U.S. army deserter wants to stay in Canada

[Guest neo]

JakeYYZ, I don't think you're contradicting yourself at all. It's usually old politicians who send young men out to fight their wars for them. The political leaders stay home and make rousing speeches. Then, when things start to go badly in some way, (as things tend to do in wars) the politicians betray the men and women in the field: "Oh, well we never gave the orders to torture prisoners in Abu Gharab." So some stupid grunt gets hung out to dry while the people who bear the moral responsibility go home to bed.

War is hell, and it should be avoided at all costs. But if you freely make a commitment regarding war, honor it or find an honorable way to get out of it. Running away ain't the answer.

neo

[GDR]

Hi Richard

There is no doubt that army medics and others that served in non combat roles have performed their duties with incredible heroism.

I'm just suggesting that if a non comabt role is chosen solely for the fact that it alleviates having to kill, while leaving others to do it, does not change the fact that people die.

In the end, is there a great deal of difference between the man who assembles the gun or bullet, the man who trains the soldier, the man who medically maintains a soldier so that he can go back into combat or the soldier who pulls the trigger? All the jobs in the military are there to support the guy pulling the trigger

As Red Green says, "don't forget we are all in this together".

Greg

[GDR]

Hi again

After I made that last posting I thought that I'd reply to this comment of yours.

And in the end, if one still has a nagging doubt about whether you're doing the right thing, do what everyone does in those situations: consult a Higher Authority. If you're a Christian, what did your God tell you to do? Well, he told you not to kill. If you're a non-religious person trying to live an ethical life, the logical, moral choice is equally clear: do unto others...

There is no doubt that there are many things that I have done in life where I have been left with that nagging feeling.

Suupose as a pilot I was authorised to carry a gun. The aircraft is hi-jacked. I now have to make a choice between going along with the hi-jacker, trying to disarm him without killing him or putting a bullet into his head.The surest way of protecting the othe passengers is to kill him but in doing so, I know that I am doing something that I will have to live with for the rest of my life and maybe even beyond.

What do I do? What would you do?

The choices that we make make us what we are and a lot of those choices are difficult, but in the end only God knows what is truly in our hearts.

Greg

[Guest neo]

Greg,

This moral rack has tortured people for hundreds of years. But it's really not too much more than self-flagellation.

For Christians, their God relieved them of any moral burden in the matter: Do Not Kill is the primary commandment, backed up by the most profound example set by Christ himself. I understand that some people may have some lingering guilt about seeing others killing... imagine that! Feeling guilt over refusing to kill people!... but one often has to make choices between lesser and greater evil in life.

You believe that perhaps the most moral thing is to follow orders and kill people. But if people follow this path, THEN WAR NEVER ENDS. There's always someone willing to give the order to kill. What the world lacks is people who are willing to refuse the order.

I put it to you again: if everyone refuses to kill, there is no more war. If you agree to kill, regardless of the justification that's presented to you, you perpetuate war. Saying that you'll (I'm not speaking about you personally) become peaceful when everyone else does, is nothing more than perpetuating war in the same way. The highest moral choice, the choice which immediately makes the world a better place, is for everyone to refuse to kill. It couldn't be more simple, and so feeling guilt over not killing people (!!!) is frankly a moral absurdity.

"Suupose as a pilot I was authorised to carry a gun. The aircraft is hi-jacked. I now have to make a choice between going along with the hi-jacker, trying to disarm him without killing him or putting a bullet into his head.The surest way of protecting the othe passengers is to kill him but in doing so, I know that I am doing something that I will have to live with for the rest of my life and maybe even beyond.

What do I do? What would you do?"

These are valid questions, Greg. To answer you question specifically, if it becomes mandatory for me to carry a gun to work, I will quit. I signed up as a civil pilot to help people get from place to place, not to shoot someone in the head. But I believe the more general question you're asking is, what does the average person do... someone just walking down the street, minding their own business... when the situation arises where you either kill one person, or see that person kill many?

Well, first off, is this a common situation? Is this the kind of moral dilemma that humans are typically faced with, and that we should agonize over? On the contrary, it's about as rare and hypothetical as they come.

