Cameron on Conflicts of Commands, Part II. – A Guest Post Series
Charles Cameron, my regular guest blogger, is the former Senior Analyst with The Arlington Institute and Principal Researcher with the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University. He specializes in forensic theology, with a deep interest in millennial, eschatological and apocalyptic religious sects of all stripes. Here is part II. of a three part series by Charles, entitled “CONFLICT OF COMMANDS”.
PREFACE:
I would like to state quite categorically that I am not in the business of making “moral equivalences” here. I have culled these quotes from a wide variety of sources – from friend and foe alike, moderate and extremist, local and far-flung. The fact that I juxtapose a variety of quotations in which the issue of divided lines of command comes up in no way means that I equate the principled opposition to state brutality of one quotation with the wilder reaches of conspiracist rhetoric in another. Part I has further details and provides my context. Please note too that as an appendix, I have attached two quotes that only indirectly address the issue of conflict of commands – a white supremacist quote, immediately followed by a principled quote about militia movement members “disgust at the genocidal fantasies in white supremacist discourse” – because I believe it is important to be aware just how far the rhetoric of hatred can go, and just how firmly it can be rebutted. – Charles Cameron
Conflict of Commands II: Quotations
by Charles Cameron
Principle IV, Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
*
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other…
Jesus Christ, in the Gospel according to Matthew, 6.24
*
Archbishop Romero to the Salvadoran military, March 24, 1980:
No soldier is obliged to obey an order that is contrary to the will of God. Now it is time that you recover your consciences and that you first obey your conscience rather than an order to sin.
Carolyn Forche, “Oscar Romero” in Susan Bergman, ed., Martyrs.
*
And we call on every soldier working in the crusader armies and puppet governments to repent to Allah and follow the example of the heroic Mujahid brother Nidal Hassan, to stand up and to kill all the crusaders by all means available to him supporting the religion of Allah and to make the word of Allah most supreme on earth.
Operation by the Mujahid brother Omar Al-Farooq the Nigerian, AQAP statement, 26 December 2009
*
Oath-Keepers’ Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey:
Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
*
US Special Forces have conducted multiple raids into Pakistani territory, local daily The Nation reported today in a front-page article that was basically just quoting an earlier Guardian story.
One previous US raid that occurred in 2008 was already known about. And when it happened, there was serious concern as to whether such actions by the Americans might lead to the breakdown of the Pakistani army. One respected London-based Pakistan academic said if American troops kept crossing into Pakistani territory he could envisage a situation where Pakistani commanders would lose control over soldiers who would want to fight the incursions.
Londonstani, blogging on CNAS’ Abu Muqawama
*
SINCE its meeting on 28th Shvat 5765, the Sanhedrin has deliberated the initiative of the Prime Minister of Israel, the decisions of the government, and legislation enacted by the Knesset regarding the plan known as “The Disengagement,” henceforth referred to in this document as “the uprooting.”
This plan involves the uprooting of Jewish communities in the Gaza strip and northern Samaria, the forced expulsion of Jews from their homes, and the willful transfer of these lands to a foreign power. Following an intensive study which took place regarding the halachic (authentic Jewish law) questions that arise from the government’s decision, the Sanhedrin hereby brings its conclusions and decisions to the public’s attention. [ … ]
7. Any Jew – including a soldier or policeman – who supports the uprooting, whether directly or indirectly, whether by voting in its favor, or by giving council, or by supplying vehicles or materials, and obviously, anyone who actively participates in the uprooting… by so doing, transgresses a large number of Torah commandments.
*
Members of all branches of the United States Military will soon be facing a most critical decision. A report emerged that Obama is using the deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan to cover for the movement of some 200,000 troops, presently on duty in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan, to USNORTHCOM to prepare for the “expected outbreak of Civil War within the United States before the end of winter.”
*
Rabbis and teachers from Hesder yeshivas, which offer Torah studies alongside military service, released a letter to students in which they reiterated their assertion that soldiers must refuse orders if they are commanded to evacuate settlements, arguing that Torah law is above the Israel Defense Forces. … “Unfortunately, the IDF has been used for purposes unrelated to Israel’s defense and directly opposed to God’s wishes for quite some time,” the rabbis wrote in the letter. “This situation faces IDF soldiers with a contradiction between Jewish commandments and commanders’ orders.”
