Bullet for the US?

[Quincy Wisdom]

Ok, most of us would say it..."I would die for this country"...but do you really mean it?? Would you slowly bleed to death to save the US?

[ranger]

I have killed for this country, I have been disabled for this country, I would die for this country.

I will die a free man!

[Missouri Mule]

Well, I don't know about this. I prefer Patton's advice. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

[Duo_Maxwell]

Patton was great :)

[Quincy Wisdom]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
Patton was great :)

I second that.

[mahayana]

Nationalism and war, dying for a Cause/Religion/Nation, killing for a Cause/Religion/Nation; these are truly irrational, deeply ingrained parts of human nature.

I hope that one day questions like this will be answered "no" by people all over the world.

[Jray573]

Yes, pride in your country is a terrible thing. Freedom is absurd. Nothing is greater then my own life.

mahayana, I hope to never see a world where people like you are dominate.

[mahayana]

Don't worry, Jray. World peace is just a dream. I didn't mean to offend you.

[Jray573]

Well, you're right, especially with countries training terrorists.

Even if your utopia of a world were created, do you think your life would still be more valuable then the rest of the worlds?

Say for example, the world was completely at peace. )We will pretend for a second that that is possible.) One day a nation rises up to disturb that peace in a violent manner, would you believe that people should value their lives over stopping them?

BTW, you in no way implied world peace in your post.

[mahayana]

Honestly, I didn't vote. I responded to the nature of the question instead.

I consider my own life to be insignificant, of no more value than anyone else's. But I am a life-long pacifist, so have thought about this subject a lot.

In your hypothetical example, the Army rising up would have to be confronted and disarmed. Even I can't imagine a world with no violent conflicts arising.

[Jray573]

So then, some people would have to make the decision that the cause is greater then their own lives? Would that go against your original comment?

It's impossible to prevent conflict, all it takes is a person that doesn't see things in the mainstream that can convince others that he is right.

[mahayana]

It's interesting to ponder peacekeeping in a disarmed world with no countries. Then the "cause" would be universal... the sacrifice would be for the good of all.

[Jray573]

A disarmed world would be nice in theory. However, all a group would have to do is arm themselves, then they go up against an entire world that has no weapons. What then? Do they rearm themselves and give up their status? Or do they let a group of opportunist take over and ultimately lose their status anyways?

If people then volunteered themselves for the cause it would still not be good for everyone, because they people with the guns would not be pleased at their defeat. You would only be pleasing a possible majority. You may even have certain areas that really would prefer to do nothing.

Then you have to ask yourself what makes you the good guys, you have to justify your actions of going to war against the other group. That puts you right back into the seat with Americans volunteering for a cause to root out terrorism. We have to decide if our cause is better then theirs, or the rest of the worlds.

World peace is a nice thought, I would love to live there myself, but it's like one of my favorite quotes: "Everything works in theory. I want to move to theory."

[Calypso]

Originally posted by mahayana
Nationalism and war, dying for a Cause/Religion/Nation, killing for a Cause/Religion/Nation; these are truly irrational, deeply ingrained parts of human nature.

I hope that one day questions like this will be answered "no" by people all over the world.


I don't really believe defending your family, your neighbors, your fellow citizens is irrational...since these individuals make up the nation in which I live, I would give my life to save anyone of them from someone who wishes to do them harm.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Originally posted by mahayana
I consider my own life to be insignificant, of no more value than anyone else's. But I am a life-long pacifist, so have thought about this subject a lot.

In your hypothetical example, the Army rising up would have to be confronted and disarmed. Even I can't imagine a world with no violent conflicts arising.

Yes, our lives are insinficent. But i have a problem with pacifism.

But that's for another thread.

A united world would be great, but a disarmed world? I don't like that idea one bit. Not only would lack of weapons be a playground for violent criminals, but given the statistics, there has to be life elsewhere in the galaxy. Now, i don't exactly want to go hunting for sentient, or non-sentient life without a fat gun discharging lots of large caliber rounds, or a large amount of energy.

