Muhammad Ali’s conviction was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court, which requires, among other things, that a person seeking conscientous objector status show that his oppostion to war “is based upon religious training and belief”. The Justice Department itself admitted that this was the case with Mr. Ali.
While he is not a Christian, more than just Mr. Ali’s conscience was at work when he came out in oppostion to the Vietnam War.
The primary point of the military is, and always has been, to kill people and break things. There are a lot of others things they do, but usually in support this goal.
However, the military usually does this to defend the people of the nation it represents, either proactivily or retroactivly. A lot of people justify it as, by bearing arms for your country, you are protecting those you care about, and that a military is nessacary in the world we live in.
Which in no way conflicts with what I said. If anything, I explicitly agreed with your statement.
The point is that the military’s purpose is NOT to cause harm. The causation of harm is a frequent means to accomplishing their goal. Violence is not the goal in itself, and it is something which the military must frequently avoid.
Virtually nobody actually bases their behavior and attitudes on the Bible. They just selectively interpret the Bible to fit a preconceived mindset. You never see a hardcore Christian who would say that they disagreed with anything in the Bible yet you see a wild inconsistency in what indiviuals think the Bible means. God is always in perfect agreement with each individuals worldview.
The Bible says whatever you want it to say. You couldn’t live perfectly by it even if you wanted to. It’s too contradictory.
Christians who go to war do so becaues they want to go to war and the mold their interpretation of the Bible to support whatever they want.
You’ve got to be kidding.
First off, I’ll admit to the possibility of some bias on this subject. I liked him as Cassius Clay, and I’ve come to really admire the man over the years.
He was guaranteed a “free ride” through the military, doing mostly pr stuff, and would have profited greatly had he served. Instead, he refused and paid a heavy price, with no promise of ever resuming his boxing career.
I wondered why so I read everything I could find about his refusal and subsequent trials. I never did find anything concrete to show that there were any reasons other than his religious beliefs and his moral convictions.
Do you know something to the contrary?
BTW; I’m not being argumentative, I just wanna know. I won’t think any less of the man if he did “dodge”.
I wonder about this. Somewhere in Deuteronomy I think, 3 cities are set aside as safe havens for those who have killed someone by accident or otherwise unintentionally. If the word was prohibition was originally against only “murder” would these cities have been needed?
You’re under the impression that the military causes harm just for the hell of it?
Means and ends.
Your error is in thinking that because murder is wrong, non-murderous killing is automatically copacetic. It isn’t. The Old Testament law also condemns negligent manslaughter – hence the provisions for the safe havens that you described.
Those safe havens were established to protect the accused parties until a trial could be held, so that the precise nature of the crime could be determined (e.g. murder, negligent manslaughter, and so forth). Hence, this provision most certainly does not contradict the claim that the Ten Commandments do not prohibit killing in general.
His name is Muhammed Ali. If really admire the guy then give him the respect of calling him by his name.
Sometimes the ends are justified usually they are not (Iraq, for instance). In either case, the purpose of the military is precisely to do enough harm to “them” that they we will do what “we” want them to do.
The primary purpose of any miltary is to kill other people. How is that not doing harm?
Mangeorge, I misread your post and I missed the crucial word “as,” In your first senetence. I thought you said “I like Cassius Clay.” I’m sorry for the unjustified correction. please ignore that post and forget I said anything.
This is why I like being Jewish. Somebody hits you, you hit them back.
Or sue them. ;j 
I want to thank Diogenes for making gutless hipocrites of all us Christians, forgetting thar we are just sinners. Even in cases where all Christians agree on the interpretation, we (I include myself) will sometimes do what we want and forget about God.
I imagine he includes himself in the category The Bible says whatever you want it to say. You couldn’t live perfectly by it even if you wanted to. It’s too contradictory so that even hs own interpretation of the contradictions and if it is possible to live by It are whatever he wants.
Maybe atheists/agnostics are not contradictory when they pass moral judgement on something (like Iraq), they know the truth about it so well they can lecture on it, better than us deluded followers of a bad mythological book written by myth-makers.
Dyogenes has written so much about Iraq that maybe he is the nexus of wisdom and can 100% sure say if this war is right or wrong unlike us hypocritical Christians.
No, the purpose of the military is to acheive a nation’s political and diplomatic goals (Clausewitz and all that). “Doing harm” and killing people are among the means of doing so.
A civilized military does not kill for the sake of killing.
That’s for sure.
[quote]
**I imagine he includes himself in the category The Bible says whatever you want it to say. You couldn’t live perfectly by it even if you wanted to. It’s too contradictory so that even hs own interpretation of the contradictions and if it is possible to live by It are whatever he wants.
I’m stll trying to parse this sentence and see if it’s an insult. Do you deny that Biblical interpretation is so subjective and variable that the bible can be used to justify virtually anything? Do you deny that there are contradictions?
When did I say anything like that? My opinion that the invasion of Iraq is unjustified is completely unrelated to my opinion that Christians interpret the Bible to fit preconceived conclusions.
Who gives a fuck why they do it? The point is that they do it. The job of any military is to cause tremendous misery and suffering to another group of people, usually, but not always, for some kind of material gain.
Armies exist to cause harm. Period.
You are exposing your ignorance. You have no conception of military strategy, objectives, planning, or how much backbreaking, eye burning, effort and lives go into avoiding casualties.
Professional military men grade their operations in terms of meeting their objectives, avoiding civilian casualties, avoiding their own casualties, and avoiding enemy casualties, in that order. They will spend their own lives to avoid killing civilians. They will cancel an operation if it means too many enemy lives lost, in some cases. It depends on the importance of the objective, which comes from the commander in chief (the President). The best military operation is bloodless. An army commander who achieves his objective with no lives lost is promoted a lot.
The majority of our military budget goes to providing our military with weapons that they can control, so that they have options. They want to be able to destroy weapons, tanks, airplanes, and not civilians, and where possible, not enemy soldiers. The objective is to remove the enemy’s ability to fight.
You insult our military, our planners, and the people who risk their lives to protect civilians and even enemy soldiers, putting their lives at risk to protect others. Anything else I have to say to you I will take to the pit.
Moving the bar again, DtC? I’m not surprised.
Sure, because if you kill somebody, even if it’s unintentional, their family or clan is still going to be pissed off and might come after you. So, they set up sanctuary cities, where tribal feuds don’t apply.