Why I don't 'support our troops' (and why no religious person should)

[Mr Cheese]

I have great trouble understanding a non-violent outlook when it doesn't allow for self defense or defense of the truly innocent.

There is a fine line...
war is obviously historically been good for business

War is of course often needed.....when people need their behinds spanked...

a good example in recent years would be Dafur

the real problem of course is the subjectivity of morals...
one man's meat is another man's poison

however rape, ethnic cleansing and other wonderful human practises are generally not up there on many people's positive ethical humanitarian practises...

In an ideal world, there would be no war.
Sadly it is not an ideal world
In an ideal world, people wouldn't make millions off of the back of war
sadly we have people like Dick CHeney

 

[sandandfoam]

I have great trouble understanding a non-violent outlook when it doesn't allow for self defense or defense of the truly innocent.

Non-violence isn't passive it's active.
One can fight without resorting to violence. It requires greater courage and discipline but it can be done.

 

[*Anne*]

:yes: Stephen, I think if we have the opportunity to fight violence in non-violent ways, then we should absolutely do it.

However, I can never say I think killing is wrong in all cases, across the board. For example, if a person breaks into my home and directly threatens my life or the lives of my loved ones, I will kill him if necessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

I will put an exception right at the top of this post. If you're drafted, most of what I say here does not apply.
Why support a volunteer soldier?...
....A volunteer soldier signs up to be an agent of the state's war machine. In doing so, he/she allows the state to demand him/her to kill another human being.

Even to allow oneself to be drafted is a choice. When I faced that in the 1970s, with a draft lottery # of 34 I had options:
be drafted, enlist, ROTC, prison, moving to Canada, CO status. Weighing these all carefully, I was leaning towards Canada
until Nixon canceled the draft. But I would never submit to the draft, which I saw as wasteful, unconstitutional & an unfair burden.
I'm a non-aggressionist, but I see defense as necessary. After the draft scare, I spent some time designing military weapon systems.

I don't believe that an individual soldier is responsible for the greater evil of said war machine, but the willingness to do exactly what that entity demands nullifies their innocence. In the modern war era, the soldier is aware of what he/she is getting into.

I say they are responsible for the larger effects of the military since they made the choice to be in it. But I'm sure they made this choice believing that
the good they'll do will outweigh the bad. War is messy. Even in the most just war, evil things will happen. It's avoidable, but not possible to eliminate.
I see being a soldier as an ethical choice, albeit a problematic one at times.

Being in the United States, I am surrounded by Christian war-culture, but I have yet to hear a solid argument for what I hear termed a 'just war'. It is simple:
If killing is wrong in one case, it is wrong in all cases.

Whatever security pacifists have, they owe to the non-pacifists prepared to defend them.
I wouldn't be so quick to call all war wrong. Should we have let Hitler & Tojo win?

A question:
Is it moral to pay taxes, given that this enables America's deadly foreign meddling?
Sure, this is more passive than serving as a soldier, but even to be passive is a decision.

 

[sandandfoam]

However, I can never say I think killing is wrong in all cases, across the board.

As with Kathryn, I understand you pov. I just don't agree with it
Having chewed this cud before I know our minds won't meet

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is simple:
If killing is wrong in one case, it is wrong in all cases.

That's not "simple," that's "sophomoric."

It's such a simple argument that it lacks any substance at all.

 

[*Anne*]

Having chewed this cud before I know our minds won't meet

Okay.

Whatever security pacifists have, they owe to the non-pacifists prepared to defend them.

That was worth quoting again.

 

[sandandfoam]

That's not "simple," that's "sophomoric."

It's such a simple argument that it lacks any substance at all.

The simple argument is that violence is always wrong.

 

[sandandfoam]

That was worth quoting again.

No. It's merely patronising.

 

[*Anne*]

No. It's merely patronising.

I'm sorry you see it that way. How so?

 

[Mr Cheese]

The simple argument is that violence is always wrong.

In an ideal world
We don't live in one though

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The simple argument is that violence is always wrong.

Then surguries [violence to the body] are wrong.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm sorry you see it that way. How so?

I require no defence. To suggest that I am cossetted by some 'non-pacifist' and thereby free to enunciate my opposition to violence is patronising.
BTW I advocate nonviolence, not pacifism.

 

[sandandfoam]

In an ideal world
We don't live in one though

Perhaps not, but I desire a better one. Non-violence is integral to my desire.

 

[sandandfoam]

Then surguries [violence to the body] are wrong.

Sophistry is beneath you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sophistry is beneath you.

It's not sophistry, and you should know better than to accuse me of that if you think that it's beneath me.

Surgury kills. It's often a violent risk. Chemotherapy is violent, too, as well as severe burn treatment. Ghandi opposed all of these treatments in the name of non-violence.

The opposition to medical treatment is the logicial conclusion of the extreme argument that killing [violence] is always wrong.

The simple fact is that because of the limited nature of resources, to accept medical treatment is to kill [deny treatment to] someone else. We see this all the time in hospitals, that may have one respirator and three people that need it. Or one kidney and five people that would die without it.

 

[*Anne*]

BTW I advocate nonviolence, not pacifism.

The quote shouldn't apply to you then.

 

[ChristineES]

I would normally agree about no violence. Most of the time, violence is not warranted at all. I got irritated in the past for what I considered "oil wars" But let me give you some scenarios which may be unlikely but could still happen:
1. Someone breaks into your house with an intent to harm you or your loved ones. You have to be able to stop that person and there are times when the person has to be injured to be stopped.
2. You see a man who is harming/raping another person, and there is no phone or your cell phone is not working and you are able to stop the person from harming the other. I don't think it is very kind to just stand there and let that happen.
And there are many other examples.

The same kinds of things can happen to our country, as well. If there is no military, then if we have an invader to our country, then they can take over our country, kill the citizens- including you and your family, take away your freedom of various things we take for granted- which includes religion, lifestyle, and even sex orientation. We have to be able to defend ourselves and if we can't do it ourselves, a military set aside will do it for us.

There is a lot to consider before making any unilateral decisions.

 

[sandandfoam]

Surgury kills. It's often a violent risk. Chemotherapy is violent, too, as well as severe burn treatment.

I can't agree, violence entails agression. (Just to be sure I peeked in the dictionary to make sure )

Ghandi opposed all of these treatments in the name of non-violence.

If you say so I take your word for it.

The opposition to medical treatment is the logicial conclusion of the extreme argument that killing [violence] is always wrong.

I disagree for the same reason as above - the absence of agression

 

[sandandfoam]

The quote shouldn't apply to you then.

pacifism is often considered a synonym for nonviolence

My opinion of the quote hasn't improved.