[SantaMonica]

I would fight to protect my family and friends. My family and friends live in the US, so yes...indirectly, I would.

[Blueangel]

I too would fight to protect my family and friends.

[mahayana]

Perhaps pacifism does belong in another thread. How we confront violence or respond to violence on personal, National, and International levels is a measure of our humanity.

Figuring out how to "love your enemy" is not a simple thing.

[ranger]

Originally posted by mahayana
Perhaps pacifism does belong in another thread. How we confront violence or respond to violence on personal, National, and International levels is a measure of our humanity.

Figuring out how to "love your enemy" is not a simple thing.

A pacifist only lives until they run into an armed terrorist or invading enemy. Option 2 is that they do the cowardly thing and switch sides to save their butt.

[Calypso]

Originally posted by ranger
A pacifist only lives until they run into an armed terrorist or invading enemy. Option 2 is that they do the cowardly thing and switch sides to save their butt.

I agree. And, if a pacifist meets their enemy and while they are standing around trying to figure out how to "love the enemy".... the enemy shows how much they love the pacifist by blowing the hell out of them.

or

While the enemy is attacking, the pacifist is on their hands and knees begging that the military that they so condemn in their pacifistic La La Land, would come and save their lives.

[mahayana]

Do you think Jesus would have changed his views had he lived in the modern world rather than a land occupied by Roman soldiers?

"When a man strikes you in the face, turn the other cheek and allow him to strike it as well." to

"when a dude goes for his gun, pull your piece and blow the bast**d away!"

[Calypso]

Originally posted by mahayana
Do you think Jesus would have changed his views had he lived in the modern world rather than a land occupied by Roman soldiers?

"When a man strikes you in the face, turn the other cheek and allow him to strike it as well." to

"when a dude goes for his gun, pull your piece and blow the bast**d away!"

I don't know, you'd have to ask Jesus that one...I don't know him well enough to actually give an answer as to what he would think or not think.

If a man strikes one of my cheeks, I don't give him the opportunity to strike the other, because he'd be doubled over in pain because my knee landed somewhere very sensitive and private to him.

If that "dude" pulls a gun on me where I am actually armed as well, I wouldn't necessarily blow him away, but I would shoot aiming for an area where I know his reflex would give him no opportunity to shoot back. If a guy actually shoots at me, then all bets are off and yes, I would not hesitate to blow him away...and he would have no one but himself to blame for being blown away.

[cpwill]

i believe my sig answers for me.

[Calypso]

Originally posted by cpwill
i believe my sig answers for me.

I totally agree with your signature/answer.

[mahayana]

But what would Jesus think of it?

[gopman]

The Bible tells us that there's a time for war. It's an unfortunate event, but can be necessary.

[Calypso]

Originally posted by mahayana
But what would Jesus think of it?

If you're directing this question towards me, I answered it already.

I have no idea what Jesus would think of it. I never had the opportunity to ask him. Have you?

[mahayana]

First let me apologize for distracting you with religious thoughts.

All we can know of Jesus are the words ascribed to Him. He was a pacifist and an opponent of capital punishment, materialism, and hypocrisy (among other things).

Maybe He would have been ok with rubber bullets, tear gas, dart guns to incapacitate, other non-lethal ways to defend innocents, had this technology existed in His world.

He certainly "took a bullet" for everyone, but He was no nationalist!

[Calypso]

Originally posted by mahayana
First let me apologize for distracting you with religious thoughts.

All we can know of Jesus are the words ascribed to Him. He was a pacifist and an opponent of capital punishment, materialism, and hypocrisy (among other things).

Maybe He would have been ok with rubber bullets, tear gas, dart guns to incapacitate, other non-lethal ways to defend innocents, had this technology existed in His world.

He certainly "took a bullet" for everyone, but He was no nationalist!

I agree that Jesus as what has been written about him was a pacifist, so I don't believe he would think it okay to use any type of violence such as rubber bullets, etc.