But more importantly, it you're looking for a specific moral plan to keep in mind when faced with a rare and hypothetical situation like that, plan to preserve life: all life. Plan to do everything in your power to see everyone, including the perpetrator, come out alive. If, in subduing the perpetrator and preventing them from hurting others they're unavoidably killed, then that's an unfotunate accident but one for which you bear no moral responsibility.

Please note the moral difference between this rarest of deaths and the common slaughter of a battlefield. In the first, your sincerest intent is to preserve all life; in the other, your fundamental job is to kill when instructed to do so. I'd say the distinction is pretty clear.

Best,

Richard

[handyman]

To answer you question specifically, if it becomes mandatory for me to carry a gun to work, I will quit. I signed up as a civil pilot to help people get from place to place, not to shoot someone in the head. But I believe the more general question you're asking is, what does the average person do... someone just walking down the street, minding their own business... when the situation arises where you either kill one person, or see that person kill many?

Why does your answer not surprise me a bit. Run and hide boy.

[GDR]

Hi Richard

Well, first off, is this a common situation? Is this the kind of moral dilemma that humans are typically faced with, and that we should agonize over? On the contrary, it's about as rare and hypothetical as they come.

You're correct when you say that we seldom have to make life and death decisions. What is more common is life and death decisions on an international scale, that involves all of us as human beings. Take for example today in the Sudan: in the Sudan we have murderous thugs killing millions of innocents. Unless someone stops them it will not end until every last Sudanese black is enslaved or dead. I don't see any way of stopping them that does not involve killing some of the murderers. So far the world has just set back and ignored the killing. Is this right? Personally I don't think so. What's the answer?

Incidently the commandment "Do not kill" was from the King James translation. Just about all of the modern translations have it as "Do not murder". The translations are taken from the same original texts but over the years greater knowledge has been gained about the early languages.

Gotta run

[Don Hudson]

A few pages back!, I believe Rattler posted a link to an article which "justified" or at least "explained" when it was "okay" for Christians to kill. In that article was the sentence,

"The writings of the Bible show that God acknowledges that the killing of people is justifiable as long as it accords with His wishes. "

This question has been broached a number of times in the thread but still hasn't been responded to in a satisfactory way. The reasoning in this statement and every one like it is circular because the conclusion relies upon a premise based on "received" knowledge or faith, both of which are inaccessible to, and therefore uninspectable by, others who wish to question the conclusion.

In fact, the notion of "heresy" was created to categorize and ultimately marginalize those who question "received knowledge".

Greg, nice to see you here in the dialogue. Your question is an interesting one on many levels. In the "local" circumstance of the cockpit, when faced with someone who is about to kill all of you, there is no consistent faith or ethical argument which can help you because every solution has both faith-based and ethically-based conflicts. Your question can't be answered while remaining true and consistent with belief. This conflict is, in fact, at the heart of the entire thread. If one responds without hypocrisy, then one turns the other cheek for either the commandment to not kill is obeyed or one bases one's response on the above statement, that it's somehow "His wish".

But that is on the local level, "in the cockpit", as it were, and the circumstances are pretty succinct.

Let us take the same discussion much farther out and view a world in which the many belief systems clash and justifications for killing others abound depending upon who's God one obeys. All "justifications" fall within the realm of received "knowledge".

So who gets to choose what is, and isn't, "His wish"?

History shows that religious justifications to go to war are among the first line of offence at home when armies begin marching on foreign soil. Today in the United States, that has been evident for more than two hundred years but especially so since January, 2000. But other than belief in received "wisdom", and that can be, depending upon many factors, quite malleable when understood in terms of propaganda theory, there is no other logical or ethical reason for war. (These notions relate to what I was meaning in the discussion on the idea of "Progress".)

The reality of aggression however, still must be dealt with. We have many secular and non-secular notions of what aggression is and why it exists. We see it in animals and we see it in ourselves. Joseph Campbell, (mythologist) has written that "plunder is launched from the eyes" and we may do well to pause and ponder that remark.

Regarding the young fellow attempting to stay in Canada...I'm afraid he is a deserter as there is nothing (so far... ) in the US to "dodge".

Only slightly off topic, I have mentioned in another thread that the Avi Lewis film, "The Take" may be worth seeing. Lewis eschews Moore's methods as perhaps overdone although the research, he says, is sound. The film deals with Argentina, but, he says, has clear application to Canada. I think given Paul Martin's dance with Bush, a scene not witnessed since Mulroney sang with Reagan in Quebec, it behooves every Canadian to watch very carefully where this government is taking our country.

