Should soldiers who believe in God be denied weapons?

[quatona]

I think we should blame war neither on the government nor on the soldiers, but always on the enemy. That´s how it has always worked.

 

[stan1980]

I am sorry...

Not everyone agrees with you.

I know, very few people agree with me. It's like they've all been brainwashed to think that signing up to the army and being trained for combat (which will inevitably involve deaths and injuries) is okay.

War is necessary for the defense of the rights of people all over the world. Because evil does not put its weapons down, nor can good.

Generally, I don't think many people who serve in the army on any side are 'evil' as you put it. It's more the power crazed leaders. I can't say it enough times though, if no one was prepared to join the army there would be no wars. I mean, I can see the appeal in joining the army, in fact I reckon I'd enjoy the thrill of parts of it, but the bottom line is I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I went down that route. Joining an establishment that potentially causes untold misery is just not an option for me.

And ironically: the nations with voluntary military service and not compulsory are almost always the nations who find themselves on the side of righteousness.

Again, if no man was prepared to pick up a gun, you wouldn't be able to have a compulsory military. The army really does highlight the failure in man.

Your view seems really close minded towards war and really overbearing.

Overbearing, maybe, I feel strongly about it. Almost every single person in the world believes it is wrong to maim, injure and kill others (apart from the odd sociopath), so I just find it frustrating that so many people worldwide are prepared to join an establishment that does just that.

 

[wanderingone]

That is rubbish. Soldiers might not choose which wars they fight in, but the fact is when they sign up they have chosen a career which will very likely mean they will be contributing to wars. So, yes, war is their choice.

I'm not opposed to defense--.. meaning a military that's actually HERE to defend - You'll find I have limited sympathy for soldiers who find themselves in a war they don't agree with since yes.. they chose the job knowing they have to go regardless of if the war is one they support or don't, but they still don't choose what they get sent into and our completely voluntary military is still a relatively new concept...we still have a lot of vets around who didn't choose to be a soldier.

Not to mention quite a few coworkers and friends of mine were quite stunned to find themselves not able to retire or end their service when their time was up these last few years.

 

[platzapS]

Various points:

-No mass murderer (that I know of) killed strictly in the name of atheism. Atheists like Pol Pot and Stalin killed in the name of Communism, a complex ideology that often includes atheism as one of the tenets.

-I wouldn't claim Hitler was a Christian. He put on a nice show of orthodox religion for his predominately-Christian followers, but privately he dabbled in ancient Pagan mythology and the occult. He probably believed in some divine Providence, so he was not an atheist, but it's pretty meaningless to debate that either way. He killed based on the fascist and anti-Semitic ideology of Nazism.

-It's true that very few wars are purely ideological or religious, and most conflicts stem from very worldly desires for political power, land, and wealth. However, warmongers still justify their slaughter to the people by claiming the religious or philosophical high-ground. We need to strip away the facade of noble reasons and just plain admit when we're fighting for profit. That would probably kill most of the popular support for most wars.

-War is the joint fault of both the leaders who order it and the soldiers who carry it out. I would discourage anyone considering joining the military voluntarily to wait and think about it, because they might be volunteering to get themselves killed and kill innocent people for the benefit of war profiteers.

 

[CCGirl]

I can never get my head around this sort of thinking.

Yes, it is politicians who declare war, but I can not for the life of me understand how someone can say soldiers aren't to blame for wars. If it wasn't for the millions of men and women around the world who willingly sign up to become trained killers, there would be no one to fight for the politicians. The sooner the general public (in every country) wake up and realise being a soldier is NOT an acceptable job the better.

No soldiers No wars!

Excellent post. George Carlin also blamed the soldiers because without them being trained assasins (mercenaries), there would be no wars.

 

[Verv]

I think we should blame war neither on the government nor on the soldiers, but always on the enemy. That´s how it has always worked.

Haha... We should blame war on the human condition. Because that's what it is: one of our many human flaws.

I know, very few people agree with me. It's like they've all been brainwashed to think that signing up to the army and being trained for combat (which will inevitably involve deaths and injuries) is okay.

It is OK because sometimes it saves lives. It is especially OK if one is from a politically enlightened nation. And if they aren't it is still a noble profession by virtue of the risks one takes for complete strangers.

Again, if no man was prepared to pick up a gun, you wouldn't be able to have a compulsory military. The army really does highlight the failure in man.

And if everyone was willing to take a vow of poverty and work for the greater good there would be no starvation and we could live in a Utopia.

It isn't going to happen -- bad guys wont put down guns so good guys need guns, too.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Various points:

-No mass murderer (that I know of) killed strictly in the name of atheism. Atheists like Pol Pot and Stalin killed in the name of Communism, a complex ideology that often includes atheism as one of the tenets.

