"Love thy enemy" -- U.S. soldier gets discharge

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN1646766120071016

"Love thy enemy" -- U.S. soldier gets discharge
Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:32pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier who said his Christian beliefs compelled him to love his enemies, not kill them, has been granted conscientious objector status and honorably discharged, a civil liberties group said on Tuesday.

Capt. Peter Brown -- who served in Iraq for more than a year and was a graduate of the elite U.S. military academy West Point -- said in a statement issued by the New York Civil Liberties Union that he was relieved the Army had recognized his beliefs made it impossible for him to serve.

"In following Jesus' example, I could not have fired my weapon at another human being, even if he were shooting at me," said Brown, who plans to continue seminary classes he began by correspondence while in Iraq.

While in Iraq, Brown processed insurgents and detainees, the NYCLU said.

Brown said he had no conflict between his faith and military service until after he graduated from West Point in 2004 and began to study scripture and his belief.

During his Iraq deployment he applied for discharge as a conscientious objector but the request was denied, the NYCLU said. In July 2007 the NYCLU and the American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to order the honorable discharge.

"Before the court acted, the Army reconsidered the issue, this time granting Brown's request," said the NYCLU, adding it would now withdraw the lawsuit.

I fear for your family.  Will you love your enemy when someone breaks into your home to kidnap and rape your daughter?  Just a thought.

[Andrew]

Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised that this man made it all the way to Captain before realizing what his choices entailed. It's not like the guy was drafted, as in days gone by.

A.

[MechAg94]

It seems to me there are a lot of distasteful jobs in the military that don't require you to kill anyone. 

[Firethorn]

Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised that this man made it all the way to Captain before realizing what his choices entailed. It's not like the guy was drafted, as in days gone by.

A.

It sounds like he developed this attitude after going to Iraq - it says he began seminary training during his deployment there.

Still, from my understanding it's only politics that got him out - As I understand the stuff I've signed and sworn, I wouldn't be allowed to become a 'conscientious objector' during my enlistment, much less during a deployment.  Wartime isn't the time to make that change.

Now, it's every adult's decision what to do in life, as long as one is aware of the consequences of his actions.  IE if you feel strongly enough against violence due to a change in heart - so be it.  Just be aware that as a consequence you may be branded a coward, a traitor, and spend some time in prison or jail.  In past times it could lead to execution.

On the other hand - I wouldn't want to try to force somebody who's unwilling or unable to perform in combat.  That's a good way to get your own troops killed.

[yesitsloaded]

Where do we sign up if we want to defend the country against the Mexican Army, but could care less about Iraq?

[MechAg94]

Border Patrol? 

[Balog]

What a bitch. God, I hate officers.

[Perd Hapley]

Will you love your enemy when someone breaks into your home to kidnap and rape your daughter?

Yes.  This schmuck's problem is that he thinks loving your enemies conflicts with putting lead in their brain-pan.  The fact that you love someone doesn't mean you'll let them commit violence on someone else.  Just the opposite, really. 

[Antibubba]

While there isn't enough in the story to draw a conclusion one way or another, I'm inclined to believe what he says about his conversion.  It happens.  As MechAg94 points out, though, there are certainly other tasks he could do for the rest of his tour.

I have to say that I'm proud to live in a country that not only acknowledges my right to defend self and state, but my right not to be obligated to do so by the government. 

Still, I think he should have to pay back the money we taxpayers spent on him.

[Kaylee]

I tend to believe him to. Heck, been going through a similar rethinking myself lately. I think CS Lewis had the right of when he said (badly mangled paraphrase following) - that when you move your focus from the body to the soul, seemingly small things take on great importance, and seemingly large things become trifling manners.

None of which relieves him of his obligations and responsibilities of course.
Seems to me MechAg is making sense. Lots of other jobs he could be doing that don't involve killing, yes?

[El Tejon]

He can have his beliefs, but last I checked West Point was not accepting conscripts.  Why join as organization that devotes itself to killing people if you hold these beliefs?

[Leatherneck]

It's almost incredible to me that someone couls spend four years at the Point, followed by several years active duty, and not realize what serving as an officer entails. I trust the accountants are tallying up his tab for the free education.

TC

[HankB]

I'd be interested in knowing how closely his application for "conscientous objector" status followed his first experience of incoming fire.

Sounds too much like the religious cellblock conversons convicts routinely have as their parole hearings get closer.

[Firethorn]

He can have his beliefs, but last I checked West Point was not accepting conscripts.  Why join as organization that devotes itself to killing people if you hold these beliefs?

It sounds like he developed this attitude after going to Iraq - it says he began seminary training during his deployment there.

He started religious training while over in the desert - this can result in a changing of viewpoints.

