Quantcast

Being Christian is the new ghey!

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
40,943
13,136
Portland, OR
Wow, this makes for an interesting way to get out of the military.

Link

"Love thy enemy" -- U.S. soldier gets discharge

Tue Oct 16, 3:32 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier who said his Christian beliefs compelled him to love his enemies, not kill them, has been granted conscientious objector status and honorably discharged, a civil liberties group said on Tuesday.

Capt. Peter Brown -- who served in Iraq for more than a year and was a graduate of the elite U.S. military academy West Point -- said in a statement issued by the New York Civil Liberties Union that he was relieved the Army had recognized his beliefs made it impossible for him to serve.

"In following Jesus' example, I could not have fired my weapon at another human being, even if he were shooting at me," said Brown, who plans to continue seminary classes he began by correspondence while in Iraq.

While in Iraq, Brown processed insurgents and detainees, the NYCLU said.

Brown said he had no conflict between his faith and military service until after he graduated from West Point in 2004 and began to study scripture and his belief.

During his Iraq deployment he applied for discharge as a conscientious objector but the request was denied, the NYCLU said. In July 2007 the NYCLU and the American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to order the honorable discharge.

"Before the court acted, the Army reconsidered the issue, this time granting Brown's request," said the NYCLU, adding it would now withdraw the lawsuit.

The U.S. Army was not immediately available for comment.
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
I want to bring this topic back up. I've been thinking a lot about the roles of Christians in the Army. One one hand, I believe that there is an undefined and hard to nail down need for a defensive military force in the secular world. I also want to believe (but am not entirely convinced) that Christians are called to complete non-violence. I have a hard time reconciling these two beliefs on the grounds that Christians who live in a secular world cannot legitimately claim to be non-violent while benefiting from the violence of others. In other words, we can't claim to be non-violent while letting others do the dirty work for us. I want to believe that there is some positive role that any Christian (or non-violent person) can have in the military as it exists in this material world.

Anybody have any insight into this?
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
I want to bring this topic back up. I've been thinking a lot about the roles of Christians in the Army. One one hand, I believe that there is an undefined and hard to nail down need for a defensive military force in the secular world. I also want to believe (but am not entirely convinced) that Christians are called to complete non-violence. I have a hard time reconciling these two beliefs on the grounds that Christians who live in a secular world cannot legitimately claim to be non-violent while benefiting from the violence of others. In other words, we can't claim to be non-violent while letting others do the dirty work for us. I want to believe that there is some positive role that any Christian (or non-violent person) can have in the military as it exists in this material world.

Anybody have any insight into this?
I am not of the opinion that Christianity calls one into pacificism (even if that's not the label you are thinking of, it seems to work for what you say)- certainly, tradition does not bear this out and gospel passages are more than just ambiguous. The currents of non-retaliation, non-comeptitive social relations and non-agression are stronger and do not necessitate pacisifism/utter non-violence.

In any case, pacifism is no way to run a sustainable society. The arguments from Christian pacifists have, to me, been unconvincing because they ignore or underestimate the capacity for human hardness. Those who kill masses are not likely to be swayed utterly by the humility of those masses- they will continue to do so unti there's nobody left to kill because they have likely already dehumanized their targets sufficiently.

The teachings of non-violence or pacifism are not tenable in the long term and, I do not believe they were designed to be given the eschatological focus of early Christian communities and their relative political powerlessness. We are in a different situation. Further, if you are bothered by the extension of your morality to others- not letting others do the dirty work for you- you may want to consider extending this into other possible worlds. What I mean is that, to a certain extent, we are responsible for our failures to act. When our moral imperative is so clear and immediate and we do nothing (think, for example, of the Rwandan genocide), that, to me, is reprehensible. We'd like to believe that in that kind of situation there is some viable non-violent option, but, unfortunately, that is not the world we live in. If you believe at all that we can be culpable for something not done, then non-violence is of little sway.
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,196
4
Isn't it convenient that he obtained his education on the military's dollar and then decided he couldn't serve because of his beliefs?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
if this guy's truly a christian, he should lay his rifle down & let it turn into a snake.

and we all know how much hajjis hate asps.
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
I am not of the opinion that Christianity calls one into pacificism (even if that's not the label you are thinking of, it seems to work for what you say)- certainly, tradition does not bear this out and gospel passages are more than just ambiguous. The currents of non-retaliation, non-comeptitive social relations and non-agression are stronger and do not necessitate pacisifism/utter non-violence.

In any case, pacifism is no way to run a sustainable society. The arguments from Christian pacifists have, to me, been unconvincing because they ignore or underestimate the capacity for human hardness. Those who kill masses are not likely to be swayed utterly by the humility of those masses- they will continue to do so unti there's nobody left to kill because they have likely already dehumanized their targets sufficiently.

