|
Post by What Hat on Apr 13, 2015 16:37:07 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. As I read your post I'm struck by a comparison with the Japanese fighter pilot I quoted in the original post. "“I fought the war from the cockpit of a Zero, and can still remember the faces of those I killed,” said Mr. Harada, who said he was able to meet and befriend some of his foes who survived the war. “They were fathers and sons, too. I didn’t hate them or even know them.”
“That is how war robs you of your humanity,” he added, “by putting you in a situation where you must either kill perfect strangers or be killed by them.” So because of your decision you don't have that on your conscience. I wonder if you can recall any other positive effects because of the choice you made, however small?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 13, 2015 16:42:04 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? Peacemakers can help also. The world needs more peacemakers than it needs warriors. The warrior will always be held up as the more desirable alternative, as far as the world is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 13, 2015 16:50:52 GMT -5
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. Do you consider the 200+ Nigerian schoolgirls, some who are allegedly being used as suicide bombers, to be less in need than the poorest person in your city?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 13, 2015 16:52:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 13, 2015 18:16:59 GMT -5
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? This is like asking if god knows that a bunch of Boko Haram terrorists are attacking a village to rape, kill and burn - and s/he had the means of stopping them - does s/he have a valid excuse for not doing so?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 13, 2015 21:26:19 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. Or if the enemy was actually relatives like in the US civil war or the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita where Arjuna and Krsna are conversing about war. Always exceptions where it's not just black and white.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 21:56:45 GMT -5
Someone asked if there was any other "CO" experience...
Recalling when my life was threatened by someone hating me as a "CO" medic, in the presence of other combat veterans, saying if the enemy didn't kill me, they would.
Not knowing how to respond or what to say, I just shrugged. The most sr. veteran then spoke up and told the person that his threat did not go over so well with him, as that senior NCO said he knew I would risk my own life, unarmed, to save everyone else bringing them medical aid as necessary, and I was the only one among them trained and qualified to do that, and he advised my adversary to consider what the rest of them might do to him, should he carry out his threat.
As Chaplains were rare as hen's teeth, more than once I was asked to pray aloud to my God. It was a simple thing to do, "Lord, please, all in, all out safe." That Cuban mission in October of 1962 saw that prayer answered. My young friend a couple of years later was not so fortunate and came home from another mission in another country in a body bag. Do I have any answers? No, I do not.
As that young soldier's escort was traveling on the train back to Washington State from San Fran, his female seat mate told him, I know a young man who is a medic over there, would you know him? His name is Timothy Workman. The soldier replied to her, "ma'am, it is his body that I am escorting home to Washington State."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 13, 2015 23:03:35 GMT -5
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. Do you consider the 200+ Nigerian schoolgirls, some who are allegedly being used as suicide bombers, to be less in need than the poorest person in your city? Your post in response to Boko Horom was - 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? So, who is the true follower of Christ's teaching? (1) The armchair warrior who believes that Boko Horom should be attacked, but does not have to confront the situation. (2) The peacemaker who has no answer for Boko Horom, but at least helps the poor in his own city.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 13, 2015 23:08:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Apr 14, 2015 14:45:44 GMT -5
What Hat, your OP seems out of touch, but maybe that's because most of my professing years were spent in the US. I don't think that there is much if any CO sentiment left here among F&W's. That was my short answer Now the long one: When we met our first worker, he told us about New Zealand friends who were CO in WW1 and how they were imprisoned as a result. Later, I heard about the US friends who were COs as well. Well, when I applied for US citizenship, I was asked if I would be willing to bear arms as a US citizen, and I replied negatively. I was instructed to provide a letter from my church in order to apply for religious exemption. So, my husband and I contacted our overseer, William Lewis, and asked him for such a letter. William and his companion payed us a visit, and told us that, while it is a conviction held by many F&W's, the church has no official doctrine on this issue. He gave me a letter stating the same. The letter was written on a letterhead which reads "Christian Conventions." This was in my early years of professing. Later on, it became obvious that the friends are not exactly pacifists and that they tend to be patriotic, much like most church-going folks around here. My early confusion probably stemmed from assumption that refusal to bear arms indicated pacifism and rejection of patriotism as a guiding value (us vs them mentality), seeing yourself and everyone else primarily as God's children, and neutrality and objectiveness in evaluating one's country's military involvement and actions. OK, you can laugh at me. Out of curiosity, do they have Canadian flags flying at Canadian convention entrances? One European worker expressed her horror to me at the US flags waiving at conventions here. I assume that such expression of patriotic feelings is not customary elsewhere. I think that the patriotism among F&W's here is a reflection of the society in general, but also of F&W's being immersed in the general culture more than they used to be. ??
