|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 10:17:14 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/world/asia/retired-japanese-fighter-pilot-sees-an-old-danger-on-the-horizon.html?_r=0As I read this article this morning I realized that to keep an ideal you need to have people speaking in favour of it. I greatly admire what Kaname Haradi is doing, using his last years to remind the Japanese and others why their renunciation of war should continue. It's remarkable to contemplate that a nation of Japan's might has been able to remain pacifist in this world for 70 years now. So, this brings me to a curious aspect of the friends' CO policy/ doctrine. In the 30 years we were in the group I never heard it mentioned in a meeting or convention. I never heard a worker even make reference to it in our home. There were a few passing references to the military service during the Vietnam War and one worker in Germany who had his tongue cut out for not enlisting. Of course, I never heard a worker speak against television, or uncut hair, except very infrequently. But in the case of the CO policy, I wonder, from the conversation and attitudes especially among American friends, if the policy will go by the wayside. I mean, you can't leave everything to the Spirit. How shall the next generation hear without a preacher? (Loosely paraphrasing Romans 10:14).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 10:30:57 GMT -5
It's nice to "renounce war" What Hat, but the fact is Japan lives under the "nuclear umbrella" of the USA. Without the alliance with America Japan will have to defend for itself - and boost its military spending. And the current problem for Japan today is China, followed by North Korea. It's all very well to "renounce war" but that could mean surrendering your land, your trade routes, your freedom, even your life in extreme situations. And that could be worse than war.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 11:19:09 GMT -5
The way I have understood this "CO" subject remains the same as it was when without any other party's assistance, I applied for it, and got it after being investigated thoroughly in 1960, is this: it is a result of individual conscience, offered to those compelled to serve. The status to my mind is neither something to be proud or ashamed of in any way.
ALSO, that status was created for those subject to mandatory service, no longer required at present. That matter of conscience is now chosen prior to enlistment.
To my mind, if it is a mindset dictated by anyone else, they miss the point. Since the end of the draft, compulsionary service, it is my understanding it is no longer required, nor offered. Every individual makes that choice of conscience now prior to enlistment, and none are compelled to train to kill or give orders to take the life of their fellow man in war. Thus, for those individually convicted by conscience not to train to do such, simply need never to enlist in a service that requires such.
Having myself chosen a "CO" status, it was simply something I felt compelled to do, openly confess to it, neither proud nor ashamed of having done so. True, while in uniform of service, I chose training for a number of duties way beyond what was required of me, of which I am glad to have done and resulted in special recognition and awards of citation. Thus, for me, this status is just, what's it called, a non-sequitur, have I chosen the right term?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 11:19:52 GMT -5
It's nice to "renounce war" What Hat, but the fact is Japan lives under the "nuclear umbrella" of the USA. Without the alliance with America Japan will have to defend for itself - and boost its military spending. And the current problem for Japan today is China, followed by North Korea. It's all very well to "renounce war" but that could mean surrendering your land, your trade routes, your freedom, even your life in extreme situations. And that could be worse than war. I recognize there are two sides to Japan's pacifism. And it might well end at some point. Nonetheless, the voice of a courageous man who has stared into the jaws of the worst of war, should be heeded. My question though is regarding the friends' CO status.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 11:22:45 GMT -5
The way I have understood this "CO" subject remains the same as it was when without any other party's assistance, I applied for it, and got it after being investigated thoroughly in 1960, is this: it is a result of individual conscience, offered to those compelled to serve. The status to my mind is neither something to be proud or ashamed of in any way.
To my mind, if it is a mindset dictated by anyone else, they miss the point. Since the end of the draft, compulsionary service, it is my understanding it is no longer required, nor offered. Every individual makes that choice of conscience now prior to enlistment, and none are compelled to train to kill or give orders to take the life of their fellow man in war. Thus, for those individually convicted by conscience not to train to do such, simply need never to enlist in a service that requires such.
Having myself chosen a "CO" status, it was simply something I felt compelled to do, openly confess to it, neither proud nor ashamed of having done so. True, while in uniform of service, I chose training for a number of duties way beyond what was required of me, of which I am glad to have done and resulted in special recognition and awards of citation. Thus, for me, this status is just, what's it called, a non-sequitur, have I chosen the right term? So, if I understand you correctly, the friends are leaving this as a matter of individual conscience, rather than an explicit product of the teaching of Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 12, 2015 11:35:17 GMT -5
The way I have understood this "CO" subject remains the same as it was when without any other party's assistance, I applied for it, and got it after being investigated thoroughly in 1960, is this: it is a result of individual conscience, offered to those compelled to serve. The status to my mind is neither something to be proud or ashamed of in any way.
