Where should the line be drawn between military service and religious exemption

  • Thread starter Thread starter robwar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

robwar

Guest
This past Sunday, about 50 thousand ultra Orthodox Jews protested Israel’s proposed new draft laws that will require ultra Orthodox Jews to do their mandatory military service that previously they were exempt from. abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/orthodox-nyc-jews-protest-proposed-israeli-draft-22839336

I didn’t post this in the news section because i wanted to have a discussion for when or where a line should or could be drawn for groups or individuals that have a religious moral objection to military service. There are Christian groups similar to the ultra Orthodox Jews that have refused or asked for exemptions to military service (Quaker, Amish etc). Likewise, there are Catholic religious orders that are pacifist such as the Franciscans. I didn’t want the conversation to be about Israel’s policy but am using this as an example. The Quakers which is a pacifist Christian group were harassed for not servicing during the Revolutionary War. Is it fair to have military exemptions due to religion? Is it fair to exempt some due to religion while others are required to serve? Don’t those that refuse to serve benefit from those that do? Where does one draw the line between religious freedom and obligation to serve one’s country if required for war? I would like to see those that are part of these communities (Quaker, Jewish etc) join in the discussion. Can religion be used as an excuse to get out of going to war?
thanks and let the discussion begin!
 
The US, of course, does not have a military draft. However, when it did, the concept of conscientious objection slowly evolved over time. Back during World War I, members of the “peace churches” (those which historically have preached pacifism) were sometimes imprisoned for the duration of the war. By the end of the Vietnam War, conscientious objectors simply avoided military service and didn’t even have to belong to a religion. Deep seated moral objections were enough.

In the US, a conscientious objector must show evidence that his views have existed for some time. An individual can not object to one war, and yet be willing to fight in other wars.
Both requirements seem sensible to me.

Should an obligation of national service, say in a poverty alleviation program, be required of conscientious objectors if a military draft exists? I think a case can be made for that, however, it would be an added expense for the government.
 
“Can religion be used as an excuse to get out of going to war?”

Does the above not imply that one has a moral duty to engage in combat; and that this moral duty trumps all other moral duties?
 
Coatimundi said:
By the end of the Vietnam War, conscientious objectors simply avoided military service and didn’t even have to belong to a religion. Deep seated moral objections were enough.
Click to expand...
They protested that war, and then they all joined the political party that started it. And now they are the ones who are in charge of the military telling the military what wars to go to next. 🤷
 
Coatimundi said:
In the US, a conscientious objector must show evidence that his views have existed for some time. An individual can not object to one war, and yet be willing to fight in other wars.
Click to expand...
What about if you believe the legitimacy of a government has decreased over time, or you believe that under certain conditions war can be just, but those limits have at at some point clearly been transgressed.
 
livingwordunity said:
They protested that war, and then they all joined the political party that started it. And now they are the ones who are in charge of the military telling the military what wars to go to next. 🤷
Click to expand...
As opposed to those who used their wealth/connections to avoid service and then, when they were in political power, had no compunction about sending off the children of the poor to fight a war over WMDs that didn’t exist.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
“Can religion be used as an excuse to get out of going to war?”

Does the above not imply that one has a moral duty to engage in combat; and that this moral duty trumps all other moral duties?
Click to expand...
I think that is what I’m trying to explore here. If one’s government is requiring one to serve in the military should one use religion to get out of service whether it qualifies as a just war or not? If lets say one’s country is invaded or going to be, and then there is a call or requirement that all young men between 18-30 need to serve but we will exempt this group because due to religion, they don’t believe in fighting. However do to the fighting, the country is now free, don’t those who didn’t fight due to religion benefit from the sacrifice of those that did fight and loose their lives? Who has the higher moral or moral duty?
 
Book_Worm said:
As opposed to those who used their wealth/connections to avoid service and then, when they were in political power, had no compunction about sending off the children of the poor to fight a war over WMDs that didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Both sides are equally cynical and abhorrent.
 
robwar said:
I think that is what I’m trying to explore here. If one’s government is requiring one to serve in the military should one use religion to get out of service whether it qualifies as a just war or not? If lets say one’s country is invaded or going to be, and then there is a call or requirement that all young men between 18-30 need to serve but we will exempt this group because due to religion, they don’t believe in fighting. However do to the fighting, the country is now free, don’t those who didn’t fight due to religion benefit from the sacrifice of those that did fight and loose their lives? Who has the higher moral or moral duty?
Click to expand...
What about the old, the sick and the lame? They also benefit from the sacrifice of others.