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 14, 2015 15:21:19 GMT -5
It seems that William Irvine objected to the CO stance taken by workers and friends...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2015 18:26:11 GMT -5
What Hat, your OP seems out of touch, but maybe that's because most of my professing years were spent in the US. I don't think that there is much if any CO sentiment left here among F&W's. That was my short answer Now the long one: When we met our first worker, he told us about New Zealand friends who were CO in WW1 and how they were imprisoned as a result. Later, I heard about the US friends who were COs as well. Well, when I applied for US citizenship, I was asked if I would be willing to bear arms as a US citizen, and I replied negatively. I was instructed to provide a letter from my church in order to apply for religious exemption. So, my husband and I contacted our overseer, William Lewis, and asked him for such a letter. William and his companion payed us a visit, and told us that, while it is a conviction held by many F&W's, the church has no official doctrine on this issue. He gave me a letter stating the same. The letter was written on a letterhead which reads "Christian Conventions." This was in my early years of professing. Later on, it became obvious that the friends are not exactly pacifists and that they tend to be patriotic, much like most church-going folks around here. My early confusion probably stemmed from assumption that refusal to bear arms indicated pacifism and rejection of patriotism as a guiding value (us vs them mentality), seeing yourself and everyone else primarily as God's children, and neutrality and objectiveness in evaluating one's country's military involvement and actions. OK, you can laugh at me. Out of curiosity, do they have Canadian flags flying at Canadian convention entrances? One European worker expressed her horror to me at the US flags waiving at conventions here. I assume that such expression of patriotic feelings is not customary elsewhere. I think that the patriotism among F&W's here is a reflection of the society in general, but also of F&W's being immersed in the general culture more than they used to be. ?? I was definitely told by a few friends some years in that the friends were conscientious objectors. I also heard about a large number of young US friends who did medical service during the Vietnam War. And various other anecdotes. I thought that I'd look around TTT and once again, the site didn't let me down on this one. Here is a very detailed history of the friends and their history of conscientious objection. From what I read there I'm not out of touch at all. www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/20wmibook.phpWhile I can understand any individual seeing this as a matter of conscience, I can not understand a church not having a clear interpretation of Scripture on this key question. How could half the people decide that they would give life and limb in order not to fight, and the other half decide to give life and limb in order to fight. In the same war? Further, what kind of church would register itself as a CO church, and then tell its members this is a matter of conscience. And, as in your example, offer no support to those who understood and wished to register as conscientious objectors as per their understanding of the church's doctrine and history? Yes, I'm truly perplexed by the American friends' response on this issue. Take the following points from the Bible as per the page above. Do those verses mean two things or one thing? I mean, I can understand different churches drawing different conclusions. I can't see a given church drawing no conclusion at all. OR two conclusions at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2015 18:41:21 GMT -5
It seems that William Irvine objected to the CO stance taken by workers and friends... Apparently Irvine sent that letter to a magistrate. That's pretty low isn't it? He would obviously know this might land the friends in hot water.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 19:34:02 GMT -5
Seems to me my earlier post regarding this matter being an individual one, and not a church wide one was perhaps not so far off base as some thought? Even today, I do not fault those who join a military branch of their country. I honor them. Nor do I wish this thread to become a censure of any for their conviction on the matter, or even lack thereof.
Some post here as if they are opposed to any form of law and order. Shrug. That is their right in a country like the USA, or similar. I chose to join the Coast Guard Family, did quite well in it, too, until my health failed. I respect the police force, even knowing there are those within it who deserve no respect. I will continue to do as I am told by law enforcement officers, smile, while avoiding any situation where I need to be told what to do by them.