And, yes, as is written about him he did "take a bullet"...but was that a bullet that was really necessary for him to take? What would be written in the Bible if the group of people who supported Jesus and that watched Jesus being nailed to the cross and watched him carry that cross would have actually said, no way, would they allow this to happen to a person just based on religious beliefs and they would have sacrificed their own safety in order to save the life of a man they felt was innocent? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, just perhaps, God was testing mankind to see if one would sacrifice their life for that of his son's? This is how I perceived it and that is why I would never think twice of laying my life on the line for an innocent person that I see is about to lose their life.

[mahayana]

I agree with most of your post. Though it is unpopular with the "perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind" bunch, I would have wanted Jesus to live and not be crucified. Shame on Pontius for saying "I find no fault with this man", then letting it proceed!

I think you confuse non-violence with pacifism. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is another Jesus quote.

(and shame on those who name their guns and missles "Peacemakers, or tanks "Crusaders")

[Calypso]

Originally posted by mahayana
I agree with most of your post. Though it is unpopular with the "perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind" bunch, I would have wanted Jesus to live and not be crucified. Shame on Pontius for saying "I find no fault with this man", then letting it proceed!

I think you confuse non-violence with pacifism. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is another Jesus quote.

(and shame on those who name their guns and missles "Peacemakers, or tanks "Crusaders")

Truthfully, I don't categorize my beliefs as being popular or unpopular, because at the end of the day, they'll still be my beliefs either way. If people disagree with what I believe they certainly are entitled to as I am entitled disagree with theirs.

Pontius Pilate was a true hypocrite, to phrase an oxymoron.

I have no confusion with regards to non-violence and pacifism...pacifists are opposed to not only war, but violence of any type as a means of settling disputes.

[mahayana]

Calypso, you are generalizing about pacifism. It is a whole spectrum of thought and there are many kinds of pacifists. Even Webster mentions four different stances.

Belief that war is wrong.
Refusal to bear arms for your country in a war.
Belief in non-violence in your personal life
Belief in using non-violent tactics for political aims.

Pacifists are individual people. They are not perfect or consistent and they don't even agree with each other all the time. Some are religious, some are athiests. Some are passive, some are protesters, some are activists.

Personally, I think your stance about laying down your life to prevent an innocent person from being killed is admirable.

And not inconsistent with trying to stop a war-machine that threatens thousands of innocents daily.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by mahayana
Personally, I think your stance about laying down your life to prevent an innocent person from being killed is admirable.

:confused: what do you think it is soldiers are volunteering and swearing an oath to do???

as for "peacemakers", soldiers, police, etc.; sometimes "peace" requires the use of force.

pacifism is very nice, but only in a world where everyone else plays nice too; pacifism did not work against hitler, and it will not work against his descendants today. there are things more valuable than my life, and there are things more valuable than my desire not to have to kill anyone.

if you were walking down the street, saw a guy about to rape a 4 year old girl, and the only way to stop him was to go over there and subdue him physically, possibly even injure or kill him, would you do it?

if not, could you live with the rape of that little girl on your conscience?

because you made the decision that allowed it to happen.....


(PS: jesus was many things; pacifist was not one of them; reference that whole bull-whip temple scene;))

[mahayana]

Tell me about the bull-whip Temple thing. I know Jesus got angry several times; being a pacifist needn't involve being passive.

One problem with being a soldier is that you live an oath to obey orders, give your moral choice to other men. If your first obedience is to God, you will not make a good soldier. Hence the Conscientious Objector laws.

[cpwill]

Jesus walks into the temple; sees corruption and greed all over the place (money changers, people making bucks off of the sacrifices, etc.) (this is all the synoptics), so he begins throwing over tables, shouting, etc.; he drives them all out.

my first obedience is to God, and God has led me to become a soldier; so i see no necessary contradiction between the two. if i am ever given an immoral order, i have the right to refuse it, and bring it into a court, if necessary; where it can be determined whether, in fact, the order was moral or legal.

