How does the concept of an army fit into Christian life?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
It may seem as a silly question; but I find the very structure of an army seems to go against christianity. Soldiers are expected to carry out acts that have grave moral consequences without question. Yet we know that in the final judgment, everyone must defend his/her own actions. One cannot claim he was simply following orders. So how does a christian function as a "good soldier"?
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003
Angelo:There's nothing about simply being in the mailtary that runs contrary to Christianity in any way.
-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 28, 2003.
if you are in charge/ involved with some nuclear capability that would almost definitely involve the deaths of many many people, surely there is.this is just one example.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 28, 2003.
Jake thanks for your confident reply however without knowing you and the authority from which you speak I'm afraid it just doesn't help.Ian, I'm not sure you can try to define the conditions under which a soldier's task puts him in moral dilemas. Any soldier can be asked to follow orders he may not think moral, and we know what the price of avoiding conscription is; ask Mohammed Ali.
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.
Believe or not, the structure of an Army is pretty much an analogy that makes up something of how I personally I perceive the Church militant.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.
Angelonuclear deterrence. if it is not just a bluff,.....
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 28, 2003.
The parable of the Good Samaritan, and several other scriptures demonstrates the moral necessity of coming to the aid of those who are in need. Of course, in that story the Samaritan came upon the man after the fact. The man had already been beaten up and left for dead, and the Samaritan only had to care for his medical needs. However, suppose the Samaritan had arrived on the scene a bit earlier, WHILE the man was being beaten up. Would he be morally justified in just turning his head and riding on by? Or taking another route and letting the man be mugged or killed? Defending the innocent against injustice and aggression is an important principle of Christianity. Sometimes the injustice is such that it can be addressed through legislative or other peaceful means. Other times the injustice is physical, and can be effectively addressed only through physical means. Having an army for the purpose of suppressing the rights of people is not morally defensible. Having an army for the purpose of unjust agression against other nations is likewise indefensible. But having an army as a deterrent to unjust aggression, and when necessary as a means of actively defending people against unjust agression, is completely defensible morally.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 28, 2003.
PS AngeloMahummad Ali -- aka Cassius Clay -- i cannot personally vouch for the real reason that this muslim decided not to go to war; nor can i vouch for the associated muslim "teaching".
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 28, 2003.
Paul, the just-war theory is not the same as self defence or defenc of anyone else for that matter, and war today is just not the same as in St. Augustine time. The main diference as I see it is in the not only inevitable, but calculated loss of inocent lives and the unacceptable practice of arbitarily deciding how many innocent lives it is acceptable to lose.The good Samaritian indeed would have ran to the defence of his neighbour had he been there earlier, but he would not, I think, shot a few passers by in the process like Rambo.
Emerald, the church millitant is structured on the army just as the early christians were in fact communist in their social structure. but the difference is that the church millitant has the assurance that it is under infallible leadership.
God bless
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.
For me, it would be a matter of kill or be killed. If I am in a battle for the defense of good over evil, my actions will be in the preservation of goodness and myself. If the bad guy shoots first, there isn't any choice but to preserve what is good--me. My country orders our soldiers to defend our freedoms (and theirs) from the evil oppressors. It doesn't tell us to go pick a fight for no reason.rod. .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.
Angelo,John the Baptist didn't tell the soldiers to leave the army, he told them to be content with their pay, not extort money or falsely accuse people. Clearly being a soldier in itself is not inherently evil.
Actually, if you look at the recent U.S.-Brittain/Iraq war, you'll see very few civilians died in comparison to prior (recent) wars, and much less than most wars period. I don't think that a Christian has to avoid military service any more than avoid being a policeman. These people don't have *criminal or immoral intent*, they are acting to preserve society.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 28, 2003.
I think I'd better spell out the dilema as I see it.(1)A soldier must give up his ability to choose his actions even when he thinks they are wrong morally. (2) He cannot defend these actions before God by resorting to the "following orders" routine. (3)Whether the orders are defensible or not from a millitary standpoint or from the "common good" argument is beside the point. The soldier is expected to act against his conscience or face serious penalties. (4) How therefore can a christian who is bound to inform his conscience and act in accordance with it, join such a group? And don't tell me a lot of soldiers did not have problems with the Iraq war.
Rod; self preservation is not the ultimate defence. What if someone threatens to kill you or your entire family if you don't kill some nondiscript stranger or to make it "easier" what if the ulimatum was to have an abortion or be killed. What would you do? What is the catholic stand?
Also lets be very careful of calling our enemy evil simply because he is our enemy, he may be your enemy because he thinks you are evil.
Frank; let us not get into the numbers game. One civillian death that could reasonably have been foreseen is wrong.
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.
Angelo,To clarify the first part of my post. When *soldiers* asked John what to do for salvation, he did NOT tell them to leave the army, but to perform their service honorably! Why would he do that if being in the army was inherently evil? By saying (basically) "Christians can't morally be in the army" to me you are saying that John gave mistaken advice to the soldiers that came to him, do you believe that to be true?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 28, 2003.
Frank; yes, John the baptist did not condemn the soldier neither for that matter did Jesus when he healed the soldier's child. In fact Jesus not once condemned the Roman authority in fact he said "give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, and to God what is God's" Does this mean that Jesus was in agreement with the way the Romans ran things? No, both Jesus and John were concerned with the salvation of souls rather than social structures per se and that is what is reported.But what do you think John menat by carrying out your duty "HONERABLY" do you think he considered it OK for a soldier to drop a bomb (no matter how smart), on a city knowing that civilians would be hurt? Forget the numbers, I say. Do you really think either John or Jesus would accept a few deaths as OK? War is not the same, you no longer fight persons there are just "strageic targets" and "Command and control centres" and of course, "collateral damage" euphemisms that hide the reality. God Bless
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.
Angelo,Even in Jesus' time war wasn't pretty. People were hacked to death with sharp objects, beaten to death with blunt objects, burned to death, etc. I bring this up because you didn't really answer my question: Do you believe that when John told the soldier one thing (that the soldier should do his job) he really meant another (that it was morally wrong to be a soldier at all)? I think he meant what he said. If you don't, can you explain why he wouldn't have *told the truth* to the people he was preaching to? (and if you think Jesus was *overlooking* the same, are you implying that He was doing something wrong?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 28, 2003.