Personally, having worn the uniform of service from the rank of E 1 to O 5 (honorary, after years of dedicated service) I am proud, yes proud, of having been a veteran, thankful to have been spared many regretful memories because of choices made by conscience. I trust there are many honorable young people coming along behind who will make equally reliable choices. Some of the ideas I got approved into programs, remain in affect even to the present. I am sure all of the good ideas have not been exhausted, and some of these younger men and women will see their share implemented as well.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 14, 2015 20:17:10 GMT -5
Do you consider the 200+ Nigerian schoolgirls, some who are allegedly being used as suicide bombers, to be less in need than the poorest person in your city? Your post in response to Boko Horom was - 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? So, who is the true follower of Christ's teaching? (1) The armchair warrior who believes that Boko Horom should be attacked, but does not have to confront the situation. (2) The peacemaker who has no answer for Boko Horom, but at least helps the poor in his own city. Helping the poor in your own city is a different issue to whether or not the friends should claim CO status in wartime, but I suppose you're entitled to widen the scope of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Apr 14, 2015 20:38:15 GMT -5
What Hat, your OP seems out of touch, but maybe that's because most of my professing years were spent in the US. I don't think that there is much if any CO sentiment left here among F&W's. That was my short answer Now the long one: When we met our first worker, he told us about New Zealand friends who were CO in WW1 and how they were imprisoned as a result. Later, I heard about the US friends who were COs as well. Well, when I applied for US citizenship, I was asked if I would be willing to bear arms as a US citizen, and I replied negatively. I was instructed to provide a letter from my church in order to apply for religious exemption. So, my husband and I contacted our overseer, William Lewis, and asked him for such a letter. William and his companion payed us a visit, and told us that, while it is a conviction held by many F&W's, the church has no official doctrine on this issue. He gave me a letter stating the same. The letter was written on a letterhead which reads "Christian Conventions." This was in my early years of professing. Later on, it became obvious that the friends are not exactly pacifists and that they tend to be patriotic, much like most church-going folks around here. My early confusion probably stemmed from assumption that refusal to bear arms indicated pacifism and rejection of patriotism as a guiding value (us vs them mentality), seeing yourself and everyone else primarily as God's children, and neutrality and objectiveness in evaluating one's country's military involvement and actions. OK, you can laugh at me. Out of curiosity, do they have Canadian flags flying at Canadian convention entrances? One European worker expressed her horror to me at the US flags waiving at conventions here. I assume that such expression of patriotic feelings is not customary elsewhere. I think that the patriotism among F&W's here is a reflection of the society in general, but also of F&W's being immersed in the general culture more than they used to be. ?? I was definitely told by a few friends some years in that the friends were conscientious objectors. I also heard about a large number of young US friends who did medical service during the Vietnam War. And various other anecdotes. I thought that I'd look around TTT and once again, the site didn't let me down on this one. Here is a very detailed history of the friends and their history of conscientious objection. From what I read there I'm not out of touch at all. www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/20wmibook.phpWhile I can understand any individual seeing this as a matter of conscience, I can not understand a church not having a clear interpretation of Scripture on this key question. How could half the people decide that they would give life and limb in order not to fight, and the other half decide to give life and limb in order to fight. In the same war? Further, what kind of church would register itself as a CO church, and then tell its members this is a matter of conscience. And, as in your example, offer no support to those who understood and wished to register as conscientious objectors as per their understanding of the church's doctrine and history? Yes, I'm truly perplexed by the American friends' response on this issue. Take the following points from the Bible as per the page above. Do those verses mean two things or one thing? I mean, I can understand different churches drawing different conclusions. I can't see a given church drawing no conclusion at all. OR two conclusions at the same time. Just want to make sure it's understood from my post that I was given by the workers a letter supporting my CO status request in as much as they could provide support, and it was accepted by the officials as valid and sufficient. But I was more than surprised to be told that it was not their church doctrine as I had understood it to be based on everything I had heard up to that point. I wonder if anyone can fill us in on Vietnam veterans meetings for friends and workers? From what I recall, they are organized by the friends every several years and workers are invited. They meet on a Saturday and talk about their experiences, and I've heard of Vietnamese and Korean friends being brought in who thanked them for their service. On the following Sunday they have a meeting, probably much like a Special meeting due to the size of it. Don't quote me on any of this as it's been years since I heard about it - I hope someone more knowledgeable can correct me and/or add more information.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 15, 2015 3:28:15 GMT -5
Your post in response to Boko Horom was - 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? So, who is the true follower of Christ's teaching? (1) The armchair warrior who believes that Boko Horom should be attacked, but does not have to confront the situation. (2) The peacemaker who has no answer for Boko Horom, but at least helps the poor in his own city. Helping the poor in your own city is a different issue to whether or not the friends should claim CO status in wartime, but I suppose you're entitled to widen the scope of the thread. My point is that CO is not an abandonment of others in peril; your article on the Australian peacemaker being a case in point.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 15, 2015 3:52:28 GMT -5
