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

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

.

Laws do not justify themselves. Are we debating whether laws should be enforced or if the laws themselves are ethical?
Besides, suffering the consequences of noncompliance with government mandate is something JWs have done before. They were specifically targeted for arrest, imprisonment and execution in Nazi Germany, after all. Didn't stop them.

 

[columbus]

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.

.

Not only this.
Also, if you live in a democratic sort of place you can get involved yourself. If you don't like the laws, you can agitate for change, vote, run for office, donate to groups you support, etc.
If you don't exercise any of those options, you are effectively supporting the status quo. Whatever that might be, including military draft.
Tom

 

[Valjean]

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.

Taxes, in theory at least, are supposed to be for the benefit of the people, and, in the US at least, they're taken, not paid.
Military 'service', on the other hand, intentionally harms the people -- on both sides.

Odd that almost everyone claims to hate war, yet they honor and support its practitioners. Seems a bit schizophrenic...

Remember that old poster from the '60s: What if they gave a war, and nobody came? If nobody did come, would the people applaud the pacifist resistors, or condemn them -- even while condemning the war?

"He's the universal soldier and he really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can't you see
this is not the way we put an end to war"
Universal Soldier -- Buffy Sainte-Marie.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Yes. That's what countries do, but that doesn't make it just, and I don't have to like it. I'll retain my right to freedom of conscience and my duty of civil disobedience, thank you.

.

 

[columbus]

Taxes, in theory at least, are supposed to be for the benefit of the people,

Not everyone agrees on what benefits the people, though.
But you are still changing the subject from my assertion that the laws should apply equally to everyone to whether the military should exist.
Before the Iraq invasion began, I was organizing street demonstrations, letter writing campaigns, etc. etc. I did everything I knew to do opposing the war. I did this for over a year in my conservative rural community. I made myself very unpopular with a ton of people around here. It was an expensive effort for me, a small town sole proprietor who was already suspiciously gay and non-religious.
I am hardly a brainless warhawk. I don't support the military just because Fox News says to. I do however get annoyed by religious people expecting special rights because they want them.
Tom

 

[savagewind]

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.

A mash unit is serving the army. It's just in a good way, imo.

 

[Skwim]

Laws do not justify themselves. Are we debating whether laws should be enforced or if the laws themselves are ethical?

No we are not. We're suppose to be debating whether or not it's ethical to benefit from the sacrifices made by others one's behalf when one refuses to do the same for them?
Source: OP

.

 

[Valjean]

Laws do not justify themselves. Are we debating whether laws should be enforced or if the laws themselves are ethical?
Besides, suffering the consequences of noncompliance with government mandate is something JWs have done before. They were specifically targeted for arrest, imprisonment and execution in Nazi Germany, after all. Didn't stop them.

Weather or not they're enforced is something I have little control over. I do have the moral obligation to act ethically, though, according to my own lights.
I applaud the JWs conscientious, moral stance. Morality is not a matter of convenience.

Not everyone agrees on what benefits the people, though.
But you are still changing the subject from my assertion that the laws should apply equally to everyone to whether the military should exist.
Before the Iraq invasion began, I was organizing street demonstrations, letter writing campaigns, etc. etc. I did everything I knew to do opposing the war. I did this for over a year in my conservative rural community. I made myself very unpopular with a ton of people around here. It was an expensive effort for me, a small town sole proprietor who was already suspiciously gay and non-religious.
I am hardly a brainless warhawk. I don't support the military just because Fox News says to. I do however get annoyed by religious people expecting special rights because they want them.
Tom

My objection is to the idea of "special rights."
They are not special rights. They are inalienable rights the government's immorally denying them. Moreover, they don't "want them," they're ethically obligated to claim them.

 

[Valjean]

A mash unit is serving the army. It's just in a good way, imo.

Serving an immoral organization "in a good way."
Interesting conundrum...

 

[columbus]

My objection is to the idea of "special rights."

You really don't grasp why the JWs getting a military exemption that isn't available to me qualifies as a "special right"?
Tom

 

[savagewind]

Serving an immoral organization "in a good way."
Interesting conundrum...

OK. The military is an immoral organization. Is that even when it is used to DEFEND human rights?

 

[Valjean]

Seventy five years ago a group of Europeans honorably obeying the law and serving their country were at war with a group of Brits and North Americans honorably obeying the law and serving their country.

By conventional standards the soldiers of both sides were doing what was right and proper. Thus, both sides were the "good guys." Neither side had any ethical alternative options, or cause to object to being shot by the enemy, who was, after all, doing the right thing.

Am I the only one who finds this arrangement rather bizarre?

 

[savagewind]

You really don't grasp why the JWs getting a military exemption that isn't available to me qualifies as a "special right"?
Tom

I don't understand this question.

 

[savagewind]

Seventy five years ago a group of Europeans honorably obeying the law and serving their country were at war with a group of Brits and North Americans honorably obeying the law and serving their country.

By conventional standards the soldiers of both sides were doing what was right and proper. Thus, both sides were the "good guys." Neither side had any ethical alternative options, or cause to object to being shot by the enemy, who was, after all, doing the right thing.

Am I the only one who finds this arrangement rather bizarre?

There is a difference between what I person thinks he is doing and what he is doing.

I think it was righteous for the allied forces to stop the Nazis. Do you think they could have done it without killing anyone?

 

[savagewind]

The World is not a utopia. Heads up! Some people need stopping.

 

[Valjean]

You really don't grasp why the JWs getting a military exemption that isn't available to me qualifies as a "special right"?
Tom

Ah, the exemption. I must have missed that.
Good point. I was thinking of natural Rights.
You're right. It would be a special legal right -- though I doubt the JWs would act any differently if the right didn't exist.
I have little control over a country's laws or the application of same. I only have the ability and obligation to act according to the dictates of my own conscience.

 

[savagewind]

While you all are getting rid of the military, why not the police too?

Which reminds me of a post someone here made. She said if everyone was a Jehovah's Witness there would be no need for armies, police, and courts, but it was a DIR so I couldn't reply. Actually, I could, and I did, but then I realized I would get in trouble for it so I eliminated it.

I think people should realize that courts and police are not present for only bad things.

 

[savagewind]

Ah, the exemption. I must have missed that.
Good point. I was thinking of natural Rights.
You're right. It would be a special legal right -- though I doubt the JWs would act any differently if the right didn't exist.
I have little control over a country's laws or the application of same. I only have the ability and obligation to act according to the dictates of my own conscience.

If evil rose against you or a group of people, would your conscience allow it to prosper? What would you do?

 

[columbus]

I don't understand this question.

@Valjean seems to think it OK for JWs to get an exemption from public service. If the exemption applies to everyone else then it's no longer compulsory service, which is the way it is in the USA. But not everywhere.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Ah, the exemption. I must have missed that.

That's all I was talking about. It's the OP.
I oppose nearly every military move the USA has made since WWII.
Tom