Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Encouraging Informed Freedom of Conscience on Questions of War

by Logan Laituri 02-09-2010 | 7:29pm
Print
6 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Not long ago, I blogged about my trip to Iraq with fellow God's Politics blogger Shane Claiborne and later, of my excitement about the upcoming Truth Commission on Conscience in War. The trip taught me much about the human cost of war, as well as the ramifications of the church's frequent support thereof. In my past contributions to God's Politics, I have made clear my own position on the question of violence and its use by Christians, but I have also tried to make clear my conviction that people must discern their own conclusions in regard to this very important issue.

Service members of faith, including Jewish and Muslim airmen, marines, sailors, and soldiers, are in the difficult position every day of discerning between the power of the state and the authority of God. I wrote recently that an allegiance to the former is best understood as subordinate to the latter. On my own blog, I also reminded friends that service members are torn between being told that they are "not paid to think" and yet to "disobey unlawful orders." It is difficult indeed to consider the illegality of any order without being afforded the opportunity to think

6 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: Matt Stone

02-10-2010 @ 11:02am

I agree in freedom of conscience, speach, and all that. But I also believe in challenging false teaching. And assertions that the Iraq war was just is precisely that, false.

by: SisterMarie

02-11-2010 @ 4:24pm

Logan,

We now have an all-volunteer Army. Therefore, an individual, who because of his or her conscience, cannot take a human life is not obligated to and should definitely join the military.

However, having said that, soldiers will still face situations where they must make moral choices and must live with the consequences of those choices. How should a soldier respond if they accept the premise that some armed conflicts may be acceptable, but not the one that his commander-in-chief has committed this country? And, more to the point, how does he respond in situations where his life may be in danger, but the lives of innocent civilians are also placed at risk?

Some of those conflicts are easier than others to resolve. For example, I believe that the rampage that Sgt William Calley and his unit engaged in in Vietnam clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable force. Others might not be so cut and dried. And when those decisions are being made by an 18-year old kid right out of high-school, I think a different standard applies. The fact that so few of our political leaders have actually experienced combat should force them to do much more soul searching before committing our troops to another war.

Maybe Richard Land should volunteer for the next war that he believes is just.

by: Nathan Bedford

02-11-2010 @ 6:24pm

Logan,

We now have an all-volunteer Army. Therefore, an individual, who because of his or her conscience, cannot take a human life is not obligated to and should definitely join the military.

However, having said that, soldiers will still face situations where they must make moral choices and must live with the consequences of those choices. How should a soldier respond if they accept the premise that some armed conflicts may be acceptable, but not the one that his commander-in-chief has committed this country? And, more to the point, how does he respond in situations where his life may be in danger, but the lives of innocent civilians are also placed at risk?

Some of those conflicts are easier than others to resolve. For example, I believe that the rampage that Sgt William Calley and his unit engaged in in Vietnam clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable force. Others might not be so cut and dried. And when those decisions are being made by an 18-year old kid right out of high-school, I think a different standard applies. The fact that so few of our political leaders have actually experienced combat should force them to do much more soul searching before committing our troops to another war.

Maybe Richard Land should volunteer for the next war that he believes is just.

by: Matt Stone

02-10-2010 @ 11:02am

I agree in freedom of conscience, speach, and all that. But I also believe in challenging false teaching. And assertions that the Iraq war was just is precisely that, false.

by: SisterMarie

02-11-2010 @ 4:24pm

Logan,

We now have an all-volunteer Army. Therefore, an individual, who because of his or her conscience, cannot take a human life is not obligated to and should definitely join the military.

However, having said that, soldiers will still face situations where they must make moral choices and must live with the consequences of those choices. How should a soldier respond if they accept the premise that some armed conflicts may be acceptable, but not the one that his commander-in-chief has committed this country? And, more to the point, how does he respond in situations where his life may be in danger, but the lives of innocent civilians are also placed at risk?

Some of those conflicts are easier than others to resolve. For example, I believe that the rampage that Sgt William Calley and his unit engaged in in Vietnam clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable force. Others might not be so cut and dried. And when those decisions are being made by an 18-year old kid right out of high-school, I think a different standard applies. The fact that so few of our political leaders have actually experienced combat should force them to do much more soul searching before committing our troops to another war.

Maybe Richard Land should volunteer for the next war that he believes is just.

by: Nathan Bedford

02-11-2010 @ 6:24pm

Logan,

We now have an all-volunteer Army. Therefore, an individual, who because of his or her conscience, cannot take a human life is not obligated to and should definitely join the military.

However, having said that, soldiers will still face situations where they must make moral choices and must live with the consequences of those choices. How should a soldier respond if they accept the premise that some armed conflicts may be acceptable, but not the one that his commander-in-chief has committed this country? And, more to the point, how does he respond in situations where his life may be in danger, but the lives of innocent civilians are also placed at risk?

