Yes, if they are citizens of a country that requires it of all other citizens. Generally, I am more inclined the way Luis is in #40. What I am saying is that a religious belief shouldn't get you that level of special treatment.
Tom
-
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
Tom
arthra
Baha'i
You might also mention that aside from Jehovah's Witnesses other Christian denominations have also sought exemptions from military service such as the society of Friends and Brethren churches... Baha'is in the United States seek a IAO exemption as well... All these groups also offer to serve in non-combatant ways either in the military or non-military roles.
CLASSIFICATIONS
Ways Conscientious Objectors have served..
Conscientious objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of alternative service are jobs in:
- conservation
- caring for the very young or very old
- education
- health care
and
The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.
Selective Service Systems > About > Alternative Service > Conscientious Objector
Also see:
Peace churches - Wikipedia
I think you should be allowed to opt-out for non-religious reasons, too.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Fire_Monkey
Member
Just as those who do not contribute to the economy or to society have the same rights as working tax paying citizens, yes, I think the JWs have rights as well. They are simply people who are practicing their freedom to engage in whatever religion they so choose. To deny them basic rights is to set upon a slippery slope. First them, then who else gets excluded or penalized for their beliefs?
In the field of economics, those folks I mentioned about who don't contribute are called Free Riders.
We need to look at the JWs as being much the same.
Besides.....wtf if they're right???
In the field of economics, those folks I mentioned about who don't contribute are called Free Riders.
We need to look at the JWs as being much the same.
Besides.....wtf if they're right???
Skwim
Veteran Member
So, are we to assume you consider a military obligation (compulsory work) to be slavery?
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.
Didn't think you would make it worth my time to indulge you when you clearly haven't done any research, because you're just looking for any shallow reason to take a dig at JWs just like you do with Christians all the time? Yeah, I didn't think you would either.Challenge: Show us your sources.
Response:
Yup! Didn't think you could.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Sure is. It goes straight to their stance on serving in the military. They refuse to serve in the military AND, as been mentioned several times, serve "in any civilian capacity which fosters or supports the military."
But they've made it one.
That's not the issue. The issue is Is it ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when one refuses to do the same for them? As I've pointed out, they wouldn't even help pack C-rations during WW II to help keep the fighting GIs alive. From what you've said I can only conclude that you do feel it's ethical to benefit from the sacrifices of others on your behalf when you refuse to do the same for them.
AND PEOPLE,
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE RELIGIOUS BELIEF OF JWS, ONLY THEIR ETHICAL BEHAVIOR AS MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY THAT IS READY TO SACRIFICE ON THEIR BEHALF AND ALL OTHERS.
.
Last edited:
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Scott C.
Just one guy
This is an interesting question. I was thinking about it when I saw Hacksaw Ridge, although the situation was different, if indeed JW's are not willing to support the war effort in any way, even indirectly. If you had a nation of all devout JW's, they would either end up dead or taken over and would lose their freedom. History has proven that we can't remain both alive and free, unless we're willing to fight. While I disagree with a pacifistic and anti-government interpretation of Christianity, I must respect the integrity and courage of someone who is willing to give up their life and freedoms rather than violate their religion. Since JWs do not (and should not) live in a nation of their own, I have to conclude that they do reap the benefits of a nation that is willing to fight, while they are allowed to follow their beliefs. I'm not inclined to force them into battle.
Then take JWs out of it and just talk about the issue of service and it's significance to citizenship. And reply to the rest of my posts.
Vaderecta
Active Member
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.
I would absolutely advocate the enforcement of the rights of all individuals of our nation but that is only possible because others are out there defending those rights. Some day we might not need a military but even in Star Trek (TNG) they still needed a military branch. Someone will need to fight.
If someone came to your city and detonated a dirty bomb and not only is your city but your state and many of the states surrounding your state can no longer be occupied for centuries do you think someone should have stopped them?
The insane amount of casualties involved and the long term effects of other peoples actions are something you can convince yourself to ignore but they could happen. Your idea that this god is real and you won't fight for a nation that allows for your ideas is currently a right but others are out there fighting for your ability to have this idea of your god. You may not like those people or agree with them but if they didn't fight on your behalf I don't think your ideas are sustainable.
Like I said it's very complicated. If you haven't watched Jocko or others of his caliber you should probably start there. He's been everywhere but I am an avid Rogan podcast fan so I will post a link there:
I would absolutely advocate the enforcement of the rights of all individuals of our nation but that is only possible because others are out there defending those rights. Some day we might not need a military but even in Star Trek (TNG) they still needed a military branch. Someone will need to fight.
If someone came to your city and detonated a dirty bomb and not only is your city but your state and many of the states surrounding your state can no longer be occupied for centuries do you think someone should have stopped them?
The insane amount of casualties involved and the long term effects of other peoples actions are something you can convince yourself to ignore but they could happen. Your idea that this god is real and you won't fight for a nation that allows for your ideas is currently a right but others are out there fighting for your ability to have this idea of your god. You may not like those people or agree with them but if they didn't fight on your behalf I don't think your ideas are sustainable.
Like I said it's very complicated. If you haven't watched Jocko or others of his caliber you should probably start there. He's been everywhere but I am an avid Rogan podcast fan so I will post a link there:
Absolutely not.
Good for them. There isn't much else that I can support in the JW's credo. That much I enthusiastically do and hope to emulate.
Hardly. Instead, they got the guts to acknowledge that it is one.
Are you kidding me? That is the entire issue.
Of course not. But that is not what you brought for discussion. You are jumping merrily between quite unrelated issues and implying that somehow you are not. Why?
Congratulations for them! You are doing a lot to endear them to me.
No, that is the opposite of ethical. And it does not connect to what you are saying about the JWs.
Is it so hard to accept that you are confusing a concrete and very ethical stance with an abstract and unethical one?
Make up your mind then.
I agree. And refusing to support the military in non-violent ways should also be an absolute right.
No one should be forced to support the military.
Skwim
Veteran Member
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.
.
I think you can make the case that it's ethically neutral, where the group is willing to accept any punishment that their action invokes.
It strikes me that they are not (merely) avoiding service. They are accepting both positive and negative consequences of that action.
I guess I'd review that to some degree if there was evidence of JWs commonly serving if threatened with punishment, but I'm unaware of such evidence.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I'm torn, actually, about this issue. Yes, it's contributing to the killing, but then again, by not packing meals or whatever, you're also helping to kill our soldiers too. Catch 22 morality issue, I guess.
I don't see any morality dilemma, truth be told.
If anything, they should be commended for putting their actions and choices where their stated principles are.
To put things in perspective, I don't think physicians should be allowed to hire soldiers or murderers in order to circunvent the Hippocratic Oath either.
"Out-sourcing" the killing is not at all a refusal to kill. The JW have the right of it on that regard. And I can only comment them for wearing their principles and the ethical consequences on their sleeves; they are supposed to make a stand and pay the price, as are any true pacifists.
I find the whole story rather inspiring and very much worth of emulation.
If anything, they should be commended for putting their actions and choices where their stated principles are.
To put things in perspective, I don't think physicians should be allowed to hire soldiers or murderers in order to circunvent the Hippocratic Oath either.
"Out-sourcing" the killing is not at all a refusal to kill. The JW have the right of it on that regard. And I can only comment them for wearing their principles and the ethical consequences on their sleeves; they are supposed to make a stand and pay the price, as are any true pacifists.
I find the whole story rather inspiring and very much worth of emulation.
I suppose you had never seen M*A*S*H.
Last edited: