Draft Dodging morality

[godisgood77]

Ok, so if you were drafted into military service and you knew that the war you were going to be shipped off to fight would be an unjust war. Would it be better to go fighting possibly killing innocent civilians or running away and possibly never see your loved ones or homeland ever again.
Also here are the precedent of just war:

1. 
   *]First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, “in the nation’s interest” is not just) or as an exercise of power.
   *]Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.
   *]Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence

1. 
   I would not go… period… nor would my son if I had anything to do with it. I can not think of a reason to justify war.

 

[JimG]

I would not go… period… nor would my son if I had anything to do with it. I can not think of a reason to justify war.

Not one reason to justify war? Is there ever a reason then, to justify a peackeeping force?

If I recall correctly, the U.N. once sent a peacekeeping force to an African nation to prevent genocide and keep the peace, headed by a Canadian Colonel. Yet, when genocide was imminent, the Colonel requested permission to act, to intervene, and he was denied! He was told to stand down and step aside, even though he and his force were there precisely to prevent what was about to occur. The U.N. decided that it didn’t want to take sides. The Colonel, furious, stood by. Genocide proceeded.

Seems like there was a good reason for military action there, in other words, war. Failure to act meant people died.

That’s been the case in other places as well, Cambodia, for example, with the Khmer Rouge.

I sometimes wonder whether if the U.S. or any European nation were directly attacked now, if anyone would step up to defend their nation.

 

[godisgood77]

Not one reason to justify war? Is there ever a reason then, to justify a peackeeping force?

If I recall correctly, the U.N. once sent a peacekeeping force to an African nation to prevent genocide and keep the peace, headed by a Canadian Colonel. Yet, when genocide was imminent, the Colonel requested permission to act, to intervene, and he was denied! He was told to stand down and step aside, even though he and his force were there precisely to prevent what was about to occur. The U.N. decided that it didn’t want to take sides. The Colonel, furious, stood by. Genocide proceeded.

Seems like there was a good reason for military action there, in other words, war. Failure to act meant people died.

That’s been the case in other places as well, Cambodia, for example, with the Khmer Rouge.

I sometimes wonder whether if the U.S. or any European nation were directly attacked now, if anyone would step up to defend their nation.

It’s a good question… what do you think Christ would have done in any of those scenarios that you site? You say you wonder if people would step up… I think that if we sent thousands of unarmed and willing volunteers to stand for peace in the place of trouble, we would do just as well… and we would be more than stepping up. I think we are supposed to offer the other cheek.

My answer stands, I would not fight in a war…

Relative to defending ones nation… I would stand for what is right, without violence as Christ did. Not in accord with some archaic thought of nationalism or machismo … but instead in believe in our Lords teaching,

 

[JimG]

It’s a good question… what do you think Christ would have done in any of those scenarios that you site? You say you wonder if people would step up… I think that if we sent thousands of willing volunteer peace keepers without weapons to the place of trouble, we would do just as well. I think we are supposed to offer the other cheek.

Perhaps John the Baptist got it wrong. When soldiers approached him asking what they should do, he didn’t advise them to desert their posts. He said, “be content with your pay!”

In any case, the Church has never, from day one, but a totally pacifist Church. And you seem to be advocating for total pacifism. If the Khmer Rouge wish to kill women and children, let them do it. If the Tutsi’s wish to kill Hutu’s en masse, do nothing to stop it. If Stalin wishes to starve millions, it’s his business. I just can’t get on that bandwagon. It seems the antithesis of justice to me.

 

[godisgood77]

Perhaps John the Baptist got it wrong. When soldiers approached him asking what they should do, he didn’t advise them to desert their posts. He said, “be content with your pay!”

In any case, the Church has never, from day one, but a totally pacifist Church. And you seem to be advocating for total pacifism. If the Khmer Rouge wish to kill women and children, let them do it. If the Tutsi’s wish to kill Hutu’s en masse, do nothing to stop it. If Stalin wishes to starve millions, it’s his business. I just can’t get on that bandwagon. It seems the antithesis of justice to me.

I think you’re misunderstanding me… I’m not saying do nothing… I would stand between Khmer Rouge and the women and children, but I would not strike out with a weapon… As I said, per Jesus’ teaching. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I do not recall an instance where Jesus advocated killing for any reason, even when the innocent (himself) was being tortured, brutalized and murdered.

