|
"...It would be unthinkable for (Baha'is) to willingly place themselves in a position where they must take a human life...." (Uhj) (122:1) However, in those countries where there is no legal choice, then Baha'is are obliged to go through with their military service even in combatant units. This is a different position from that of the pacifist. To the Baha'i, deplorable as it is to have to serve in the armed forces, rebellion is worse because in the long run acceptance of the idea of disloyalty will make more difficult the establishment of a just world government and lasting peace.... (122:4) "..The other main objection to the conscientious objectors (i.e. pacifists) is that their method of establishing peace is too negative. Non-cooperation is too passive a philosophy to become an effective way for social reconstruction. Their refusal to bear arms can never establish peace. There should be a spiritual revitalization which nothing, except the Cause of God, can effectively bring to every man's heart." (Shoghi Effendi) (122:5) It should be noted, too, that the Baha'i position on force differs from the pacifist in another respect.. when a just world government is established.. there could be occasions when there would be violent attacks on society and such attacks would have to be restrained by force.. failure to resist such attacks would be a gross injustice.
(122:6)
|