Priests/believers in the army?

[Tormod]

i don't really understand the 'pacifist' mindset, although i do find it fascinating that some seem so ready to fight for their right to be pacifists... funny, that one.

 

Funny? Well, sorry. I hope it was intended as a joke. It is a serious matter to some of us.

 

There are probably as many "pacifist mindsets" as there are pacifists. There are of course many reasons to be a pacifist, some rational, some not so rational, some better grounded than others (like with everything else in this world).

 

For me it is obivously not a religious choice. It is a conviction based on experience. No, I did not join the army, although I was drafted (well, everyone here is) and I tried to get into the transport division because of my (at times rather serious) asthma and a back problem. I was fully prepared to join the army and did not have any pacifist convictions back then.

 

It took about 5 years before they wanted me in, at which time I had finished my studies in the US and had seen how the first Gulf War had played out. I think that was half the reason.

 

The other half is probably related to two things. One, I had a friend whose brother blew his head off in the army, back when I was about 15-16. It was a suicide. I don't want to go into details but it was a rough time, and it did shake my confidence in weapons. This is hardly rational but it is a personal issue which keeps popping up for me.

 

Second, I guess I grew up. I have kids. I read books, follow debates, read news, watch the wars on CNN. I have decided that I do not want to be a part of a war machine, no matter how "nice" it is or how much it supports humanity. I lack the experience and I also dislike weapons. I gravely dislike the way any war inflicts suffering and pain to innocent human beings (and animals, for that sake). I do not think the solution to war is more war. I do however support peace keeping missions because I do believe they can save lives. I want these to be a global effort, not a US effort, for reasons which I hope are obvious. I also want to teach my kids that one does not have to take up arms in order to be a political opponent or dissident.

 

At the end of the day, being a pacifist is for me not about "fighting". Of course I would fight for my country if I were called. But there are many ways to fight. It's with pacifism as with any other conviction - I do not expect everyone else to understand it nor "convert" to it, but I expect that my conviction be accepted.

[Tormod]

one question though... aren't the guards for the Pope from your country? (off-topic, i know, but i've always wondered about THAT one, probably as you have wondered about priests in the army.)

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/swiss_guard/swissguard/storia_en.htm

[Tormod]

i'd be perfectly willing to personally kill someone, or impersonally kill a lot of people, at the slightest hint that they would cause her (Irish's daughter) pain... that sounds kinda psycho, doesn't it?

 

(part in italics added by me)

 

Well, assuming the word "pain" above has some quantification (would you kill a school boy who threw a rock at her?) I understand what you're saying. Yet such an action would go against everything you seem to stand for in your life (no, I don't know EVERYTHING, admittedly).

 

I have the same feeling, although I wouldn't go so far as to kill - although in self defense, who knows what may happen.

 

In practice, though, this should never happen. When someone's children are hurt, kidnapped, maimed, or killed - we don't retaliate in that way. We may WANT to, but that is why there are laws. Some countries still practise the "eye for an eye" concept which is horribly uncivilized.

 

What if you ended up killing the wrong person? Or maiming him? You'd be as guilty as the offender.

[J.L. des Alpins]

 

“Nobody in uniform is dying for me to be able to say that, remember humanity is not by definition bad. Is there anyone dying now for me? Tell me who?”

 

“[…] if the general well-being raises to acceptable levels, then wars will automatically decrease.”

 

“The only case in which I've got problems to respect a choice when I know the person did a choice just because of group pressure, but not because he really thinks.”

 

“This priest supports people, he actually helps all this people witnessing (and making) horrors, therefore he helps people doing that what he is supposed to preach against, which is hypocrite.”

 

“[…] I don't condemn you for killing people, but I say you are responsible for it because instead of doing something against you did something in favor; therefore I'm as welll responsible as I did nothing against.”

Sanctus, the tone of some of your posts tends to dissolve your idealistic opinions into solipsism. History has shown repeatedly that systems of beliefs pushed to the extreme are detrimental to the holders of such beliefs and most often harmful others around.

[RiverRat]

I will allude to a conversation I had with a WWII vet that witnessed what he claimed was a soothing spiritual presence among the chaos of war. This gentleman was on a ship that was sunk in the Pacific. He had the unenviable experience of consoling a fellow sailor that was mortally wounded by Japanese aircraft gunfire.

 

The fellow sailor was clinging to life and passing in and out of a state of conscience. Towards the end, the burly man began to speak in a ‘baby-like’ tone and was calling out for his ‘mommy’. He struggled for a bit (as if trying to stay in the physical world). He became calm and what then seemed to be an overwhelming peace encompassed him. He expired shortly thereafter.

 

I suppose this experience could be contributed to neural breakdown brought on by extreme trauma (dying experience). However, the tone of our conversation left the impression with me that this was the norm rather than the exception.

 

I would say (for the believers) that a lack of spiritual guidance (mass, communion, confession… etc) up to the point of expiration would leave one empty and more confused. Thus …. It would seem logical for Priests to be present in this environment. Priests would enable the soldier to reconcile the moral conflict of war and offer forgiveness.

[Freethinker]

I wonder if it is inevitable that this thread will turn into a thread about war, not the religious aspects of it.

Perhaps, if I had not found a few minutes to jump in! :-)

[Freethinker]

Oh, ok. sure. You are right... I can think of... oh wait, I guess I'm really tired right now or something... Can you tell me which WAR, or conflict, or whatever, that the Europeans have been involved in that have not been based on religion in any form?

