Do Jehovah's Witnesses Deserve to Benefit From the Freedoms Others Have Paid For?

[TheMusicTheory]

JWs paid taxes during WW2. Where do you think their taxes went?

They supported the war effort whether they knew it or not simply by paying income and sales taxes (not every state had sales tax at that point, but the vast majority did), and even money paid to companies that did any work at all with the US government during that time.

It isn't so easy to avoid contributing to an active war no matter what you do.

 

[savagewind]

JWs paid taxes during WW2. Where do you think their taxes went?

They supported the war effort whether they knew it or not simply by paying income and sales taxes (not every state had sales tax at that point, but the vast majority did), and even money paid to companies that did any work at all with the US government during that time.

It isn't so easy to avoid contributing to an active war no matter what you do.

I have heard that the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses own stock in companies
that make parts for war and companies which invest in other things that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses forbid their people to do, like smoking.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I suppose you had never seen M*A*S*H.

What's your point?

 

[savagewind]

What's your point?

You said "Even non-combat service contributes to the killing."

The people of a mash unit are there to relieve suffering. How is that contributing to killing?
I understand that some of those hurt to the point of dying might be made better enough to go back fighting, but I think most who are injured come home. So, I think you might be having a dumb day.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You said "Even non-combat service contributes to the killing."

The people of a mash unit are there to relieve suffering. How is that contributing to killing?
I understand that some of those hurt to the point of dying might be made better enough to go back fighting, but I think most who are injured come home. So, I think you might be having a dumb day.

No, I'm not "having a dumb day" (wtf). A MASH hospital is a mobile military hospital. Nowadays they're called Combat Support Hospitals. They do treat wounded soldiers and send them back out to fight. You kind of answered your own question.

 

[savagewind]

No, I'm not "having a dumb day" (wtf). A MASH hospital is a mobile military hospital. Nowadays they're called Combat Support Hospitals. They do treat wounded soldiers and send them back out to fight. You kind of answered your own question.

I think that keeping someone alive and well overrides the fact that only some of those fixed go out again to fight some more. OK honey?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think that keeping someone alive and well overrides the fact that only some of those fixed go out again to fight some more. OK honey?

And that's your opinion. Others disagree. I don't see why you're being condescending to me.

 

[savagewind]

I don't see why you're being condescending to me.

Isn't life about what goes around comes around?

 

[savagewind]

My opinion that it is good to heal people. But I guess in relation to soldiers it isn't true. SIGH

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Isn't life about what goes around comes around?

Um, no? And I don't recall being condescending to you in the first place.

 

[savagewind]

Um, no? And I don't recall being condescending to you in the first place.

Sometimes it just takes awhile and BAM it gets you by surprise. It is OK to believe you have never condescended to me. You might even be right!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To be clear, I'm not saying I agree with those stances. I'm not a radical pacifist.

 

[Valjean]

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Deserve to Benefit From the Freedoms Others Have Paid For?

Others have not "paid for" these freedoms. These freedoms are a birthright -- "unalienable," as Jefferson might put it.

Countries do not give people freedoms, they merely choose not to deny them the freedoms they already have every right to. Demanding gratitude and allegiance for not denying you your own property is perverse.

Wiki. Rights of Man:
Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

"It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect—that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few... They... consequently are instruments of injustice ... The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist." -- (Thomas Paine)

Government's sole purpose is safeguarding the individual and his/her inherent, inalienable rights;

 

[Valjean]

This is the part I am objecting to.

If a country has some form of compulsory service, like Israel, your religious beliefs shouldn't get you off. Something that doesn't conflict with your beliefs must be possible. And if the objectors need to put in twice as long as the military service people do, oh well. It's a choice they are making for themselves.
Tom

So you're saying:
1, "Your country" has a right to demand service from you (slavery).
2. You have no freedom of conscience. (Just follow orders).
3. Your country owns you and its orders trump any ethical or moral/religious considerations you may have. (State trumps God/moral principle).

The state has no right to compel involuntary servitude.

 

[columbus]

So you're saying:
1, "Your country" has a right to demand service from you (slavery).
2. You have no freedom of conscience. (Just follow orders).
3. Your country owns you and its orders trump any ethical or moral/religious considerations you may have. (State trumps God/moral principle).

The state has no right to compel involuntary servitude.

No, as a matter of fact I didn't say any of those things.

I said "if".
Tom
ETA. Lots of people feel the same way about being forced to pay taxes. I don't see a huge moral difference between that and other forms of service.

 

[Valjean]

What I am saying is that a religious belief shouldn't get you that level of special treatment.
Tom

But it's not special treatment. It's your natural right as a free person.

So, are we to assume you consider a military obligation (compulsory work) to be slavery?

Of course it is. Your country doesn't own you. What if you received a military induction order from Argentina or France? Would you consider it your duty to comply? Why would an accident of birth give your birth country any more claim to you than any other country? Don't you have the right to support or not support whomever you will? Isn't this what "freedom" means?

Yes, unless there were an absolute need to obligate (able) people to serve in the military, such as in cases of dire need for self-defense.

I think the expression "serve" in the military" is a bit of an oxymoron. Whom are you serving? Certainly not your fellow citizens.

The military rarely defends a country's borders. The military serves the interests of the nobility; the aristocrats; the "economic royalists," as Roosevelt put it.
The military generally harms both "the enemy" and your fellow citizens.

 

[columbus]

But it's not special treatment. It's your natural right as a free person.

It is if this exemption only applies to members of one vaguely defined group. Perhaps the CEO of GM should be exempt from paying income taxes because he provides so many jobs.
Tom

 

[Valjean]

Honestly its not as straight forward today. Obviously anyone can refuse not to participate but as a member of a nation and reaping the benefits of that nation one should have a sense of responsibility to defend that nation. Realistically you have only grown up in your environment but there are places where many of us wouldn't have made it this far.

But when was the last time the military was used to defend the nation? Speaking as a US resident, I'd say that the only existential threat to the US is the growth of our own corporate-police-surveillance state.

The military maintains The Empire and the economic interests of the 0.1%. It does not defend the country -- (the security and prosperity of the people).

 

[Valjean]

You said "Even non-combat service contributes to the killing."

The people of a mash unit are there to relieve suffering. How is that contributing to killing?
I understand that some of those hurt to the point of dying might be made better enough to go back fighting, but I think most who are injured come home. So, I think you might be having a dumb day.

This is a good point, and many pacifists are content to "serve" in a medical capacity, but consider:
If it's OK to serve in a MASH unit to 'relieve suffering', it should not matter which side's MASH unit you serve in.
Would your government consider your humanitarian work in an enemy MASH unit acceptable service, or would it consider it aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war?

This might be a good litmus test. If medical service is not serving the military, your country should have no problem with which hospital you choose to work in. If it has an issue with it, maybe you are serving the military, however indirectly.

 

[Skwim]

Of course it is. Your country doesn't own you. What if you received a military induction order from Argentina or France? Would you consider it your duty to comply? Why would an accident of birth give your birth country any more claim to you than any other country?

Because, like it or not, that's what countries do. Want to reside in country X, then you'll be obligated to live by its laws. No turn on red, pay an income tax, and serve in the military if it so determines. Don't like it? Then leave or suffer the consequences. Simple as that.

.