To my mind, if it is a mindset dictated by anyone else, they miss the point. Since the end of the draft, compulsionary service, it is my understanding it is no longer required, nor offered. Every individual makes that choice of conscience now prior to enlistment, and none are compelled to train to kill or give orders to take the life of their fellow man in war. Thus, for those individually convicted by conscience not to train to do such, simply need never to enlist in a service that requires such.
Having myself chosen a "CO" status, it was simply something I felt compelled to do, openly confess to it, neither proud nor ashamed of having done so. True, while in uniform of service, I chose training for a number of duties way beyond what was required of me, of which I am glad to have done and resulted in special recognition and awards of citation. Thus, for me, this status is just, what's it called, a non-sequitur, have I chosen the right term? So, if I understand you correctly, the friends are leaving this as a matter of individual conscience, rather than an explicit product of the teaching of Jesus? That's the way that I understand it, and believe. Its a matter of conscience. Also, I do believe that the Spirit could tell one person to be a CO and another to be a warrior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 11:48:29 GMT -5
Smile, well, I guess that is one way of putting it, Sir. In my own situation, I am convicted by what I believe I am taught by my Lord's teaching and Holy Spirit. Am I to apply my beliefs and understanding to anyone except myself? I think not, for I could be in error. Choosing not to live by the sword, so far I have not died by the sword, and that is good enough for me.
Some, like an afore mentioned woman, have died doing what they believed right. I certainly do not disrespect them, rather quite the opposite, for without such people I would not be enjoying many of the things I do and have in life.
My lovely wife Kathleen has just been inducted into the D.A.R. She served as a USAF nurse practitioner in a war zone. Obviously, she did not die by the sword neither as many other wonderful veterans. I professinally made and wear a teeshirt that states, "No Veterans, No USA!" Does it matter one whit to me what capacity someone served? Not at all, as our VFW teeshirt states, "all gave some, some gave all!" as did her father in the Korean "war."
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 12, 2015 11:48:36 GMT -5
I have a couple questions...
what hat: What was the name of the "one worker in Germany who had his tongue cut out for not enlisting?" I never heard of this.
Nate: what was the name of "One of the friends, she died in the war I believe she was one of the first woman to die in combat zone?"
Thanx, CK
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 12, 2015 12:02:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 13:14:28 GMT -5
Smile, well, I guess that is one way of putting it, Sir. In my own situation, I am convicted by what I believe I am taught by my Lord's teaching and Holy Spirit. Am I to apply my beliefs and understanding to anyone except myself? I think not, for I could be in error. Choosing not to live by the sword, so far I have not died by the sword, and that is good enough for me.
Some, like an afore mentioned woman, have died doing what they believed right. I certainly do not disrespect them, rather quite the opposite, for without such people I would not be enjoying many of the things I do and have in life.
My lovely wife Kathleen has just been inducted into the D.A.R. She served as a USAF nurse practitioner in a war zone. Obviously, she did not die by the sword neither as many other wonderful veterans. I professinally made and wear a teeshirt that states, "No Veterans, No USA!" Does it matter one whit to me what capacity someone served? Not at all, as our VFW teeshirt states, "all gave some, some gave all!" as did her father in the Korean "war."
Okay, but this doesn't accord with the history of the friends, as I understand it. Incidentally, I do understand and respect your opinion as to how a church should handle this issue as well as your experience with the issue. However, my understanding of the history is that George Walker obtained recognition of the f&w movement as "Christian Conventions" and obtained exemption from military service for members of the "Christian Conventions" church. So certainly in World War II the friends stood en masse for CO status, and if they did leave the matter to individual conscience, there was also an expectation that conscience would lead people along a defined path. I'm not really interested in arguing pros and cons of being CO or not being CO, as I agree with you on it fundamentally being a matter of conscience. But at the same time I am interested in those who are like minded banding together politically or on a religious basis. That makes me interested in where the friends stand today, and whether there is a "party line" on the question. Or is everyone in the movement just wandering alone in the wilderness on this question.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 13:17:45 GMT -5
I have a couple questions... what hat: What was the name of the "one worker in Germany who had his tongue cut out for not enlisting?"I never heard of this. Nate: what was the name of "One of the friends, she died in the war I believe she was one of the first woman to die in combat zone?"
