Conscription: What is a proper Christian view?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The question is too general to answer. Get specific: who, what, when, where, in what manner ... a concrete question.

Is it permissible for parents to threaten their children with punishment if the children disobey the parent's rules? Of course it is.

Is it permissible for you to threaten me if I don't answer your unanswerable question? Nope.

I understand, you cannot engage in hypotheticals. How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning? I mean it's not like the Mafia ever existed and used violence and threats of intimidation to get them to do what they want. Just like governments do with the power it has to conscript people to fight in it's wars. Your position is that the government cannot do immoral acts, I am asking the question whether it is immoral to force someone to fight for you despite them not wanting to. You are unable to answer this because it is obviously immoral.

 

[o_mlly]

I understand, you cannot engage in hypotheticals. How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning? I mean it's not like the Mafia ever existed and used violence and threats of intimidation to get them to do what they want.

I have no idea what you are trying to post.

Your position is that the government cannot do immoral acts ...

No, that's not my position ... kindly read the posts more carefully.

I am asking the question whether it is immoral to force someone to fight for you despite them not waning to.

That's a different question. So, which is it? "Do you think it's permissible for private citizens to threaten others to get them to do what they want?" or the above.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have no idea what you are trying to post.

I know you have no Idea.

No, that's not my position ... kindly read the posts more carefully.

That's a different question. So. which is it? "Do you think it's permissible for private citizens to threaten others to get them to do what they want?" or the above.

I guess then It is permissible to threaten people to do what you want. Someone can even imprison them and kill them if they refuse to fight for that person. If the government can do it, why can't anyone?

 

[o_mlly]

I know you have no Idea.

I guess then It is permissible to threaten people to do what you want. Someone can even imprison them and kill them if they refuse to fight for that person. If the government can do it, why can't anyone?

Wow? I'm kinda getting now what you may have meant when you asked rhetorically, "How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?" Is the correct answer "querulous"?

See Statement on Registration and Conscription for Military Service for the Catholic position ... and get something to eat ... soon.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Wow? I'm kinda getting now what you may have meant when you asked rhetorically, "How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?" Is the correct answer "querulous"?

See Statement on Registration and Conscription for Military Service for the Catholic position ... and get something to eat ... soon.

You're clearly not engaging. But that's okay. I know hypotheticals aren't your thing but if you were in WW1, would you have supported the conscriptions of young men to die in the trenches? That it was perfectly acceptable for modern states to do this?

 

[RDKirk]

Relating to this thread, in a state that has lawfully passed and is imposing conscription on citizens to wage a just war, may an eligible citizen refuse military service in any capacity to support the defense of his country?

We're not just going to pick me apart. I've stated my position clearly enough long ago in post #20.
If you claim to know the real Christian answer, then state it and let's discuss it.

 

[o_mlly]

if you were in WW1, would you have supported the conscriptions of young men to die in the trenches

I would alter the question to, "the conscriptions of young men to 'defend' my country".

Which countries in WWI prosecuted a just war, a defensive war? It seems none of the countries complied with either jus ad bellum or jus in bellum principles. If true then in WWI refusing any country's conscription as a combatant in an unjust war would have been moral.

 

[RDKirk]

Wow? I'm kinda getting now what you may have meant when you asked rhetorically, "How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?" Is the correct answer "querulous"?

See Statement on Registration and Conscription for Military Service for the Catholic position ... and get something to eat ... soon.

From that statement:

Conscientious Objection: We regard this question in all its dimensions as a central element in Catholic teaching on the morality of war. First, we support the right of conscientious objection as a valid moral position, derived from the Gospel and Catholic teaching, and recognized as well in U.S. civil law. The legal protection provided conscientious objectors is a commendable part of our political system which must be preserved in any policy of conscription.

Secondly, we support the right of selective conscientious objection (SCO) as a moral conclusion which can be validly derived from the classical moral teaching of Just-War theory. The position of SCO has not yet found expression in our legal system, but a means should be found to give this legitimate moral position a secure legal status. The experience of the Vietnam war highlighted the moral and political significance of precisely this question. We are sure of the moral validity of SCO; we would welcome a dialogue with legislators, lawyers, ethicists and other religious leaders about how to transpose this moral position into effective legal language.

More about "selective conscientious objection:" From my reading, the Catholic Church refers to "selective conscientious objection" as the moral right of individuals to refuse participation in a particular war that they judge to be unjust, even if they do not oppose all wars in principle. This is distinct from absolute conscientious objection, in which a person opposes all wars (pacifism).

The Catholic Church does not require pacifism, but it respects and supports those who embrace it as a legitimate moral stance. At the same time, the Church recognizes the right of self-defense and the possibility of just war under strict conditions.

IMO, the only "just" war of the US since WWII (and that has some questions, both in the leading into the war as well as much of its execution) has been the Cold War. Every other US war and combat action was led into by fear, avarice, and hatred and could have been avoided by timely just actions.

 

[timothyu]

"Do you think it's permissible for private citizens to threaten others to get them to do what they want?"

Yoiu should have seen the drive home