You wrote-"Rod; self preservation is not the ultimate defence. What if someone threatens to kill you or your entire family if you don't kill some nondiscript stranger or to make it "easier" what if the ulimatum was to have an abortion or be killed. What would you do? What is the catholic stand? "
1. I would identify the real enemy. In this case, the one giving the ultimatum.
2. If the circumstances allow, I would destroy the enemy.
3. If I am someone else's enemy because they consider me evil, I shall destroy them before they destroy me. It is that simple.
4. If they wish to destroy me for any reason, I shall destroy them before they destroy me.
5. I have no desire to kill, unless my enemy gives me no options but to self-preserve myself and family.
6. Anyone who desires to destroy me is evil.
7. Anyone who desires to destroy a true believer and follower of God's will is evil.
8. Anyone who desires to destroy an innocent life is evil and must be destroyed either in mental attitude or physical prejudice.
9. Good and Evil are simple truths. You are either one or the other within certain degrees. Hopefully, we are more Good than Evil.
10. Hussein is/was Evil. I believe he called himself "Nebuchadezzar". He considers(ed) himself the Babylonian King. Most Catholics reject the notion that the Iraqi War is NOT a Holy War. Read your Bible.
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.
Sorry!Most Catholics DO NOT reject the notion that the Iraqi War is NOT a Holy War. They don't consider it a HOLY WAR. I do.
rod .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.
Frank, let me answer you as straight as I can. John was not misleading the people in the text to which you refer. He honestly felt it was possible to be a soldier and not go against the morality he held. And he was able to hold that view because even though war at thaat time was, as you say, not pretty, it still did not entail the calculated killing of non-combattants.My original question had the soldier of today in mind not the one of John's days. As civilizations mature, so does our morality. But it is a growth, not a metamorphesis. What was wrong then is still wrong today but things that were acceptable then is not accceptable today. It is like saying that "to whom much is given, much is asked".
Modern warfare cannot use the morals of old to justify itself. I am not saying that all soldiers are bad. Heaven forbid, my own patron saint war a soldier. Why would a christian want to give up the freedom to act according to his conscience?
We all seem convinced of the need for an army, but why? What would happpen if USA were to disarm itself and use a fraction of the money saved to alleviate some of the suffering and poverty in the world. Maybe a madman like Saddam would attack us and murder us all. The one certain thing in life is death, what matters is how we live life. Is our faith so weak that we believe that this church which God promised he would protect would suddenly be wiped out by an evil tyrant. If that's what we really believe let us say so and not try to justify our own wrong deeds designed to hold on to every last thread of life and every penny. Why not for once set the example and give up the arms and trust to God. Maybe Saddam will convert. Who Knows.
Bless you.
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.
Hussein convert?The U.S.A. surrender their defenses?
Be comfortable knowing that our soldiers have put their lives on the line so that we can still worship in freedom. Let's not forget those who've sacrificed their lives for us. It wasn't the tanks and bombs and bullets that secured our freedom. It seems easy for the Church to make their defense against the war while our soldiers spill their blood. It was the soldiers who believe in God and Family and Freedom.
ro
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.
Angelo,I appreciate your concern about this issue, but disagree as to the changing nature of war. Ghengis Khan would take the people he captured in one town and march them ahead of his army as a human shield at the next town (killing innocents to protect his soldiers), Vikings called one of their chieftans "the children's man" because he would NOT kill children on raids. Even in Genesis after Dinah was raped we are told how *every man* in Hamor's town was killed. Were all the men in town guilty?
My point is that there hasn't been some sudden change in deaths of innocents during war. It is on T.V. more often now, and so in our consciousness, but has always occured. Actually, I think much MORE of an effort has been taken in the most recent war to spare innocent life than probably has ever been done before. That being the case, a soldier in today's army should have LESS objection to serving than one in John's time. So if John (and Jesus!) didn't mind then, I don't think we should now (of course, I have no objection at all to *oversight* of the army to make sure their goals are accomplished as humanely as possible).
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 29, 2003.
The early Church was not communist because they believed in private property and God! Look at Acts. People sold what they OWNED and shared with the community. In the story of Ananias and Saphira we see that they were free to own their home and free to sell it... offerings for the community were free donations.The Church is militant in a different way than "military". You have to understand that words sometimes have analogous meanings. The ideal Christian community is not an army but neither is it absolutely different from an army either.
In the whole war/peace issue we continually have to be clear with our terminology and analogies. Self defense is not exactly the same thing as police actions, or warfare. But it's not wholly different either.
In an ideal world and within an authentically Catholic culture there would be no warfare and if force was necessary (given human nature) it would only be police force to handle the 1% who are depraved or sick while the 99% would "police" themselves through virtue and forebearance.
But unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a nation and hemisphere and world were many children are raised without virtues and noble ideals - where people are slaves to their passions and blind urges, where young college kids are taught to hate the West, hate Christianity and hate those who tell them about absolute truths... with so much hatred and personal vice war is inevitable and you're not going to wish it away with diplomacy, unfortunately.
Sometimes evil men must be stopped. How do you propose we do this?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.
Rod, it is obvious that you care for this life more than anything else, and that's your choice, but it just isn't the catholic war as I see it."Every body wants to go to heaven but no body wants to die".
So the choice is clear, you can try to save this life at all cost and lose it, or be willing to lose this life following Jesus and find it.
Make your choice Rod.
Frank, our standards must not be Gengis Khan's standards nor Saddam's. We must not knowingly kill innocent persons, and since the nature of war today makes it immpossible not to (even smart bombs, as we saw, do kill non-combatants), war today is different. Gengis Khan need not have killed the civillians, but one cannot engage in war today without knowing quite surely that civillians will die because of one's actions.
God bless.
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.
Angelo,our standards must not be Gengis Khan's standards nor Saddam's
Of course not! But to say you'll NEVER act because you're afraid that an innocent person MIGHT die is an invitation for evil people to plant schools on top of munitions plants and other military resources in residential areas. Throughout history even to today there have been no shortage of people willing to torture their own people, let alone others, are we to let them continue their evil unchecked? No, better to stop them, and to do so as humanely as possible.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 29, 2003.
Joe, please don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by your incomplete quotations of scripture, or try to distort God's word for your own purposes.Acts 2:44 says "All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all as any had need".
You site this as meaning they were allowed to own private property! What a distortion. Sure they owned property BEFORE they joined the believers but on joining they sold it all and gave it to the appostles to distribute. Read a little further on and it is even more clear.
