Actually, the topic is the ethics of spell-casting. According to the OP, that is. So, aren’t you are “detracting” from the “topic of debate” just as much as I?
They certainly can be, particularly for newbies trying to sort through the ethical concerns.
It seems many discussions of Wiccan ethics leave out half the problem - they discuss what you do outside of the context of what is being done TO you. Think of it as a principle of self defense that you have a right to defend yourself and defending yourself is right. Thus, if someone is attacking you, you DO have a right to take action against. Ideally, this action would be the least violent/coercive thing that you can do to stop the harm being done to you Under this reasoning a banishing might be appropriate action.
But for geneal defensive purposes I usually recommended reflective or mirror magic, the sort that returns that bad to the sender. The ward is only triggered if someone harms or attempts to harm and will not affect the innocent. Don’t want to get hurt? Then don’t try to cause harm.
But yes, banishings are usually seen as less coercive than bindings.
Yes (with the usual qualification that 2 Wiccans = 5 opinions)
THEY don’t, but some of us certainly do, which is why most witches don’t go around pissing off Marines.
There’s a long tradition of metal disrupting magic, particularly steel - and what are arms and armor made of…?
What Code Pink did was essentially a prayer vigil - and about as effective. There are foums appropriate for wizards, and others for warriors, and they seldom overlap
Lets do what we can to keep it that way.
Sure, we need to have a military in this country. I believe that a right-sized military for our country is far smaller than the military we currently have, and that no more recruitment need happen until the military is downsized (and don’t get into “democratic” issues regarding that opinion unless you’re going to take the votes of all parties concerned, e.g., Iraqi votes).
As long as there’s an unjust war being fought, nonviolent, effective tactics that undermine that war effort are valid tactics. The problem with this tactic isn’t that it’s unethical, it’s that it’s ineffective.
Daniel
My opinion?
It’ll work just as well as praying to God.
Some problems I see with that logic. Since you don’t believe that there should be no military I’m sure you want them to be effective when there is a conflict that you happen to agree with. The Army has about half the combat strength it had when I joined 19 years ago. How many divisions do you think there should be? 7? 5? I don’t see how it would be possible to have an effective mass mobilization like during WWII when needed. The other option is to have those soldiers already in the military. As for a hiring freeze that wouldn’t work. Even during the Bush 41/Clinton drawdown they didn’t stop recruitment. They just lower the number and raised requirements. The reason is not for today. The reason is for 15-20 years down the road. Those that are recruited today and choose to make it a career will be the leaders then. That has nothing to do with the current conflict.
Well, there are two debates going on-- the one the OP started and the one about the effectiveness/rightness of Code Pick’s tactics. Nothing wrong with that, as it happens a lot in GD. I was talking about the second debate. If you prefer, I’ll retract that post and just point out that strawman arguments aren’t generally considered “valid”.
Well, that’s your policy position. Doesn’t make it “right”, just makes it one side of the argument. One has to accept your premise for the conclusion to be right.
I’m going to just agree to disagree, since I don’t want to take this thread into a debate about whether the Iraq War was/is “just” or not.
Oh, the second debate! Well, that’s very different! I admit, I’m pretty fuzzy on the protocols of second debates. Good thing you’re here!
I think the Department of Defense ought to live up to its name. We ought to have the military strength necessary to defend our borders from an invading force, no less, and no more.
Obviously, this would be a radical change in our international policy, as we removed ourselves from the role of World Policeman, and we need to give the world a heads-up that it’s going to happen–but that’s the direction in which we should move, in the process getting rid of the cliched but still problematic military-industrial complex.
I’ll leave it to the brass to figure out how many divisions it’d take to defend our borders.
Edit: in the extraordinarily rare case of a conflict that requires us to raise an invasive force, I believe we ought to raise the force then. Having one just lying around makes it too tempting to use it.
Daniel
Gotta say, Dan’l, the idea has some points. But the first politician who endorses that plan will never know what hit him.
The problem with that idea is that when we have to create a military from whole cloth, as happened at the beginning of WWI, and to a lesser extent during WWII, we end up with a fighting force that is initially very large, but poorly trained.
Which means that many more soldiers die than need to. Are you willing to trade off a smaller military now for more dead soldiers if/when the need arises to use them?
ps- This should probably be branched out to a new thread…
Well, gee, elucidator, let’s see what my post said right after the part where you cut it off:
So it was crystal clear I was not talking about protocols, but rather about the content of your post and the reply from that other poster.
I’ll state it again. That was a strawman, not a valid argument, you made earlier about Rumsfeld et al.
This oughtta cover you and Tristan both: I’m painfully aware that this idea is one of the ideas that puts me most completely out of the mainstream of American political thought, and that barring massive (and probably horrifying) changes in the nature of the world, it’s an idea I’m not likely to see in my lifetime.
Tristan, the one thing I’ll add for you is that I do not believe it’ll result in the net loss of more lives, since I’m counting the lives of everyone, not just Americans. I believe that a massive standing military is simply too tempting a tool for presidents: they feel as though if they don’t use it, they’ll be judged weak.
Daniel
I guess it is silly, but if you are against war, and have a recognition of a duty to express and act on that, then you are doing the anti-war movement no harm. It’s sitting around on your ass letting the folks you should have defeated in past elections do whatever they want without hearing anything from you that hurts the anti-war movement.
I remember giving flowers, cupcakes and candy to soldiers with guns. It was silly. But the intent was as serious as JayJay remembers of those joyless younger activist days. Thing is, the dying and killing are more joyless, and more serious. Do something. Do any damned thing at all. All we are saying is, “What the fuck does it take to stop this madness?”
Tris
And as a rough measure of the effectiveness of the Magickal Pink Pixies, all branches of the US military announced that they had exceeded their recruiting goals in April, the Marines by the most.
So Wicca must be bunk - the rule of Three would suggest that the Marines should have exceeded by 300% and not just 142%.
Rock on, Pink-os.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow, I never would have pegged you as a supporter of spellcasting.
WhyNot, you actually believe that superstitious, unscientific mumbo jumbo? That’s deluded. I’m going to pray for you.
Thanks Dave! I’ll light a candle and some incense and meditate on Love for you. 
You do realize that that statement makes you a fascist, don’t you? If you weren’t kidding, then I’m not either.
Your first sentence is fine–the presumption being humor or an attempt thereto. Your second sentence risks being inappropriate to this Forum.
(Why threaten to turn humor into insults–particularly when the thread has already seem some of the same humor?)
[ /Modding ]