Thanx, CK
Cherie, German friends told me the story, but I don't know names or places. There are a number of interesting stories around the German friends during war time. Edgar Massey spent a lot of time in Europe (and still is of course) so I wonder if he might have heard this story as well. P.S. I know oral stories are often embellished over time, so I make no claim as to its accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 13:33:29 GMT -5
So, if I understand you correctly, the friends are leaving this as a matter of individual conscience, rather than an explicit product of the teaching of Jesus? That's the way that I understand it, and believe. Its a matter of conscience. Also, I do believe that the Spirit could tell one person to be a CO and another to be a warrior. It'd be quite difficult to argue CO in the face of Nazi-ism invading your country, which is what my parents faced. On the other hand, an imperialist aggressive war is another thing entirely. So, I think the Spirit might also lead in different directions at different times. I do have respect for the CO stance. The position is that unless someone stands against War period, we will never see an end to War. I think that is correct, but could I take that stance when my own family or even my country and my ideals were under threat? Difficult. However, I had always thought, and one or two friends told me the group was de facto CO. So I'm trying to sort out what the recent history on the question is. (We hang around with a number of Mennonites who are inveterate pacifists. They won't even do medical service, and will not assist any war effort, even on pain of death. And they have died for it, so I respect their position. Some of them are actively working toward peace in the Arab world. cpt.org/(Information only - I'm not endorsing this position.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 15:48:07 GMT -5
Sir, perhaps I did not address the issue clearly enough, getting old is my only excuse. I cannot address how the 2 and 2 ministry group handled things on the east coast under George Walker. I understood the main issue between GW and the Selective Service draft board was about two and two preachers, not the average 2 & 2 G.I. Joe. Don't know now, except for what you express, and certainly never knew as a young man. However, I certainly do know what the pollicy was in the pacific northwest.
Again, the C.O. Status is only of essence when there is conscription. Since there is no more draft, your curiosity to my mind is clearly no longer germaine as it is now a non-player unless/until a draft is resumed. My reasoning make sense to you? The rest that I have expressed applies only to where I was raised, and how I was called upon frequently to explain to others. Yes, I knew there were some very legalistic preachers in my part of the world who looked down upon anyone not a "C.O.".
When it came time for me to register for the draft, I simply read the rules decided how I understood them and applied them to myself, knowing nothing about Christian Convention letter-headed stationery.
|
|
logain
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by logain on Apr 12, 2015 16:08:32 GMT -5
I read an email that was sent around several years ago about a girl killed in the Middle East, who had been professing or was from a professing home.
Seems to be (in my faulty memory) that she and her family were from Wisconsin.
It was early in the conflict in Iraq I think.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 12, 2015 18:21:49 GMT -5
The belief or teaching of a CO status among the F&W in a time of non-conscription is germaine in this sense: If it still applies, volunteering for military service as an arms-bearing combatant would be forbidden.
Of course, there's a grey zone in modern warfare. Would it be allowed for a professing person to be the remote pilot of a enemy-killing drone? Would it be allowed to be, if not the pilot of said drone, a manufacturer of said drone?
If not a manufacturer, would it be allowed to be a person who finances the manufacture of said enemy-killing drone?
If you're paying for the drone, is that really much different from pulling the trigger to kill a man?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 12, 2015 20:27:34 GMT -5
The belief or teaching of a CO status among the F&W in a time of non-conscription is germaine in this sense: If it still applies, volunteering for military service as an arms-bearing combatant would be forbidden. Of course, there's a grey zone in modern warfare. Would it be allowed for a professing person to be the remote pilot of a enemy-killing drone? Would it be allowed to be, if not the pilot of said drone, a manufacturer of said drone? If not a manufacturer, would it be allowed to be a person who finances the manufacture of said enemy-killing drone? If you're paying for the drone, is that really much different from pulling the trigger to kill a man? So the friends shouldn't pay taxes?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 20:47:43 GMT -5
Sir, perhaps I did not address the issue clearly enough, getting old is my only excuse. I cannot address how the 2 and 2 ministry group handled things on the east coast under George Walker. I understood the main issue between GW and the Selective Service draft board was about two and two preachers, not the average 2 & 2 G.I. Joe. Don't know now, except for what you express, and certainly never knew as a young man. However, I certainly do know what the pollicy was in the pacific northwest.
Again, the C.O. Status is only of essence when there is conscription. Since there is no more draft, your curiosity to my mind is clearly no longer germaine as it is now a non-player unless/until a draft is resumed. My reasoning make sense to you? The rest that I have expressed applies only to where I was raised, and how I was called upon frequently to explain to others. Yes, I knew there were some very legalistic preachers in my part of the world who looked down upon anyone not a "C.O.".