Chaim Levinson, “Hesder yeshiva rabbis: Torah law is above IDF”, Ha’aretz, Deecember 18, 2009.
*
AL-JAZEERA: How can you agree with what Nidal did as he betrayed his American nation?”
AL-AWLAKI : More important than that is that he did not betray his religion. Working in the American Army to kill Muslim is a betrayal to Islam. American today is Yesterday’s pharaoh; it is an enemy to Islam. A Muslim is not allowed to work in the American Army unless he intends to walk the steps of our Brother Nidal. Loyalty in Islam is to Allah, His messenger and the believers, and not to a handful of soil they call “nation.” The American Muslim’s loyalty is to the Muslim Nation and not to America, and brother Nidal is a proof on that through [executing] his blessed operation, so may Allah reward him with the best of the rewards for that.
Al-Jazeera Interview with Anwar al-Awlaki regarding Maj. Hasan, December 23, 2009
*
You must understand that the desire of the nation isn’t meaningful for someone who believes in the creator.
Rabbi Ariel Bareli, quoted in Christian Science Monitor
*
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states — all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos.
President Obama, Nobel Prize acceptance speech
*
To sum up, it’s acceptable – God willing- for the Muslim American military personnel to partake in the fighting in the upcoming battles, against whomever, their country decides, has perpetrated terrorism against them. Keeping in mind to have the proper intention as explained earlier, so no doubts would be cast about their loyalty to their country, or to prevent harm to befall them as might be expected. This is in accordance with the Islamic jurisprudence rules which state that necessities dictate exceptions, as well as the rule that says one may endure a small harm to avoid a much greater harm.
And God the Most High is Most Knowledgeable and Most Wise.
Fatwa of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi
*
We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, self-sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty in the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people. …
We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements. …
We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
*
What will we say about Mattathias, a hero of the Chanuka story, who demonstrated his zeal for God by killing a Jew who was sacrificing to a pagan god? He acted, we are told in the Book of Maccabees, by following the model of Pinchas, the zealot of an earlier biblical story in the book of Numbers. Pinchas, grandson of Aaron the high priest, killed a Jew who had sexual relations with a pagan Midianite woman. God’s response was to reward Pinchas with an everlasting covenant of peace. Should we as modern Jews honor zealots the same way today?
The biblical story makes clear that God has called for the Israelite leadership to act forcefully against the sinners and it was only when no one else, including Moses, had the courage to act, that Pinchas took the initiative. If God so clearly approved of Pinchas’ zealous act of murder, how can we be critical of a zealot like Yigal Amir?
The answer is that for more than 2,000 years we have understood that no Jewish action or any human action that is destructive, cruel and heartless can be justified by the claim, “God told me to do it.” The rabbis of the talmudic period,whose favorite activity in the world was argument and disputation, ensured that this story of Pinchas can never again serve as our model. They never permitted themselves to decide an issue by claiming direct communication from God. For the rabbis, citing biblical verses was only the beginning, but never the end of their discussion.
Rabbi Jon Haddon, Making sense of Chanukah amidst tragedy
*
The military is more reliable than the police. Pittsburg is a good example. Of course the real test will come during a general disarmament program. With UN troop reinforcements, paramilitary SWAT type goons and unquestioning soldiers, how many will cease assaulting their own people when the millions of scoped high powered hunting rifles and high cap concealed pistols are put into use? First thing I’d do would be to get ahold of an offending uniform (maybe a FEMA one) and infiltrate and start a confusion in the ranks deal. There are way too many armed citizens in America to be conquered without Chinese and Russian troops, Even then all those 30/06, 7mm mag, 300 mag hunting rifles and ar15 and ak rifles will render most body armor useless. Of course fire will screw up the coolest armored fighting vehicles. The pretty white UN vehicles will be burnt charred black. This clash would be like no other in history. Do you know why? It would not be for politics, or land, or resources, or wealth or for any reason war has been fought in history. In this war even a coward will fight back. Why? This is a conflict against the very existence of human life on the planet. The eventual goal is to cull the human population by four fifths or more!!!!! You might as well fight if your death will be guaranteed anyway. Now if even 20 million Americans fire on those sent to disarm and enslave them, they could thin the forces of the mass murderers. Of course the evil oligarchy will not care. Their goal is to terminate human beings. As long as someone is killing someone, they are winning. Resolve yourselves to not surrender to this evil. If you do, death is certain. You might as well take a few disloyal F**KS with you signed a very heavily armed well trained American veteran
*
We abide by every law of this country except those laws that are contradictory to Islamic law.
