Ideology to Die For

[Dragonfighter]

Like others I would hope this is satire but you never can tell these days.

I have people that disagree with carry at church. I teach a youth bible study at my church and feel while they are with me I am responsible for trying to keep them safe. I have known these kids long enough to care about each one of them even though they are not mine. I feel 1 Timothy 5:8 applies to them as the are part of my Christian family. I think providing for protection is part of providing for ones family.




If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 5:8

The greek Pronoeo is a broad term that includes protecting and sheltering.

There is also Luke 22:36 for those that have any doubt.

[The Annoyed Man]

Like others I would hope this is satire but you never can tell these days.

I have people that disagree with carry at church. I teach a youth bible study at my church and feel while they are with me I am responsible for trying to keep them safe. I have known these kids long enough to care about each one of them even though they are not mine. I feel 1 Timothy 5:8 applies to them as the are part of my Christian family. I think providing for protection is part of providing for ones family.

If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 5:8

The greek Pronoeo is a broad term that includes protecting and sheltering.

There is also Luke 22:36 for those that have any doubt.

I host and lead a Wednesday night Life Group/Bible study in my home, and I carry during that time for exactly that reason. They may not be sheep, but those people are my flock anyway.

[57Coastie]

Just to give the guy a little break, in case he is not being satirical. He is catching it unanimously from all sides.

I would be surprised if many, if any, members of this forum have ever met a person with such strong beliefs about taking another human life, but I think I have. For example, back in the days of a military draft such individuals have succeeded in meeting the tough challenge of being granted CO status. That is no easy hurdle.

Time and again in this thread we see a religious theme used to attack such persons. My experience has been that on the other side one's fundamental religious beliefs foster such an attitude, and I think that their religious views are entitled to the same respect as are those of commentators here on this forum.

If, on the other hand, this fellow is being satirical, I have no respect for him for disrespecting those who truly believe this way, and in believing so deeply that they are prepared to even sacrifice their lives and those of persons dear to them.

With the greatest of respect,

Jim

[chabouk]

I would be surprised if many, if any, members of this forum have ever met a person with such strong beliefs about taking another human life, but I think I have. For example, back in the days of a military draft such individuals have succeeded in meeting the tough challenge of being granted CO status. That is no easy hurdle.

It's no easy hurdle to get CO status in order to avoid service, but it's fairly easy to be a CO. During my time (well after the draft ended), I knew a CO on active duty. He was one of the finest medical officers I've ever known.

He was a Seventh-Day Adventist, just like Medal of Honor recipient Desmond Doss. There is a great 2004 documentary about Desmond Doss, called "The Conscientious Objector" (appropriately enough). It's available on Netflix instant view.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0302427/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[57Coastie]

Good call, chabouk. Here we have a chance to see what real warriors, not those in their armchairs, think of men like Desmond Doss and your medical officer. Yours is a great tribute to the latter. To suggest that men like this may be cowards is unthinkable. This has not been explicity alleged here, and I will stress that, in hopes of not generating fire, but I'll bet you a nickle that it has been thought.

Jim

[drjoker]

Antigun people should decline police protection or insist on disarmed police. It's for the children!

Actually, they have. Most cops in not-so-Great Britain don't carry guns. You know what they do to limit LE casualties in the face of armed thugs? When you call 911, they'll come to your house to take a statement THE NEXT DAY. The murder rate in London has skyrocketed since they banned all the guns.

[marksiwel]

Antigun people should decline police protection or insist on disarmed police. It's for the children!

Actually, they have. Most cops in not-so-Great Britain don't carry guns. You know what they do to limit LE casualties in the face of armed thugs? When you call 911, they'll come to your house to take a statement THE NEXT DAY. The murder rate in London has skyrocketed since they banned all the guns.

also dont forget that they only count "Solved Cases" when reporting crimes.

[The Annoyed Man]

Just to give the guy a little break, in case he is not being satirical. He is catching it unanimously from all sides.

I would be surprised if many, if any, members of this forum have ever met a person with such strong beliefs about taking another human life, but I think I have. For example, back in the days of a military draft such individuals have succeeded in meeting the tough challenge of being granted CO status. That is no easy hurdle.

Time and again in this thread we see a religious theme used to attack such persons. My experience has been that on the other side one's fundamental religious beliefs foster such an attitude, and I think that their religious views are entitled to the same respect as are those of commentators here on this forum.

If, on the other hand, this fellow is being satirical, I have no respect for him for disrespecting those who truly believe this way, and in believing so deeply that they are prepared to even sacrifice their lives and those of persons dear to them.

With the greatest of respect,

Jim

Jim, equally with respect...

Although I mentioned my Bible study in a previous post in this thread, that had nothing to do with my reaction to the gentlemen in the article, but was rather in response to something someone else posted, slightly off topic.

