Comments on: This Land is Whose Land? http://www.notquitecenter.com/2008/12/10/this-land-is-whose-land/ Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:37:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Reluctant http://www.notquitecenter.com/2008/12/10/this-land-is-whose-land/#comment-278 Reluctant Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:23:04 +0000 http://www.notquitecenter.com/?p=152#comment-278 I'm not saying that fighting is the better way to go. I'm just saying that you can't force everyone to believe like you do. Especially when life is on the line. Let's put this in terms that are a little less "large." A few years ago there was a big uproar in a Davis or Weber County community about having a city owned swimming pool open on Sundays. A study/poll was conducted and it was determine that it would still be profitable (at least break even) if the pool remained open on Sunday. Half of the community wanted it open and the other half wanted it closed (in fact slightly more than half). Which way is the right way? Morally speaking (if you follow orthodox Christian beliefs) the pool should be closed because of the Sabbath Day. But is it right for a community to close a public service just because a slight majority believe a day is sacred? You can't force your beliefs on others. You can only try to convince them of your beliefs. I fully agree that not fighting is the higher road, but you can't force that higher road on someone who doesn't believe in that higher road. I said "higher road" a lot ;) I’m not saying that fighting is the better way to go. I’m just saying that you can’t force everyone to believe like you do. Especially when life is on the line.

Let’s put this in terms that are a little less “large.” A few years ago there was a big uproar in a Davis or Weber County community about having a city owned swimming pool open on Sundays. A study/poll was conducted and it was determine that it would still be profitable (at least break even) if the pool remained open on Sunday.

Half of the community wanted it open and the other half wanted it closed (in fact slightly more than half). Which way is the right way? Morally speaking (if you follow orthodox Christian beliefs) the pool should be closed because of the Sabbath Day. But is it right for a community to close a public service just because a slight majority believe a day is sacred?

You can’t force your beliefs on others. You can only try to convince them of your beliefs.

I fully agree that not fighting is the higher road, but you can’t force that higher road on someone who doesn’t believe in that higher road.

I said “higher road” a lot ;)

]]> By: Mike W. http://www.notquitecenter.com/2008/12/10/this-land-is-whose-land/#comment-277 Mike W. Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:20:43 +0000 http://www.notquitecenter.com/?p=152#comment-277 Why is the moral obligation TO fight? Why isn't the moral obligation to not fight? I would argue that that is a better way to protect his people, in the long run. It just requires generational thinking instead of the expediency with which ALL politicians currently act. Why is the moral obligation TO fight? Why isn’t the moral obligation to not fight? I would argue that that is a better way to protect his people, in the long run. It just requires generational thinking instead of the expediency with which ALL politicians currently act.

]]> By: Reluctant http://www.notquitecenter.com/2008/12/10/this-land-is-whose-land/#comment-276 Reluctant Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:38:11 +0000 http://www.notquitecenter.com/?p=152#comment-276 I didn't say that the government is doing it correctly. Individuals should have all the choice they want in that regard. Although I don't agree that an individual who is enjoying the benefits of military employment (and schooling) during peace time can suddenly claim to be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector" rel="nofollow">conscientious objector</a> as soon as a war comes along. But that's another discussion. But as a government leader, I don't believe it moral to tell the people that because of how you believe, they are going to possibly die. Now, if the (significant) majority votes that they don't want to fight against an invading force, then so be it. That's again the choice of the people. But when life is at stake, the leader has a moral obligation to protect his people. And yes, that very likely means fighting a war. I didn’t say that the government is doing it correctly. Individuals should have all the choice they want in that regard. Although I don’t agree that an individual who is enjoying the benefits of military employment (and schooling) during peace time can suddenly claim to be a conscientious objector as soon as a war comes along. But that’s another discussion.

But as a government leader, I don’t believe it moral to tell the people that because of how you believe, they are going to possibly die. Now, if the (significant) majority votes that they don’t want to fight against an invading force, then so be it. That’s again the choice of the people.

But when life is at stake, the leader has a moral obligation to protect his people. And yes, that very likely means fighting a war.

]]> By: Centrist http://www.notquitecenter.com/2008/12/10/this-land-is-whose-land/#comment-275 Centrist Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:44:18 +0000 http://www.notquitecenter.com/?p=152#comment-275 Reluctant, if a government cannot force its citizens NOT to protect the nation, can it force them TO protect it? In America the answer is yes, or imprisonment. Why? Because if too many people decide they don't want to fight, the state (and therefore the government) faces extinction. And because states are as intent on self-preservation as the rest of us, they make laws to compel people to kill other people so we can "maintain our way of life," even if that way of life is against our "Christian" moorings. Reluctant, if a government cannot force its citizens NOT to protect the nation, can it force them TO protect it? In America the answer is yes, or imprisonment. Why? Because if too many people decide they don’t want to fight, the state (and therefore the government) faces extinction. And because states are as intent on self-preservation as the rest of us, they make laws to compel people to kill other people so we can “maintain our way of life,” even if that way of life is against our “Christian” moorings.

]]> By: Reluctant http://www.notquitecenter.com/2008/12/10/this-land-is-whose-land/#comment-274 Reluctant Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:11:10 +0000 http://www.notquitecenter.com/?p=152#comment-274 <blockquote> I was told the other day that if I chose to refuse to fight for my country on grounds of my Christian beliefs, it would be "immoral." </blockquote> Ok fine... you goaded me into commenting on your blog. You either totally misunderstood what I was saying or intentionally misrepresented it. I'm hoping it was the former. I said that a government cannot force an entire people to not defend themselves (and potentially be slaughtered by an unrelenting enemy). If you as an individual want to keep from fighting in a war for religious reasons, I think that is just fine.

I was told the other day that if I chose to refuse to fight for my country on grounds of my Christian beliefs, it would be “immoral.”

Ok fine… you goaded me into commenting on your blog. You either totally misunderstood what I was saying or intentionally misrepresented it. I’m hoping it was the former.

I said that a government cannot force an entire people to not defend themselves (and potentially be slaughtered by an unrelenting enemy). If you as an individual want to keep from fighting in a war for religious reasons, I think that is just fine.

]]>