Don

[Guest rattler]

Don, of course that post was followed with from me.

I imagine those who follow other religions, except Buddhism, can read the same sort of "let" into their teachings. Mankind has always been able to justify the killing of another be it for profit, land or just a difference in religion. Sad isn't it! Thank God, Agnostics and Atheists need no "let" to follow in the footsteps of those with religion. 

I, for one, don't believe killing of another human being can ever be justified but sometimes it is necessary for one's own protection or for the protection of others. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Cheers Rattler

[handyman]

This is just plain wrong...thread!

[Don Hudson]

Rattler;

The biological urgency of life alone leads to a profound self-preservation response whether the life-force is bacterial or more complex. Response to a raised claw or hand, especially when the latter holds a weapon and is done so in surprise, is instantaneous; no thought of ethical, religious or moral behaviour cloud the immediate defences.

However, when plunder is launched from the eyes, such questions become meaningful. One's own faith ought always to serve oneself and never the state.

Don

[handyman]

Rattler;

The biological urgency of life alone leads to a profound self-preservation response whether the life-force is bacterial or more complex. Response to a raised claw or hand, especially when the latter holds a weapon and is done so in surprise, is instantaneous; no thought of ethical, religious or moral behaviour cloud the immediate defences.

However, when plunder is launched from the eyes, such questions become meaningful. One's own faith ought always to serve oneself and never the state.

Don

Hmmmmm....nice words....I'll consider that seriously.

Thanks Don.

[Guest rattler]

All is not well over there....Seems that some of the troops are getting restless. Shades of Vietnam?

From the Arizona Daily Star:

Dec 8, 4:49 PM EST

U.S. soldiers air grievances to Rumsfeld

By ROBERT BURNS

AP Military Writer

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- In a rare public airing of grievances, disgruntled soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment.

Complete Article

[GDR]

Hi Don

"The writings of the Bible show that God acknowledges that the killing of people is justifiable as long as it accords with His wishes. "

This question has been broached a number of times in the thread but still hasn't been responded to in a satisfactory way. The reasoning in this statement and every one like it is circular because the conclusion relies upon a premise based on "received" knowledge or faith, both of which are inaccessible to, and therefore uninspectable by, others who wish to question the conclusion.

In fact, the notion of "heresy" was created to categorize and ultimately marginalize those who question "received knowledge".

It is hard to know quite how to respond to that. Our lives are a succession of ethical and moral choices. As a Christian I attempt to make my own moral and ethical choices in a way that is consistent with the wishes of God. My attempts in no way guarantee success, and I'm sure that there is often a fair bit of rationalisation involved in those choices as well. I think that all of us, Christian or Atheist make a choices that either ignore or respond to that inner voice that, (in my view), God puts in all of us.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Richard's pacifism. To be responsible for the death of another would be a heavy load to carry. If I am in a position to save my own life by killing another, it is probably as you said an instinctive thing. However, it still requires a decision to be made to pull the trigger. One then has to live with that decision which involved deciding that our life was more valuable than the life of the person we killed.

What of the case then when we take one life in order to preserve another that is not our own? At least then the decision is probably an altruistic one. Richard says that he will not take a life. I'm sure that he would not hesitate to do so if it meant saving the life of his wife or children. How then about someone else's wife or children? As a nation how do we respond when it is somebody else's wives and children that are being slaughtered in a foreign country? Where and when do we draw the line?

In the Anglican Church we have a prayer called the "General Confession". In it we pray for forgiveness for what we have done and for what we have left undone. I have often found that I tend to think that maybe I can't think of anything that I've done wrong today so that's a good thing. I tend to forget all those times that I should have done something and I didn't. I have to admit when it comes to our western world, which has been based on Judeo-Christian principles, and I think of what is going on in the Sudan, I have to think that we have failed those principles.

The reality of aggression however, still must be dealt with. We have many secular and non-secular notions of what aggression is and why it exists. We see it in animals and we see it in ourselves. Joseph Campbell, (mythologist) has written that "plunder is launched from the eyes" and we may do well to pause and ponder that remark.

