Skwim
Veteran Member
If you know what you said and you know what I said, than the the fault, dear Brutus, lies in your lack of reading comprehension.
.
-
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?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Show us your sources.
No, it's you not being clear in your posts. I've had this problem with you before. I can read just fine.
Make it worth my time, have you looked at all into pasifist movements and their views on war or is your 'the only group i know' just a result of lack of due diligence?
Maybe answer my questions about the logical basis for this narrow exclusion and show me this isn't just an unfair witch hunt of JWs. (And I don't even like the Watchtower organizatiom, so this isn't coming from a desire to defend JWs.)
Last edited:
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
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?
They think it's more than ethical if they consider it a religious commandment, and I doubt they'd mind much if we disagree.
Keep in mind that most eligible people don't volunteer for the military. If the JWs are simply not enlisting, their pacifistic motive certainly doesn't reduce their status relative to those others.
Then there's the matter of whether modern military adventures have anything to do with freedom anyway. It would have to be a just war - a defensive or humanitarian effort to consider it unethical to opt out.
Muhammad Ali refused to serve and went to prison in the prime of his career for his principles when there was a draft. I thought that it was quite heroic.
Interesting question.
I would ask, first and foremost, exactly how one proposes to deny JWs the "benefit from scacrifices of others on your behalf"? Is it just JW men who would be denied these "benefits," or JW women and children, too (who were not subject to conscription)? And exactly what are the "benefits" specifically? Do JW men get to enjoy parts of the First Amendment but not Fourth? What were the "benefits" that JWs should be denied that someone sacrificed for in the Iraq war? The Vietnam war was the last war where there was compulsory conscription from the general population of young men. What were the benefits obtained from that mass slaughter? Maybe JWs should be rewarded for being smarter than the average 19-year-old male.
Consider
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?"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
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.
.
Yes. There are ways to serve freedom without performing compulsory work--which in many cases is a euphemism for slavery--per state law. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela voluntarily did more for freedom than the U.S. Army has in the entirety of the last fifty years.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
No one should be forced to fight in any war.
I wondered if this would come up!
That's too religiously technical an argument for me to address.
I'm simple.
Thank you for saying so. I wouldn't call you simple. It is called secular, I think.
That was an awesome documentrary. I been concerned about boogers ever since.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Who and what statement are you addressing?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If you talking about a draft, would the same question apply to anyone else who would try to avoid it?
If you're talking about voluntary enlistment, would the same question apply to anyone else who doesn't consider doing so?
If you're talking about voluntary enlistment, would the same question apply to anyone else who doesn't consider doing so?
I love Starship Troopers the movie. The book, though... I dunno if you've ever read the book, but the book is the exact opposite message as the movie. It plays military utopia straight. Believing people shouldn't be able to run for office or vote unless they served.
Yes, I've read the book. I like the movies better. (Yes, I like the sequels, too!
)
So people should be forced to serve a war machine even if they don't want to? Even non-combat service contributes to the killing.
No, it is not. But it is also not a question that refers to the JW's stance towards the military.
Refusing to support the military is a strong ethical imperative, after all. It is not even a JW issue, or at least it should not be.
I am sorry that you seem to be confused about the issues. It is everyone's duty to oppose and refuse to support that which they deem to be destructive and unethical. And it is ethical to do so if one considers and accepts the consequences.