Acts4:32 and following. "Now the whole grooup of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and NO ONE CLAIMED PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF ANY POSSESSIONS, BUT EVERYTHING WAS HELD IN COMMON.
I am afraid Ananias and Sapphira were like so many of us wanting to be a part of the faith but unwilling to go all the way and give up all for Jesus. And that unfortunately was their downfall.
Please be at least honest with yourself.
God Bless
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.
Frank, yes, the world has always had evil men, and probably always will, but the devil does not only show himself in "evil men" the most insiduous sins are the ones we commit daily and justify them because we are so attached to them. The seven deadly sins are all sins of our disposition as opposed to sins like murder that glare at us. Lust, arvarice, anger, gluttony, pride, they are the most deadly and the most difficult to see in ourselves. And the devil is happy when we justify them in our selfrightousness because he knows the only way we can beat him is to stand back from ourselves and remember our etrnal souls rather than convincing ourselves that we are on God's side and our enemy is on satan's. Don't be surprissed that Saddam makes it to heaven before we do.When you talk about stopping the enemy as humanely as possible I am afraid you are again making an assessment of how many civillians it is acceptable to kill for our porpose and I don't think you can make that assessment realistically or morally.
When you ask should we let them continue their evil ends unchecked? I wonder, do you really believe that the individual Iraqi soldiers we killed were themselves evil or is it not likely that they were like our own soldiers, "simply following orders. If so, we have not solved the problem, we have not rooted out the evil, have we? Saddam is still at large, Ben Ladin is still at large. Evil is not destroyed that way, it simply becomes stronger because it seeds in so many others and will come again with double force. the thing is we know this already in oour own lives. We know that violence begets violence in our own society. We also know how effective non-violence and forgiveness is. When the pope was shot, what was his response? What was the effect on the muslim? Has anyone had as great an effect on the status of Blacks as Martin Luther King? Is not Ghandi's non- violence a model? Non-violence always entails more sacrifice on our part, but isn't that what christianity is all about? What would happen if Bush instead of threatening guntalk about "get out of town in 48hrs" were to invite Saddam to some private talks to try to understand him and let him understand us? Why wasn't it tried?
"if there is such a thing as sancity of life, surely it applies to everybody whether they are on our side or not".
"To say that war is the lesser of two evils, is at least to admit that it is evil".
"how do we decide what is mass destruction and what is small or acceptable destruction"?
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.
Angelo, you're such a ridiculous opponent it's almost funny.So now you claim I MISQUOTE SCRIPTURE?
Acts 4:34 "There was no needy person among them, for those who OWNED property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds to the apostles and they would distribute it to each according to need.
Acts 4:36 "Thus Joseph, also named by the apostles Barnabas, (which is translated son of encouragement) a Levite, a Cypriot by birth, sold a piece of property he owned, then brought the money and put it at the feet of the apostles."
Acts chapter 5
"A man named Annias however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife's knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said 'Annanias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? WHILE IT REMAINED UNSOLD DID IT NOT REMAIN YOURS? AND WHEN IT WAS SOLD WAS IT NOT STILL UNDER YOUR CONTROL? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings but to God."
Now then, Angelo, so you see that us Catholics know our Bible....
You have some explaining to do! Communism - as a modern philosophic theory of life includes economic theory and an anthropology which denies original sin and the right of private property.
Acts 5:4 CLEARLY states that the early Christians owned property and continued to own it. They were free to sell whatever they liked and give whatever portion of it to the community that they liked. The capital sin here was fraud and false witness, not private ownership of goods and services!
On another point, Angelo, Jesus Christ clearly taught that people validly owned possessions - He did not fulminate against any rich man in the Gospel who used his possessions for the good of others. Peter owned a boat - it was his. He was willing to give it up to follow Jesus, but it was still his to give up. Communism teaches that nothing is actually owned by anyone. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Jesus also taught that the 10 commandments are still valid for his followers. And Angelo, what is the 7th commandment? Thou shalt not steal. Gee. How can you steal if nothing belongs to anyone? For that matter, how could you "covet" your neighbor's possessions if your neighbor wasn't supposed to HAVE any possessions?
Now, to be sure, communism is an abject failure, but Catholic poverty is not. Religious poverty as lived by millions of Catholics through the centuries has been a force for great good. Nuns who taught in schools at next to no salary made Catholic education possible. Monks who drained swamps, tilled soil, and improved roads and bridges established the infrastructure for European economics...
Volunteerism and almsgiving as well as the material and spiritual works of mercy are all forms of us community of believers helping those in need - but it's not communism!
Jesus ratified the 10 commandments as still valid for Christians in
-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.
Hi Angelo.I don't believe that I ever wrote the following in any post:
"Every body wants to go to heaven but no body wants to die".
I do post the following:
I don't mind dying for a good cause. I don't mind dying if my destination is Heaven. Death is not necessarily a bad thing. But, I'm surely not suicidal.
rod . .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.
actually, angelo, the church has never been communist... thank God. Communism, even in its purist form might work, but is the eventually downfall of human morality and compassion. why am i saying this, you arent going to change your opinion anyway
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnEmail.com), April 29, 2003.
Joe, I am very sorry that I offended you and caused you to view me as an opponent. I hoped to have a discussion like I'm having with Frank. It is not my intention on a forum like this to raise anger (one of the deadly sins). But you continue to miss read scripture. As I pointed out, it is clear that the early christians did not own private property. The fact that they owned before they joined the group is obviously irrelevant. Acts 4:34, 4:36 and 5:4 all point to the ownership before they joined. The point is made to Ananias that he owned property and need not have joined the group if he wanted to hold on to it, but Avts 4:32 is very explicit that "no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common" you may not like it but that's what it says in plain english.Further the Oxford dictionary defines communism as "a social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs". Now that is almost a direct quote of Acts 2:44 to 45. Don't confuse the way communism was implimented with the way it was conceived, just as we should not confuse democracy as it is today with the way Plato conceived it. Again I apologise for being an occasion of sin to you and I shall not be responding to your comments further.
Rod, you miss the point altogether, I have never condoned suicide I do insist that we behave christianly at all times and if that means that we be killed, what better way to go?
God Bless.
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.
Angelo,When you talk about stopping the enemy as humanely as possible I am afraid you are again making an assessment of how many civillians it is acceptable to kill for our porpose and I don't think you can make that assessment realistically or morally.