I was definitely told by a few friends some years in that the friends were conscientious objectors. I also heard about a large number of young US friends who did medical service during the Vietnam War. And various other anecdotes. I thought that I'd look around TTT and once again, the site didn't let me down on this one. Here is a very detailed history of the friends and their history of conscientious objection. From what I read there I'm not out of touch at all. www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/20wmibook.phpWhile I can understand any individual seeing this as a matter of conscience, I can not understand a church not having a clear interpretation of Scripture on this key question. How could half the people decide that they would give life and limb in order not to fight, and the other half decide to give life and limb in order to fight. In the same war? Further, what kind of church would register itself as a CO church, and then tell its members this is a matter of conscience. And, as in your example, offer no support to those who understood and wished to register as conscientious objectors as per their understanding of the church's doctrine and history? Yes, I'm truly perplexed by the American friends' response on this issue. Take the following points from the Bible as per the page above. Do those verses mean two things or one thing? I mean, I can understand different churches drawing different conclusions. I can't see a given church drawing no conclusion at all. OR two conclusions at the same time. Just want to make sure it's understood from my post that I was given by the workers a letter supporting my CO status request in as much as they could provide support, and it was accepted by the officials as valid and sufficient. But I was more than surprised to be told that it was not their church doctrine as I had understood it to be based on everything I had heard up to that point. I wonder if anyone can fill us in on Vietnam veterans meetings for friends and workers? From what I recall, they are organized by the friends every several years and workers are invited. They meet on a Saturday and talk about their experiences, and I've heard of Vietnamese and Korean friends being brought in who thanked them for their service. On the following Sunday they have a meeting, probably much like a Special meeting due to the size of it. Don't quote me on any of this as it's been years since I heard about it - I hope someone more knowledgeable can correct me and/or add more information. I'm pleased the letter did provide sufficient support for you request. The way your previous post read it seemed the letter would be no support at all. I wonder if the letter was along the lines of - we have no doctrine of any kind in our church, but if we did it would be against military service. I could almost understand that. Without me being too snoopy, is it possible to indicate how they did support your request (for citizenship) given we know that it wasn't church policy or doctrine? On the question of patriotism, I see it being an uneasy companion with following Jesus. I'm fairly sure no flags are flown at Canadian convention grounds. Could flying a flag indicate first loyalty to country and second place to Jesus? Some who believe in the symbol of the Cross might take that meaning. I think it's misleading, probably a bit of American cultural contamination of sound belief. I do think that if you don't explicitly speak your belief as a church then things slip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 7:35:02 GMT -5
The woman that was killed Iraq from WI, was from a profession family. The workers had her funeral which was attended by the governor and other dignitaries from WI. The worker who had part in the funeral told me how wonderful it was that those in power in WI got to hear the gospel that day. If I remember right, only her mother and grandparents professed.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Apr 15, 2015 8:43:05 GMT -5
Just want to make sure it's understood from my post that I was given by the workers a letter supporting my CO status request in as much as they could provide support, and it was accepted by the officials as valid and sufficient. But I was more than surprised to be told that it was not their church doctrine as I had understood it to be based on everything I had heard up to that point. I wonder if anyone can fill us in on Vietnam veterans meetings for friends and workers? From what I recall, they are organized by the friends every several years and workers are invited. They meet on a Saturday and talk about their experiences, and I've heard of Vietnamese and Korean friends being brought in who thanked them for their service. On the following Sunday they have a meeting, probably much like a Special meeting due to the size of it. Don't quote me on any of this as it's been years since I heard about it - I hope someone more knowledgeable can correct me and/or add more information. I'm pleased the letter did provide sufficient support for you request. The way your previous post read it seemed the letter would be no support at all. I wonder if the letter was along the lines of - we have no doctrine of any kind in our church, but if we did it would be against military service. I could almost understand that. Without me being too snoopy, is it possible to indicate how they did support your request (for citizenship) given we know that it wasn't church policy or doctrine? On the question of patriotism, I see it being an uneasy companion with following Jesus. I'm fairly sure no flags are flown at Canadian convention grounds. Could flying a flag indicate first loyalty to country and second place to Jesus? Some who believe in the symbol of the Cross might take that meaning. I think it's misleading, probably a bit of American cultural contamination of sound belief. I do think that if you don't explicitly speak your belief as a church then things slip. I am sorry, but I can't locate the letter. It said something along the lines of: we have no official doctrine on this issue, but it is a conviction held by many of our church members. When I say they provided support, it's because they provided the letter. Given the absence of official church doctrine, they could have just said: sorry, we have no church doctrine about it, we can't give you anything in writing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 10:53:35 GMT -5
Hi, Maja! Kind, loving greetings to you, Albert and your dear children! Maja, I just wanted to tell you that letter to you as I perceive from your accounting of it, is exactly as I would have given, and attempted to express in my first posts to this thread, except for the fact what was related here was from my own conscience and experience.
