Define peace? Do you believe peace is the absense of war only? Most people do, and that is why when 30 million chinese were killed when muslims invade indonesia, not a word was said about it. There was no declared war, yet millions died.
In N. Korea, millions die, yet there is no war. Is that peace? You will find large numbers of people being killed in many places in the world today where there is no war, is that peace in your definition? When Saddam killed his own people and buried them in mass graves, was that peace?
I think your question has severe flaws. Peace is not the absense of war, and sometimes war yields fewer casualties than non-war.
2006-07-09 17:36:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by jack f 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
They will never be outdated concepts and are alive and emerge worldwide. As long as humans still have a soul they have an emmense power, very notably in the last century - in India, in the civil rights/womens/anti-war/ecology movement in the US, throughout the world as the center of grassroots movements. The power of non-violence in the ways we relate with each other and the world around us is perhaps more relevant now than ever. The incidence of peace and non-violence are pervasive and not usually as dramatic as wars and hateful violence and thus are rarely reported in the media, yet if they were not alive and vital, everyone would be dead and life as we know it would be gone!
Peace is the center of every major religion and many infinite personal spiritual beliefs. How could it be otherwise?
2006-07-09 17:41:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Faye 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Given the record of history, it's more like 'ahead of it's time'.
The dodo bird was very peaceful and non-violent, and we all know how well THAT worked out. The Baha'i Faith is a primarily non-violent belief that has it's roots in the Muslim faith, and is persecuted to an even greater extent than Christianity in many Arab countries. So peace and non-violence are values that have not even been accepted in many parts of the world. Oddly enough, they were central values to many of the persecuted Christian groups that helped found this country, and that is probably why such concepts are so common in the US today.
2006-07-09 17:43:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Raffy_AdAstra 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
My question is when did the English language become outdated?
ARE peace and non-violence outdated concepts?
2006-07-09 17:32:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by astroman300000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Peace and non voilence aren't dead they just need a boost. Peace does not only mean the absence of war it means the absence of hate and cruelty . This goal would last as long as people live. So will evil what we have to do is express the peace we want and that why its not being seen now a days becuase no ones expressing what they want.
2006-07-14 08:47:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by kndama@sbcglobal.net 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
They are not outdated, but are impractical. Natural laws of competition and survival prevent such realities. There will always be a threat of violence someone will use to their betterment, and as such others must also use the threat of violence to protect themselves. The concepts are idealistic, but not realistic.
2006-07-09 17:40:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by AslanRH 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Saying something is outdated is to suppose that it existed in the first place. Perhaps you should study a bit of history (and English grammar, for that matter).
2006-07-09 18:11:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by trinitytough 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Peace is almost a dead language, but it can be revived. Resolving conflict through peaceful means takes much longer and relies upon relationship building. Unfortunately at every level of our exisitence we tolerate conflict and caious. Within ourselves we hate peace and welcome conflict we complicate our lives so much we can't even breathe or think clearly.
With our closest intimate relationships we tolerate, invite and expect unresolved conflict to grow. We avoid taking the time to commit to peaceful resolution of conflicts by breaking up and leaving.
We disconnect from one another at school, work, and our community, and just avoid one another in order to avoid conflict.
Tolerance has neglectfully taught our children learn to suck it up, and push down resentment of being mistreated on buses and playgrounds, and we demand that they fake a peaceful resolution. The concept and language and behavior of Peace can be revived, but we must go all the way down into our own core of influence, and start acting and demanding peace at every level of our influence.
2006-07-09 18:19:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Miss Mary 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, non-violence worked out well for Mandela not so long ago. If Gandhi could drive the British out of India, then the Iraqi insurgents could drive out the US if they employed the same techniques.
2006-07-09 19:39:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
These things to be outdated, they would have had to have been used throughout our history, yet it seems they have been used seldom even in the last century.
2006-07-09 17:31:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by JoeThatUKnow 3
·
0⤊
0⤋