy mandates make heroes assemble,
When Liberty’s form stands in view;
Thy banners make tyranny tremble,
When borne by the red, white, and blue,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siHfQGn3JTs

yrs. in musical submission.

Alabaster cities are white, and who knows what could be made of that?

Then, too, I suspect that in:
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved

that the liberating strife might have been a bit bellicose. (The original version was:
O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man’s avail
Men lavished precious life!)

Okay, so how about “Columbia, Gem of the Ocean”?
“Thy mandates make heroes assemble,
When Liberty’s form stands in view;
Thy banners make tyranny tremble,
When borne by the red, white, and blue,”

yrs. in musical submission.

Thank God for Wikipedia — it allows for quick access to misinformation for people who don’t have a basic undertstanding of military history, not that it prevents you from sounding off about the nature of a British “army” circa 1812-14. Again, Fort McHenry and the writing of the national anthem had nothing to do with your so-called “petty raid” on Washington. The 5000 British soldiers involved in your “petty raid” were veterans of the Napoleonic Wars and understood the definition of an “army.” Stick to theology, although if your knowledge of history is any guide, your probably distorting that as well. Now let’s get rid of that evil national anthem and all sing Kumbaya….