Null

[Hoping2]

It's not an assumption. Can you show me a society which did not use force to regulate human behavior?

Sure...Christianity !

Do you work? Do you own a car? Do you have any interactions with other people?

Yes I do, and am interacting with you right now.

And therefore any Christian who is attacked successfully is demonstrated to not be a true Christian per this reasoning. Would you consider those 20 or so Coptic men slaughtered by ISIS some years ago as actual Christians?

I have no idea if they had repented of sin before their deaths, so cannot venture a guess as to the state of their souls.

Then you are a fool.

Paul wrote this to Titus..."Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2:14)
And Peter wrote this..."But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" (1 Peter 2:9)

I'll cop to "peculiar", but I find no foolishness in trusting God.
Why do you ?

 

[RDKirk]

Since I do not think the wars the USA has engaged In were on the whole good, I am not going to justify your operation which resulted in 200 women and children slaughtered.

This sort or extreme example is not what I was thinking about when I referred to the good use of physical force. If there is a mad man with a gun who is killing multiple people, the application of violence to this man to defend others is not evil. It is necessary and if we're going to say that killing the mad man is evil then we have to allow those who would do evil do evil.

But it's military conscription we're talking about.

I would also not go as far as you would and suggest any warfare is evil and therefore impermissable. It seems to me there were countless times Christians were called to fight for their own defense and for their own benefit.

Countless? Name ten. Name five.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

But it's military conscription we're talking about.

And this conversation branched into general ideas of pacifism and whether or not Christians can use force at all.

Countless? Name ten. Name five.

Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Alfred the great's reconquest of England from the Vikings, the battle of Lepanto, the reconquista, the battle of tours and the great stand on the Ugra river.

None of these things were without sin completely but they were good things in the history of Christendom.

 

[o_mlly]

I did not question that.

You have, then, said that a man's got to go with as much as he knows, even when he is aware his knowledge is not perfect (which it rarely is). That's going to be "probable conscience," in most situations.


As I understand Catholic teaching, an "invincibly erroneous conscience" would be a conscience that cannot be made perfect. There is no way for that man to do any better than his own probable conscience...he's still compelled to go with as much as he knows.

Keeping in mind that we're talking about conscription into the military of any given nation, in what case is a Christian obligated to act against his conscience regardless how imperfect it is? That is my question.

One's imperfect conscience is never in a permanent state of ignorance and can be made perfect. To think otherwise would be to deny His prevenient grace.

In the concrete situation -- conscription into a just war -- objectively one who is eligible (ceteris paribus) is morally obligated to serve. Subjectively, the one who refuses to serve having an imperfect conscience may not be culpable for his refusal to serve, but his act remains objectively immoral.

In the concrete situation -- conscription into an unjust war -- objectively one is not morally obligated to serve.

 

[RDKirk]

One's imperfect conscience is never in a permanent state of ignorance and can be made perfect. To think otherwise would be to deny His prevenient grace.

You were the one who said ""invincibly erroneous conscience."

In the concrete situation -- conscription into a just war -- objectively one who is eligible (ceteris paribus) is morally obligated to serve. Subjectively, the one who refuses to serve having an imperfect conscience may not be culpable for his refusal to serve, but his act remains objectively immoral.

In the concrete situation -- conscription into an unjust war -- objectively one is not morally obligated to serve.

So then, the question is whether the war is actually "just." But the conscripting government will always proclaim that their war is just.

"In war, truth is the first casualty" -- Aeschylus

In the ramp-up to the Iraq invasion, many men already in uniform knew civilian leadership was lying about the rationale to go to war. Some of them openly resisted, some of them clandestinely resisted. But most civilians failed to realize it. The US did not have conscription at the time, but if that had been at issue, the question would have been "is this a just war," and most civilians would not have had the information to know that it was not.

Having been conscripted for one war that might have been just the conscriptee is still enthralled by the government for a term that might include an additional action that is not just. Or a battle in a "just" war that is clearly not just (such as the raid on Dresden). Once in uniform, the soldier is obligated to acts that he could have avoided from the start.

