Should religious beliefs determine military duties?

[BobG]

People don't seriously think Obama is acting in the interests of Kenya, but rather as a Globalist. That is, does not see the presidency as being primarily a means to serve the interests of American citizens, but rather a position of global leadership, with an obligation to the interests of the world (or as they would put it, allegiance to an ideology that presumes to know what is best for the world). On this matter they may have a legitimate point (whether you agree with or not).

How do they feel about Bush's desire to spread democracy to the Middle East? Why should we care what type of government they have? Our only interest is that there be enough stability that they'll continue to provide oil to the world (which does impact us one way or the other).

Or is their only beef that he did it so badly? - i.e. instead of improving the stability of the Middle East, he sowed even worse instability.

 

[Galteeth]

How do they feel about Bush's desire to spread democracy to the Middle East? Why should we care what type of government they have? Our only interest is that there be enough stability that they'll continue to provide oil to the world (which does impact us one way or the other).

Or is their only beef that he did it so badly? - i.e. instead of improving the stability of the Middle East, he sowed even worse instability.

Most of them are not big fans of Bush (as a subset of the tea party), and tend to be oppossed to interventionism in general. Of course some are just hardcore anti-left partisans. I don't know about the officer in this particular story.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I no longer care what these knuckleheads believe, or why. They are fools, and this Col is going to jail. That works for me.

 

[Choronzon]

Attacking someone's religion, in order to defend a military officer who is refusing to obey a lawful order, based on internet rumors, really is one for the books. We are free to believe what we want, but we are not free to act as we want. Faith addresses questions that by definition can never be answered; not the latest political rumors for which there is zero evidence. Faith is utlimately based on personal experience and not what someone else says. How harshly do you judge the religious zealots who refuse their sick children medical treatment? That is the difference between faith and actions. That is the difference between faith, and being looney.

I think I do understand your point about him acting on what he believes to be right. So, if he really is such as believer, then he should have no problem serving time in prision. He can serve his time in prison and get his reward in heaven, just like any good person of faith would be willing to do, for faith. And that's where he belongs, in prison.

I'm not defending him, and I'll say right now he should indeed be punished for his actions, whether they are technically desertion, or willful misconduct or whatever...I'm not a lawyer and I honestly have no idea exactly which law he broke but I'm sure there are a few of them.

I'll disagree about faith being about personal experience, at least anymore about personal experience than the personal experience of a birther causes them to believe what they do. In both cases, it's nothing more than people choosing what they want to believe. As for those who subject there children to faith healing, I judge them very harshly. I'm not defending anyone, actually.

All that I'm saying is that I find it curious that people who believe in such absurd things as the afterlife or whatever have the nerve to laugh at people who may believe in something very improbably, but at least within the realm of physical possibility.

You're assuming a lot in your second paragraph. I'm sure that many people want to do what they feel is right without "serving there time in prison and getting there reward in heaven." Do you feel the same about all who refuse to serve, even those who refuse to be deployed because they believe it to be an illegal war? Should they all be as happy to martyr themselves as this Colonel should be?

For all we know, this Colonel could be a very kind, honest, dutiful person who also just happens to be stupid.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I'm not defending him, and I'll say right now he should indeed be punished for his actions, whether they are technically desertion, or willful misconduct or whatever...I'm not a lawyer and I honestly have no idea exactly which law he broke but I'm sure there are a few of them.

I'll disagree about faith being about personal experience, at least anymore about personal experience than the personal experience of a birther causes them to believe what they do. In both cases, it's nothing more than people choosing what they want to believe. As for those who subject there children to faith healing, I judge them very harshly. I'm not defending anyone, actually.

All that I'm saying is that I find it curious that people who believe in such absurd things as the afterlife or whatever have the nerve to laugh at people who may believe in something very improbably, but at least within the realm of physical possibility.

You're assuming a lot in your second paragraph. I'm sure that many people want to do what they feel is right without "serving there time in prison and getting there reward in heaven." Do you feel the same about all who refuse to serve, even those who refuse to be deployed because they believe it to be an illegal war? Should they all be as happy to martyr themselves as this Colonel should be?

For all we know, this Colonel could be a very kind, honest, dutiful person who also just happens to be stupid.

A stupid Medical Doctor who has navigated army politics to become a colonel? No, I think not. You are now dropping the religious angle and comparing this man's actions to those of an objector? I'm not buying any of what you're selling.

 

[Choronzon]

A stupid Medical Doctor who has navigated army politics to become a colonel? No, I think not. You are now dropping the religious angle and comparing this man's actions to those of an objector? I'm not buying any of what you're selling.

He wouldn't be the first stupid Colonel in the army, nor the first Doctor to profess a completely irrational belief.

And exactly what am I trying to sell? I'll readily admit that i have no idea if this man is at all sincere. He may just not feel like being deployed and think that this is the easiest way to achieve that goal. It's worked for others, if i recall correctly. And yes, I'll compare this mans actions to an objector's--why wouldn't I?