Indeed, there was no instruction nor counsel given me in the matter, and relying only upon the knowledge base gained as a 18 year old lad, I resonded to all the govermental questions accordingly. Hence my early FBI Sellective Service investigation and subsequent file. I did know my uncles served during WW 2 in combat zones, under fire, yet unarmed. There was another young man at the time, not respected by my father at that time, who had joined the marines voluntarily, and survived the Bataan death march. I respected him equally well as my two uncles.
All this went into my knowledge base in the matter as I chose not to live by the sword as a young lad, beginning adult life. I had no advice nor counsel from any relation, person or preacher (worker) and certainly knew nothing about CC letterhead. Now I've expressed enough on this subject, and cannot address this issue any clearer than I have. After the draft ended, I had a nephew join an old regiment of mine, The 82nd Airborne. (AA all the way!) It was his choice, and I was/am proud of him, though I do not know (nor am kept informed) of what has happened to him since.
ADD ON: there is this one last point. More than likely, It simply is not known how many "professing" service men served in SE Asia during the Vietnam war, as great attention has not been given them. We are somehow ignored and not worthy. In my case it is understandable having been in "black ops" in 1963, I simply, wasn't there. However for the many serving "under arms" their omission is much less understandable.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 15, 2015 11:13:19 GMT -5
Maja - please see the PM I sent you. There were booklets compiled regarding four 2x2 American veteran reunions--possibly more that I do not know about. I have booklets for these: 1992 Ft. Sam Houston Army Reunion (Vietnam War) My ex-husband is listed in this one with our family photo and info.1995 WW2 Charleston SC Reunion 1999 WW2 Sparks, NV Reunion - M y father and uncle with wives attended this one.2006 Korean War Veterans Reunion The booklet covers maybe viewed in the TTT Photo Gallery here: www.tellingthetruth.info/plogger/index.php?level=album&id=123There is introductory material in some of them telling about the meeting schedules, speakers, etc. Is there anything in particular you want to know that I could find on one of these booklets? Does anyone know if there were other reunions held through the years? Any WWI reunions??
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Apr 15, 2015 11:52:42 GMT -5
Maja - please see the PM I sent you. There were booklets compiled regarding four 2x2 American veteran reunions--possibly more that I do not know about. I have booklets for these: 1992 Ft. Sam Houston Army Reunion (Vietnam War) My ex-husband is listed in this one with our family photo and info.1995 WW2 Charleston SC Reunion 1999 WW2 Sparks, NV Reunion - M y father and uncle with wives attended this one.2006 Korean War Veterans Reunion The booklet covers maybe viewed in the TTT Photo Gallery here: www.tellingthetruth.info/plogger/index.php?level=album&id=123There is introductory material in some of them telling about the meeting schedules, speakers, etc. Is there anything in particular you want to know that I could find on one of these booklets? Does anyone know if there were other reunions held through the years? Any WWI reunions??Thanks Cherie. Looking at meeting schedules and speakers lists, can you tell how involved the workers are in these reunions? Do the reunion meetings resemble Special Meetings? Is it true that the reunion would be held on a Saturday and followed by a meeting on Sunday?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 12:29:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I know, I said I would post no more to this subject, soon, I promise. To me this thread is kind of like the " have you quit beating your wife yet?" question. How can something continue to be that never was a world wide policy, rather, left to individual conscience? Yes, I was a CO. Even so, I NEVER once pushed that status on to anyone else, as a member, or as a "worker!" How could anyone short of self-righteousness, believing it to be an individual matter?
