Pope
#16
Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:32 PM
I was a conscientious objector as well. I also had to go to answer for myself, but no commission - only a bored police woman in her office here in Oslo. She had a standard set of questions to ask, and was apparently embarrassed that she had to ask them. This was only skin deep, though, because she did ask some follow-up or test questions which showed she despised my choice.
Anyway, one question from her papers, which I knew I would get because it is infamous, is: "You are driving in your car and you are being threatened by someone sitting in the passenger seat. His gun is lying between the two of you. Would you pick it up and threaten him?"
Sheesh. I ditched the army because of questions like that. It is a trick question, because if you answer yes, you are not a pacifist in their eyes, and therefore cannot be a conscientious objector.
Pacifism is the only grounds for denying military service in Norway. But being a conscientious onbjector has nothing to do with pacifism. They are related but one does not necessarily include the other. A pacifist may do army service (for example in the underground press, as a nurse or a truck driver) and a conscientious objector might be willing to carry guns in a different setting. It is the role of the military I was opposed to. I am opposed to the idea of having thousands and thousands of men and women trained to kill and serve in rank and file when there are so many other, important things to take care of. I asked to do civil service instead and got it, but the service I did had nothing to do with "peaceful purposes" which is what I wanted.
Would I pick up arms to defend something if needed? Probably, but it depends. Guns would not be my first thought. I have not even touched a gun in my entire life so it's a difficult question to answer.
Please try out our new Creativity Forums! Log in with your Science Forums credentials.
Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
- Carl Sagan
#17
Posted 26 June 2005 - 04:55 AM
I'm not a Catholic, and I do think that they place the position of the pope too high, and they place more work in rituals rather than in Christ and faith.
#18
Posted 26 June 2005 - 05:20 AM
eMTee said:
People like Hitler, Hussein, Genghis Khan, Caesar, etc.....
#19
Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:25 AM
C1ay said:
Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Putin...
Please try out our new Creativity Forums! Log in with your Science Forums credentials.
Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
- Carl Sagan
#20
Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:55 AM
#21
Posted 26 June 2005 - 08:22 AM
Clay said:
do you not know what I mean? I'm refering to the Church, and I'm refering to people who stand up for morals, who are marders for Christ
By the way, you are correct about all of those. But sence you like to make fun of God, you wouldn't understand my explaination to my faith and God's love, but sence you want to be against Christianity, your hatered makes you see the way you do. I don't mean to act in a way that you will see as an anoyence. or to make myself look puffed up.
#22
Posted 26 June 2005 - 08:39 AM
eMTee said:
Ah yes, the faith that says, "you must believe what we believe or go to hell". <sarcasm>What a loving, tolerant faith...</sarcasm>NOT!!!
#23
Posted 26 June 2005 - 05:48 PM
#24
Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:25 PM
eMTee said:
These "morals" always seem to be able to be ignored when they do "their god's" work. Morals always seem to be an absolute, unless it is inconveinent. Do you tithe? Do you not have sex with a woman who is on her cycle [the same set of verses that bans homosexuality]? Do you not eat meat on friday? Do you not suffer a witch to live?
Albert Camus
#25
Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:34 PM
#26
Posted 26 June 2005 - 07:05 PM
sanctus said:
Consistent, actually, but yes.
In Nazi Germany, I understand the usual fate of conscientious objectors was to be sent to a concentration camp, a rather different adminstrative process than you or Tormod endured. My point is that most people try to get through difficult times by keeping a low profile, which means doing what's expected but only the minimum. Doing so may be cowardly or lazy, but is not necessarily evil.
To make this even, I should say I cannot be a conscientious objector or a pacifist. I can easily imagine circumstances where I would kill someone, even premeditated. However, the war I would have fought in, Vietnam, was a bad, stupid, war. I resisted by manipulating the rules as much as I could to avoid military service. I was successful, partly by luck. I also think Iraq is a bad, stupid, war, as do nearly half of Americans.
#27
Posted 26 June 2005 - 08:39 PM
eMTee said:
You are also supposed to kill homosexuals by stoning them to death. This practice in still being followed in Northern Nigeria, much to the indignation of the rest of the world. They're just following their laws, and they should be commended by believers everywhere.
Raising sex during a menstrual cycle as a moral issue, as far as I'm concerned, is wrong - this should be classified under "hygiene". Although the Bible would have you believe different.
Tell me eMTee, when last have you stoned a fag?
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Ecce bos taurus justitia
#28
Posted 27 May 2011 - 02:33 PM
just the average joe, searching for truth and spirit in a world of water , air, stone and fire
"foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
Ralph Waldo Emmerson :essays

Help
Join now




Promote to Article