And on that mark: no mass murderers killed in the name of 'Christianity.' Specific brands of Christianity were killed for and usually the victims were "heretics."

-I wouldn't claim Hitler was a Christian. He put on a nice show of orthodox religion for his predominately-Christian followers, but privately he dabbled in ancient Pagan mythology and the occult. He probably believed in some divine Providence, so he was not an atheist, but it's pretty meaningless to debate that either way. He killed based on the fascist and anti-Semitic ideology of Nazism.

That is right.

-It's true that very few wars are purely ideological or religious, and most conflicts stem from very worldly desires for political power, land, and wealth. However, warmongers still justify their slaughter to the people by claiming the religious or philosophical high-ground. We need to strip away the facade of noble reasons and just plain admit when we're fighting for profit. That would probably kill most of the popular support for most wars.

Yeah, and I think few wars were ever sold as 'Christian' ones and those that were sold as such were surprisingly justified. If you look at the Crusades you would have to have been a fool to not look for a united Europe to counter the Seljuq invasion of the East.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The sooner the general public (in every country) wake up and realise being a soldier is NOT an acceptable job the better.

It seems to me that defending your nation against an invasion by a foreign power is an acceptable job. The problem only exists when politicians initiate wars or engage in "nation building". Don't blame the tool for what the decision-makers choose to do with it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Polycarp_fan]

And attacking a country who had not attacked us and gave no suggestion that they were going to do so, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, accomplishes this how? And... "a few hundred..." might check your numbers again on that one. Last time I checked, several thousand US soliders and several HUNDRED thousand Iraqi civilians were dead from the Iraq conflict alone. By that reasoning, why not just attack, say, Mongolia? Can you prove that they AREN'T planning an attack on America? Wouldn't it be better just to lose a few hundred lives putting them in their place and destroying any military capacity they might have, than risk them attacking us here?

As to the OP... no, I don't think denying religious soldiers weapon is a good idea. Like any gun control initiative, it sounds nice in theory (as does eliminating guns entirely), but in practice it would just lead to the "bad guys" being the only ones holding weapons (religious zealots in other countries, not to mention those "believers" in our own military who were willing to lie to get a gun.)

It's a fantastic idea if you include Muslims.

If you are going to Neo Con and/or Bush bash, please Muslim's bash as well. Far more civilians are killed by Muslims than Bush and his band of inept goofballs.

 

[quatona]

Haha... We should blame war on the human condition. Because that's what it is: one of our many human flaws.

It´s funny how you hold that against those very persons who refuse to partake in it.

Going to war is not a character flaw but an action, and everyone can refuse to help making it happen.

The double standard of the argument "Yes, war is hell blabla, but it´s just how we humans are" coming from persons who in pretty much all other instances argue from `We should try to keep work from strict ethical/moral standards (even when they are unrealistically high)´ will never cease to amaze me.

We should blame rape, murder and genocide on the human condition instead of doing our parts that they don´t happen. They are terrible but our human flaws, after all. Not to mention "fornication" and all the other stuff.

 

[quatona]

It seems to me that defending your nation against an invasion by a foreign power is an acceptable job. The problem only exists when politicians initiate wars or engage in "nation building". Don't blame the tool for what the decision-makers choose to do with it.

I don´t think it is a good idea for anyone to enter a setup in which he has to define himself as a tool that others can do with what they want.
If "responsibility" has any meaning I think this would be a good starting point for a world with more responsibility.

 

[quatona]

It's a fantastic idea if you include Muslims.

If you are going to Neo Con and/or Bush bash, please Muslim's bash as well. Far more civilians are killed by Muslims than Bush and his band of inept goofballs.

There is no shortage in bashing the perceived enemies, so we can sure this part is covered quite fine.
Wasn´t there an ancient book that talks about logs and splints and eyes?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don´t think it is a good idea for anyone to enter a setup in which he has to define himself as a tool that others can do with what they want.
If "responsibility" has any meaning I think this would be a good starting point for a world with more responsibility.

I tend to agree.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[David Brider]

I can never get my head around this sort of thinking.

Yes, it is politicians who declare war, but I can not for the life of me understand how someone can say soldiers aren't to blame for wars. If it wasn't for the millions of men and women around the world who willingly sign up to become trained killers, there would be no one to fight for the politicians. The sooner the general public (in every country) wake up and realise being a soldier is NOT an acceptable job the better.

No soldiers No wars!

Couldn't agree more.

David.

 

[laurareneah]

I'd think if you believe in God you wouldn't want to participate in wars anyway, IMO.