Sheikh Al-Hanooti, quoted on a State Department site
*
I advise all the officials, as well as the military and security forces, to uphold their religion and not sell their souls; they must understand that the term “officials are excused [because they are only doing their duty]” would not be accepted by the Almighty God on the Day of Judgement. They must regard the protesting youth as their own children, and refrain from violent and cruel actions. They must learn from the mistakes of the predecessors and understand that, eventually, those who oppress the people will receive their just comeuppance. In this day and age, one cannot hide the truth from the people through censorship, closures and restrictions of communication means.
2009 Fatwa of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, translated excerpt quoted
*
Sexton, an Army reservist who served in Afghanistan with US Special Operations Command, also keeps his Oath Keepers ties under the radar. Most soldiers, he told me, don’t talk openly about such things, but it’s easy enough to tell which ones have been woken up. The Department of Defense, Sexton added, will be shocked by the number of service members willing to turn against their commanders when the time comes. “It’s an absolute reality,” he says. He views last April’s DHS report on right-wing extremists as a “preemptive attack because they know it’s coming.”
Justine Sharrock, Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason, Mother Jones, 2010
*
This time we are ALL Davidians. This time, we are all Jews, Kulaks, “counter-revolutionists” and “enemies of the state.” We are now a despised minority within a country no longer our own. BUT WE WILL NOT BE DESPISED
Sipsey Street Irregulars “Three Percenters” blog
*
The most ominous sign of all for the regime is the reports of security men refusing orders to fire into the crowd.
Iran Roiled, Crowds Burn Banks, Police Station; Chanting against Theocrat Khamenei; But No Revolutionary Alternative Yet, Juan Cole on Informed Comment
*
Military leaders charged with interpreting policy into strategy and acting on behalf of the nation on the international stage cannot afford to remain ignorant of the effects of pre-millennialism. Due to a general lack of awareness of millennialism and an uneasy reticence to discuss religious factors, understanding and analysis of our own policies and motives is often deficient. Additionally, the cultural imprint that derives from millennialism impairs our understanding of the words, actions and motives of other actors on the world stage. These factors can be problematic for any military leader or planner attempting to achieve U.S. Government policy objectives through strategy, operations and programs.
Maj. Brian Stuckert, Strategic Implications of American Millennialism, 2008 Masters dissertation, SAMS, Fort Leavenworth
*
This posting [Strategic Implications of American Millennialism] is an United States Army report about the literal believers of the Bible and how they affect American foreign policy. It is the most dangerous document to believers that I have ever read in my entire life. After reading this document, it is easy to see the next step would be to eliminate our Constitutional rights and herd us into concentration camps.
Evangelical author John McTernan, EMERGENCY: US Army View of PreMillennialism
*
Unfortunately this monograph [Strategic Implications of American Millennialism] is only a tiny first step and not nearly enough to begin what I believe is a long overdue crack-down on these dangerous and powerful Christians. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a round-up of these Christians. But I am cheered by this acknowledgement of the problem they present, if not the solution.
Edward A. Anderson II, Strategic Implications of American Millennialism, writing on the WitchSchool blog
*
Speaking from his refuge on the Thai border, Major Hla Lin said he fled before protests began in earnest last week in Rangoon.
“I knew the plan to shoot and kill the monks. There were secret codes to start shooting. If I had stayed on I would have to follow these orders,” said Major Hla Lin. “I am a Buddhist and I did not want to carry out these orders.”
Major Hla is the only officer known to have disobeyed orders during the latest crisis, but his defection boosts hopes that there may be tensions or splits within the army.
Burmese soldiers ‘had orders to kill monks’, Telegraph, 2009
*
Imagine you’re a junior officer in the Burmese army, with orders to suppress the demonstrations, but you privately think it wrong to do so. Do you disobey the orders?
It depends upon what you think fellow soldiers will do. If you think they’ll turn against you, you’ll keep quiet and obey orders, falsifying your preference. But if you have a hunch they’ll back you, you might disobey, figuring that the miltary top-brass can’t kill all of you; the costs to you of disobeying (the risk of death) are then smaller than the cost of obeying, living with a bad conscience.