 

[JimG]

I think you’re misunderstanding me… I’m not saying do nothing… I would stand between Khmer Rouge and the women and children, but I would not strike out with a weapon… As I said, per Jesus’ teaching. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I do not recall an instance where Jesus advocated killing for any reason, even when the innocent (himself) was being tortured, brutalized and murdered.

Well, I won’t pursue hypothetical situations, but I think that self defense is justifed and necessary. Standing between a shooter and a group of kids will do nothing to save their lives. Peaceful resistance would have had zero effect on the Khmer Rouge. Ghandi’s resistance worked against the English; it would have been a failure against Hitler. The only religion I know of that favors total pacificsm is the Quakers.

 

[godisgood77]

Well, I won’t pursue hypothetical situations, but I think that self defense is justifed and necessary. Standing between a shooter and a group of kids will do nothing to save their lives. Peaceful resistance would have had zero effect on the Khmer Rouge. Ghandi’s resistance worked against the English; it would have been a failure against Hitler. The only religion I know of that favors total pacificsm is the Quakers.

Ok don’t pursue the hypothetical… but please don’t dodge the questions about Jesus’ actions… unless of course his life is a hypothetical?

 

[JimG]

Ok don’t pursue the hypothetical… but please don’t dodge the questions about Jesus’ actions… unless of course his life is a hypothetical?

You mean, what would Jesus Do? I have no idea, and I think the WWJD question is not particularly helpful for deciding questions of moral theology. Jesus had a singular mission. It was his own mission, and it did not center on self defense or on defense of others.

Would he have defended Mary or Joseph against a murderer? I have no idea. Since he was a divine Person, he certainly had better means available than weaponry. He made sure that he survived until his mission was complete. At one point, early on, an angry mob led him to the brow of a hill, intending to throw him over, but he walked through their midst unscathed.

So I cannot answer the WWJD question, nor is it definitive in deciding whether self defense or national defense is valid.

During the battle of Lepanto, the pope asked Christians to pray the rosary for the Christian navy which was badly outnumbered by the Turks. The Christians prevailed. There have been other instances. Is Jesus more pacifist than his mother?

In the Garden of Gethsemane, when accosted by those sent to arrest him, Peter drew his sword. Jesus told him to put the sword away—i.e., back in the scabbard. He did not tell him to just get rid of it

Did Jesus intend that no one should ever engage in self defense? I doubt it, and the Church doesn’t teach it.

 

[pnewton]

LOL
Your going to win no matter what aren’t you? The honest truth only applies when it helps you win in your view, doesn’t it?

If I was dishonest, then point to the place you believe dishonesty applies. If not, then why do you accuse me?

I didn’t bring up the law and the applications thereof, as in does one live by them today, you did. Therefore it applies.

This is untrue, though I will point out where, and not simply leave it at that. First, I mentioned the Catechism. The teaching of the* Church* is not the* Mosaic* Law. Then, you posted about the requirements on an Israelite. This was the first, numero uno, initial, reference to the Mosaic Law.

Your attitude as far as reading the Bible is near criminal …

You know nothing of me, or my attitude when it comes to reading the Bible. I will thank you to keep your judgment to yourself and leave that to someone wiser.

I stand by what I said. One simply can not pick out a single point of the Mosaic Law (not the Ten Commandments) and slip it in to modern society without understanding the principles. The Catholic Church has clearly stated that conscience needs to be respected for those who do not believe in taking up arms. Our situation is not that of the Israelites. We are not operating as a direct theocratic arm of God sent to kill every man, woman, child and animal in a city. What an Israelite citizen needed to do in that day is irrelevant to modern warfare. Your interpretation that sees it other wise is also irrelevant, as I am unaware of any charism you have to make such a statement. This is the “error in the beginning,” that is to say, our differences on authority underlie our difference in interpretation. Furthermore, I do not see logic in your interpretation, unless you also support all the Mosaic Law, and also reject St. Paul’s clear teaching that we are not longer under that law.

The moral teaching under the requirement of an Israelite to serve in the army remains in Catholic teaching, where it instructs a pacifist to be willing to serve society in other capacities. We render to Caesar, if required, our time and our life, but not our soul.