No, I'm not saying that we should say something like "well, as long as it costs less than 500 lives, we'll stop this evil...". I think we should decide to act based on need, and follow through regardless of cost. However, we should always do so with as little loss of life as possible. In all wars innocents die, but even the church recognizes that "just wars" are sometimes necessary. Therefore it is acceptable to the church to sometimes accept the loss of innocent life if there is a moral reason for doing so.
Don't be surprissed that Saddam makes it to heaven before we do.
Actually Angelo, I'm kind of hoping he does ;-) but that's not very Christian of me...
When you ask should we let them continue their evil ends unchecked? I wonder, do you really believe that the individual Iraqi soldiers we killed were themselves evil or is it not likely that they were like our own soldiers, "simply following orders. If so, we have not solved the problem, we have not rooted out the evil, have we? Saddam is still at large
Saddam isn't a problem without his regime under him, just like Stalin or Hitler wouldn't be a problem without their regimes. The problem is when an evil man is in control of a country. Therefore, we HAVE solved the problem if we have taken him out of power, even if as an individual he's still free. And no, I don't think individual Iraqis are evil, but people in an evil system may act evilly, this too has been shown repeatedly in history.
We know that violence begets violence in our own society. We also know how effective non-violence and forgiveness is. When the pope was shot, what was his response? What was the effect on the muslim? Has anyone had as great an effect on the status of Blacks as Martin Luther King?
Violence does not always beget violence. For example, if someone is trying to kill me, and I kill them first, it doesn't make me want to go kill someone else. I'd also say that Abraham Lincoln had at LEAST as great an effect on the status of blacks as King, and violence had to be used to accomplish it. After all, without the civil war blacks couldn't have rights, they were PROPERTY! Did you forget about the Dredd Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Is not Ghandi's non- violence a model? Non-violence always entails more sacrifice on our part, but isn't that what christianity is all about?
Non-violence works if the times are right for it. OTOH, when the times are NOT right, it results in deaths of innocents, such as inRussian or German atrocities in this century.
Bush instead of threatening guntalk about "get out of town in 48hrs" were to invite Saddam to some private talks to try to understand him and let him understand us? Why wasn't it tried?
Saddam has been talked to for years, but at some point one has to either give up and let him continue doing what he wants or act, right? Isn't a 12+ year time span enough to make the Iraqi people endure his dictatorship while we try to talk to Saddam?
I don't know Angelo, I appreciate your convictions, but don't see much of a middle ground between us. I think sometimes we as people *have* to fight or die. You (I believe) do not. There doesn't seem to be a bridge between these positions.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 29, 2003.
Dear Frank, I agree with you fully. I do not thnk there is a middle ground between our positions.I have enjoyed discussing the issue with you though and even though many people believe that nothing comes of it, I don't agree. You have mede some very good and valid points. One never knows how or what or when one's views changes, so for the part you may have played in increasing my understanding and appreciation of the issue and human nature, I thank you.
God Bless you always.
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.
Hi.I don't like the idea that America is like Hussein's idea of his country. America is not evil. American men and women do not enlist in the armed force in order to conquer the world with terrorism. Hussein's armed forces are actually trained terrorists determined to carryout Hussein's evil deeds. American soldiers are out to preserve freedom and will fight fire with fire, but not terrorism with terrorism. There is a definite difference between us and our enemies.
Regarding Communism in Christianity-
Have a look at Acts 5:4. (NASB) "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.?
It wasn't that the land was under Ananias' ownership, but that he lied about the amount he claimed to have given. This isn't communism. This sounds more like socialism to me.
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.
JmjHello, Angelo.
I must say that I have been almost shocked at things you've been saying here. I got a hint of it from you on one or two other threads, but it is "full-blown" here.You see, you are coming across as some kind of radical pacifist who would advocate the complete disbanding of all military services in our various nations. You also are coming across as some kind of communist or extreme socialist.
Am I reading this correctly? If so, do you consider yourself a Catholic or a member of some other faith? If I understand your positions on the military and government correctly, and if you call yourself a Catholic, I have to tell you that you would not be a "Catholic in good standing," because your positions on these matters are contradicted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Please let me know where you really stand, so that I don't make any unfair statements about you.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.
Is Angelo a Jehovah's Witness, perhaps? I got a spiel from a pair of them once, during which they sounded a lot like this young man.If not, and if you're really a Catholic, Angelo; note your own name is Angel--
God Almighty is known to keep an enormous and powerful army called the Heavenly Host. Saint Michael the Archangel you see, is the greatest soldier in all Creation; (You can't make these things up, Angelo).
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.
To get back to the original question, the answer is simple, very simple.Soldiers in the US Army are taught in Basic Training what a lawful order is and what an unlawful order is, and how to deal with it.
It's later reinforced again and again, including how to handle unlawful orders.
Let's take a look at the most public use of an unlawful orders - the Mai Lai incident during Vietnam. The Platoon Leader ordered his soldiers to fire on a village that was filled with civilians. Many did just that, and were court martialed. This is very commonly known.
What's not advertised is the ten or twelve soldiers that put their rifles on the ground and refused to obey, or the others in a different unit that actually gave covering fire for civilians and evacuated them!
Now, then, disobeying an order isn't something a soldier does lightly. If, in the opinion of a board on later review, the order is seen as lawful, you're in trouble - with charges running all the way up to mutiny.
We're taught to handle what we think is an unlawful order this way:
Textbook example:
Your unit captures a sniper that for days has been killing members of the Platoon. The LT spits, points to you, and says "Get him out of my sight. Take care of him." The Platoon Leader, by his actions and tone, tends to make you think "taking care of him" means execution.
1) Have the order restated in a different way: "Sir, what do you mean by 'take care of him?'" Most unlawful orders get recinded right there - few will overtly say something like "shoot him," but will most often say "Process him, get him out of my sight, get a reciept from the MP's."
2) Restate the order: "Sir, you want me to shoot an EPW?" Because you're bringing it out into the open, and everyone is well aware of the punishments for war crimes (the US Army is one of the few that actively prosecutes it's own in a semi-public way), usually it's recinded.
3) Refuse the order: "Sir, I ain't shooting no EPW's, it's murder." You won't be held up for disobeying the order - quite the opposite. If you obey it, you're a criminal.
The defense of "I was just obeying orders" is not a defense in cases like that...you have to prove there was no way that you could know it was unlawful.