Worst case, to try to get it's money back, I'd have him transfer over to chaplain after he qualifies.  Meanwhile, give him some sort of shitty non-combat job.

[Paddy]

Pacifism is a legitimate world view. From Jesus to the Amish and Quakers to Ghandi, pacifism has certainly done way more good than harm.

[SomeKid]

Riley, Christ and Ghandi were not pacifists. People foolishly believe they were because at times they took a noniolent approach.

[Hawkmoon]

Will you love your enemy when someone breaks into your home to kidnap and rape your daughter?

Yes.  This schmuck's problem is that he thinks loving your enemies conflicts with putting lead in their brain-pan.  The fact that you love someone doesn't mean you'll let them commit violence on someone else.  Just the opposite, really.

Some versions of Christianity take a literal interpretation of the commandment that usually appears (incorrectly) as "Thou shalt not kill." (The more correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder.") I don't know what the rules are today, but when I entered the Army in 1966 in order to qualify as a conscientious objector you had to be able to say that as a result of your religious beliefs, you would not take a human life. Period.

"What if you are being attacked in an alley by a guy with a knife?"

Not even then.

If this man's seminary studies led him to embrace that interpretation of Biblical teaching, then he IS a conscientious objector, and he should have been granted that status. I think it's noteworthy that he has already done a tour in Iraq -- this wasn't a ploy to avoid going there, hatched after he got his orders.

[Scout26]

Had this happen to a solider in my unit back in '89 (No war at that time).  Good solider, great MP, wanted to do his 4 years and then become a cop or deputy back in his hometown. 

Got religion and found that he didn't want to be/could no longer be a solider, MP, or a cop when he got out.  Applied for and got CO status, and got out.

Last we heard he had finished his religious studies and became a missionary somewhere in South or Central America.

It happens.

[RoadKingLarry]

Watch fro this guy to show up on the talk show circuit bashing Bush and the war.

[Perd Hapley]

Pacifism is a legitimate world view. From Jesus to the Amish and Quakers to Ghandi, pacifism has certainly done way more good than harm.

Depends on how you define it.  A desire for peace and peaceful resolution to conflict is quite legitimate.  A refusal to take up arms at all just paves the way for the violent.  It may be "legitimate," but it sure don't make no sense, nohow. 

If Christ was a pacifist, he was not of the variety that condemned all use of force, or even killing.  Rather, he told his disciples to buy swords.  Further, he had a high view of the Old Testament, which is certainly not pacifist.  From what I know of Ghandi, which is not much, he also approved force in some situations, as has the Dalhi Lama. 

[Paddy]

If Christ was a pacifist, he was not of the variety that condemned all use of force, or even killing.  Rather, he told his disciples to buy swords.

Yes, but I've never understood why because he never advocated the shedding of blood of others.

  Further, he had a high view of the Old Testament, which is certainly not pacifist.

Of course, He was a Jew. They called him 'Rabbi', remember?  But, He also said "Behold, old things pass away and all things are made new".  The new covenant, fistful, I'm sure you're familiar with it.

  From what I know of Ghandi, which is not much, he also approved force in some situations,

AFAIK, Ghandi did not approve of the use of force to stop the killing of Jews.  So if you interpret that as an approval of the Nazi use of force, I guess your statement is correct.  Technically.  Is that what you meant?

I have no freaking idea wuzzup with Dahli Lama.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm familiar with the new covenant, but I also know that Christ is God.  And as God, he inspired the words of the Old Testament.  You know, that book where He commands people to slay every man, woman and child of certain tribes?  Where He commanded that adulterers and blasphemers be stoned to death?  The new covenant did away with such matters of civil law and theocracy, but Christ never made a blanket denunciation of lethal force. 


The passage about buying swords is a touch cloudy, but the context has always suggested, to me, that they would have a need for self-defense.  YMMV. 


RE: Ghandi - I didn't mean that.  As I said, I don't know many details about him

RE: Dali Lama - I believe I've seen a quotation from him stating that using guns for self-defense would be morally acceptable. 

Sorry, I'm no expert on those two. 

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

xxndas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."  The Dalai Lama(May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

[Firethorn]

Through history, true pacifists either didn't last long or had to depend upon the good will and protection of those willing to commit violence.

I love peace, wish for peace, but believe that the best way to achieve that is to be good enough at violence that others wish for peace as well.

For every person of violent occupation who becomes a true pacifist,  I would not be surprised to find a non violent person who takes up arms for some reason.

"What if you are being attacked in an alley by a guy with a knife?"

Even better, what if it was your child being attacked in that alley?

Of course, not being willing to kill and complete pacifism are different matters - if you're simply unwilling to kill, there's still plenty that can be done.

[CAnnoneer]

What happened to "an eye for an eye"?