I think that it would be more accurate to say, (and it may be just another way of saying the same thing), that plunder is launched from the heart. Most of us have a tough time believing, or even conceiving the atrocities of which the human heart is capable. We only see the result when the human animal actually carries out these atrocities.

It ain't ever easy.

Good to hear from you Don

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

One of the many difficulties I have in accepting a western (Judeo-Christian) interpretation of what it is to be human, to be a believer and to love God is the notion of "being wrong" all the time. To me, there is a very strong parent-child aspect to "being in sin", or "being of original sin" which does not obtain in many other religions and in fact is unheard of in Buddhism where a "Fall from Grace" simply does not exist. The notion that people are born bad, (in sin) and must live a life of total redemption, compliance and supplication where guilt, regret and their twin, confession are necessary before one is allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, is a puzzlement. Why does the word "obey" not appear in other religions such as Buddhism?

"Who" said we were born in sin? Why? Because we have sex (with all variations imaginable ) and reproduce our species we're bad?...(the notions of what sins are, I have noticed, are quite severely limited and to me, arbitrary ).

The Buddha, for example, respects all life and considers it good; Buddhism never heard of The Fall of Man, and up until about 2000 years ago, neither had anyone else. Buddhism sees the connectedness of all that is in the world where the Judeo-Christian tradition sees separation between (the dominion of ) man and the rest of the world/universe. (That disconnectedness by the way, is what is going to destroy the world as we know it...for we can't rely upon redemption and the goodness of God to save our earth from environmental disaster. If we saw the connectedness of all things, we would sure respect their place, as well as our place in the world ).

I have a copy of the NIV Bible and refer to it and enjoy reading it. I think it has a lot to say and is really wise in some of its observations (teachings, others may say ). But, as neo has pointed out, taking a fundamentalist view where each sentence is to be taken literally first of all runs up against scholarly work where original sources in Aramaic, Greek and other languages must first yield to careful and contextual analysis. How can one treat such obscure interpretations as having only ONE literal meaning? Would God not have us think, observe, conclude, re-examine? The Book is the Word of the witnesses (not the Jehovah Witness meaning of the term ) of The Story, some might say, but some of these stories were written down hundreds of years after their original telling, not to say original occurences. How may one accept such words as literal?

So many questions on a rainy afternoon...

Don

[Mitch Cronin]

... and a fine batch of questions they are Don!

I won't pretend I have any answers... seems all I have are questions as well... and feelings. For instance, I have the feeling that if God were half as powerful as I think some would have us believe, he'd have fixed all of this stuff long ago... unless he's a sadist of some kind? I understand there are some very devoted religious folk that can explain that somehow, but what I hear when they try, are mutterings of faith, and things I can't grasp about my lack of understanding being because of my lack of faith.... ?...

I reckon it's our ballgame, not God's... It's up to us mere mortals to find the fixes and stop the killing. I remember at some point soon after my daughter was born I thought, if everyone killing anyone would stop to consider that person as a child... with parents who loved them... as all parents love their children, and all other parents can empathize... compassion could maybe fix this planet.

But maybe that's another kind of faith?

We've lost when we stop discussing it, and trying to fix it. That's all I know. This fella that's deserted has at least done us that service.... by discussions such as this, the hope continues.

imho.

[GDR]

Hi Don

I love these discussions. It is really helpful for me to have the input from others and to force me to sort out my thoughts and the rationale for my faith.

You wrote:

One of the many difficulties I have in accepting a western (Judeo-Christian) interpretation of what it is to be human, to be a believer and to love God is the notion of "being wrong" all the time. To me, there is a very strong parent-child aspect to "being in sin", or "being of original sin" which does not obtain in many other religions and in fact is unheard of in Buddhism where a "Fall from Grace" simply does not exist. The notion that people are born bad, (in sin) and must live a life of total redemption, compliance and supplication where guilt, regret and their twin, confession are necessary before one is allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, is a puzzlement. Why does the word "obey" not appear in other religions such as Buddhism?

"Who" said we were born in sin? Why? Because we have sex (with all variations imaginable ) and reproduce our species we're bad?...(the notions of what sins are, I have noticed, are quite severely limited and to me, arbitrary ).

I have to admit Don that I don't agree with your view of "original sin" except when you talk about the "parent-child" child aspect. We know how we feel about our kids. There are upsides and downsides to a parent-child relationship, but is it really so bad to have a creator that feels about you in the way that you feel about your children.