Great pains are taken, and enormous amounts of money are spent trying to reduce civilian casualties by the USA during war. It's incredible that so few civilians died or were wounded in Iraq, especially considering the fact that the enemy willfully placed his forces within civilian populations in the hopes that more would be killed than were.
As far as wondering how you can be Christian and a soldier, that's been answered ad nauseum in other replies above. When Christ tells the Roman Centurian to command his son to heal by using His name it proves that indeed Christ is the Son of God, as the power to heal is coming not from the Father at that point, but from the Son.
-- Frank (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 01, 2003.
Frank,
You garbled the account slightly at the finish. Read it again. It was Christ said go home to the centurion. Your son is healed.Then the soldier said to Jesus; I'm a commander of men, and I know that whatever you commanded is done. I believe that my son lives.
Our Lord then praised the faith of a soldier. It was even greater coming from a Roman, really. --His own countrymen were not that faithful. But the centurion knew he was face to face with Christ the King.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.
I don't suppose the point really is whether I am a Jehovah's witness of a pacifist, but I you must know, my patron saint is St. Martin of Tours. He was the son of a soldier, and is the patron of soldiers. He was forced to join the military but refused to enter battle. He told his superior that if he is to go to the battlefield he would like to be put in front and without any weapons. Miraculously the war was avoided. There have been numerous saints throughout history who you would call pacifist I suppose. The fact is one can justify the most absurd behavior if one really wants and can use the scripture to do so as well, (I've heard that Hittler used it to justify his treatment of the Jews. I know many pro-apatheid persons that use it to justify their views. The catholic faith is full of luminous examples for us to follow and I'm sure I could do worse than following my patron saint.It is really amazing how personal you folks get and the insults and slander you throw at persons you never met and do not know.
God Bless
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), May 01, 2003.
Come on, Angelo,
Just because others can't see it your way is no sign you are being passed over. We actually understand what you mean. And you have a perfect right to your own feelings in the matter. War is not a subject to trivialize. It's a very tragic thing.I truly meant what I was asking about whether or not you were a Jehovah's Witness. Because they actually preach the same thing.
No, it was not meant as slander. If we had intentions of hurting you, or slandering you, the sin would be on us; we would be required to repent & confess it. No way!
Let's just say when God permits it, a war can be waged justly. He is the sole Judge.
You would be very surprised; amazed; at what Gen. George S. Patton believed. Regarding his profession, the waging of total war. Would you be interested in reading a few quotes about this man? God was definitely always on his mind; and he prayed constantly during his campaigns in World War II. He not only believed in God, but went into battle confident God approved, and led him from victory to victory. He knew his cause was just. I'll find the book tomorrow.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.
I see nothing wrong in aiming your weapon at an officer or enlisted man if they order you to do unjustly deeds towards an innocent. The good soldier knows better.rod. .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.
Jmj
Hello, Angelo.In my last message to you, I mentioned that you were leaving me the impression of being a "radical pacifist who would advocate the complete disbanding of all military services in our various nations" and a "kind of communist or extreme socialist" who believe it to be sinful for us to own private property. However, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I asked, "Am I reading this correctly? ... Please let me know where you really stand, so that I don't make any unfair statements about you."
Angelo, in your subsequent message, you became very defensive and only answered one of my questions -- and that one only indirectly -- hinting that you consider yourself a Catholic with St. Martin of Tours as a patron saint. I don't understand why you didn't answer my other questions. Can you help me out here? Let me ask directly ...
1. Do you consider it against God's will -- and thus sinful -- for your nation to have armed services (i.e., a Ministry or Department of Defense)?
2. Do you consider it against God's will -- and thus sinful -- for people to own private property?
I need to speak a bit to you about St. Martin of Tours. As you said, he is one of the patron saints of soldiers -- which (as you should have realized) he would not be if he were a pure pacifist and objector to all combat. He was in military service from age 15 to 20 in the 300s A.D., and he did not do what you described him as having done. I'm afraid that you have stumbled across an inaccurate version of the true story, perhaps put together by someone who chose not to be truthful about Catholic teaching on the military.
You wrote: "He ... refused to enter battle." That is not correct. He could not have remained in the army for five years, if this had been true. He either would have fled or would have been imprisoned or executed. The fact is that he asked to be released from further military service, not because he was a pacifist (which he was not), but because his heart (for many years) had been attached to the thought of monastic life.
You wrote: "He told his superior that if he is to go to the battlefield he would like to be put in front and without any weapons. Miraculously the war was avoided."
To give only this one fact is to mislead the reader about St. Martin's true beliefs and actions. He was ready to go into battle unarmed because someone had called him a coward, not because he rejected all armed conflict.
To get all the available facts about St. Martin (with no myth mixed in), we need to read the available biographical information, as published in the famous "Butler's Lives of the Saints," which draws on what was actually written down by a disciple of St. Martin (St. Sulpicius). You can read the Butler entry here.I hope that you will be willing to answer my questions, Angelo. Thanks.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.
Top-notch again, John
I would like to quote a prayer, written Jan 1, 1944 by Gen. George S. Patton, probably offered his 3rd Army for their spiritual comfort sometime during his drive for the Rhine, after the Battle of the Bulge.God of our fathers,
Who by land and sea has ever led us to victory, please continue your inspiring guidance in this the greatest of our conflicts. Strengthen my soul, that the weakening instinct of self- preservation which besets all in battle, shall not blind me in my duty to my own manhood, to the glory of my calling, and to my responsibility to my fellow soldiers. Grant to our armed forces that disciplined valor and mutual confidence which ensures success in war. Let me not mourn for the men who have died fighting, but rather let me be glad that such heroes have lived. If it be my lot to die, let me do so with courage and honor in a manner which will bring the greatest harm to the enemy, and please, Oh Lord, protect and guard those I shall leave behind. Grant us the victory, Lord.**********************************************************
Patton was a very religious Presbyterian who read the Bible every day. He still accepted this truth, however: That it is un- Christian to remain neutral against evil; and that if ever there was an evil, now it was the Nazi regime, his enemy. He wrote this ''Soldier's Prayer'' therefore; and believed with a soldier's heart in God. ''Those I shall leave behind,'' here in his petition were the men under his command; because he did in fact risk real death on the field. Patton wasn't a general who hung back in the rear; he took the front rank with his soldiers and commanded them forward under all conditions. He lived his calling to the hilt; a loyal American. He never disobeyed an order; and he commanded the instant obedience of all his men. Men who laid down their lives for him; and for us, in this laid-back generation. Hopefully God has pardoned his sins, and granted him rest and peace; in eternal life with His angels and saints. Amen
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.