LOL! I would love to take the time and go back thru the threads to find the times I have posted how religion is responsible for all the wars and you tried to state otherwise. Funny how which ever side is convenient at the time is the one you post.

[Freethinker]

and there are people in uniform that die every single day to defend your right to think and say that.

Maybe if people were less willing to kill (and die) for some religious ideological superstition the "right to think..." would not have to be defended with more violence and killing.

[infamous]

Maybe if people were less willing to kill (and die) for some religious ideological superstition the "right to think..." would not have to be defended with more violence and killing.

 

What "right to think" have the Iraqi's had for the last several hundred years?

[IrishEyes]

LOL! I would love to take the time and go back thru the threads to find the times I have posted how religion is responsible for all the wars and you tried to state otherwise. Funny how which ever side is convenient at the time is the one you post.

Actually, I DID go back through many of your posts. That is why I felt very confident making the statement that I did to the people it was made to. Regardless of how *I* feel about the responsibility of religion on different world conflicts, YOU have stated, categorically at times, that it was in fact the cause. As *I* have been told by many here that I was wrong and you were right, or at least not to dispute you on that point as I would be 'proven' wrong, I figured, what the hell, if you can say it to me, why can't I say it to others?

 

This is, after all, a perfect example of intellectual evolution, is it not?

 

Oh, and welcome back, by the way. I've missed you! Hope all is well in your world...

[Freethinker]

Without knowing much about war, it is easy to desensitize oneself, and view it as the 'evil' enemy, who wants to harm us, and the 'good' americans, who are defending us.

Especially with the "Onward Christian Soldier" and "Praise the Lord, pass the ammunition" mentality which drives these wars and is the topic under discussion.

 

Bush specifcally labled his current International War Crime efforts as a Crusade. Vietnam and WWII (against Hitler) were both claimed to be wars against the "Godless". Both WWI and WWII were started in the Crotia, Bosnia, Serbia region based on a religious war (Catholics killing Orthodox killing Muslem killing...) that has gone on for over 1,500 years.

 

And the religious authorities are ready and willing to jump to the front of the PR line to entice the willing sheep to slaughter for their god.

[RiverRat]

Even without ... "some religious ideological superstition " there would still be violence and killing. This has been the human experience since the beginning. Up until the point where the human experience is 'deprogrammed' this will be a fact of life.

 

Priests in the military (which is the catalyst of the topic) does not inherently cross over a moral line. I suppose it would IF the Priest picked up arms and used it to conflict with his/her personal beliefs.

[infamous]

Even without ... "some religious ideological superstition " there would still be violence and killing. This has been the human experience since the beginning. Up until the point where the human experience is 'deprogrammed' this will be a fact of life.

 

Priests in the military (which is the catalyst of the topic) does not inherently cross over a moral line. I suppose it would IF the Priest picked up arms and used it to conflict with his/her personal beliefs.

 

I agree RiverRat; God or no God, humanity will still invent all the justification they need to continue killing one another. History continues to repeat itself, the more things change, the more they remain the same!!

[Fishteacher73]

What "right to think" have the Iraqi's had for the last several hundred years?

I guess they have taken the advice of the "warring" types and decided that much of their "right to think" needs a bullet to make its point. Terrorism is just an aspect of a war. War has evolved. In 1776 it was paramount to terrorism to hide behind rocks and trees and ambush the brightly dressed "soldiers". This stategy allowed the colonial forces to defeat the much more "sophisticated" British army. Now that is what is done in combat, but to fiegn injury, bomb non-military targets, and infiltrate through subversion is considered wrong. What we need to understand is killing is wrong. There is no honorable way to committ murder. We keep deciding that there are new ways for combat; what was once a "wrong" way to kill someone is now acceptable.

Even the argument of self defense is weak. There are non-leathal methods to defend yourself. I can not see a situation that mandates that one kill another person, even for self preservation.

[infamous]

I can not see a situation that mandates that one kill another person, even for self preservation.

 

Very noble fishteacher73; I will grant you the right to change your mind if you find yourself in such circumstances. Self preservation is one of the strongest and most dominant traits we humans share. I just wish that all of humanity could honestly repeat those words.

[Freethinker]

I'll just have to speak for myself on this one Tormod. It is not necessary for America to go to war in the name of God, he is quite capable of handling that issue for himself.

Depends on which part of the BuyBull you decide to accept and which you decide to reject.

 

Yes in many parts it's god just kills randomly what ever it decides to slaughter at any one time! Like the 42 kids it had bears rip to shreds because they called a guy "bald". Or to help the Isrealites win battles for it, "My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out." (Exodus 23:23 NAB)

 

Yet in other parts, this entity forces it's supposed creation, us, to do it's immoral attrocities. "(Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

 

Talk about a monster, How could anyone want such a monster as their god? I would not even want "him" as a neighbor!

 

We will all be witness to this when Christ returns for the church, Thank you.

Hahaha, in order to "RETURN" he would have actually have existed the first time You have yet to provide ANY facts to make us swallow such nonsense.

[RiverRat]

Very noble fishteacher73; I just wish that all of humanity could honestly repeat those words.

 

How does the saying go ... "wish in one hand and s#!t in the other ..." ;)

 

Nature and Nurture combined ... it would take an apocolyptic (sp) event for that to happen. ;)