Burma, and Preference Falsification, in Stumbling and Mumbling blog, 2007
**
Appendix — heat and calm:
The Declaration of Independence holds true today: Whenever any People decide that they simply don’t like the form of criminal regime [d]ruling over them then they have the option of overthrowing that alien criminal regime run in order to destroy them and to set up whatever new regime they please. And if that means that Red Mike Vanderkike’s scruffy kike mamzer brethren are run off or put in ovens or made into something useful like soap and lampshades, and the niggers killed off with the better niggers shipped back to Africa, and the beaners run back to Mexico, and what is left is a Dual-Seedline Christian Identity theocracy run as a military dictatorship, then what matters is that YHWH and political/religious military doth provide. Any successor regime will define itself as legal and the ancient criminal regime as renegade.
White nationalist forum post from Pastor Lindstedt, Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations of Missouri blog
*
In rejecting the glorification of violence for its own sake that lay at the core of the new war fantasy, militiamen forged a masculine identity in which adherents of the warrior dream served as a powerful negative referent. The hostility between constitutional militiamen and the white supremacist Right stemmed largely from the militia movement’s disgust at the genocidal fantasies in white supremacist discourse…
Robert H Churchill, To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant’s Face: Libertarian Political Violence and the Origins of the Militia Movement, 2009, University of Michigan Press
March 12th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
In the first post, the author pointed out that his "overall purpose … is to show that the dilemma of a double chain-of-command is a prominent feature of a variety of different contemporary situations, some of them religious in nature, some revolving around other moral or legal concerns." I don’t think he’s done that. What he has actually done is demonstrate that selective reading of scripture (whether the old or new testament, the Koran, or other) results in bizarre justifications for disobeying orders when embraced by individuals who have a fundamental lack of understanding about the faith that they claim to embrace.
.
Jesus did not suggest that there is a conflict between serving God and serving your country. He did teach that the world is sinful and if you love the world and order your life to gain favor from the world (in essence, if you are a servant to sin) then you cannot also be a servant of God. That does not mean that you cannot obey lawful orders from your military leaders. Indeed, the Bible is full of tales of warfare and it also tells us to obey our leaders and submit to their authority because they keep watch over us (Hebrews 13:17) and that authorities that exist have been established by God and, thus, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1-2).
.
I am not a Muslim, but I now a whole lot of them who I am sure would find the comment by al-Awlaki to be absurd and, if people assumed that they shared his views, they would be offended. There is a good piece in the Jan/Feb issue of Foreign Affairs by Jessica Stern about deradicalization of terrorists. It explains how woefully ignorant many terrorists are of the very tenets of the religion they claim to follow. One of the most telling quotes, in my opinion, is one on page 99 that reads, "One participant in the program told us, ‘Now I understand that I cannot make decisions by reading a single verse. I have to read the whole chapter.’" Well, duh.
.
Much of this reminds me of fringe political groups within our country that take one passage from the Constitution or one sentence from a court decision or one line of a code or regulation and then run with it without understanding the context, the terms of art, the precedent underlying it, and so on. I think the real lesson is that people who are undereducated and overzealous are dangerous. Or, to put it more concisely: stupid is dangerous.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Hi Schmedlap,
.
I’ll let Charles address your comments but I just wanted to add that there is a Part III to his series, which collectively is simply too long to produce here as a single post. One of the limitations of blogging is that it is poorly suited as a format for the extended essay, which in essence, Charles has written. Part III will probably go up on Saturday, time permitting on my part.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:22 am
Schmedlap writes:
I’ve quoted a Catholic Archbishop saying "No soldier is obliged to obey an order that is contrary to the will of God", I’ve quoted Oath Keepers declaring "We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people", I’ve quoted a Jewish Sanhedrin pronouncement that "Any Jew – including a soldier or policeman – who supports the uprooting, whether directly or indirectly … by so doing, transgresses a large number of Torah commandments" — and that’s just from the first 7 of 26 quotes, the first two of which are drawn from the body of International Humanitarian Law and the Gospel of Matthew, respectively. I’d say that covers "a variety of different contemporary situations, some of them religious in nature, some revolving around other moral or legal concerns". .I happen to agree that "selective reading of scripture (whether the old or new testament, the Koran, or other)" can result in "bizarre justifications for disobeying orders" — but I’m leaving the question of what constitutes "a fundamental lack of understanding about the faith that they claim to embrace" to individual readers.