Forward.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.
John, of course I would answer you. But before I do let me just point out that because somethng is against God's will is need not be sinful. I believe it is "against God's will that we have disease, but disease is not sinful. I think it is against his will that people carry personal weapons, but simply carrying a weapon is not sinful. It is probably even against his will that we cage animals but I don't think they are sinful. So back to your burning questions.Yes I think it is against God's will that a nation should have armed services, because the only possible use for them is to kill others and I don't think that is God's plan. Do you? Whether it is sinful is another question. Can a nation commit a sin? We can argue that if you like, but my feeling is that sin is committed by individuals. Even when God condemns a nation (as he did so often in the OT), it is because of the sins of the people and usually it is saved by the obedience of a few people as well. so while a nation having an army cannot in itself be sinful, it certainly is not the way God intended us to conduct our afairs.
Your second question. Is it sinful to own private property? No, but private property is a tremendous occasion of sin and whoever can should avoid it.
Now about St. Martin. You find it difficult to believe that he never enteret battle yet even today, many of our army personnel never see battle. The account never hints that he entered battle and certainly says that at least for the last two years of his enlistment, he only bore the name of soldier. You make a lot about why he volunteered to go the the frontline, but I ask you does that not show that he had no intention of using any arms? Except of course he intended to kill with his bare hands. You see the point I was making is that the patron of soldiers, would have preferred to use christ as his defence and attack than to trust his own sword and shield. And this was shown again when he was attacked by robbers and refused to defend himself, (and I am sure he would have been trained to fight in the army). You see John Christians must not be bogged down by trying to be realist or practical. Those are usually terms used to disguise our lack of faith. The true christian is not a practical man or a realist. St Peter was totally impractical when he steped out the boat and began to walk on the water. The moment he became practical or realistic he sank.
No, my point is that we, as christians must ourselves trust in God to the point that it seems silly to the world. What would happen if we really disarmed and began to live christian lives? The world will probably be converted in quick time, but we insist in being practical and say "it will never happen". Of course it will never happen because you and I are too coward or too practical to do it.
So again to answer your question. Yes John, I would support the total disarmament of nations begining with USA. Call me impractical, but it just might work.
God Bless
-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.
The true christian is not a practical man or a realist. St Peter was totally impractical when he steped out the boat and began to walk on the water. The moment he became practical or realistic he sank.Amen!
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 03, 2003.
Without application to this particular situation, but as to the general principle...Amen.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 03, 2003.
Jmj
Thanks, Angelo, for answering my questions.I have to tell you, though, that you have not given answers that are in keeping with Catholic doctrine. I don't know if you arrived at so many incorrect conclusions through your own meditations on morality or if you were misled by a very wrong philosopher, theologian, or pastor. I hope that, as a Catholic, you will be humbly willing to accept the Church's teaching when you learn that, until now, you have been thinking and/or speaking contrary to it.
QUOTE (from you, Angelo): ... let me just point out that because something is against God's will it need not be sinful.
COMMENT: You are right, if you are referring to things that are out of any creature's control; such things are not sinful. But you are wrong (as we will see in a moment) if you are referring to things that are within the control of a creature with free will (human or angel). In the latter case, going against God's will is ALWAYS sinful. It appears that you have been taught wrongly about this (or reasoned to this error on your own).
QUOTE: I believe it is against God's will that we have disease, but disease is not sinful.
COMMENT: Correct. Disease is evil, but not sinful, because there is no personal agent involved.
QUOTE: I think it is against his will that people carry personal weapons, but simply carrying a weapon is not sinful.
COMMENT: This is mostly incorrect thinking. The mere "carrying [of] a weapon" (or other inanimate object) is usually morally neutral -- neither good nor bad (and thus OK by God's will). But "carrying a weapon" becomes against God's will if it is a (secularly) illegal act, and if the law making it illegal is a just law. When carrying a weapon is not illegal, then it is not against God's will.
Therefore, when carrying a weapon is legal, it is not sinful ... but when carrying is illegal, it is sinful.QUOTE: It is probably even against his will that we cage animals but I don't think they are sinful.
COMMENT: This too is incorrect thinking. We are speaking of an act of human will here, so the act must be in accord with God's will, or it becomes sinful. So let us consider it ... God has never told us, neither directly nor through his Church, that caging animals is against his will. Therefore, we can know that, in principle, it is not sinful. The Church, however, has told us that it is God's will that animals be treated humanely. Therefore, caging that is not inhumane is permissible. We can know that humane caging is possible, because the Church has never condemned zoos and circuses. [We have to evaluate the morality of past and proposed actions -- based on objective criteria, not subjective ideas, emotions, etc.. The Catechism and other Church documents can help us with this.]
QUOTE: Yes I think it is against God's will that a nation should have armed services, because the only possible use for them is to kill others and I don't think that is God's plan. Do you? Whether it is sinful is another question.
COMMENT: Again, this is incorrect thinking. You have three major errors built into this.
(1) God has never told us, neither directly nor through his Church, that it is against his will for a nation to have armed services.
(2) Next, "to kill others" is not "the only possible use for" the services. That is exactly why, in my last post, I made it a point to refer to "Ministr[ies] or Department[s] of Defense." You must have overlooked that. Armed services exist primarily for self-defense, especially for deterrence, -- i.e., not "to kill others," the exact opposite of what you said.
(3) Finally, because God wills that we defend ourselves (to preserve the good thing that life is), it follows that structured means of self-defense (such as police forces and armed services) are indeed according to "God's plan." [I believe that you will find this confirmed in the Catechism. I trust that you believe what the Catechism teaches, since the pope told us that it is a reliable compendium of doctrine.]QUOTE: Can a nation commit a sin? We can argue that if you like, but my feeling is that sin is committed by individuals. Even when God condemns a nation (as he did so often in the OT), it is because of the sins of the people and usually it is saved by the obedience of a few people as well. So while a nation having an army cannot in itself be sinful, it certainly is not the way God intended us to conduct our afairs.
COMMENT: We are mostly in agreement here, Angelo, I am pleased to say. While it is possible to speak of a sort of corporate or institutional "sin" (says the pope), there is at the root of such things a multitude of personal sins.