I don’t know where your idea that original sin being tied up with the sex act comes from. God invented sex and made it pleasurable. I suggest that original sin is born out of the fact that we have free will. An infant is born with the instinct of survival and not much more. Its life is all about self. At that point in a baby’s life there isn’t an altruistic bone in its body. As the child grows it is our job as parents to start to change that. We are charged with training a child to practise patience, fairness, kindness, honesty, courage etc. As a Christian I would say that it is our role to train that child to respond in a positive way to that inner voice or conscience that is put there by God.

I also don’t have a problem with the concept of obedience to God. When my kids were little I insisted that they obey me and not play on the road. I made rules to protect them. I don’t see the rules that we have been given as anything more odious than God giving us guidelines to protect us as individuals, and as societies.

I have a copy of the NIV Bible and refer to it and enjoy reading it. I think it has a lot to say and is really wise in some of its observations (teachings, others may say ). But, as neo has pointed out, taking a fundamentalist view where each sentence is to be taken literally first of all runs up against scholarly work where original sources in Aramaic, Greek and other languages must first yield to careful and contextual analysis. How can one treat such obscure interpretations as having only ONE literal meaning? Would God not have us think, observe, conclude, re-examine? The Book is the Word of the witnesses (not the Jehovah Witness meaning of the term ) of The Story, some might say, but some of these stories were written down hundreds of years after their original telling, not to say original occurences. How may one accept such words as literal?

I largely agree with you. I have said before that I believe that the Bible is completely true, but not necessarily literally true. I certainly agree that a verse or chapter of the Bible has to be taken in context, and that the Bible contains a great deal of metaphor.

I don't know exactly what you are getting at when you use the term "obscure interpretations". A great deal of work, by many scholars has gone into interpreting the Bible from the original language to other world languages.

It is true that many of the stories were handed down from generation to generation before being passed on in written form. The tradition of very accurate oral history is well established in pre-literate societies. At any rate, I agree that there is a mixture of historical data and metaphorical data in the Bible. I also agree that sorting out which is which isn't always easy.

Incidentally I have always disregarded the literalists with their contention that the world is about 6000 years old. I don’t question the fact that the world is much older than that. Here is a quote from Wright’s book, “A Short History of Progress”.

Archaeologists generally agree that the first civilizations were those of Sumer – in southern Mesopotamia, or what is now Iraq – and Egypt, both emerging about 3000 B.C.

Give or take a thousand years then, archaeologists have the first societies being formed at the same time as Bibical history begins. I’m not sure what to make of that but it does seem to be a rather large coincidence. Was it at this point in history that man became a spiritual creature? Was this the point in history where God first revealed himself to man?

It all beats me. As you say, so many questions.

Respectfully

Greg

[GDR]

Hi Mitch

I understand your frustration and questioning of the horrible pain and suffering in this world. Please forgive me with this posting because I'm sure I won't say anything that I haven't said before, but I will respond anyway to the one big issue that you raise.

Can you imagine, (in spite of John Lennon) a world that didn't include suffering. If we didn't know suffering then we wouldn't be able to recognize joy. If we didn't have the ability to make poor choices then we wouldn't have the ability to make right choices. Without these contrasts, we are no more than mindless robots.

If only joy existed how could we know joy. It would just be the way things are; neither pleasurable nor unpleasurable. There would be no true joy. In my own experience I would say that the joy I take in my children and in my relationships is worth the pain and suffering in my life. I know that unfortunately for some the suffering exceeds the joy, but at least everyone is born with the potential to have a life where joy prevails.

I can't imagine anything much more horrific than the loss of a child. Why is that? I contend that we suffer so greatly only because of the joy that we took in the love and cherishing of that child in the first place.

I contend that the vast majority of suffering in this world is due to the wrong choices made by men, and the natural consequences that occur because of those wrong choices. Unfortunately, it seems that as often as not it isn't the person who makes the wrong choice that does the suffering.

I hope that at least I have said this well enough for you to understand my view on the difficult issue that you raise.

Greg

[Mitch Cronin]

Mornin' Greg.

