"In following Jesus' example, I could not have fired my weapon at another human being, even if he were shooting at me"

[Caladan 19]

Religious people also believe in just wars and following your conscience. Iraq is not a just war, according to religiously-developed just war theory. If he believed he'd be liberating Iraqis and instead sees Abu Ghraib and hired mercenaries, he might wonder whether a Christian could serve in an institution engaged in an unjust conflict.

How can someone claim "this war is just; that war is not just" as if it's a factual statement? It seems to me it's based on opinion and on a wider scale, culture, norms, values, etc. What we each think is "just" or "right" may differ (sometimes dramatically so) depending on who we are, where we are and what we're doing at the time.

For anyone to claim there's such a thing as only one type of "just war" is ludicrous.

Just because Jesus said love your enemy, that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. Religous people people would have to agree that Life is the greatest gift from god (which ever one). So wouldn't He/She want you to protect it?

I think there's a difference between defending your life and shooting at a designated enemy.

In the recent Ken Burns documentary, an WW2 veteran described going into a building they had just bombed to find a German soldier injured on the floor, but sitting up. The German was speaking to the GI in German and raising his hand out to him...then he began to reach into his coat pocket. The GI instinctively struck the wounded German with the butt of his rifle, causing the arm of German to fling into the air along with some photos. The German soldier was going to show the GI pictures of his wife and family.

So... what is this example supposed to show us? The German soldier made a dumb move. If the enemy has you in his sights, the very last thing you want to do is make a move that may be interpreted as a "hostile gesture." I'd say the German soldier was lucky the GI didn't shoot him.

Educate yourself. Just war theory is a pretty well-establish legal (and moral) practice, and it has its origins in religious teachings. It's basically a list of a set of conditions that must be fulfilled in order for a war to be just. And oddly enough, it is broad enough to cover variations in culture and circumstance. The argument from personal incredulity doesn't really help you here.

[Ban Hammer 14,586]

Religious people also believe in just wars and following your conscience. Iraq is not a just war, according to religiously-developed just war theory. If he believed he'd be liberating Iraqis and instead sees Abu Ghraib and hired mercenaries, he might wonder whether a Christian could serve in an institution engaged in an unjust conflict.

How can someone claim "this war is just; that war is not just" as if it's a factual statement? It seems to me it's based on opinion and on a wider scale, culture, norms, values, etc. What we each think is "just" or "right" may differ (sometimes dramatically so) depending on who we are, where we are and what we're doing at the time.

For anyone to claim there's such a thing as only one type of "just war" is ludicrous.

Just because Jesus said love your enemy, that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. Religous people people would have to agree that Life is the greatest gift from god (which ever one). So wouldn't He/She want you to protect it?

I think there's a difference between defending your life and shooting at a designated enemy.

In the recent Ken Burns documentary, an WW2 veteran described going into a building they had just bombed to find a German soldier injured on the floor, but sitting up. The German was speaking to the GI in German and raising his hand out to him...then he began to reach into his coat pocket. The GI instinctively struck the wounded German with the butt of his rifle, causing the arm of German to fling into the air along with some photos. The German soldier was going to show the GI pictures of his wife and family.

So... what is this example supposed to show us? The German soldier made a dumb move. If the enemy has you in his sights, the very last thing you want to do is make a move that may be interpreted as a "hostile gesture." I'd say the German soldier was lucky the GI didn't shoot him.

agreed. just like anyone with common sense wouldn't do that to a police officer stopping you at night.

i do have to wonder if this officer forgot his oath, particularly the bolded part:

I _____________having been appointed a ____________ in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

[natty bumppo 297]

i do have to wonder if this officer forgot his oath, particularly the bolded part:

I _____________having been appointed a ____________ in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

and now he dedicates himself to G_D after dedicating himself to another oath ??? ... yea right

I hope he is forced to pay the US gov't for his education ... at private school ... out of state rates ... plus room & board

[DeadPoolX 9]

Religious people also believe in just wars and following your conscience. Iraq is not a just war, according to religiously-developed just war theory. If he believed he'd be liberating Iraqis and instead sees Abu Ghraib and hired mercenaries, he might wonder whether a Christian could serve in an institution engaged in an unjust conflict.