You are right to say that God originally intended man to conduct his affairs without armies, but that was his intention prior to the fall of Adam and Eve. With the advent of human sin and the breakdown of society into hostile groups, life without systematic self-defense became impossible. We can tell from divine revelation that God's will then fell in favor of the existence of defensive armed forces (versus the alternative: mass murder). Even the bands of angels, who are said to have warred against satan and his followers, take the form of a spiritual army. We reflect this by being the Church Militant on Earth.QUOTE: Is it sinful to own private property? No, but private property is a tremendous occasion of sin and whoever can should avoid it.
COMMENT: I am relieved to read that you say, with the Church, that owning private property is not sinful. But it is rather misleading to say simply that "private property is a tremendous occasion of sin." The fact is that almost any thing or any person can be an occasion of sin, given the right circumstances. But there are different kinds of occasions of sin, and not all of them must be avoided by us.
There are "proximate" ("near/likely") occasions of sin, and there are "remote" ("distant/unlikely") occasions of sin.
There are "voluntary" (easily avoided) occasions and "involuntary" (unavoidable) occasions.
For the most part, we are required to avoid only those occasions of sin that are proximate and voluntary.
For most people, ordinary private property is not an occasion of sin at all, not even a remote one (much less a proximate/near one). Even when ordinary private property can be called a remote occasion of sin, it would usually be an involuntary one anyway.QUOTE: You find it difficult to believe that [St. Martin of Tours] never entered battle, yet even today, many of our army personnel never see battle. The account never hints that he entered battle and certainly says that at least for the last two years of his enlistment, he only bore the name of soldier.
COMMENT: Come on, Angelo. Admit it. You were shocked to read the Butler's account of St. Martin's life. Being aware of how unsettled life was in his time (with feuds, barbarians, etc.), you know that it is highly unlikely that he served for five years without fighting (or at least being constantly ready to fight). Please be realistic, even if it means eating humble pie! You are trying to make St. Martin into some kind of proof that Christianity has been pacifist and against armed forces, but that is simply false.
QUOTE: You make a lot about why he volunteered to go to the frontline, but I ask you does that not show that he had no intention of using any arms?
COMMENT: Not at all! Read it again. He wanted to leave the army to enter religious life. When he was called a coward, he proved that he was not one. It had nothing to do with pushing pacifism.
QUOTE: You see the point I was making is that the patron of soldiers, would have preferred to use christ as his defence and attack than to trust his own sword and shield.
COMMENT: Under ordinary circumstances, what God wants is for people in the armed forces to trust in Jesus and to prudently get their weapons ready. He does not expect us to check our common sense at the door and allow the forces of evil to mow us down. That would be suicidal -- and thus sinful. St. Martin's was not an ordinary case, because he knew that God was calling him to enter another life, so he knew that he could expect a miracle. [PS: To my surprise, I see that you are from a "British Commonwealth" nation. I noticed your British spelling of "defense" (defence).]
QUOTE: You see, John, Christians must not be bogged down by trying to be realist or practical. Those are usually terms used to disguise our lack of faith. The true christian is not a practical man or a realist.
COMMENT: No offense intended, but that is utter nonsense. God expects Christians to be practical and realistic ... and full of faith and trust in God too. An example of the unrealistic, impractical types are the people who do such things as rejecting operations or blood transfusions for their little kids -- expecting God to work miracles, but then watching the little ones die. You "talk a good game," Angelo, but I'll bet that, in real life, you are quite practical and realistic.
QUOTE: So again to answer your question. Yes, John, I would support the total disarmament of nations begining with U.S.A.. Call me impractical, but it just might work.
COMMENT: Not "impractical," but "foolish." Angelo, as Vatican II reminded us, we have a "universal vocation/call to holiness." Again, that does not mean that we are to check our common sense at the door. We all know perfectly well that, since mankind will always labor under the effects of original sin, "the total disarmament of nations" will be impossible until the day of Christ's Second Coming. I say this even though I, like you, wish that it were otherwise, because I was raised to be non-violent and I have always wanted everyone else to be the same. You are not recommending just "impracticality," but the suicide of the species.
QUOTE: What would happen if we really disarmed and began to live christian lives? The world will probably be converted in quick time, but we insist in being practical and say "it will never happen." Of course it will never happen because you and I are too coward or too practical to do it.
COMMENT: You have things in the wrong order. All of mankind needs to begin "liv[ing] Christian lives" first ... and then begin to disarm. The world would not be "converted in quick time" by disarmament. Rather, the uncivilized, unbaptized hordes who retained arms would almost surely overrun the world, murdering the disarmed people on a grand scale. Actually, much disarmament has taken place since the arrival of Gorbachev, a baptized man -- though much more needs to be done, but never complete disarmament. This has nothing to do with "coward[ice]." It has to do with using the intelligence God gave us.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.
Angelo you aren't looking for a forum to exchange ideas are you? You're looking for a forum to present yours. Whether its a lack of linear thinking or something else, you seem present an idea and when it gets responded to you in turn respond with various other points that are tangent to the original question. That being Christianity vs. Military Service or something resembling that. I just wish you'd stick to the subject and if you feel the need to branch out, at least finish the first point. John you've done a very good job at trying to field all of his points, but you either must be getting frustrated at his shotgun-like approach to debate or you must have near infinite patience! At any rate I read the whole thread so it must be pretty interesting. Unfortunately I find the debate is deteriorating into people contributing and then finding the need to defend themselves when Angelo shoots them down. Reminds me of Springer in a way!
-- WasJT (wasjt12@netscape.net), May 06, 2003.
Anglo,I am a Christian (Catholic) and I also used to be a soldier. I served in the Australian Defense Force. During that time I did not consider myself to be in any way ‘evil’ just because I was in the army. However having said that I am glad that I am not still a serving member, not because I feel there is anything inherently wrong with being a soldier but I do think I understand why you might have posed this question.
To explain the reason I am glad to be out of the army and why I might understand the dilemma you feel when looking at how a Christian can be a soldier I’ll give a brief background…
I realize that this explanation comes entirely from my background as an Australian solder and as a Christian man in the light of the most recent war. From within this framework I probably can’t fully answer your question however you might be able to take something from what I have to say… Believe it or not being a soldier gave me a respect for peace and an appreciation for the enormity of what war actually means. A respect that some people do not seem to possess. For many, the Iraqi war appeared to be just another form of entertainment presented on TV. [A few thousand lives here or there and they don't care] I find it so unreal that people don’t understand the line we have now crossed. Australia has had a proud military history. Our army, navy and airforce have served in quite a few conflicts. However there has been one very different, worrying, defining factor in our roles in the conflicts since Sept11 supporting the United States.