Conscription makes a man a slave to the government. Christians should never be in favor of government action that makes men slaves to the government against their will.

"You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men." -- 1 Corinthians 7:23

 

[Michie]

In context:

The Life That the Lord Has Assigned.*

17Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one. I give this order in all the churches.

18Was someone called after he had been circumcised? He should not try to undo his circumcision. Was an uncircumcised person called? He should not be circumcised.e
19Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what matters is keeping God’s commandments.f
20Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called.



21Were you a slave when you were called? Do not be concerned but, even if you can gain your freedom, make the most of it.
22For the slave called in the Lord is a freed person in the Lord, just as the free person who has been called is a slave of Christ.g
23You have been purchased at a price. Do not become slaves to human beings.h
24Brothers, everyone should continue before God in the state in which he was called.

1 Corinthian 7:17-24

 

[o_mlly]

You were the one who said ""invincibly erroneous conscience."

Invincibly ignorant in the moment is not the same as invincibly ignorant forever.

So then, the question is whether the war is actually "just." But the conscripting government will always proclaim that their war is just.

The war is either just or unjust. The government's proclamation that an unjust war is just does not make it so.

In the ramp-up to the Iraq invasion, many men already in uniform knew civilian leadership was lying about the rationale to go to war.

One can never know with any certainty that another is lying. The other may be in error but that does not imply that the other is knowingly deceiving.

Since there was no conscription during the Iraq war, the particulars of that war do not seem to fit into this thread.

... the question would have been "is this a just war," and most civilians would not have had the information to know that it was not.

See the thread entitled: The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force. You may wish to continue discussing the Iraq war in that thread.

Having been conscripted for one war that might have been just the conscriptee is still enthralled by the government for a term that might include an additional action that is not just. Or a battle in a "just" war that is clearly not just (such as the raid on Dresden). Once in uniform, the soldier is obligated to acts that he could have avoided from the start.

Jus ad bellum principles apply to the determination of a just or unjust war. Jus in bello principles apply to the prosecution of a just war. The latter principles include the proscription that a soldier is never obligated morally to follow an unjust or illegal order.

Conscription makes a man a slave to the government. Christians should never be in favor of government action that makes men slaves to the government against their will.

Conscription does not make men slaves. Those unwilling to serve without reasonable cause may freely leave the country and give up their citizenship.

 

[o_mlly]

What about those who don't have the means to leave the country?

I think one would need a concrete example. The act is one of refusal to serve in a just war. What is the act's moral object? What is the actor's intention? What are the circumstances?

 

[RDKirk]

Invincibly ignorant in the moment is not the same as invincibly ignorant forever.

It it's only "at the moment," it is not invincible.

The war is either just or unjust. The government's proclamation that an unjust war is just does not make it so.

Even a just war can have instances of injustice. That's why there is a concept of "war crime." The problem is that once in uniform, the ability of a soldier to abstain from participation in war crimes is extremely limited. It would be better not to be in uniform at all.

One can never know with any certainty that another is lying. The other may be in error but that does not imply that the other is knowingly deceiving.

Since there was no conscription during the Iraq war, the particulars of that war do not seem to fit into this thread.

Certainly it does, because here we are talking about the justness of war.

See the thread entitled: The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force. You may wish to continue discussing the Iraq war in that thread.

Jus ad bellum principles apply to the determination of a just or unjust war. Jus in bello principles apply to the prosecution of a just war. The latter principles include the proscription that a soldier is never obligated morally to follow an unjust or illegal order.

Conscription does not make men slaves. Those unwilling to serve without reasonable cause may freely leave the country and give up their citizenship.

That means a man does not have a right to decline conscription. That's like a nation outlawing Christianity and saying, "Those unwilling to be Muslims may freely leave the country and give up their citizenship."

Oh, by the way, that was not the case with conscription anyway. Those who were unwilling to serve were not permitted to "freely leave the country and give up their citizenship."

