ec2-44-211-117-197.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | WarDeclared | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic

*sigh*  People really ARE rallying around now that it has started - even without it having really started.  Probably.

Quote on the news: "Now it is time for the anti war protesters to rally to the support of our troops."  WHY?  "Now that the killer is actually killing, it is time to start supporting him."  Does that make less sense?
I think that comparison is unwarrantedly provocative, and misses some key aspects.  "Now that the unpopular guy has been elected CEO anyway, it is time for those who voted against him to support him because he's leading their company now" might be fairer.  I personally don't plan to "rally to the support of our troops" (depending on quite what that means), but I think I can see the point of view that suggests I should.  I just disagree with it.  --AC
You're right.  The comparison was good for soldiers in general, but not yet proven for these soldiers specifically.  Suitably edited.

(PeterTaylor) Surely one can support the troops without supporting the government that's giving them orders?
How?  I can give orders, if I like.  Here we go, I want all wikizens to firebomb Milton Keynes.  A worthy aim - the place is a pit of despair and mocks cows.  Now, is it me or you is at fault if you go and do it?  As far as I know, international law agrees with me on this example (although not specifically naming milton keynes) - "I was following orders" is not an excuse.  Now, this is not to say that the politicians should be deposed and imprisoned as well - but they're politicians.  They're supposed to be evil and corrupt.
(PeterTaylor) s/politicians should/politicians shouldn't/? See MoonShadow's question below. I don't think I was using support to mean quite the same thing in the two usages in my sentence above. (P.S. Only M.K., or can we include Slough as well?)
Whatever makes it funnier, that bit was irrelevant.  As to Slough - Sure.  Leave the cinema though, it's got a nice armchair lounge thingy.
See /CogInAMachine

What do you mean by "support"? Commiserate about the dead/injured, yes, we can certainly do that. Cheer when they kill people - why?  - MoonShadow

I agree with whoever said that you can't support the military and oppose the government that gives the orders. The military is essentially a tool of the state and expresses their wishes in actions. To some extent one could claim members of the military give up a right to exercise their moral conscience when they sign up as their first allegiance is to "Queen and country". Could it be, being a Christian and a member of the military are mutually exclusive as a result??

Vitenka Well, a large number of Christian soldiers would disagree with you.  But, ISTR from discussions a long time ago, that most of them would also say that it was their duty to disobey 'wrong' orders and to think carefully about what they meant.  I wouldn't oppose anyone who was on the front lines and fighting because they truly believed that the people they were fighting were supporting people who were a direct threat to themselves /their family etc. (I'd still think they were wrong, but in an 'argue with them' way)  I *do* oppose the people who, it appears, now support war 'because it is inevitable' or 'because our politicians say its ok'

I also object to the use of the word 'Christian' here, though I understand what was meant.  And trust this wiki to be a heck of a lot better than most discussion fora.
Not wanting to start a flamewar - why do you object to the word? Is it exclusive/discriminatory/offensive in this context? - SunKitten, also hoping the wiki will remain its slightly chaotic but generally friendly self
The sentence is used in a way "Being moral and being in the military are mutually exclusive" - which means you are substituting Christian for moral, which is overly sweeping in both directions.  (Excluding non Christians from being moral and assuing all Christians are moral) - This is a false assumption of your meaning (not mine - SunKitten), but it's one sure to start a flamewar on any other forum.  Plus the assumption that people will understand what you mean by 'Christian' is kinda tricky.  After all, the torturers of the spanish inquisition considered themselves Christian.
Now, if you want the sentence to be read as "Is it impossible to be (my understanding of) Christian and in the military" then, well, only you can answer that - at least without giving a huge diversion on your understanding of the word.  Maybe not better, but at least easier, to stick with terms we agree on the meaning of.
Fair enough. I read the original 'can one be a Christian and in the army' as a subset of 'people with morals in the army' - SunKitten
I assumed that was the intent of it, but objected to having to make that assumption.  Since, if it was wrong, it could cause all sorts of grief.
(PeterTaylor) I had understood the author (SunKitten? - no, not me - I always sign - SunKitten) to be a Christian who wished to start a discussion among Christians about Christian ethics. Having a general discussion about ethics is always difficult because "general" implies (in the context of the variety of philosophies one encounters in reality) that there isn't uniform agreement on the axioms. Since Christian ethics are based on divine self-revelation, it is certainly not obvious that a discussion on ethics between Christians and atheists would remain "on topic" for very long.

Now isn't that interesting.  I read the original two sentences above ("To some extent one could claim members of the military give up a right to exercise their moral conscience when they sign up as their first allegiance is to "Queen and country". Could it be, being a Christian and a member of the military are mutually exclusive as a result??") as making two different points: one to do with a person surrendering their right to object based on morals, and one to do with Christians having a higher authority and thus not being able to give full allegiance.  This might be an alternative way of looking at the issue... it might avoid the "Christian vs moral" comparison, anyway.

Does allegiance to Queen and country necessitate always following the Queen and country's orders unquestioningly, or does it merely necessitate doing what you think is best for Queen and country? Before this goes up the wrong tree, I'm not asking what our armed forces would like for it to be here, I'm asking what it morally ought to be. If you see what I mean. - MoonShadow


I gather the link was put here as a reponse to the point about Christians in the military above, since it contains that quote by the chaplain? - MoonShadow

It was put there to demonstrate why the troops deserve our support.

Aye.  It went in before the christian bit did, it's just ended up afterward due to an edit.  It's a good speech.  Nay, up until the end it is a very good speech.  But I don't see why it means the troops deserve support.  Because they are being exhorted to be as nice as posisble while they commit a great wrong?  Because they need to be reminded of international law?  Because they are being lied to about being liberators rather than conquerors?

ec2-44-211-117-197.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | WarDeclared | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic
Edit this page | View other revisions | Recently used referrers
Last edited March 21, 2003 2:02 pm (viewing revision 17, which is the newest) (diff)