Do No Evil – "No, you cannot have my body to fight your war...do what you will with me!" The indomitable force born from one courageous act is more powerful than a thousand screaming voices. The conscientious objector must make some hard choices.
Conscientious objectors who find peace and strength within to overcome the exploiters of war, are a testament to the best in us. They also deserve our support. When a person refuses to take part in an illegal war, that person should not be comdemned or labeled a coward.
When a person refuses to take part in *any* war because they object to the murder of other human beings, they should not be condemned or labeled a coward.
Yes they should. Anyone who objected to WWII because they objected to the murder of other human beings was a freaking coward. Why? Because it was cowards like them who allowed Hitler to rise to power in the first place. Brave men gave their lives to stop a madman from killing innocent Jews. Cowards did not.
Many of the "Cowards" hid and helped the exodus of the victims of the war.
I have a great aunt who spent all her money on fishing poles and baskets.
Many Jews and a few POW's walked the river out of the country looking like fishermen.
She did not doubt for a second that she would be killed if caught.
Which side of a gun takes more bravery to face?
It is fair to call a pacifist foolish.
To call one a coward?
That's just plain wrong.
It may well be that some have hidden behind the skirt's of true pacifist's out of fear for their safety.
Soldiers and policemen are not the only ones willing to put their life on the line.
I would never call them cowards and I honor them.
Good points Fly, but were those people the ones who were against the war? Was your great aunt (brave as she was) against good men fighting tyranny and evil? I doubt it. I am willing to bet that those who did not fight, but gave aid to the escaping Jews, were very much for the war, and therefore not cowards.
Tanglang:
It would be fair to say that the very first real gun I ever saw and touched in my life was in her house in Switzerland.
What she said: I can not remember.
It was important to me: I remember being surprised at how heavy the gun was.
There where birds that would eat from her hand in her back yard.
I flinched with fear as one landed on mine.
Childhood memories:
I am not sure where I going with this:
I do believe that my personal attempts at a conviction for pacifism began from her example.
tanglang: "Was your great aunt (brave as she was) against good men fighting tyranny and evil?"
The problem with war is that it's always easy to dress it up in noble sentiments. Did you know that the German soldiers fought for the "Vaterland" or Fatherland? Do you despise conscientious objectors only on the "good" side, or do you despise them on the "bad" side as well? Soldiers fight wherever they are sent, and sometimes it's on the good side and sometimes it's on the bad side. Did Americans fight in Korea and Vietnam on the "good" side? Are you sure they fight on the "good" side in Iraq?
Yep, the Germans thought they were fighting the good fight too. They were wrong. The Japanese thought they were fighting the good fight. They were wrong too. Losers usually are. We know we're fighting the good fight, always, each and everytime, and there's sure been a lot of times, even when it's not looking so good and even when we don't win. I guess it's not just noble sentiments, Candida, but most times it's also generous lashings of bs washed down with buckets of brainwash. Seeing the big picture is easiest when you're not in it.
Candida:
In the beginning of any conflict and thru out the insanity you will have those waving the flag and shouting propaganda.
That propaganda is quickly figured out by most foot soldiers slogging thru a day to day battle of survival.
Ones represents their country but fights for his and his friends survival. Death is ugly on both sides of the battle, no matter which side you are on all suffer the same cold reality. People you care about are dying and you can't stop it. Thank God the United States has not seen war on our homeland for a long while.
You would see few conscientious objectors when you families and friends are being killed daily. You either fight it or join it. You give aid to the ones you prefer to win. While refusing to aid the enemy.
It is no surprize to me the "terrorists" are fighting us in their home country. Come over here and watch I'd do to them as well. They are patriots in their eyes. Objecting to our presence.
some people take "thou shalt not kill" very seriously. would you call a Quaker a coward?
heres another way of looking at it. my father was a WW2 vet. he survivied the Battle of the Bulge. my uncle art, on the other hand, was a CO. would you call him a coward?
would you still call him a coward if you knew he was a 30 year fire fighter? i did once, and my dad smacked me. he then said that uncle art was the bravest man he ever knew.
when i asked why a man who had been through people shooting at him would say a CO was brave, he said something to the effect of... "killing people who are trying to kill you first isnt brave, its survival.... your uncle art," he said, "walked into burning buildings for 30 years and no one was shooting at him, now thats brave!"
like most vets, dad almost never talked bout the war. what little he did say spoke volumes.
If someone was in the process of murdering that quakers family and he did not fight back, yes he is a coward.
I recomend to thee,
that thee move,
for thee is standing where I intend to fire this gun.
Perhaps my defintion of Coward is differant than yours.
Quakers spend a lot of time preparing themselves for conflict.
Using the weapon of love is sometimes affective.
Sometimes the weapons of war are not.
Many consider themselves soldiers for peace and do put themselves in harms way.
Inspite of being ridiculed, jailed, or having to serve a longer tour of duty if they are lucky enough to get an alternative service.