The teachings of non-violence or pacifism are not tenable in the long term and, I do not believe they were designed to be given the eschatological focus of early Christian communities and their relative political powerlessness. We are in a different situation. Further, if you are bothered by the extension of your morality to others- not letting others do the dirty work for you- you may want to consider extending this into other possible worlds. What I mean is that, to a certain extent, we are responsible for our failures to act. When our moral imperative is so clear and immediate and we do nothing (think, for example, of the Rwandan genocide), that, to me, is reprehensible. We'd like to believe that in that kind of situation there is some viable non-violent option, but, unfortunately, that is not the world we live in. If you believe at all that we can be culpable for something not done, then non-violence is of little sway.
I generally agree with you. I don't think that a society can be sustained without a military, and I don't think that as Christians, we can stand idly by without taking action in cases of genocide. This is a stance that I've developed over the last few years. At the same time, many Christians, authors (specifically Yoder), and some of my professors have held the stance that we are called to be other worldly and rely on a politic of non-violence or pacifism. I see how that line of thinking works with spiritual matters of the soul, but we can't forget that we have to deal with the physical world that we live in because there is no better option. Is there anybody else other opinions on the matter?
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
What kind of moron with that belief systems joins the damn military? You joined a force where your main job is to kill the enemy. It isn't a draft, you voluntarily joined up. Idiot.

Isn't it convenient that he obtained his education on the military's dollar and then decided he couldn't serve because of his beliefs?
Exactly. Cheating the system should come with penalties. He should have to pay for his training and any education he received. He is not living up to his end of the agreement.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
I see how that line of thinking works with spiritual matters of the soul, but we can't forget that we have to deal with the physical world that we live in because there is no better option. Is there anybody else other opinions on the matter?
As someone who believes neither in God nor the soul (call me a buddhist if you like), I wouldn't imagine I'm at all qualified to comment, so it's perfect that I pipe up on the Internet.

However, if you did believe in peace above all, and a reward of an afterlife, especially a paradisical one, it would seem that escewing violence even unto (like the King James-ish construction there?) your own death and the death of other innocents is what you're commanded to do, and rewarded for doing. All in the name of not propogating the chain of worldly violence yourself. (Then again, that itself seems rather buddhist, too...but I learned what I know through the possibly corrupted east Asian buddhism practiced by warriors...and Jesus was an eastern thinker, not a European.)

In this model, your own life and the lives of others would merely be dirty, transient blockades along the way to paradise. You should live to alleviate as much suffering as possible through aiding others, but to the point where you perhaps even inspire your enemies and the evildoers with your collective willingness to sacrifice your lives in the name of belief and peace. And if your behavior doesn't inspire/convert/bring them to righteousness, it's God's will and your calling to martyrdom, no?

I know there's one bit about Jesus being furious and driving out the moneylenders with a rope (what Manimal would call an intermediate weapon, heh) and the part about bringing a sword rather than peace, but I think the first is an editorial anomoly and the second is a metaphor--or even a koan--about how his teachings (peace) will bring righteousness to the world.

But there's always that tension between the worldly and the spiritual in any religion that endorses a metaphysics and a split between the apparent and some higher or eternal world. I find that division to be not only distasteful, but corrupting.

And I carry a gun. Or several.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
What kind of moron with that belief systems joins the damn military? You joined a force where your main job is to kill the enemy. It isn't a draft, you voluntarily joined up. Idiot.
...
Exactly. Cheating the system should come with penalties. He should have to pay for his training and any education he received. He is not living up to his end of the agreement.
Well, yeah, but he didn't get all jesus-y until after his free education and going to a place where people want to kill him...
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,976
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
I am not of the opinion that Christianity calls one into pacificism (even if that's not the label you are thinking of, it seems to work for what you say)- certainly, tradition does not bear this out and gospel passages are more than just ambiguous.
Yeah, "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" is really ambigous....
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
Yeah, "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" is really ambigous....
Well, when you consider the translation, it kind of is... I mean, you're obviously supposed to kill animals to eat, so it's not absolute. Plenty of Jews killed people on the battlefield and off, and God wasn't pissed about it, so where are the lines?

So perhaps thou shalt not murder is a better translation. But then it's more of a human command than a divine one.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
Yeah, "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" is really ambigous....
As MikeD says, it is. Well, it's not even that it is ambiguous in itslef so much as it is just a bad translation. From the JPS Study Bible notes on Ex. 20:13: "This refers to illicit killing. The KJV's "thou shalt not kill" [as opposed to "you shall not murder"] is too broad; implies that even capital punishment and war are prohibited, whereas the Torah sometimes mandates these."

The interpretation I gave earlier- it's not like I made that up or it's my personal idea. It was pulled from various scholarly sources.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Yeah, "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" is really ambigous....
Consider the source of that command. It's the same God who orders his followers to commit genocide.

I'd say that's about as binding a command as Ted Haggard telling the kids to stay away from meth and gay prostitutes.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
In this model, your own life and the lives of others would merely be dirty, transient blockades along the way to paradise. You should live to alleviate as much suffering as possible through aiding others, but to the point where you perhaps even inspire your enemies and the evildoers with your collective willingness to sacrifice your lives in the name of belief and peace. And if your behavior doesn't inspire/convert/bring them to righteousness, it's God's will and your calling to martyrdom, no?
did you get narnia for your b-day?
But there's always that tension between the worldly and the spiritual in any religion that endorses a metaphysics and a split between the apparent and some higher or eternal world. I find that division to be not only distasteful, but corrupting.
you may enjoy some light reading at common ground, where they interview mario beauregard, a nonmaterialist neuroscientist
And I carry a gun. Or several.
"god is a bullet; have mercy on us everyone"
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,976
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
Consider the source of that command. It's the same God who orders his followers to commit genocide.

I'd say that's about as binding a command as Ted Haggard telling the kids to stay away from meth and gay prostitutes.
Jeez, I was trying to make an ironic joke..... I realize the old testament God and the New testament God are completely different Characters. Kinda like Michael Vick before his arraignment and after....