• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Skwim

Veteran Member
Consider


"Jehovah's Witnesses are an international association of Christians who have been confronted with the issue of compulsory military service in many lands.

In the past, the Congress of the United States has provided exemption to registrants who entertain sincerely-held, religious objections to military service. Jehovah's Witnesses are conscientiously opposed to war and to their participation in such in any form whatsoever. For this reason they inform officials of the government that they conscientiously object to serving in the military, or in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military. Moreover, they are willing to accept the consequences of their Bible-based, conscientious position."
source



"The Watchtower Files
A Blog For Jehovah's Witnesses And Those Who Love Them"

"It is a well known fact to those who are familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses that they forbid military service. They even forbid non-combat military service which has been a suitable alternative to conscientious objectors for many decades in this country. While they can’t actually disfellowship someone for joining the military the Watchtower can and does disassociate them and treats them as if they were disfellowshipped. Apparently the illegality of discriminating against someone who chooses to serve their country in military service directly affects what the Watchtower will and won’t do to their members."
source

Yearbook 1991 p. 166
…attempts have been made (in Sweden) to have us substitute compulsory work for military service. In the early 1970's, a governmental committee was appointed to review the handling of conscientious objectors. For the sake of uniformity, the authorities wanted Jehovah's Witnesses to serve on terms similar to those for other religious groups and do compulsory work as a substitute.

Representatives of the branch office appeared before the committee, explaining that the Witnesses could not accept any substitute for military service whatsoever, no matter how praiseworthy the task.
source
My question, put as simply as I can: Is it ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?

j%20w%20watching%20war_zpsaojoyfxq.png



Please note that this is not presented to make fun of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a look at the position they've chosen to take and its ethics.

.


 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that it is ethical to benefit from what others have made sacrifices to obtain, but I don't think it is right to demand those freedoms which were fought for.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Is it ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?
Was it done for them or not? If not then there really was not a point to fighting.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
"or in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military"?
(from the OP)
.
What does nurture or support the military even mean? And why single out JWs when there are myriads of pacifist groups who would refuse to enroll or spend money towards military (save taxes, which JWs pay.)

Hell, if I could, I would extract military out of ME tomorrow, slash defense spending to allocate to education and healthcare. And I actively distrust military decisions under current administration. I sure wouldn't join up right now or support (except by bringing troops home and finding worthier persuits.)
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I should like to think that those who serve in or have died in the military view their service as for pacifists as much as anyone else.

.
j%20w%20watching%20%20coffins_zpsllnqefy2.png

Pacifists who won't work in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military?
Too bad we can't ask them.


.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
What does nurture or support the military even mean? And why single out JWs when there are myriads of pacifist groups who would refuse to enroll or spend money towards military (save taxes, which JWs pay.)
Because from what I've read the JW is the only pacifist group that refuses to work in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military. Hell, they wouldn't even help pack C-rations during WW II to help keep the fighting GIs alive.

.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If denied those freedoms, then I support even their demanding them.
But, I think that might be playing on two different sides. They are for submission to God. To demand anything from the nations could very well be overreaching God's will be done.

20 Go, my people, enter your inner rooms,And shut your doors behind you.+Hide yourself for a brief momentUntil the wrath* has passed by.+ Isaiah 26:20

They teach that we are to obey the Word of God. Then of course, they should too.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
You said. "I should like to think that those who serve in or have died in the military view their service as for pacifists as much as anyone else."

To which I replied "[including those] pacifists who won't work in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military?
Too bad we can't ask them.
"

I don't think they would. Would you like giving your life for those who wouldn't lift a finger to help you survive? Perhaps you would.

.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
You said. "I should like to think that those who serve in or have died in the military view their service as for pacifists as much as anyone else."

To which I replied "[Those] pacifists who won't work in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military?
Too bad we can't ask them.
"

I don't think they would. Would you like giving your life for those who wouldn't lift a finger to help you survive? Perhaps you would.

.
I know what I said and what you said. You should try a typing style that's more clear.

I would die in order to extend more freedom and betterment for all. That's part of virtue and heroic ethics.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Because from what I've read the JW is the only pacifist group that refuses to work in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military. Hell, they wouldn't even help pack C-rations during WW II to help keep the fighting GIs alive.

.
Jains, just about everyone attending Woodstock and the 'make peace not war' movement, many Amish and Mennonite groups, some Buddhist groups, and many others.

The idea that you have to support the military to be a good citizen is nonsense. No better than saying you must do [x community service] to be a good citizen.

I arbitrarily decree that anyone of sound mind and body who has not put time in as a volunteer firefighter should not get the same privileges as other citizens!
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jains, just about everyone attending Woodstock and the 'make peace not war' movement, many Amish and Mennonite groups, some Buddhist groups, and many others.

The idea that you have to support the military to be a good citizen is nonsense.
I don't think it is so much about the support of the military. I think the thread is about helping the fight for freedom.
 
Top