 

[RDKirk]

You are arguing that "conscription does not make men slaves." Your reasoning is "those unwilling to serve without reasonable cause may freely leave the country." This implies the freedom to choose. Serve or leave the country. This dichotomy does not account for those who do not have the means, financial or otherwise, to leave the country.

How do you address such situations? Are they forced to serve? If so, RDKirk has a point. If not, what happens? Do you round them up, strip them of their citizenship, and deport them?

Under conscription, there is no legal freedom merely to leave the country. They are not rounded up, stripped of their citizenship, and deported...they are rounded up and imprisoned. The prospective conscriptee flees the country as a criminal and must seek political asylum (although if he has enough money for lawyers, he can finagle the US legal system to stay out of jail while the appeals process drags on).

 

[o_mlly]

It it's only "at the moment," it is not invincible.

? Are an adult's moral acts still controlled by his invincible tails of youth?

As it relates to this thread, invincible ignorance may excuse one from the culpability of refusing conscription in a just war, but the refusal remains an immoral act (cp).

Even a just war can have instances of injustice. That's why there is a concept of "war crime." The problem is that once in uniform, the ability of a soldier to abstain from participation in war crimes is extremely limited. It would be better not to be in uniform at all.

No one claimed being moral was not sometimes difficult. Even so, at one's conscription are you now claiming one may morally refuse because they think serving would/could become some imagined moral hazard? Conscientious objectors have recourse to serve in non-combat assignments.

Certainly it does, because here we are talking about the justness of war.

? The thread is entitled "Conscription: What is a proper Christian view?" The Jus ad Bellum principles apply in categorizing that war in which one is being conscripted.

That means a man does not have a right to decline conscription. That's like a nation outlawing Christianity and saying, "Those unwilling to be Muslims may freely leave the country and give up their citizenship."

No, refusing conscription in a just war is not like unjustly outlawing Christianity.

Oh, by the way, that was not the case with conscription anyway. Those who were unwilling to serve were not permitted to "freely leave the country and give up their citizenship."

Once conscripted, those who refuse to serve are draft evaders. Those who flee the country prior to conscription are draft avoiders. The former are subject to criminal proceedings, the latter are not.

 

[o_mlly]

You are arguing that "conscription does not make men slaves."

Conscription to a just war does not make men slaves. One who claims the benefits of citizenship must also bear the responsibilities of citizenship.

Your reasoning is "those unwilling to serve without reasonable cause may freely leave the country." This implies the freedom to choose. Serve or leave the country. This dichotomy does not account for those who do not have the means, financial or otherwise, to leave the country.

How do you address such situations? Are they forced to serve? If so, RDKirk has a point. If not, what happens? Do you round them up, strip them of their citizenship, and deport them?

Again, provide a concrete example, if you please.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Conscription to a just war does not make men slaves. One who claims the benefits of citizenship must also bear the responsibilities of citizenship.

If the state can not only take money from you but compel you to die for wars you may or may not support and there is no opt out, how is this not slavery? What can't the state compel you to do if it provides certain benefits? This grants far to much power to the state.

 

[RDKirk]

? Are an adult's moral acts still controlled by his invincible tails of youth?

I was wondering if I was missing something about the Catholic concept of "invincible ignorance," and so I looked it up and discovered I was not. Ignorance that can be resolved merely by additional information is not "invincible." And that's all we're talking about here: Conscience that is merely not fully informed. Nothing "invincible" about it.

As it relates to this thread, invincible ignorance may excuse one from the culpability of refusing conscription in a just war, but the refusal remains an immoral act (cp).

No one claimed being moral was not sometimes difficult. Even so, at one's conscription are you now claiming one may morally refuse because they think serving would/could become some imagined moral hazard? Conscientious objectors have recourse to serve in non-combat assignments.

? The thread is entitled "Conscription: What is a proper Christian view?" The Jus ad Bellum principles apply in categorizing that war in which one is being conscripted.