Prior to Sept11 we had only 2 justifications for war. 1) Another country declared war on Australia or our allies, or were actively attacking Australia or our allies. 2) Another country (not necessarily our ally was being attacked and had asked for help to defend itself.)
Not only were we a peaceful nation but this was the supposed reasoning behind the way our Defense Force operated. We were only supposed to be equipped to defend against a real threat. (Hence the name, “DEFENCE FORCE”- as in ‘defending’ This was purposely changed from the ‘Australian Military Force’) Obviously there wasn’t a real threat that anyone was worried about or our Defense force wouldn’t have been cutback like it has for the past 30 or 40 years. This lack of threat to Australia is what justified the tiny defense budget and only keeping such a small number of combat ready troops etc. Along with the argument that, apart from some UN peace Keeping forces and the like, Australian troops would only be needed to ‘defend’ our shores. [I realize this is a different scenario to the US where their biggest business is arms.]
Anyway I have no problem with defending, I would have and still will if it comes to it, fight and possibly die defending my family, my home, my friends, my countrymen or my neighbors. However I would not have willingly fought in the war in Iraq because it goes against what I believe to be an honorable thing for a soldier to do. I never thought I would ever say this, but I am ashamed of what our soldiers were asked to do. (Not ashamed of the soldiers themselves !) Here’s why… For Australia the inconceivable has happened and many don’t seem to care… maybe they didn’t notice the enormity of the paradigm shift that has taken place. For the first time in history Australian forces have not been used to defend against aggression. Now we ARE the aggressors! No-one declared war on Australia or it’s allies. No-one has attacked or invaded another country who has asked us to help defend it’s borders? No – this time we have help invade, completely unprovoked. Now we have a new catch phrase, “a pre-emptive strike”. Lets get them before they cause us problems. Only this is not new… That is exactly the reasoning Germany used. They saw potential threats and they moved on them. Back then Australia didn’t agree with Germany’s aggressive philosophy, instead we went to the defense of others who were being invaded and even had to defend our own shores against the Japanese. This time we are siding with the aggressors, we are part of the invasion force… Believe it or not it is very much like siding with Nazi Germany (It might’ve been seen as a good decision if Germany had won – but even then, would it have been the RIGHT thing to do?)
I agree with you about civilian lives, one life is too many and soldiers are people too I personally count their lives as also important, especially if they are the ones trying to protect their homes and family, their country from the aggression of others. I know there are lots of arguments claiming that pre-emptive war is justified but as a Christian I know in my soul that it isn’t. Such aggression against any peoples or countries is never justified it doesn’t matter how many non combatants are killed or not killed, that numbers game is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what excuses the politicians dish out to us or how many honorable sounding phrases they embellish their speeches with., the simple fact remains - to initiate WAR is ALWAYS wrong! War is a last resort, it should always remain the very last option. Just stop and think about that for a minute… ‘war should always be the very last option’. What does that mean? If you get right down to it, it means that you should only go to war if/when you are forced to ‘defend’. This means someone else is already attacking. If you have attacked or initiated the war then it was not the last option. No amount of propaganda can change that fact.
The mere act of ‘pre-emptive strikes’ or ‘aggressive war’ is in itself a war crime. So what of the soldiers who go to invade another sovereign nation. The ones acting under orders? Well, each man must live with himself. I believe most of the soldiers in Iraq would have tried their utmost to act honorably within the confines of their mission or what they knew to be their mission (even if the mission’s credibility is under serious doubt) I realize this can become an impossible situation for the soldier. Yes there is a dilemma, even if a soldier’s personal actions were not evil, the overall collective action is evil. He/she is caught up in it, usually it is unwittingly as most soldiers (even high ranking ones) are fed a whole lot of bull, they literally have no-idea of the true circumstances surrounding their orders… I used to trust that we where a country based on Christian beliefs and that if we entered a conflict it would be for the right reason – to defend. That illusion has certainly been shattered. If a soldier cannot trust that he/she will only be called upon to ‘defend’ then yes I agree with you. The concept of an army from a Christian viewpoint is a frightening thing indeed when we know that the army being raised is very likely to be used to destroy life rather than to defend it.
Col
-- Col (ceg@winningteam.com), May 16, 2003.
Dear Col
With due respect, I have you all wrong. Your sensitivity is misplaced.I realise the subject of Iraq vs. the coalition is clouded on account of its sovereignty (perceived or real.) Outside forces attacked and made short work of a despotic regime, and you can't reconcile that with Christian ethics. Yet, what you maintain was unjustified was justified; and even the UN Security Council (1441) called the eventual war legal and justified. By an unanimous vote.
The reason why is that our country was attacked by a terrorist organisation. Al Qaeda is not some mythical, nonentity operating out of the blue. We were attacked on September 11th 2001 by people who came by way of Iraq & even other countries in the middle East. The bases where terrorism was organised, trained, supplied and financed are not in Australia or America. They are just where Australians and Americans retaliated. If you wish to dispute this statement, let's do that.
But please have the respect for our people anyone would term as elementary. You've entered our forum with a withering blast at the conduct and justice of our effort; condemning the war as unnecessary, disastrous, and evil.
That is a perverted view of the events. You take no notice of who is defeated; a monstruous evil. Apparently, that costs you no introspection at all. You sustain an attitude of passivity when an enemy gathers strength in some imagined ''untouchable'' and sacrosant regime. One above us, and above sanctions altogether. This would be like condemning the Israelites, as David ''attacked'' Goliath. And, make no mistake. Even though Iraq is no Goliath; indeed our coalition forces are the giant, terrorist forces number in the millions of sympathizers and potential recruits.
A victory such as was perceived by these enemies, parading and celebrating all over the Islamic world when our Trade Center towers were destroyed, -- a victory of this magnitude has now been rendered null & void to them. They celebrated too soon. And you, Sir, are coming to their aid and comfort. Let's take off the blinders, Col. Pray, be watchful; and meditate on what true Christian fortitude is.
Fortitude is a Christian virtue, a gift of the Holy Spirit. It reacts with courage and resistance toward all evil. That is what you ought to see in Australian and American (coalition) forces united. Not an imaginary Christian obligation to vicious enemies.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 16, 2003.