 

[D_Martin]

I stand by what I said. One simply can not pick out a single point of the Mosaic Law (not the Ten Commandments) and slip it in to modern society without understanding the principles. The Catholic Church has clearly stated that conscience needs to be respected for those who do not believe in taking up arms. Our situation is not that of the Israelites. We are not operating as a direct theocratic arm of God sent to kill every man, woman, child and animal in a city. What an Israelite citizen needed to do in that day is irrelevant to modern warfare. Your interpretation that sees it other wise is also irrelevant, as I am unaware of any charism you have to make such a statement. This is the “error in the beginning,” that is to say, our differences on authority underlie our difference in interpretation. Furthermore, I do not see logic in your interpretation, unless you also support all the Mosaic Law, and also reject St. Paul’s clear teaching that we are not longer under that law.

The moral teaching under the requirement of an Israelite to serve in the army remains in Catholic teaching, where it instructs a pacifist to be willing to serve society in other capacities. We render to Caesar, if required, our time and our life, but not our soul.

Sorry, I was going to let you have the last word, but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to address this.

My point exactly on attitude. Its today’s thinking, (not yesterday’s thinking) that the Ways of the Lord have no bearing in today’s world, I do believe you like the word “irrelevant”, how can one say the Ways of the Lord God demonstrated by the Lord God Himself who made the world, and the Son of God who is the foundation of the world, is “irrelevant” to the world, and then claim to know and understand the things of God?

The enemy has no problem with the world perception of God way up there, and man way down here. As long as God remains separate from the worlds daily activities then the devil will always have his way in the affairs of men.

As far as the law:
The flesh is always under the law. from the Ten Commandments, to driving your car on public roads. Even Jesus was born in the flesh under the law. No flesh gets out of the result of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. Note that it wasn’t, if you think about it, or desire it, or anything else, it was if you eat. An act in the flesh in the desire of a perceived fulfillment, that is what is under law. (If your thinking what Jesus said on desire, it is true that if you entertain doing something you have done it in your heart already, and eventually you will seek out, or wait for opportunity for the fulfillment thereof in the flesh)

Grace and Truth is not under law, which is what we inherit in Spirit. As Paul has said “the law is Holy”, but it can’t make you Holy because the law is to administer to the flesh as in the fulfillment in the flesh, which can not inherit the Kingdom of God, nor the things of the Kingdom of God, and Grace and Truth are of the Kingdom of God. Therefore as Paul has said “pursue Righteousness”, which is of God, not of ourselves and certainly not of the flesh.

Ok now you can have the last word.

 

[godisgood77]

You mean, what would Jesus Do? I have no idea, and I think the WWJD question is not particularly helpful for deciding questions of moral theology. Jesus had a singular mission. It was his own mission, and it did not center on self defense or on defense of others.

Would he have defended Mary or Joseph against a murderer? I have no idea. Since he was a divine Person, he certainly had better means available than weaponry. He made sure that he survived until his mission was complete. At one point, early on, an angry mob led him to the brow of a hill, intending to throw him over, but he walked through their midst unscathed.

So I cannot answer the WWJD question, nor is it definitive in deciding whether self defense or national defense is valid.

During the battle of Lepanto, the pope asked Christians to pray the rosary for the Christian navy which was badly outnumbered by the Turks. The Christians prevailed. There have been other instances. Is Jesus more pacifist than his mother?

In the Garden of Gethsemane, when accosted by those sent to arrest him, Peter drew his sword. Jesus told him to put the sword away—i.e., back in the scabbard. He did not tell him to just get rid of it

Did Jesus intend that no one should ever engage in self defense? I doubt it, and the Church doesn’t teach it.

Here’s Jesus…“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

 

[JimG]

Here’s Jesus…“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

Fine. One is free to do that. Is one also free to turn to a wife or daughter being assaulted and advise, “do not resist him, my dear; and my own Christian principles prohibit me from defending you.” What would Jesus do, indeed? Moral theolgy is not necessarily so plain as one might hope.

 

[godisgood77]

Fine. One is free to do that. Is one also free to turn to a wife or daughter being assaulted and advise, “do not resist him, my dear; and my own Christian principles prohibit me from defending you.” What would Jesus do, indeed? Moral theolgy is not necessarily so plain as one might hope.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. As I stated before, I would stand between that person and my daughter or wife or mother and prevent any harm to the best of my ability…(I’m 6’2" 200 pounds and fairly athletic and I’ve been witness to some serious violence). What I would not do is detonate a bomb, or fine a gun or electrocute or poison someone with the intent to kill. I can’t think of a justification for that. Nor have you put forward a credible counter argument.