How can someone claim "this war is just; that war is not just" as if it's a factual statement? It seems to me it's based on opinion and on a wider scale, culture, norms, values, etc. What we each think is "just" or "right" may differ (sometimes dramatically so) depending on who we are, where we are and what we're doing at the time.

For anyone to claim there's such a thing as only one type of "just war" is ludicrous.

Just because Jesus said love your enemy, that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. Religous people people would have to agree that Life is the greatest gift from god (which ever one). So wouldn't He/She want you to protect it?

I think there's a difference between defending your life and shooting at a designated enemy.

In the recent Ken Burns documentary, an WW2 veteran described going into a building they had just bombed to find a German soldier injured on the floor, but sitting up. The German was speaking to the GI in German and raising his hand out to him...then he began to reach into his coat pocket. The GI instinctively struck the wounded German with the butt of his rifle, causing the arm of German to fling into the air along with some photos. The German soldier was going to show the GI pictures of his wife and family.

So... what is this example supposed to show us? The German soldier made a dumb move. If the enemy has you in his sights, the very last thing you want to do is make a move that may be interpreted as a "hostile gesture." I'd say the German soldier was lucky the GI didn't shoot him.

Educate yourself. Just war theory is a pretty well-establish legal (and moral) practice, and it has its origins in religious teachings. It's basically a list of a set of conditions that must be fulfilled in order for a war to be just. And oddly enough, it is broad enough to cover variations in culture and circumstance. The argument from personal incredulity doesn't really help you here.

Excuse me? "Educate myself? I happen to be extremely well versed in nearly all aspects of military history (both foreign and domestic), so please... don't tell me to "educate myself" when it comes to topics in this particular domain.

Now then, as far as "just war theory" goes, I have never heard of it used as a motivating principle or singular factor in which a country decides if war is necessary. I'm sure it'd be nice if war could be neat and tidy, with it all fitting into these lovely theories. However, real life doesn't work that way.

What's specified in the boardroom and before the battle can be (and often is) quite different from what occurs during the battle. Human nature, being what it is, changes the situation and armies must adapt on the fly. They cannot sit there, pondering the philosophical merits and debate whether or not their next actions may be "just" according to some group's moral and religious principles.

The bottom line? War, in of itself, is not just. I don't care who set these conditions down. The real world does not sit and wait for certain conditions to be met before acting. That is a handicap that no side can afford to give itself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The bottom line? War, in of itself, is not just. I don't care who set these conditions down. The real world does not sit and wait for certain conditions to be met before acting. That is a handicap that no side can afford to give itself.

Philosophically that's true. Practically however, when a country is part of a broad international community bound by treaty agreements, terms like "Just" and "legal" sure have a place in the argument...

[DeadPoolX 9]

The bottom line? War, in of itself, is not just. I don't care who set these conditions down. The real world does not sit and wait for certain conditions to be met before acting. That is a handicap that no side can afford to give itself.

Philosophically that's true. Practically however, when a country is part of a broad international community bound by treaty agreements, terms like "Just" and "legal" sure have a place in the argument...

I'm sure they do. But if the enemy is firing on you, it's psychotic to demand that impending actions wait until the qualifications for a "just war" have been met. Furthermore, I have an extremely difficult time believing that any government body can legislate something as intangible and subjective as what "just" means.

For instance, if someone breaks into my home, I may find it "just" to shoot and kill him. My neighbor, however, may feel that my actions weren't "just" and that I should have detained the criminal or scared him off -- that those actions would've been "just" instead. So how can someone or some group say "this is what 'just' means for everyone, all over the world, no matter what you may think."

[natty bumppo 297]

The bottom line? War, in of itself, is not just. I don't care who set these conditions down. The real world does not sit and wait for certain conditions to be met before acting. That is a handicap that no side can afford to give itself.

Philosophically that's true. Practically however, when a country is part of a broad international community bound by treaty agreements, terms like "Just" and "legal" sure have a place in the argument...