When it came time for me to register for the draft, I simply read the rules decided how I understood them and applied them to myself, knowing nothing about Christian Convention letter-headed stationery. Yes, I understand the idea of no necessity for CO status unless there is conscription. Still some groups such as Quakers and Mennonite are known to be pacifists and will be CO whenever or wherever there is a draft. If there's no provision for them they will go to prison or death if need be to avoid military service. Thanks for clarifying the history in the Pacific Northwest. Once again it seems one of those areas like so many issues where there are local variations.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 20:51:22 GMT -5
The belief or teaching of a CO status among the F&W in a time of non-conscription is germaine in this sense: If it still applies, volunteering for military service as an arms-bearing combatant would be forbidden. Of course, there's a grey zone in modern warfare. Would it be allowed for a professing person to be the remote pilot of a enemy-killing drone? Would it be allowed to be, if not the pilot of said drone, a manufacturer of said drone? If not a manufacturer, would it be allowed to be a person who finances the manufacture of said enemy-killing drone? If you're paying for the drone, is that really much different from pulling the trigger to kill a man? So the friends shouldn't pay taxes? A religion where you get out of military service AND taxes. You might be on to something there.
|
|
logain
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by logain on Apr 12, 2015 21:42:18 GMT -5
The belief or teaching of a CO status among the F&W in a time of non-conscription is germaine in this sense: If it still applies, volunteering for military service as an arms-bearing combatant would be forbidden. Of course, there's a grey zone in modern warfare. Would it be allowed for a professing person to be the remote pilot of a enemy-killing drone? Would it be allowed to be, if not the pilot of said drone, a manufacturer of said drone? If not a manufacturer, would it be allowed to be a person who finances the manufacture of said enemy-killing drone? If you're paying for the drone, is that really much different from pulling the trigger to kill a man? Or voting for a President who will send troops into combat. (Which would be every one of the modern ones regardless of party). Yet not volunteering for service on religious grounds.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 13, 2015 1:24:34 GMT -5
It's nice to "renounce war" What Hat, but the fact is Japan lives under the "nuclear umbrella" of the USA. Without the alliance with America Japan will have to defend for itself - and boost its military spending. And the current problem for Japan today is China, followed by North Korea. It's all very well to "renounce war" but that could mean surrendering your land, your trade routes, your freedom, even your life in extreme situations. And that could be worse than war. Yes, it's nice to renounce war and if the fight was only for glory and empire it might be simple enough to refuse to be part of it. But do followers of Christ have an obligation to defend the innocent from evil people? If a bunch of Boko Haram terrorists were attacking a village to rape, kill and burn - and we had the means of stopping them - do we have a valid excuse for not doing so?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 13, 2015 5:04:22 GMT -5
The belief or teaching of a CO status among the F&W in a time of non-conscription is germaine in this sense: If it still applies, volunteering for military service as an arms-bearing combatant would be forbidden. Of course, there's a grey zone in modern warfare. Would it be allowed for a professing person to be the remote pilot of a enemy-killing drone? Would it be allowed to be, if not the pilot of said drone, a manufacturer of said drone? If not a manufacturer, would it be allowed to be a person who finances the manufacture of said enemy-killing drone? If you're paying for the drone, is that really much different from pulling the trigger to kill a man? So the friends shouldn't pay taxes? We do not provide legal or tax advice. Please consult with a professional tax adviser. Or a worker.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 13, 2015 6:49:23 GMT -5
It's nice to "renounce war" What Hat, but the fact is Japan lives under the "nuclear umbrella" of the USA. Without the alliance with America Japan will have to defend for itself - and boost its military spending. And the current problem for Japan today is China, followed by North Korea. It's all very well to "renounce war" but that could mean surrendering your land, your trade routes, your freedom, even your life in extreme situations. And that could be worse than war. Yes, it's nice to renounce war and if the fight was only for glory and empire it might be simple enough to refuse to be part of it. But do followers of Christ have an obligation to defend the innocent from evil people? If a bunch of Boko Haram terrorists were attacking a village to rape, kill and burn - and we had the means of stopping them - do we have a valid excuse for not doing so? You would have to trust God would not put you in that situation. I'm not being glib. Peacemakers go in to the worst conflict areas and try to make peace. They know the warmakers will also be there to work on the other end of human interaction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 11:44:07 GMT -5
Must have heard a thousand times in derision (as a C.O.) some play on an imaginary "what if" situation, making my conscience, and thus me, the butt of ridicule. I do not recall it ever being in a one on one situation, or having anyone else "stick up for me." The best answer I could give was: "that is why I serve my God, trusting in His leading in such a time."