I understand CO's. My former brother in law was/is a conscientious objector (for religious reasons... he's a Quaker) and successfully avoided military service during the Vietnam War by going through the formal process of obtaining that legal status. That my father in law, who was an active duty Major in the Army at the time, went to bat for him before the draft board and testified that he truly believed his son was a CO, probably helped him pass the requirements for acceptance by the draft board. But my negative reaction to the person in the article is because I believe that one's responsibility to protect one's own children transcends a non-violent philosophy. I believe that failing to protect one's child for philosophical reasons is tantamount to child neglect or abuse — which is against the law in this country. I realize that the law does not make that distinction... yet.... but on some kind of generally acceptable moral level, it is wrong. If you're not willing to lay down your life, or to take another's life to protect your children, then you shouldn't be allowed to have children. My sense is that my former brother in law would not stand by and watch his child be killed, if a violent reaction could possibly save him, even if that violence resulted in the perpetrator's death. There are times when violence is evil. There are also times when failure to do violence is evil.

That's just my 2¢, and it doesn't require any religious defense. It just seems obvious to me on the face of it.

Respectfully,

Chris

[57Coastie]

Sorry, Chris, no disrespect intended. I am not a religious person --agnostic, athiest, free-thinker -- pick one -- I do not care for labels, which tend to insert one into a group with which I may not share everything, and I have not really adopted one.

This being the case, I very seldom have anything to say about religion, and when I do I invariably regret it. I honestly respect all religions, so long as they do good things. I do not when they do bad things -- this is a political thing with me, not a religious one.

Well, I broke my rule this time, and blew it when I stepped into this, but this guy was getting it from all sides, without exception, as if there were only one side to the discussion. So I felt an obligation to come to the defense of those who have fundamental views like Desmond Doss did, and the guy who started this said he does, if he is not being sarcastic, I hasten to say. I'm unfamiliar with him.

I want you to know that I respect your views on this even more when you tell me they are not grounded in quotes from a religious tract somewhere, but that they have been developed through independent rational thinking. To me those are the beliefs which are most respected.

Jim

[snorri]

I respect someone who lives a life of nonviolence, for religious or other reasons, if they also object to others doing violence on their behalf. I have met people like that and they have my utmost respect, although I do not share their convictions.

[Dragonfighter]

On non-violence (absolute):

Secular Humanism,/Natural Selection: In humanism there is no innate value to life nor moral standard. There is simply choices of behavior based on ethical consequence; IOW it's not "wrong" for me to end your life (murder is a moral term and wouldn't apply) but there are social consequences (confinement, termination of my life) that could motivate me from a completely self preserving ideology, not to take your life. I may from some other non-altruistic motivation decide not to engage in violence either as aggressor or defender. The likely result is my genes will be "selected" out and the practical result is, my non-violence has failed me.

Political/Socialistic: From a societal commonality a choice of non-violence may be altruistic to "benefit" or advance the state. Again the practical aspect is a society that is prepared to do violence will dominate, assimilate or otherwise eliminate the non-violent society. The political motivation towards non-violence then fails both myself and the state. The political philosophy itself may very well be eradicated.

Religious: Appeals to some standard higher than self for moral norms. With few exceptions, the advancement of the religion is a key tenet. A religion that establishes absolute non-violence as a primary doctrine may have some appeal but is (practically speaking) may be eliminated. Also from a strictly pragmatic view point, the altruism of a given religion may very well be arrested by their ability to sustain their messaging; IOW if every time I send a monk into Mogadishu to feed or teach people and the food is taken and the monk killed, then neither the relief nor the religion is advanced. If you then call on someone who IS willing to do violence on your behalf, all you have done is removed yourself from the act by degree but are still responsible for the occurrence and therefore are in violation of your convictions. My non-violence has failed me.

So from a completely pragmatic viewpoint, there is no motivation for absolute non-violence. There is motivation for non-aggression. So from any perspective, self-serving, political or religious I can not respect anyone who takes a stance for absolute non-violence. What's more I have never known anyone so convicted they would not call the police should violence be done to them or someone they were attached to.

[snorri]

So from a completely pragmatic viewpoint, there is no motivation for absolute non-violence.

Faith is not generally based upon pragmatic considerations.

[Dragonfighter]

So from a completely pragmatic viewpoint, there is no motivation for absolute non-violence.

Faith is not generally based upon pragmatic considerations.

Agreed, but that is not what I was attempting to demonstrate. I was attempting to show that no matter what your worldview, absolute non-violence is a non sequitor. I am a man of faith and you are absolutely right, pragmatism rarely enters into the equation.

[The Annoyed Man]

As a religious person, I personally believe that ethics and morality arguments are dictated by God's expectations for us. But the key here is that not everyone is a religious person, as 57Coastie posted above. Consequently, for the whole of society to benefit from ethics and morality, these arguments have to also be couched in terminology that makes sense to the non-religious — whether or not one believes in their heart that those ethics and morality originate from God.

For instance, an acquaintance of mine named Francis Beckwith, who is a professor of philosophy at Baylor, once wrote a book titled "Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights" based on the premise that religious pro-life arguments are meaningless to the non-religious. If you are pro-life based on your religious faith, and you wish to convince a pro-choice secularist that abortion is immoral, you are going to have to do it in secular terms, because the other fellow doesn't share your religious paradigm. My point here is not about abortion (please, let's not add that particular fuel to this particular fire), but rather that morality based arguments have to resonate with the other person on a level that has meaning to them, or there can be no meeting of the minds.