I'm sure they do. But if the enemy is firing on you, it's psychotic to demand that impending actions wait until the qualifications for a "just war" have been met. Furthermore, I have an extremely difficult time believing that any government body can legislate something as intangible and subjective as what "just" means.

For instance, if someone breaks into my home, I may find it "just" to shoot and kill him. My neighbor, however, may feel that my actions weren't "just" and that I should have detained the criminal or scared him off -- that those actions would've been "just" instead. So how can someone or some group say "this is what 'just' means for everyone, all over the world, no matter what you may think."

All you have to do is tell the attacker ... wait a few moments ... I need to contact people to see if it is "just" for me to protect myself ...

yea right ....

[Heracles 417]

What a bunch of BS from another 'Civil Liberties Union'.. Which join the army then fool... It's like becoming a nurse and then saying, well I don't like the site of blood or sick people..

[SteveLaura 0]

Or becoming a pharmacist and saying, you know, I don't want to hand out emergency contraception...

[almaty 19]

sometimes, people chance their views and thoughts..i know it is strange concept here on VJ..with all the rigid personailities types, but in the world..some people view life differently after some new experiences

[natty bumppo 297]

Or becoming a pharmacist and saying, you know, I don't want to hand out emergency contraception...

emergency contraception ?? condoms are OTC ......

what about emergency heart meds ... might be better

[DeadPoolX 9]

Or becoming a pharmacist and saying, you know, I don't want to hand out emergency contraception...

emergency contraception ?? condoms are OTC ......

what about emergency heart meds ... might be better

I think he meant the "morning after pill" for when a couple has unplanned unprotected sex. It could also be used in the event a barrier method (such as condoms) fail.

[Fandango 1,440]

Or becoming a pharmacist and saying, you know, I don't want to hand out emergency contraception...

Was this off the cuff, or are you trying to draw a parallel where that justifies this because you see it as 'worse'?

[Kevin and 10]

Just because Jesus said love your enemy, that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. Religous people people would have to agree that Life is the greatest gift from god (which ever one). So wouldn't He/She want you to protect it?

I think there's a difference between defending your life and shooting at a designated enemy.

In the recent Ken Burns documentary, an WW2 veteran described going into a building they had just bombed to find a German soldier injured on the floor, but sitting up. The German was speaking to the GI in German and raising his hand out to him...then he began to reach into his coat pocket. The GI instinctively struck the wounded German with the butt of his rifle, causing the arm of German to fling into the air along with some photos. The German soldier was going to show the GI pictures of his wife and family.

"In following Jesus' example, I could not have fired my weapon at another human being, even if he were shooting at me", Christian gets conscientious objector status

If someone (home invasion, battlefield, or street) was shooting at me or they were going to shoot/kill me if they had the chance, I'm shooting back or shooting first. Whether or not it justified I'll leave that to a court.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The bottom line? War, in of itself, is not just. I don't care who set these conditions down. The real world does not sit and wait for certain conditions to be met before acting. That is a handicap that no side can afford to give itself.

Philosophically that's true. Practically however, when a country is part of a broad international community bound by treaty agreements, terms like "Just" and "legal" sure have a place in the argument...

I'm sure they do. But if the enemy is firing on you, it's psychotic to demand that impending actions wait until the qualifications for a "just war" have been met. Furthermore, I have an extremely difficult time believing that any government body can legislate something as intangible and subjective as what "just" means.

For instance, if someone breaks into my home, I may find it "just" to shoot and kill him. My neighbor, however, may feel that my actions weren't "just" and that I should have detained the criminal or scared him off -- that those actions would've been "just" instead. So how can someone or some group say "this is what 'just' means for everyone, all over the world, no matter what you may think."

"Just" in the broader context is used interchangeably with "legal" and again ties together with international treaty organisations. "Just" is a subjective term certainly, but as far as international law goes - there are certain terms of reference for what is deemed legal and appropriate.

Are you referring to the soldier with that "psychotic" comment, or the Iraq war in general?