The greatest outcomes of pacifism in the world have probably been the rise of Christianity in which a charismatic leader who had the power to raise a nation up in rebellion against Rome chose to die a martyr; the power wielded by Buddhist monks in opposition to tyrants; the rebellion of India against the British. There have been others. Choosing the pacifist's route is sometimes an act of fear but some of the most courageous people in history have been pacifists. You should also look at the war record of many army medics and corpsmen who were pacifists and refused to fight but who committed great acts or heroism on the battle field. Now, what I would like to see is all the war protestors charter plane tickets and march into the DMZ between warring parties and put their faith to the test. I also like the suggestion of joining the Peace Corps and serving in that capacity.
I don't want to mess with your point, bravo coz it's a good one, but I don't remember Jesus Christ raising a nation up in rebellion against Rome. I think the Romans pretty well nailed him down, eh, up before he could.
He appears to have the charisma to lead the Jews in either direction. Judas expected him to and the metaphor of the tempation where he was looking over the countryside and satan offered him all that lay before him seems to be an acknowledgement that he understood he had two options. One might have created Israel for a few decades. Instead, he chose a path that created a 2,000 year dynasty. His rebuke of Judas and the bit about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's also clearly indicates he made a willful choice as to whether to lead the Jews in rebellion or do something greater using pacifism. Even without attributing divinity to him, the moral choice he made was amazing. 1.5 billion people in the world honor that choice even today, 2,000 years later. though a lot of american pseudo-christians sound more like eye-for-an-eye Old Testament warmongers than they do New Testament Christians.
dissent:
Jesus Christ didn't have to depend upon man for anything. With a prayer and asking he could have destroyed what man holds dear.
He wasn't killed, no one could kill him against his will. He sacrificed his life that we may have life more abundantly thru him.
One day all will know this truth, besides Jesus was no wimp. In the temple when he was overturning tables and tearing things up, why could no one stop him until he was done. He was by far outnumbered. Yet they dared not stop him, they couldn't have.
God gave Christ free will just as he has given all humans free will. Your religious argument doens't change the moral choice he made between aggression and pacifism regardless of whether one sees him as the son of God or as a normal man. Your faith in the story of Christ and his divinity only magnifies my point...he had a choice. He could have conquered the earth with his power...yet he chose the path of pacifism and self-sacrifice over violence. Being a pacifist doens't mean one is a wimp. Chosing pacifism over assault may take as much courage and any decision. We see in the Bible that he was tempted with the offer of being the ruler of the earth. And we see that he required courage to make the decision to die on the cross, thus the evening in the garden when he asked God to relieve him of the choice to die if another way could be found. That's the point of Christianity...that the moral choice is the same for a God or for a man.
The importance of the choice remains the same regardless of whether it is the Son of God making the choice, God himself making the choice or a human. This is the crux of Spinoza's question that Hawking repeats and that almost no one seems to grasp...Did God have a choice in making the universe? Once he chose his first principle...and once he chose to remain true to it, perfectly true to it...he gave up all subsequent choice. This is the challenge God places on the shoulders of man. To pick our first principle from and act of free will...and remain true to it throughout. Because that requires so much courage and perfection beyond our humble selves is why Christ had to exist. We needed forgiveness...and God, needed to learn to forgive us. Living by a first principle is a very hard thing to do. That's why warrior or concientious objector...anyone who struggles with the question and remains true to his or her first principle deserves our respect.
Side note Bravo, not all Monks were pacifists. Note the monks of Shao-lin Tsu. It was the 13 pole monks who rescued the Emperors son after he was kidnapped in 621Ad. The reason that the Chinese government banned Shao-lin until the late 90's is because they knew that the monks were the only real threat to communism.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
digits12
dokkyou08
Artofid
moomaypcc
benzzza
darwinm701977
rincy
kimji
maprang
chamajin
windly
konmai
colove
ceryl
denzyn
inkegan
fokuz
expursuit
hotdaisy
aylamayumi
NewsBoys
triizine
BravoSierra
dexlovex2
BuckNutty
Francisca
Beeboppin71
MyWayOnNow
vzlomy.net.ru
soloride
lifestyler
Hullios
nitegarito
doggammit
anavrin
Neophile
dissent
idyll
Uzeri34789
AlvinT
Redtail
jaspersneed
fizzleboink2
neer1010
djapollo2k
OfWhatItIs
bluetexasvalley
IcCaRus
berkeley
shead
185)
First to comment! Unless someone beats me to it while typing :O Anyway this is an interesting dilemma. Its a good submission, as usual Spade. I'll have to ponder it a bit, but my math class starts in a few hours and I need some sleep.
"Conscientious objectors who find peace and strength within to overcome the exploiters of war, are a testament to the best in us"
Not really, that's a little too self-serving.
Also consider that the US military is 100% volunteers
Just like the US Peace Corps. If you really believe that being a Conscientious objectors is the best one can be then join the US Peace Corps or your countries equivalent and Prove it .
The American military is 100% volunteer, for now. However, requiring young men to register with Selective Service, following their eighteenth birthday, doesn't mean it will stay that way. Selective Service registration is not voluntary. My son turned 18 last year.