by barry 26 Replies latest jw friends
Pacifists prefer others go to to the unpleasant tasks of killing others and being willing to die to protect their "rights"
It's easier to be a pacifist now that many countries have paid volunteer military as a career option than when there was conscription and the threats were much greater.
It should come with the responsibility to be engaged in politics to ensure that foreign policy and trade policy is built on the principle of avoiding conflict at any and all cost.
I am personally getting tired of the adulation poured upon pacifists as though they stand on a higher moral ground. It is immature at least and deadly at its worst.
SDA is a cult and it should come as no surprise to anyone who has escaped one that this man acted the way he did. Cults have an amazing ability to get people to do crazy things.
Saving people's lives is admirable. His stance as a soldier unwilling to carry a gun because of his crazy belief system is not.
All diplomatic options should be fully exhausted before any type of force is considered. However believing and practicing that force is never acceptable is fool hardy.
As a personal fan of Smedley Darlington Butler, a Pennsylvania Quaker who went against his beliefs and parents and became the most decorated United States Marine of his time, and who warned his country about domestic threats of fascism and all the money made from the Great War... I cannot respect this, and I yell at the screen every time this preview comes on.
Saving people's lives is admirable. His stance as a soldier unwilling to carry a gun because of his crazy belief system is not.
I disagree. Putting yourself in harms way to help others is admirable. There's nothing wrong with those who contribute to the war effort, perhaps directly saving lives, if they don't personally believe in killing.
Given the logistics of WW2, I'd be nervous or actually angry to have a guy like Doss in my platoon. Now, today, things are different and there are far more jobs to do in the military, but you still have to go through basic training.
If you are on the ground in Iraq and you don't believe in killing, and you would absolutely not kill a crazy ISIS cultist if he had us pinned down just to show that you believe rightly in God and he doesn't, then I wouldn't want you near me. No, you shouldn't like killing. But if that's your stance, you have other jobs available to you, including not being in the military at all as long as there's no draft or military requirement.
That's why this is infuriating.
Schnell I agree with you. Simon I differ with you on this one. The reason he had the stand he did was due to his cult indoctrination. I admire anyone who puts there life at risk to save others. Soldiers, emergency responders and the like.
A soldier who refuses to carry a weapon is not admirable.
Amor, The Seventh day adventists have had various opinions on weather to partake in war.
In the great war 1914 to 18 many adventists took a non combatant stand against war but also 4000 adventists were disfellowshipped in Europe for not taking up arms which led to the formation of the SDA reform movement a church which still exists today.
In 1972 the official position concerning military service states .
'The church provides pastoral support to those who conscientiously believe they must defend and protect others as well as those who believe force should never be used and thus cannot serve in the armed forces. These issues are deeply personal and merit much thought.
The SDAs have also been well represented as chaplains in the military in the USA head of chaplains corps Rear Admiral Barry Black served for many years. In 1992 44 SDA chaplains were serving and most chaplains don't carry guns.
In 1991 8000 Adventists were serving in the US forces and 2000 participated in the gulf war.
Much to the regret of anti war Adventists soldiers have come back to welcoming applause in adventist worship services and patriotic accolades in the church publications.
I'm not sure Desmonds exact thoughts we are all influenced by others by churches and by our own experiences in life. The movie about Desmonds heroism gives some indications of his thoughts about non violence but I will not spoil the movie for you all just go to see it but be warned it's not a movie for the whole family.
It should come with the responsibility to be engaged in politics to ensure that foreign policy and trade policy is built on the principle of avoiding conflict at any and all cost.
I have to agree with you 100% on this one Simon Hacksaw Ridge is an anti war movie. Since we are talking about the role of churches. Churches should be at the forefront in avoiding the sin of war.
I live in Australia , born in 1939 ,if all Christian religions in my country refused to go to war in the year of 1939 I hate to think of what life would be like now People think of the Japanese as they are now
I remmber the Japanese as they were during the war years,
And the same can be said of the germans with Nazis in control
I hate to think what the world especially Australia would be like if we were all here pacifists.
For Christians the Bible in Rom .12 authorises the powers that be Govts,Police ,law enforcements to render judgement and executioner for those who go against the authority of the existent Govt and sanctioned by God.
While I can admire the heroic events of this one soldier in doing what he did , in his circumstances I would be appalled if the whole country took the same stand and allowing an invading force to do what they liked with this country.
Is that a contradiction ? its just my observation at this time.
During World War I, the "brethren" allowed themselves to be drafted but were expected to refuse to bear arms. The Army sent them into combat anyway, and I would imagine that at least some did as the protagonist in this movie did, and tried to do what they could to save lives. I don't know for sure whether the Society "allowed" their people to do non-combatant work for the military or not.
During World War II, JW's who weren't granted conscientious objector or 4D (Minister) status were expected to refuse induction and accept whatever sentence was handed down. JW's were not allowed to directly support the war effort in any way. I don't recall ever hearing that "alternative service" was offered as an option at that time.
At first during Vietnam, JW's who weren't grant conscientious objector or 4D (Minister) status were again expected to refuse induction and accept whatever sentence was handed down. At some point in the 60's, "alternative service," such as working at a hospital, began to be offered to such men as an alternative to prison. For a while, young JW men were told by their elders to refuse any such offers and not to even hint that they would be willing to perform such service in lieu of going to prison. Only if actually sentenced to alternative service could a young man accept the assignment and stay in good standing with the congregation. There could be no plea bargain or "deal" beforehand. On top of that, the young men were warned to never say that the elders told them to take this stand. They had to say it was their own position and that no one had influenced their decision in any way.
In the late 60's and early 70's, when the Vietnam war began winding down, the Society quietly softened this stance and the young men were allowed to actually seek out such alternative service. No apology was ever offered to those who went to prison unnecessarily. In fact, the blanking Society had the gall to print an article practically chastising those who dared feel that they had suffered needlessly due to the whims of Society policy.
I am not aware of any support offered by the Society or any efforts at all being made to mitigate the suffering of these men or their families who sacrificed so much for the Truth™.