I understand the Yin and Yang concept ... joy exists because suffering exists... But I don't believe we see a balance... Is there enough "joy" on the planet to account for the incredible suffering that exists? I doubt it. You said "I know that unfortunately for some the suffering exceeds the joy, but at least everyone is born with the potential to have a life where joy prevails." ... but what good is that potential if all is lost before it begins? Some are born into so much suffering that most of us can't even stand to give it some thought.

That's where your faith and my doubt begin to butt heads I think. I can see a need for the negative to define the positive, and vice versa... I can see clearly that one cannot exist without the other... but what I can't see is if there were a supreme divine entity overseeing all of this, why would the balance be so skewed?... It's impossible for me to imagine that there could be an intelligence, with compassion, and the power to change this, who doesn't do so.

A short time ago, I watched a man on TV (very briefly... I had to turn it off) find the strength to approach a pulpit and speak to an audience about how God must have had his reasons for letting his wife and seven children die in a fire in their farmhouse. That kind of suffering is, to me, unthinkable. My brain doesn't contain the needed bits to fathom that amount of pain (thankfully)... This man stood there in his church and accepted that it was God's will. I won't tell you what I think of any kind of being that would "will" that on anyone... it would be rude and you'd probably consider it blasphemy. ...that degree of suffering... that kind of misery is, to my mind, far beyond what's necessary to allow for what pleasure and joy that exists.

What I can see in that however, is that his "faith" was what allowed him to continue standing... I couldn't have. ...so I certainly can see the value in "faith".

Cheers Greg... I'm glad you're open to this kind of discussion. I think it's good for all of us to put the effort into coalescing our thoughts well enough to write them out. That we've, so far at least, managed to do so without causing offense, has been a good experience. Thanks.

Mitch

[GDR]

Hi Mitch

This has got to be brief. I hope that I don't cause offence, and certainly I haven't been offended by anything that anyone else has said. We are just discussing conclusions that we have come to in life and how we came to those conclusions.

A short time ago, I watched a man on TV (very briefly... I had to turn it off) find the strength to approach a pulpit and speak to an audience about how God must have had his reasons for letting his wife and seven children die in a fire in their farmhouse. That kind of suffering is, to me, unthinkable. My brain doesn't contain the needed bits to fathom that amount of pain (thankfully)... This man stood there in his church and accepted that it was God's will. I won't tell you what I think of any kind of being that would "will" that on anyone... it would be rude and you'd probably consider it blasphemy. ...that degree of suffering... that kind of misery is, to my mind, far beyond what's necessary to allow for what pleasure and joy that exists.

I would disagree with that man when he said it was God's will, at least in the way that I believe that you are interpreting his statement. I would say that God is suffering along with him. I don’t believe he was saying, and I certainly don’t believe that God willed that fire to happen. It just happened.

God, in my view, invented this world. Part of the creation was a multitude of natural laws. If someone wired that house poorly for example, it might have caused the spark that set off that fire. Horrific things do happen. The world in my view is a supernatural creation and I believe that sometimes God still intervenes supernaturally, but that the vast majority of things happen naturally. In my experience God’s supernatural involvement in this world has been accomplished by working in the minds and hearts of people, but that isn’t to say that He doesn’t still take a more direct approach sometimes.

The other consideration is this. As I have said in other posts I believe we are eternal beings, (at least to the degree that I can understand eternity). This being the case then, in spite of the agony that man is facing now, in the big picture, it is only for the briefest bit of time that he will be forced to endure the agony.

With all the suffering in this world there still is a great deal of joy. How do you compare the joy that man had from his family up to that tragic night with the suffering that he endured afterwards? I can't answer that and I don't think anyone else can. If you were to ask him if he wished that his kids had never been born I'm sure he would say "of course not". You know about the loss in this family because it makes the papers. You don't read in the papers about all the families that are intact and enjoying immeasurable joy from their relationship. Do you think that from God's perspective that he should deny you the joy that you have received from having your daughter so that this man would not have to suffer through the loss of his?

Who can understand the mind of God? You and I Mitch are both just trying to muddle through our existence here and trying to sort out the meaning of life. Nobody ever said it would be easy.

Take care Mitch

Greg

[Mitch Cronin]

Hi Greg...

Re: "The world in my view is a supernatural creation and I believe that sometimes God still intervenes supernaturally, but that the vast majority of things happen naturally."