[Calypso]

Originally posted by mahayana
Calypso, you are generalizing about pacifism. It is a whole spectrum of thought and there are many kinds of pacifists. Even Webster mentions four different stances.

Belief that war is wrong.
Refusal to bear arms for your country in a war.
Belief in non-violence in your personal life
Belief in using non-violent tactics for political aims.

Pacifists are individual people. They are not perfect or consistent and they don't even agree with each other all the time. Some are religious, some are athiests. Some are passive, some are protesters, some are activists.

Personally, I think your stance about laying down your life to prevent an innocent person from being killed is admirable.

And not inconsistent with trying to stop a war-machine that threatens thousands of innocents daily.

Okay.......what on your list was not covered in my definition of a pacifist?

Whoever said pacifists are not individual people? I never did. And, believe me, I never said a pacifist was perfect...I mean, if you're trying to explain pacifists to me, please, stop, I already know who and what they are.

[mahayana]

"I have no confusion with regards to non-violence and pacifism...pacifists are opposed to not only war, but violence of any type as a means of settling disputes."

Calypso- this is what I was responding to. Not all pacifists combine these two things. There are plenty who think war is stupid who have killed people, under order. And there are plenty who will destroy property or provoke confrontations for this cause.

[Calypso]

Originally posted by mahayana
"I have no confusion with regards to non-violence and pacifism...pacifists are opposed to not only war, but violence of any type as a means of settling disputes."

Calypso- this is what I was responding to. Not all pacifists combine these two things. There are plenty who think war is stupid who have killed people, under order. And there are plenty who will destroy property or provoke confrontations for this cause.

In that case, then they are people calling themselves something they are not.

[mahayana]

I don't disagree. When opposition to war becomes a Cause, there are people willing to die for it. "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" was a peace group. Actually participating in war can make you a pacifist. (Most of the literature was written by ex-soldiers).

When Christians become soldiers and "kill for Jesus" they betray His teachings. I realize that this is an unpopular view. Feel free to desparage pacifism and generalize about pacifists.

[Calypso]

Originally posted by mahayana
I don't disagree. When opposition to war becomes a Cause, there are people willing to die for it. "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" was a peace group. Actually participating in war can make you a pacifist. (Most of the literature was written by ex-soldiers).

When Christians become soldiers and "kill for Jesus" they betray His teachings. I realize that this is an unpopular view. Feel free to desparage pacifism and generalize about pacifists.

Well, that's what I'm attempting to get straight....a true pacifist would do absolutely nothing involving violence...would not defend himself, his family, no one...I forget the poster who said this is what he believed in and that is why I questioned him to see if he would even defend his family or himself and he stated no....that is a true pacifist.

Anyone else who say calls themselves pacifists who demonstrate and riot for their cause and either start or join in violence may have some pacifistic ideals, but if they engage in violence they are not true pacifists. The same with defending yourself or your family against harm...if you defend yourself and your family then you are not a true pacifist, because a true pacifist would not defend and would allow themselves to die and their loved ones rather than engaging in violence.

Do Christians who become soliders and "kill for Jesus" really betray His teachings? That's your interpretation. Mine would be that they are not afraid to fight for what they feel is right. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for what they feel is right. The same as Jesus sacrificed himself for what he thought was right.

And, here's a thought to ponder.... a lot of people whom call themselves pacifists shout from the mountaintops the Commandment, "Thou Shall Not Kill"....that is what they base their pacifism on....yet they'll ignore the Commandment "Honor Thy Mother and Father" if they would refuse to engage in violence to save their lives...I think the greatest honor you could give your Mother and Father or anyone for that matter would be to save their lives from someone wanting to harm them.

And, I am not generalizing pacifists, in fact, I'm doing the opposite...weeding out those who call themselves pacifists versus those who really are pacifists.

As for disparaging pacifists, I have done that yes, and I probably will continue to do that, but I also would not hesistate to risk my life in order to save a pacifists' life from harm.

[Voice Of Reason]

In a heartbeat I would give my life defending my country and I am no hero...........