LT,
Perhaps there is a great multitude of “Lords of this planet” with as many beliefs about the great good of the global interests. You yourself point out that many of them happen to believe their crusade must lead them into Iraq. You yourself happen not to, as do I, Auldsoul and half of the American electorate. Therein lies the problem.
It shows that it is not really the individual that decides, believes or chooses, but a manipulating force, be it a born-again political agenda-setting executive, a defense industry or intelligence service providing information. This is where one gets bogged down in the deep mud of conjecture, nationalistic sentiment, disinformation and propaganda, like all those millions of responsible individuals got bogged down literally in the trenches of Flanders and Verdun. Especially when you start confusing “supporting your country” with “global interests”. The Lords that manage to conjure up the biggest following are justified by their numbers and thus manage to steer towards the more bigoted forms of nationalism.
When push comes to shove, everybody always supports their OWN country, never believing it contradicts the best global interests. The few informed individuals and intellectuals who actually look beyond the short-term interests of their own country to take into account the true, long-term global interests of the weak, usually have to drop out of sight real soon as prophets not honored in their own countries. They form a minority of “traitors” that condemn the bigoted forms of nationalism.
IF we can truly be called Lords of this planet, we should concentrate a little bit less on belatedly supporting our own respective countries in war, instead serving the best global interests by trying to resort LESS to force through preventative measures. National self-interest and pride often stand in the way.
With hindsight many would agree (except the WTS) a timely dispatching of a military peacekeeping force to Rwanda would have been called for.
VG
True Christians neutral in War?
by Van Gogh 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Van Gogh
-
jgnat
One of the world's heroes:
-
jwfacts
I am not sure that the bible is about transcending nationalism. The old testament strongly promoted the concept of a superior nation that specifically was instructed to conquer the land creating widows and orphans, when not putting them to death.
The New Testament is an attempted justification of this, and it could be said that the principles put forward in the New Testament transcend nationalism.
Unfortunately Christian groups, the JWs included, transcend nationalism by creating a religious bigotry instead. The spiritual nation is superiour to all others. A JW reasons "Why should we shed blood when shortly Jehovah will destroy everyone not of our spiritual nation?"
How is that attitude any healthier than any other form of racism?
-
LittleToe
jwfacts:
Unfortunately Christian groups, the JWs included, transcend nationalism by creating a religious bigotry instead. The spiritual nation is superiour to all others. A JW reasons "Why should we shed blood when shortly Jehovah will destroy everyone not of our spiritual nation?"
Sorry, but I'm gonna call you on this one. I thought you dealt in facts? IMHO this is not representative of mainstream Christian thought. The "spiritual nation" does not usually preclude ones responsibility to the land of your occupancy.
-
LittleToe
Van Gogh:
And yet most so-called Christian nations reserve the right for an individual to conscienciously object to a given war that they feel is unjust.
If an nation of individuals feels that another nation is incroaching on neighbouring nations' rights, shouldn't they reserrver the right to act? Should WWI and II have been avoided by full capitulation?
-
Van Gogh
LT
“…most so-called Christian nations reserve the right for an individual to conscientiously object to a given war that they feel is unjust.”
I think an individual can sometimes conscientiously object to war as such; not a given war (and certainly not a particular unjust battle or mission). That is the problem. It is an all or nothing proposition. Once you’re in you’ll have to refuse orders or desert. You cannot pick and choose. This is even more so the case with autocratic regimes where no such right exists in the first place.
“…nation of individuals feels that another nation is encroaching on neighboring nations' rights…”
If the dynamics of this scenario were only that simple. I think the picture can be a little larger here as well.
A nation of course always consists of individuals; this does not mean that the feeling of a nation necessarily equates the sum of individual feelings. National feeling has proven to be a treacherous touchstone for justifying wars.
There are always at least two nations of individuals; all nations usually feel their rights as being encroached on. Representatives of all nations stir up (propaganda) the (patriotic) feelings of individuals so as to create a sense of solidarity and shared fate: nationalism. This “national feeling” is imposed on all individuals. All individuals could eventually be made to feel their rights as being encroached on.
Feeling, or rather, thinking, truly becomes individual when it transcends “group thinking” or national sentiments. These independent spirits are usually ahead of the pack, discerning the dynamics that lead up to a crisis. They are often ostracized for preaching preventative measures. Eventually, resorting to equal and exacting force will be necessary, further strengthening the national bond. Here again national feeling can be a faulty compass.
That is how an essentially benign “Kulturnation” (a nation united by culture instead of by central administration) like Germany got caught unawares by ranting German emancipators from the 1870s onward. One incident in 1914 (out of countless other pivotal moments and developments in which preventative action could have been taken) was enough to trigger a preset treaty-induced mechanism compelling the individual nations - to whom the all the subjects had attributed their individual competence – to act on their (neighbor’s) infringed-upon rights. WWI and II could have been avoided at any stage before taking military action. Here it was legalism combined with national feeling; the individuals could only go to war without any say in it. Refusing to continue with the madness would get you shot on the spot.
Justifiable and necessary preventative military/humanitarian action becomes an increasingly workable and justifiable option within an international legal framework that is authorized to translate national and international feeling and indignation into clearly defined action governed and enforced by international law.
In a crowded world where nations are bound to bump into each other ever more, their rights and national feelings will be increasingly affected by the high tech defense industry, national and religious sentiments, intelligence services, trade barriers, energy and water.
VG -
LittleToe
I think an individual can sometimes conscientiously object to war as such; not a given war (and certainly not a particular unjust battle or mission). That is the problem. It is an all or nothing proposition. Once you’re in you’ll have to refuse orders or desert. You cannot pick and choose.
I'd like to know if that's truly the case. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that any right-minded judge would hand out some kind of community service as a substitute. Contrary to the way JWs handled themselves during WWII, this is an acceptable alternative for most sensible folks who aren't being driven by a cultish agenda.
-
LittleToe
One incident in 1914 (out of countless other pivotal moments and developments in which preventative action could have been taken) was enough to trigger a preset treaty-induced mechanism compelling the individual nations - to whom the all the subjects had attributed their individual competence – to act on their (neighbor’s) infringed-upon rights.
WWII - Poland - this was a stick in the sand after previous incursions across national boundaries. You're right, it could have been avoided, if only Hitler has decided to halt his progress! Are you genuinely suggesting that the Allies had a non-aggressive alternative, that didn't involve acceding to foreign dictatorship and eventual ethnic cleansing??
-
LittleToe
With hindsight many would agree (except the WTS) a timely dispatching of a military peacekeeping force to Rwanda would have been called for.
Agreed. It demonstrated that politics can often override genuine "altruism" (and I use that word advisedly!).
-
LittleToe
National feeling has proven to be a treacherous touchstone for justifying wars.
I agree, especially when the national press is used for propaganda purposes, as appears to be the case for some months before each war is declared (or am I just being a little cynical??? who, me??).
That having been said, I would rather see someone fight for the interests of their nation than see someone passively stand by while their neighbour's wife is injured, raped or killed. IMHO pacifism isn't totally justified.