 

[Frame Dragger]

He wouldn't be the first stupid Colonel in the army, nor the first Doctor to profess a completely irrational belief.

And exactly what am I trying to sell? I'll readily admit that i have no idea if this man is at all sincere. He may just not feel like being deployed and think that this is the easiest way to achieve that goal. It's worked for others, if i recall correctly. And yes, I'll compare this mans actions to an objector's--why wouldn't I?

He is not objecting to orders or a war, just their source. For the rest, to be so stupid that one believes this tripe is too stupid to be a colonel and a doctor. I think he's being very rational, and incredibly disingeuous. Now he gets to pay for that, and what goal has he achieved that he could not have done in a more sensible and less illegal fashion?

 

[Choronzon]

He is not objecting to orders or a war, just their source. For the rest, to be so stupid that one believes this tripe is too stupid to be a colonel and a doctor. I think he's being very rational, and incredibly disingeuous. Now he gets to pay for that, and what goal has he achieved that he could not have done in a more sensible and less illegal fashion?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html"

It seemed to work for this guy.

What about those who object to the Iraq War because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN—they are essentially objecting to the source of their orders. Under their objections, if it was the UN that was sending them to War, as opposed to their own President, they'd have no problem fighting.

I'd prefer it if this guys went to prison for what he's doing, and while I won't claim (though I think it's certainly possible) that he's doing this for self-serving motives as opposed to sincere belief, it doesn't matter all that much to me. He swore an oath and he's been called to fulfill that oath—but I also think that there should be absolutely no exceptions for any conscientious objectors.

Do your duty or go to prison—though I've often thought a suitable punishment for this sort of offense is permanent revocation of citizenship.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html"

It seemed to work for this guy.

What about those who object to the Iraq War because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN—they are essentially objecting to the source of their orders. Under their objections, if it was the UN that was sending them to War, as opposed to their own President, they'd have no problem fighting.

I'd prefer it if this guys went to prison for what he's doing, and while I won't claim (though I think it's certainly possible) that he's doing this for self-serving motives as opposed to sincere belief, it doesn't matter all that much to me. He swore an oath and he's been called to fulfill that oath—but I also think that there should be absolutely no exceptions for any conscientious objectors.

Do your duty or go to prison—though I've often thought a suitable punishment for this sort of offense is permanent revocation of citizenship.

I understand objection on the grounds of a war, but not who is starting it. When I think of objector I think of vietnam, this is not the same thing at all. Why bring anything else into this when the issue is one of delusion, not conscience.

 

[Choronzon]

I understand objection on the grounds of a war, but not who is starting it. When I think of objector I think of vietnam, this is not the same thing at all. Why bring anything else into this when the issue is one of delusion, not conscience.

The way I see it, both are instances where a person shirks there duty because of personally held beliefs.

A pacifist might think that it is wrong to kill because no one should have the power to take another life, and a birther objects because Obama doesn't. Same thing to me.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The way I see it, both are instances where a person shirks there duty because of personally held beliefs.

A pacifist might think that it is wrong to kill because no one should have the power to take another life, and a birther objects because Obama doesn't. Same thing to me.

One is a valid ideology, the other is a paranoid/racist delusion?

 

[BobG]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html"

It seemed to work for this guy.

What about those who object to the Iraq War because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN—they are essentially objecting to the source of their orders. Under their objections, if it was the UN that was sending them to War, as opposed to their own President, they'd have no problem fighting.

I'd prefer it if this guys went to prison for what he's doing, and while I won't claim (though I think it's certainly possible) that he's doing this for self-serving motives as opposed to sincere belief, it doesn't matter all that much to me. He swore an oath and he's been called to fulfill that oath—but I also think that there should be absolutely no exceptions for any conscientious objectors.

Do your duty or go to prison—though I've often thought a suitable punishment for this sort of offense is permanent revocation of citizenship.

I understand objection on the grounds of a war, but not who is starting it. When I think of objector I think of vietnam, this is not the same thing at all. Why bring anything else into this when the issue is one of delusion, not conscience.

There definitely is a difference between opposing war in general and opposing the decisions of an elected US government - both in society's perception and in how each is treated by the government.

Even life-long members of pacifist religions (Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren) have been drafted to serve in the military. They just get assigned non-combat roles (this same option was offered to and turned down by Watada for his Iraq deployment, even if I personally think it was inappropriate for his particular situation) or assigned some alternative service altogether (Quakers provided relief to civilian war victims in France and Germany in World War I, pretty much staffed the forestry service and worked in mental hospitals during World War II, etc).

The US has a not so long tradition of extending tolerance for a person's moral convictions (much more so during the 20th century on than in America's early history, where being a conscientous objector could mean marching in front of the combat troops with a rifle physically tied to your back - if you won't fight, you can at least cause the enemy to waste some of their bullets on you).