Who said that equality of sacrifice is necessary under all conditions?

I’m with Ron Paul on this one. If a government can’t find sufficient volunteers ready to defend it, then that state doesn’t deserve to survive.

A crisis or state of war doesn’t change that premise.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
What about the old, the sick and the lame? They also benefit from the sacrifice of others.

Who said that equality of sacrifice is necessary under all conditions?

I’m with Ron Paul on this one. If a government can’t find sufficient volunteers ready to defend it, then that state doesn’t deserve to survive.

A crisis or state of war doesn’t change that premise.
Click to expand...
I am speaking about able body obviously. If you looked at the link I gave which concerns israel, all youth male and female are required to serve in their military. Until now, only the ultra orthodox which make up 8% of population were exempt but this is the group that is growing because they are the one’s having babies. I started this thread because I think this is a rather good question. I was listening to a talk show run by Jewish man that blasted the Orthodox Jews and accused hiding behind the study of the Torah in trying to get of or service but willing to let the secular Jews do the fighting which this host thought of as hypocrisy.
I want to let you know that I am not for war and that I generally agreed with Ron Paul. This issue has come up in previous wars in the US. One poster pointed out arrests during WWI
Likewise, during the Revolutionary War, Quakers and Shakers were likewise beaten and harassed. Yes, I know the US in currently volunteer. I am trying to look at this whole moral issue of religious exemption (regardless of religion). When and where does one draw the line?
 
robwar said:
I think that is what I’m trying to explore here. If one’s government is requiring one to serve in the military should one use religion to get out of service whether it qualifies as a just war or not? If lets say one’s country is invaded or going to be, and then there is a call or requirement that all young men between 18-30 need to serve but we will exempt this group because due to religion, they don’t believe in fighting. However do to the fighting, the country is now free, don’t those who didn’t fight due to religion benefit from the sacrifice of those that did fight and loose their lives? Who has the higher moral or moral duty?
Click to expand...
-I know this isn’t the intent of your OP, but the usage of “one use religion to get out of” implies that citing one’s religious beliefs is a “cop out” to get out of military services. While there are individuals who have used (as in improper application of for selfish reasons) their faith to “get out of” military service, the majority of people who cite their faith’s teachings view it as “I can’t service because it violates my religious beliefs.”
-Your OP also assumes that service under arms is the only valid option open. This is not the case, especially when talking about modern societies. Other essential fields would be food production, production of war material, law enforcement, medical, etc. Quakers have a long history of taking on non-combat roles both in and out of uniform to fulfill their duties to their society/nation without violating the teachings of their faith.
-If the government limits who it is calling into service to just men of a certain age, than I don’t believe it has met the necessary requirements for it to be a moral issue.
-Question of higher moral value- Who has the higher moral authority and the higher expectation of you obeying them, God or your particular country? Any demand from your country that places the country, your fellow citizens, or yourself above God is an unjust demand and can be ignored.
-Speaking for myself as a combat vet I don’t hold any ill will towards those who honestly cite their faith or their beliefs as the reason they can not serve under arms. If you can’t do something because you believe God demands you not to do it, you can’t do it.
 
