Quakers/Mennonites - Is it wrong to serve

[JVD]

I have been following this thread and am happy to see what I consider to be a much better reasoned approach to pacifism/non-violence than I saw in the other threads.

In fact, even my non-pacifist self can agree with much that has been said here.

This post was addressed to quakers/mennonites so I won't put in my 2 cents but I just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading this thread.

 

[Glorianna]

Do you guys think that it is wrong to serve in the military/police or any other branch of govt? And if so can you show me why?

Sure don't. In fact, I think it's important for Christians to be in roles of influence and power such as these.

 

[QustantinahQuaker]

I think that military service in the sense of waging war and killing is wrong and I would not engage in it. However, I would join a peacekeeping force or work as a noncombatant. I know since 9/11 a lot of folks have joined the service in a spirit of vengence, and you see the result of this kind of mindset/behavior in Iraq. Vengence was the cause of most wars. The world wars were both started in part out of vengence, even after the first French diplomats held onto the idea of getting back at Germany for defeating them and taking land from them in the 19th century! And we know what Germany did in response. I think militaries are a major threat to international cooperation but I think they can also do some good.

 

[AJ]

The old "eye for an eye" thing is from Hamurabi's code, not from the Bible. God NEVER ordained that we should see revenge, in fact, he made it clear over and over and over that HE is the one that will avenge us and that we are not to do it ourselves.

AMEN!

 

[AJ]

if you believe that ALL military members are taught to 'kill on command' you are sadly disalusioned. I think you have your idea of military formed from what you know of Marines. Army, Navy and Airforce are not taught that..

While there are definately differences between the various services... Following orders (including to kill the enemy) are very clear in all. Each has a very strict chain of command... And very serious consquences for not following orders. They have to... It is required that orders be followed (regardless of the branch of the service you are in)... especially in a time of war. (although... really anytime)

If you are against killing the enemy or taking orders, then no branch of the military is the right place for you. Yes, there are non-combatant positions... However when push comes to shove, everyone is subject to orders. If your commanding officer tells you to defend your building under an attack, that is not the time to throw a flag and say that you are opposed to killing...

Now... I am in a personal struggle with war... Especially the war on terror campaign that we are fighting in Iraq. I do believe that Saddam was a horrible dictator who was nothing short of a terrorist... I also believe that he was capable of making WMD's and had every intention to do so again (assuming that he really wasn't in the time before our invasion). The world is a better place without him in power... Period. My struggle is with what has been presented here... It is eye-opening and really has caused me to stop and think. It is difficult to argue with Christ's statement that we should love our enemies and turn the other cheek.

I have always truely believed that war is justified in some circumstances... I am just not sure that we should have taken Iraq at the time that we did.

I do believe that we acted on the best information at the time... But I also believe that there are some men of questionable character in the Bush administration, that could easily been portrayed as having alterer motives. George Bush, however, is not one of them... In my humble opinion... Wolfwitz, Rumsfield and Cheney are not very high on my list though... But I won't get into that...

This is just one of many very thought provoking threads that I have enjoyed reading... I appreciate everyone's input and opinion...

 

[Crazy Liz]

Now... I am in a personal struggle with war... Especially the war on terror campaign that we are fighting in Iraq. I do believe that Saddam was a horrible dictator who was nothing short of a terrorist... I also believe that he was capable of making WMD's and had every intention to do so again (assuming that he really wasn't in the time before our invasion). The world is a better place without him in power... Period. My struggle is with what has been presented here... It is eye-opening and really has caused me to stop and think. It is difficult to argue with Christ's statement that we should love our enemies and turn the other cheek.

I have always truely believed that war is justified in some circumstances... I am just not sure that we should have taken Iraq at the time that we did.

When a fight is purely AGAINST something or someone and not truly FOR something or someone, the end result is often worse than the situation at first. A few weeks ago, I visited the Jimmy Carter Library. Among all its impressive displays, I was caught up short when I came upon the picture of the Afghan Mujahidin. There were 2 differences between this conflict and all the others that were depicted in the museum: (1) Carter's personal involvement was absent or not mentioned, and (2) there was not something the US was FOR in that conflict. It only supported the Mujahidin because it was fighting AGAINST the USSR.

It was a mistake to go into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein when there was not a local opposition that had a better plan for governing that country after the Bath Party was removed.

[bible]matthew 12:43-45[/bible]

 

[AJ]

When a fight is purely AGAINST something or someone and not truly FOR something or someone, the end result is often worse than the situation at first. A few weeks ago, I visited the Jimmy Carter Library. Among all its impressive displays, I was caught up short when I came upon the picture of the Afghan Mujahidin. There were 2 differences between this conflict and all the others that were depicted in the museum: (1) Carter's personal involvement was absent or not mentioned, and (2) there was not something the US was FOR in that conflict. It only supported the Mujahidin because it was fighting AGAINST the USSR.

It was a mistake to go into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein when there was not a local opposition that had a better plan for governing that country after the Bath Party was removed.

Matthew 12:43-4543 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

No arguement there... Knowing now what we know, I would agree that Iraq was not something we should have started. What it comes down to though is that when the decision was made, based on the infomration being provided to everyone by intelligence (the best info we had at the time)... Saddam was percieved as a global threat, due to the possibility of him producing WMD's. Since that time there are 2 schools of thought on the matter, it seems... #1 is that Bush and Company deceived the entire world in some elaborate plot to go back to Iraq and finish up daddy's business (that even daddy at the time said we shouldn't do)... And #2 that Bush acted in the best interest of the American people, with nearly complete bi-partisan support... to take out someone who was viewed by virtually everyone who looked as a global threat. I guess there is also the 3rd, which says that we should not have attacked anyone... And not defended ourselves at all against the terrorist.

I still lean towards #2... Knowing now that the WMD system is not there does change that... but when this all started, there was no indication that he wasn't working on WMD's. He certainly did lead the weapons inspectors in a 10 year wild goose chase and resist at every opportunity. Now we know that the weapons were either not there or have since been moved... or maybe a little of both?

Back to the point of the thread though... If you are opposed to taking orders (up to and including killing the enemy) then no position in the military is really well suited for you... In my opinion.

 

[QustantinahQuaker]

I think if the US really wanted to do something positive in the region, they should have done something in Sudan. Granted Saddam was bad, but al-Turabi is even worse. He's nothing but a murderer. Even after Colin Powell called it "genocide", nothing has happened. I do not think that US involvement in the Arab world militarily ever is in a nonmalicious intent. Look how the US supports Morocco in their assault on West Sahara or does nothing in Sudan, did nothing to help Algeria fight terrorism, and supports Saudi Arabia and on and on. It seems to me that the US is in the business of building an empire despite what the president has said.

. I guess there is also the 3rd, which says that we should not have attacked anyone... And not defended ourselves at all against the terrorist.

Saddam was not the terrorist. The terrorists are in Lebanon, Syria and Sudan. They are also in Morocco, terrorizing the Sarhawi people. Saddam wasn't going to attack us either. I believe at the time, there were many more pressing matters to adress than Iraq and Iraq was not going to be a threat to us any time soon. We'd do better worrying about Iran or the numorous terrorist organizations throughout the world. Instead, we decided to help them. To me, the Iraq war only shows the faults in 'preemptive war" and proves again, that it is not in my best interest to vote for a warmonger.

 

[AJ]

Saddam was not the terrorist.

I disagree... But this thread wasn't about the war in Iraq... So I will stop talking about it here.