While I may not share their religious beliefs, I've always had a lot of respect for how Quakers balance their religious beliefs and support for their country.

 

[Choronzon]

One is a valid ideology, the other is a paranoid/racist delusion?

They're both nothing more than beliefs chosen by a number of people. There is no reason to believe pacifism is anything more than moral cowardice or an unwillingness to defend one's nation just like there is really no reason to believe that the birther movement is founded on anything more than hatred of Obama or racism.

Bottom line, if one citizen doesn't have to pick up a rifle because he/she doesn't want to kill people, then the next citizen shouldn't have to because he/she doesn't like black people. In my opinion, anyways, which I admit is only worth exactly as much as yours—no more.

 

[Frame Dragger]

They're both nothing more than beliefs chosen by a number of people. There is no reason to believe pacifism is anything more than moral cowardice or an unwillingness to defend one's nation just like there is really no reason to believe that the birther movement is founded on anything more than hatred of Obama or racism.

Bottom line, if one citizen doesn't have to pick up a rifle because he/she doesn't want to kill people, then the next citizen shouldn't have to because he/she doesn't like black people. In my opinion, anyways, which I admit is only worth exactly as much as yours—no more.

You're entitled to your opinion. My response is a shocked expression followed by laughter.

 

[Galteeth]

You're entitled to your opinion. My response is a shocked expression followed by laughter.

While his argument on the face seems absurd, consider the following example. Supposse a particular religion has a rule disallowing its members from serving in any capacity with a person of different race. Why would freedom of religion cover one religously based objection but not another? It does seem the government in a sense, if they allowed one exemption but not another, would be evaluating the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

While his argument on the face seems absurd, consider the following example. Supposse a particular religion has a rule disallowing its members from serving in any capacity with a person of different race. Why would freedom of religion cover one religously based objection but not another? It does seem the government in a sense, if they allowed one exemption but not another, would be evaluating the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

It is not necessarily a matter of evaluating the legitimacy of religious beliefs. One can simply consider the impact on individual rights. There are religions that do not allow their adherents to be in contact with females on certain days or when they are menstruating. It is still not legal to discriminate against women or deny them their rights based on the day of the year or month.

 

[BobG]

While his argument on the face seems absurd, consider the following example. Supposse a particular religion has a rule disallowing its members from serving in any capacity with a person of different race. Why would freedom of religion cover one religously based objection but not another? It does seem the government in a sense, if they allowed one exemption but not another, would be evaluating the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

Yes, the government used to evaluate the legitimacy of religious convictions when it decided whether to assign conscientious objector status. Lifelong members of religions with a long history of pacifism were almost automatically granted conscientious objector status, based on the legitimacy their religion built up over time. That legitimacy was built by the actions of past members demonstrating the beliefs were sincere; not on the beliefs themselves.

That changed some in 1971, with the USSC's ruling in Gillette v United States. Conscientious objector status should be based on the individual's beliefs about war, not what religion he belongs to. Except when a person is only 19, it's a lot harder to demonstrate a personal history of being opposed to war than it is to show membership in a church, so some bias, whether intended or not, is practically unavoidable.

In other words, it was a legitimate concern for the military that many draftees with no prior opinions about war would suddenly find the idea of personally dying in a war to be very objectionable. The military was justified in asking for some objective confirmation that a person was, and had been for some time, opposed to war on moral grounds (and not political grounds).

Gillette v United States is also why Watada had no chance to win his case about deploying to Iraq, since it upheld the government's stance that a person couldn't be a conscientious objector to one particular war. Objecting to a particular war would be objecting on political grounds; not moral convictions about war in general.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Yes, the government used to evaluate the legitimacy of religious convictions when it decided whether to assign conscientious objector status. Lifelong members of religions with a long history of pacifism were almost automatically granted conscientious objector status, based on the legitimacy their religion built up over time. That legitimacy was built by the actions of past members demonstrating the beliefs were sincere; not on the beliefs themselves.

That changed some in 1971, with the USSC's ruling in Gillette v United States. Conscientious objector status should be based on the individual's beliefs about war, not what religion he belongs to. Except when a person is only 19, it's a lot harder to demonstrate a personal history of being opposed to war than it is to show membership in a church, so some bias, whether intended or not, is practically unavoidable.

In other words, it was a legitimate concern for the military that many draftees with no prior opinions about war would suddenly find the idea of personally dying in a war to be very objectionable. The military was justified in asking for some objective confirmation that a person was, and had been for some time, opposed to war on moral grounds (and not political grounds).

Gillette v United States is also why Watada had no chance to win his case about deploying to Iraq, since it upheld the government's stance that a person couldn't be a conscientious objector to one particular war. Objecting to a particular war would be objecting on political grounds; not moral convictions about war in general.

That makes a great deal of sense, a wise legal decision.