Book_Worm said:
As opposed to those who used their wealth/connections to avoid service and then, when they were in political power, had no compunction about sending off the children of the poor to fight a war over WMDs that didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Without mentioning any names, the inconvenient truth (;)) is that the war over “WMDs that didn’t exist” was argued for vociferously by the administration that came just before the one who actually did it. And, on top of that, it was a bipartisan decision to do it.
Cirdan_XII said:
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Both sides are equally cynical and abhorrent.
Click to expand...
They are polar opposites when it comes to abortion and so-called same-sex “marriage”, so nowhere near the same.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-I know this isn’t the intent of your OP, but the usage of “one use religion to get out of” implies that citing one’s religious beliefs is a “cop out” to get out of military services. While there are individuals who have used (as in improper application of for selfish reasons) their faith to “get out of” military service, the majority of people who cite their faith’s teachings view it as “I can’t service because it violates my religious beliefs.”
-Your OP also assumes that service under arms is the only valid option open. This is not the case, especially when talking about modern societies. Other essential fields would be food production, production of war material, law enforcement, medical, etc. Quakers have a long history of taking on non-combat roles both in and out of uniform to fulfill their duties to their society/nation without violating the teachings of their faith.
-If the government limits who it is calling into service to just men of a certain age, than I don’t believe it has met the necessary requirements for it to be a moral issue.
-Question of higher moral value- Who has the higher moral authority and the higher expectation of you obeying them, God or your particular country? Any demand from your country that places the country, your fellow citizens, or yourself above God is an unjust demand and can be ignored.
-Speaking for myself as a combat vet I don’t hold any ill will towards those who honestly cite their faith or their beliefs as the reason they can not serve under arms. If you can’t do something because you believe God demands you not to do it, you can’t do it.
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry about the confusion of terms. I think I was reflecting the talk show host and his views. I think you are bringing up very good points that I agree with them. Yes, service under arms is not the only option at all. I believe that the Mennonites can serve their country if called in other non-combative ways. I think even though at least for the US is volunteer, groups can serve in non-combative ways. Yes, God has the highest moral authority above one’s country. I appreciate that you got what I am trying to explore here.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
What about if you believe the legitimacy of a government has decreased over time, or you believe that under certain conditions war can be just, but those limits have at at some point clearly been transgressed.
Click to expand...
(underlining mine)

The US hasn’t had a military draft since the early 1970’s, so attitudes may have changed, but back then a CO was not allowed to object specifically to the Vietnam War and also say he would fight in the military if the US were invaded.

More recently, active duty service members tried to invoke conscientious objection to the Iraq war, saying it was unjust but not all wars are unjust. Their objection was not upheld.
 
robwar said:
Yes, service under arms is not the only option at all. I believe that the Mennonites can serve their country if called in other non-combative ways.
Click to expand...
If a military draft exists, should this sort of national service be required of a person granted conscientious objection?
 
In WW1 in the UK, conscientious objectors were treated harshly and many died in the poor conditions they were imprisoned in. Others volunteered for non-combatant work, which could see them drafted as stretcher bearers.

By WW2, people were more sympathetic to the position, and the draft (as with rationing) was more carefully thought through and implemented from the beginning. This was total war, and all able-bodied young adults were conscripted in some way, really. Conscientious Objectors were able to serve as stretcher bearers instead of combatants: a job with a very high mortality rate, requiring extraordinary bravery. They were the people who walked onto the battlefield unarmed, then stopped and picked the injured up, then retreated with their burden slowing them down and making them a larger target. Can you imagine? Others volunteered to work in bomb disposal. Many others worked in other areas such as factory or farm work

The idea that Conscientious Objectors were “getting out of” going into danger is ridiculous to me. They faced serious social and physical consequences for their choices, and everyone I know who was alive during WW2 (thanks, SvP!) has nothing but respect for them.
 
Coatimundi said:
If a military draft exists, should this sort of national service be required of a person granted conscientious objection?
Click to expand...
I think some sort of national service should be required for everyone regardless if there is a war or not.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
Being right about abortion doesn’t make them right about everything else.
Click to expand...
They are right about abortion, euthanasia, and marriage. Other things such as managing the economy or how to handle immigration are debatable. And with things like war there is no difference since America hasn’t stopped getting involved with wars.
 
livingwordunity said:
They are right about abortion, euthanasia, and marriage. Other things such as managing the economy or how to handle immigration are debatable. And with things like war there is no difference since America hasn’t stopped getting involved with wars.
Click to expand...
The cynic in me says they’re milking the abortion issue to secure the Christian vote, and using that as a free pass to otherwise do as they wish.

To me that’s not fundamentally different to the Dems handing out free money to buy the people most likely to vote for them, and otherwise do as they wish.

But then I’ve always been a cynic. Which is why I obstain from voting either way.

What we need is a genuinely conservative and Christian political movement that isn’t the lap dog of big corporations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top