Not one of those imaginary situations ever came to pass for me though indeed they could have no matter how remote the possibility. Instead, I served my God and my country in many years of true and loyal effort to the best of my ability. Never once have I expected another to live/believe as myself, nor upheld myself as an example of what another ought to be and believe. What I am and live by, is most definitely expected of me, and not another, and is the opinion I will take to my grave. It is my desire to give my all, smile, though my all grows less and less in these my last years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 12:48:28 GMT -5
It's nice to "renounce war" What Hat, but the fact is Japan lives under the "nuclear umbrella" of the USA. Without the alliance with America Japan will have to defend for itself - and boost its military spending. And the current problem for Japan today is China, followed by North Korea. It's all very well to "renounce war" but that could mean surrendering your land, your trade routes, your freedom, even your life in extreme situations. And that could be worse than war. Yes, it's nice to renounce war and if the fight was only for glory and empire it might be simple enough to refuse to be part of it. But do followers of Christ have an obligation to defend the innocent from evil people? If a bunch of Boko Haram terrorists were attacking a village to rape, kill and burn - and we had the means of stopping them - do we have a valid excuse for not doing so? Well, maybe John 15:13 might apply, but that might very well depend on whether or not the villagers were regarded/counted as our friends and we loved them or not our friends, and we don't care one hoot about them, is a possible answer towards a valid excuse; however for humanity's sake I think that if we have the means to do so we should strive to stop them.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 13, 2015 15:12:19 GMT -5
Yes, it's nice to renounce war and if the fight was only for glory and empire it might be simple enough to refuse to be part of it. But do followers of Christ have an obligation to defend the innocent from evil people? If a bunch of Boko Haram terrorists were attacking a village to rape, kill and burn - and we had the means of stopping them - do we have a valid excuse for not doing so? Well, maybe John 15:13 might apply, but that might very well depend on whether or not the villagers were regarded/counted as our friends and we loved them or not our friends, and we don't care one hoot about them, is a possible answer towards a valid excuse; however for humanity's sake I think that if we have the means to do so we should strive to stop them. If we were true followers of Christ's teaching, would we not care deeply about our fellow man and do what is in our power to help them?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 13, 2015 15:33:15 GMT -5
Yes, it's nice to renounce war and if the fight was only for glory and empire it might be simple enough to refuse to be part of it. But do followers of Christ have an obligation to defend the innocent from evil people? If a bunch of Boko Haram terrorists were attacking a village to rape, kill and burn - and we had the means of stopping them - do we have a valid excuse for not doing so? You would have to trust God would not put you in that situation. I'm not being glib. Peacemakers go in to the worst conflict areas and try to make peace. They know the warmakers will also be there to work on the other end of human interaction. If we trust God to not put us in that situation, do we trust that God put over 200 kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls in their situation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 16:15:05 GMT -5
Well, maybe John 15:13 might apply, but that might very well depend on whether or not the villagers were regarded/counted as our friends and we loved them or not our friends, and we don't care one hoot about them, is a possible answer towards a valid excuse; however for humanity's sake I think that if we have the means to do so we should strive to stop them. If we were true followers of Christ's teaching, would we not care deeply about our fellow man and do what is in our power to help them? But of course, sometimes it is tests like theses that reveals our true colors; my guess is that there is a lot of kypocracy around and about, superficial and hidden just below the surface- disguised. Such is the imperfection of deceitful human nature. Several years ago I overheard part of a conversation between a young lady and a young man; apparently he had seen her somewhere where she aught not to be, and he asked her "aren't you a Christian?" and her response was: "only when I am in church." So that would seem to suggest that when she is in church she is a true follower of Christ's teaching, but out of church she is not. Looks like some regard themselves as followers of Christ but not true followers of Christ's teachings
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 13, 2015 16:16:52 GMT -5
You would have to trust God would not put you in that situation. I'm not being glib. Peacemakers go in to the worst conflict areas and try to make peace. They know the warmakers will also be there to work on the other end of human interaction. If we trust God to not put us in that situation, do we trust that God put over 200 kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls in their situation? Let me express it like this: If you don't worry about the poor in your own town or city, then why would you worry about 200 Nigerian schoolgirls half way around the world.
|
|