Those principles are not scripture. There is no evidence God supports them.

No, refusing conscription in a just war is not like unjustly outlawing Christianity.

Once conscripted, those who refuse to serve are draft evaders. Those who flee the country prior to conscription are draft avoiders. The former are subject to criminal proceedings, the latter are not.

I had a draft card myself in late 60s/early 70s. If I had left the country while merely being in possession of the card, I would not have been a "draft avoider." That term doesn't even have legal meaning, because there is no legal presumption that I would not return when given the draft notice.

"Draft evasion" does have legal meaning, and those who leave the country to evade the draft or who refuse to return to the country when given the draft notice are draft evaders.

Aside from some narrow options of alternate service to the war, conscription gives no option to refuse to serve entirely. There is no reason a Christian to support establishment of such a situation.

 

[o_mlly]

What does it mean to "claim the benefits of citizenship?"

See: 10 Benefits of American Citizenship: Rights, Privileges & Perks

If you want a "concrete example," you'll need to be more specific. What do you expect such an example of look like? What are limitations you're going to work in? What would such an example look like?

Well, the concrete example requires you to be more specific. Tell us the moral object of the act, the intention of the actor and the circumstances.

See: Catechism Commentary – Human Acts | Catholic Moral Theology

I ask because I can easily see this from several perspectives. This could be attempt to punt (i.e., avoid answering the question directly). This could be a case where an example is given but a debate ensues that it's "not really a concrete example." Or it could even be a case we devolve into a debate about whether or not the "example" has X, Y, or Z parameter (e.g., is/is not just war, etc.).

I don't punt. And none of the above need apply. However, if you do not understand and are unwilling to learn about the morality of human acts then we need go no further.

 

[timothyu]

Aside from some narrow options of alternate service to the war, conscription gives no option to refuse to serve entirely. There is no reason a Christian to support establishment of such a situation.

Worked out well for Ali.

 

[o_mlly]

If the state can not only take money from you but compel you to die for wars you may or may not support and there is no opt out, how is this not slavery?

Your opinion from New Zealand is noted. Also, the monies New Zealand spends on its defense is also noted.

What can't the state compel you to do if it provides certain benefits?

Immoral acts.

 

[o_mlly]

I was wondering if I was missing something about the Catholic concept of "invincible ignorance," and so I looked it up and discovered I was not. Ignorance that can be resolved merely by additional information is not "invincible." And that's all we're talking about here: Conscience that is merely not fully informed. Nothing "invincible" about it.

? I don't see your point. An indigenous native who has never heard of Christ may be invincibly ignorant and not culpable for immoral acts ... until he is evangelized.

Those principles are not scripture. There is no evidence God supports them.

I predicated my posts as representing Catholic teaching. We are not sola scriptura but use sacred scripture, sacred tradition and the constant teaching of our magisterium. The teachings on the morality of war go back to Augustine (~ 300 AD).

I had a draft card myself in late 60s/early 70s. If I had left the country while merely being in possession of the card, I would not have been a "draft avoider." That term doesn't even have legal meaning, because there is no legal presumption that I would not return when given the draft notice.

? If you did not intend to avoid then you did not avoid. The important point is that you were free to leave and never come back prior to conscription notice. (A draft card declaring one's draft status is not the same as a draft notice.) Are we just quibbling at this point?

Aside from some narrow options of alternate service to the war, conscription gives no option to refuse to serve entirely. There is no reason a Christian to support establishment of such a situation.

You may see no reason to support conscription to a just war. However, that does not mean that a country using conscription to wage a just war is immoral. You need an argument to persuade others to your conclusion.

 

[Hoping2]

What about those who don't have the means to leave the country?

Jail may be the result of holding God's commands above man's commands.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Your opinion from New Zealand is noted. Also, the monies New Zealand spends on its defense is also noted.

Can New Zealanders not hold opinions on how governments can and cannot act?

Immoral acts.

Is it immoral for a private citizen to compel others through the threat of force to fight and kill for them?