I think that's the first time I've ever heard that way of looking at it. It certainly does seem more palatable than the notion that a supreme, all knowing, all loving God would, for some reason, want such tragedies to happen.

I've evidently distracted from the main thrust of the conversation again, so I guess I'll duck out now, but before I do, I'd like to ask....

Do you think a man who genuinely believes this war in Iraq is wrong, immoral, illegal, and based on lies... and who tried to stay out of it as a "conscientious objector", but was denied, and who found a possible way to stay out of it without extreme penalty to himself, and who genuinely believes he's done the right thing and that he should not be penalized, because the war is wrong in his view, not him.... is wrong to try to avoid extreme penalty?

The argument has been whether or not Canada should accept his refugee claim... and whether or not he should have deserted... I agree that I'd prefer to see the desertion, or refusal to fight be right in the face of the American government. The courage to stand and take his lumps for his refusal would look better (if it didn't manage to get completely hidden from view)... But from his perspective, it's the creators of the war that should be being penalized... and once he saw a chance to avoid penalty for doing what he believed was right, how can we blame him for trying? If he believes what he's done is right, how could he believe he deserves punishment for doing it? He's lost trust, evidently, in American justice... why not throw his fate in the court of what seems to him to be a more just society and see what they decide?

I guess I still haven't iced my own opinion... I only know so far that I applaud his decision to refuse to fight. ...and I can understand his desire to avoid jail time for having made such a decision. My heart says he's right... my intellect, if I have any, says a just society ought to look at the morality of an illegal act as it decides what punishments are appropriate.

Mitch

[GDR]

Hi Mitch

Frankly, I'm only aware of the circumstances of this case because of this forum. Based on what I have read here I would think that we should not allow him into Canada and that he should face justice in the US as a deserter.

The US has a volunteer force as we do in Canada. There are many benefits to being a member of the US military. There is also a downside, which is that you just might wind up in combat. It has been no secret that the US might wind up in Iraq or other world hot spots for some time. He had to know that this was a possibility. My guess is that he hoped that he would be able to receive the benefits without having to wind up in Iraq.

He made a choice. He chose to join the military. There are consquences to that choice, and as I said one of them is that you might wind up in combat, whether he was in favour of the action or not. We should have the "right" to make our own choices, but the we should also be prepared to accept the consquences of those choices.

So, just off the top of my head that is my opinion.

Greg

[Guest rattler]

Here is a site that is in support of him and contains some interesting information. My opinion, for what it is worth, after reading the bio, remains that he should be returned to the US to serve his penalty.

Hinzman married Nga Nguyen in January of 2001. A few days later, he departed to Fort Benning, Georgia to attend the Army's basic combat training and airborne school. After completing this training, Hinzman was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

In January of 2002, Nga and Jeremy began attending meetings of the Religious Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers. As a result of this, they became acquainted with the Quaker Peace Testimony, which intensified their questioning of the meaning of military life.

Perhaps their religious curiosity was inspired by the baby that was in Nga's womb. Their son Liam was born on Mothers' Day of 2002.

This questioning culminated in Jeremy submitting an application to the Army requesting conscientious objector status in August of 2002. Apparently, the Army never received the application, so he resubmitted it on Halloween of 2002. Just over a month later his unit was deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

During the deployment, Jeremy was assigned to non combative duties while his application was being processed or transferred from pile to pile. He is now a stellar dishwasher. Eventually the application surfaced and a twenty five minute hearing was held. Jeremy stated that, should he be attacked, he could not always turn the other cheek. Thus, not meeting the Army's criteria for conscientious objector status, his application was denied.

Complete Bio

[handyman]

I think it would rally the supporters of this deserter if he was jailed. There are lots of support trades, dishwashers, in Iraq. Why not make sure he spends his entire remaining duty in a non-combatant role in theatre in Iraq? Dishes still need to be washed don't they?

[Mitch Cronin]

Oh well... If we all thought the same it'd be a pretty boring world.

... and I'd be surprised if you and I ever agreed on anything Greg.

[GDR]

Hey Mitch

Oh well... If we all thought the same it'd be a pretty boring world.

... and I'd be surprised if you and I ever agreed on anything Greg.

I remember on this forum that I once said that I thought AME's were the most underpaid group in the airline ---- but if you want to argue -----