How do you feel about bombing abortion mills?

 

[godisgood77]

During the battle of Lepanto, the pope asked Christians to pray the rosary for the Christian navy which was badly outnumbered by the Turks. The Christians prevailed. There have been other instances. Is Jesus more pacifist than his mother?

Are you suggesting that Mary was somehow responsible for the action of Christian Navy?

 

[JimG]

That’s not what I’m saying at all. As I stated before, I would stand between that person and my daughter or wife or mother and prevent any harm to the best of my ability…(I’m 6’2" 200 pounds and fairly athletic and I’ve been witness to some serious violence). What I would not do is detonate a bomb, or fine a gun or electrocute or poison someone with the intent to kill. I can’t think of a justification for that. Nor have you put forward a credible counter argument.

How do you feel about bombing abortion mills?

So you might engage in violence to prevent harm, just not use a weapon. Okay. I have no problem with violence being a last resort. But Christians are not mandated to forego the use of weapons. Even Peter carried a sword. And there is nothing in Catholic doctrine which forbids a Catholic from being a police officer or member of the military.

And no, I would not bomb an abortion mill.

PS–I might add that the use of a weapon does not necessarily involve an intent to kill, but an intent to stop an agressor.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:34-37[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[pnewton]

My point exactly on attitude. Its today’s thinking, (not yesterday’s thinking) that the Ways of the Lord have no bearing in today’s world, I do believe you like the word “irrelevant”, how can one say the Ways of the Lord God demonstrated by the Lord God Himself who made the world, and the Son of God who is the foundation of the world, is “irrelevant” to the world, and then claim to know and understand the things of God?

I understand the difference between the ways of God and everyone’s private interpretation, specifically yours. If you were in fact God, then you would have a point. As you are not, I do not take your words as God.

If you are taking my statement as to mean that I think any part of the Bible is unimportant, then I understand your issue with interpretation, namely, the lack of consideration of context. “Irrelevant” used in this context means that the law God gave the Israelites for military service do not extend everywhere and anywhere. You never answered two things. Do you adhere to all the Mosaic Law? Do you also believe the military should kill men, women, children and animals?

As far as the law:
The flesh is always under the law. from the Ten Commandments,

Again, for the second time, the Israelite command to serve in the military is not in the Ten Commandments.

However, if I were to believe a Judaizer, I would still be able to point out that at no point did the law of Moses require a Gentile to serve in the Israelite army.

 

[shipwrkd]

During the battle of Lepanto, the pope asked Christians to pray the rosary for the Christian navy which was badly outnumbered by the Turks. The Christians prevailed. There have been other instances. Is Jesus more pacifist than his mother?

Are you suggesting that Mary was somehow responsible for the action of Christian Navy?

The fact that there was a Catholic Navy and Pope Pius V asked for prayers for the defeat of the Ottoman fleet indicates to me that we are anything but pacifists. Pope Pius V didn’t tell the Christian fleet to station itself between the opposing fleet and Lepanto, but to fight, and they did so savagely in defeating the Turk’s. A Holy Day was proclamed as a result of the win.

The Holy League credited the victory to the Virgin Mary, whose intercession with God they had implored for victory through the use of the Rosary. Andrea Doria had kept a copy of the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe given to him by King Philip II of Spain in his ship’s state room.[29] Pope Pius V instituted a new Catholic feast day of Our Lady of Victory to commemorate the battle, which is now celebrated by the Catholic Church as the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.[30][31]

Someone is suggesting that Mary was somehow responsible.

 

[JimG]

It is true that we are not a pacifist Church, and we are not required to be complete pacifists. Still, I have to agree with godisgood77 at least partially, in that non-violence is recognized as an evangelical counsel, and we are not prohibited from practicing it. Dorothy Day, for example, was a practitioner of non-violence, and may be declared a saint.

And yet, even though it’s not a matter of doctrine, I do credit all those rosaries for the Christian victory at Lepanto!

 

[devoutchristian]

How do you feel about bombing abortion mills?

Bombing an abortion mill would kill both murderers and victims.