All the "reunions" have been long since my excommunication, so no wonder to me that I was not invited to them, nor heard of them in advance. Personally, I knew professing regular enlisted men, as well as professing officers, none of which were C.O.s. I loved and admired them no more, no less, than those draftees choosing, like myself, C.O. status. I suggest any "smug" g.i. of the latter group, might re-examine their motivation and conviction. If it was from true individual conscience, well and good, if for any other reason, perhaps not so well and good...? The SDA's and some other groups (Apostolic Lutheran, being one that comes to mind) compelled all their young men to be COs smile, and I gladly traded duty days with the SDA's for liberty on Sunday! Was I any better than they for my stand? Absolutely not to my way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 15, 2015 13:08:12 GMT -5
I just found mention of the first WW2 Reunion, which was held Sioux Falls, South Dakota--but the year was not given. A list of names of men who went through Camp Berkeley, Texas was provided by Mr. & Mrs. Gandy. 3 years later same group plus others who served in military met at the same place. Then in 1995 they all met in South Carolina.
This info is on page 3 of the 1999 WW2 Reunion book.
Anyone know what year the first WWII reunion in America was held?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 15, 2015 15:21:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I know, I said I would post no more to this subject, soon, I promise. To me this thread is kind of like the " have you quit beating your wife yet?" question. How can something continue to be that never was a world wide policy, rather, left to individual conscience? Yes, I was a CO. Even so, I NEVER once pushed that status on to anyone else, as a member, or as a "worker!" How could anyone short of self-righteousness, believing it to be an individual matter?
All the "reunions" have been long since my excommunication, so no wonder to me that I was not invited to them, nor heard of them in advance. Personally, I knew professing regular enlisted men, as well as professing officers, none of which were C.O.s. I loved and admired them no more, no less, than those draftees choosing, like myself, C.O. status. I suggest any "smug" g.i. of the latter group, might re-examine their motivation and conviction. If it was from true individual conscience, well and good, if for any other reason, perhaps not so well and good...? The SDA's and some other groups (Apostolic Lutheran, being one that comes to mind) compelled all their young men to be COs smile, and I gladly traded duty days with the SDA's for liberty on Sunday! Was I any better than they for my stand? Absolutely not to my way of thinking. I don't think there is an easy answer, Dennis. A group such as the Mennonites who have a centuries-old CO tradition are able to provide support - mentally, emotionally and most important, politically - to anyone of their group that decides to go CO. An individual who goes CO purely based on conscience or personal belief could have a much rougher ride, depending on which country the individual is in. I don't see any problem with a church leaving the CO question to individual conscience, if that was the policy across the board. However, with the friends' the policy seems to depend on who you talk to, the country in which you live, and what decade we're talking about. That could cause some issues. For example, a person might declare CO expecting support from the church .. then be informed that it's not church doctrine at all. Or, vice versa, a person might expect the church to approve of their enlistment, then find all fellow church members were CO based on the church history and received wisdom. I don't know the extent to which these have actually been problems or not in the friends' church. The other thing is that a church can have a policy or teaching without binding it on its members. In that case it's just guidance. It's rather easier for a non-exclusive, open church to have such a policy because their members are free to leave and join another church without any social disapproval. Some churches are very involved in political and social life and have policies or guidelines on all kinds of things. These are rationales for their members to consider and are seldom binding. The friends' church tries to stay out of social and political life.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 15, 2015 15:29:16 GMT -5
Thanks Cherie. Looking at meeting schedules and speakers lists, can you tell how involved the workers are in these reunions? Do the reunion meetings resemble Special Meetings? Is it true that the reunion would be held on a Saturday and followed by a meeting on Sunday? Maja: I am emailing you the summary pages of the 1995 WW2 Reunion at Charleston SC. There are a lot of details re military, CO's, workers exemptions, etc. in Chapter 20 of my book on TTT: www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/20wmibook.php
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 15, 2015 17:42:05 GMT -5
Thanks Cherie. Looking at meeting schedules and speakers lists, can you tell how involved the workers are in these reunions? Do the reunion meetings resemble Special Meetings? Is it true that the reunion would be held on a Saturday and followed by a meeting on Sunday? Maja: I am emailing you the summary pages of the 1995 WW2 Reunion at Charleston SC. There are a lot of details re military, CO's, workers exemptions, etc. in Chapter 20 of my book on TTT: www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/20wmibook.phpI also linked it a few posts back and was pleased to find it as we got further into the discussion. A very thorough and interesting history, Cherie.
|
|