Some of those conflicts are easier than others to resolve. For example, I believe that the rampage that Sgt William Calley and his unit engaged in in Vietnam clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable force. Others might not be so cut and dried. And when those decisions are being made by an 18-year old kid right out of high-school, I think a different standard applies. The fact that so few of our political leaders have actually experienced combat should force them to do much more soul searching before committing our troops to another war.

Maybe Richard Land should volunteer for the next war that he believes is just.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Matt Stone

02-10-2010 @ 11:02am

I agree in freedom of conscience, speach, and all that. But I also believe in challenging false teaching. And assertions that the Iraq war was just is precisely that, false.

by: Matt Stone

02-10-2010 @ 11:02am

I agree in freedom of conscience, speach, and all that. But I also believe in challenging false teaching. And assertions that the Iraq war was just is precisely that, false.

by: SisterMarie

02-11-2010 @ 4:24pm

Logan,

We now have an all-volunteer Army. Therefore, an individual, who because of his or her conscience, cannot take a human life is not obligated to and should definitely join the military.

However, having said that, soldiers will still face situations where they must make moral choices and must live with the consequences of those choices. How should a soldier respond if they accept the premise that some armed conflicts may be acceptable, but not the one that his commander-in-chief has committed this country? And, more to the point, how does he respond in situations where his life may be in danger, but the lives of innocent civilians are also placed at risk?

Some of those conflicts are easier than others to resolve. For example, I believe that the rampage that Sgt William Calley and his unit engaged in in Vietnam clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable force. Others might not be so cut and dried. And when those decisions are being made by an 18-year old kid right out of high-school, I think a different standard applies. The fact that so few of our political leaders have actually experienced combat should force them to do much more soul searching before committing our troops to another war.

Maybe Richard Land should volunteer for the next war that he believes is just.

by: SisterMarie

02-11-2010 @ 4:24pm

Logan,

We now have an all-volunteer Army. Therefore, an individual, who because of his or her conscience, cannot take a human life is not obligated to and should definitely join the military.

However, having said that, soldiers will still face situations where they must make moral choices and must live with the consequences of those choices. How should a soldier respond if they accept the premise that some armed conflicts may be acceptable, but not the one that his commander-in-chief has committed this country? And, more to the point, how does he respond in situations where his life may be in danger, but the lives of innocent civilians are also placed at risk?

Some of those conflicts are easier than others to resolve. For example, I believe that the rampage that Sgt William Calley and his unit engaged in in Vietnam clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable force. Others might not be so cut and dried. And when those decisions are being made by an 18-year old kid right out of high-school, I think a different standard applies. The fact that so few of our political leaders have actually experienced combat should force them to do much more soul searching before committing our troops to another war.

Maybe Richard Land should volunteer for the next war that he believes is just.

by: Nathan Bedford

02-11-2010 @ 6:24pm

Logan,

We now have an all-volunteer Army. Therefore, an individual, who because of his or her conscience, cannot take a human life is not obligated to and should definitely join the military.

However, having said that, soldiers will still face situations where they must make moral choices and must live with the consequences of those choices. How should a soldier respond if they accept the premise that some armed conflicts may be acceptable, but not the one that his commander-in-chief has committed this country? And, more to the point, how does he respond in situations where his life may be in danger, but the lives of innocent civilians are also placed at risk?

Some of those conflicts are easier than others to resolve. For example, I believe that the rampage that Sgt William Calley and his unit engaged in in Vietnam clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable force. Others might not be so cut and dried. And when those decisions are being made by an 18-year old kid right out of high-school, I think a different standard applies. The fact that so few of our political leaders have actually experienced combat should force them to do much more soul searching before committing our troops to another war.

Maybe Richard Land should volunteer for the next war that he believes is just.

by: Nathan Bedford

02-11-2010 @ 6:24pm

Logan,

We now have an all-volunteer Army. Therefore, an individual, who because of his or her conscience, cannot take a human life is not obligated to and should definitely join the military.

However, having said that, soldiers will still face situations where they must make moral choices and must live with the consequences of those choices. How should a soldier respond if they accept the premise that some armed conflicts may be acceptable, but not the one that his commander-in-chief has committed this country? And, more to the point, how does he respond in situations where his life may be in danger, but the lives of innocent civilians are also placed at risk?

Some of those conflicts are easier than others to resolve. For example, I believe that the rampage that Sgt William Calley and his unit engaged in in Vietnam clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonable force. Others might not be so cut and dried. And when those decisions are being made by an 18-year old kid right out of high-school, I think a different standard applies. The fact that so few of our political leaders have actually experienced combat should force them to do much more soul searching before committing our troops to another war.

Maybe Richard Land should volunteer for the next war that he believes is just.