I didn’t quote him as suggesting that — but I did quote a Catholic archbishop to the effect that obeying military orders under a tyranny might be sinful. When you say, "he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted" I don’t imagine you would apply that rubric also to the American Revolution (as I imagine some British clergy probably did at the time)… .Part of my purpose is to suggest that while the general rule may be to obey the orders of military superiors, there are instances where disobedience may be called for.
Please note that I also quote Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s fatwa saying Muslim American military personnel may fight "against whomever, their country decides, has perpetrated terrorism against them" — a view that I hope your Muslim friends would agree with — as well as al-Awlaki praising Maj. Hasan. .Islam has many voices, many points of view, and I have pointed elsewhere (for instance here) to the Ihsanic Intelligence fatwa, The Hijacked Caravan. I am not prepared, however, to dismiss al-Awlaki or other jihadist theologians from consideration, since they are precisely the ones who give us insight into the ways in which Islamic texts can be used to recruit for and inspire global jihad.
It is because such people concern me that I chose to include certain of the American quotes above, along with those from El Salvador, Israel, Iran, Myanmar and so on. But again, different readers will think different groups are "taking one passage and running with it" — I am leaving the decision as to which is which to the reader.
If you take that lesson from my post, I have no quarrel with you on that account. If you think I am undereducated or overzealous, all I can say is that I trust you are wrong.
March 13th, 2010 at 2:50 am
I was scratching my head when I hit your final sentence: "If you think I am undereducated or overzealous, all I can say is that I trust you are wrong." We usually keep it clean on Mark’s site, so I didn’t realize that I needed to clarify that I was not attacking you personally but, just to be clear: I’m not attacking you personally.
.
I realize that some of the people whom you quoted have big titles and lots of respect in relevant circles. But on any topic I can find someone who has a position of prominence or an impressive title and find some odd points of view. Lots of them have prestigious titles like "Senator" or "Chief Executive Officer" or "Dean" and have credentials like "Ph.D" or "Esquire" or "M.D." but their views may not be very representative of their relevant fields of practice. In particular, you state that, "I’ve quoted a Catholic Archbishop." Yes, but is that Archbishop’s view rooted in his faith or in his political views? And is it justified with an interpretation of scripture that is generally or even widely accepted by his denomination? I don’t think so. What if I quoted Fred Phelps, the wacko "baptist minister" who preaches that "God hates fags" and that this is reason to hold demonstrations at Soldiers’ funerals? Is that a Protestant thing or just a crazy thing? Just because he calls it religion, that doesn’t make it one.
.
You asked, in regard to my comment on Hebrews/Romans, "I don’t imagine you would apply that rubric also to the American Revolution" – actually I would. There was a Continental Congress and a Declaration of Independence. It was not just a mob uprising. But, with my original point in mind, perhaps that a question better asked of people whose views we can say are more authoritative and representative of a major denomination of the Christian faith.
.
You also stated, "I am not prepared, however, to dismiss al-Awlaki or other jihadist theologians from consideration, since they are precisely the ones who give us insight into the ways in which Islamic texts can be used to recruit for and inspire global jihad." I think that is an accurate statement and the use of religious scriptures for recruitment and incitement purposes is certainly a worthwhile topic for research. But what doesn’t sound right to me is to attribute a degree of credibility to such sentiments on par with that of views held by someone like al-Sistani or Tantawi. Are you suggesting that al-Awlaki is "just another interpretation" rather than inflammatory political speech disguised as religion?
.
If I understand where you are going with this (do I?), you are taking the religious claims at face value, rather than looking at the substance of the quotations and asking whether it is religion or politics. You stated, "I happen to agree that ‘selective reading of scripture (whether the old or new testament, the Koran, or other)’ can result in ‘bizarre justifications for disobeying orders’ — but I’m leaving the question of what constitutes ‘a fundamental lack of understanding about the faith that they claim to embrace’ to individual readers." I guess that is what confuses me. Who is the intended audience? Is this a final draft or is this an early draft and you are deliberately including all quotes and soliciting feedback? If this is a final draft, why are you leaving it to the reader to decide? Shouldn’t that be a question that you try to answer when determining which quotes to include?
March 13th, 2010 at 4:26 am
Hello again — and my apologies!
I’m sorry — I didn’t think you were, but I did wonder whether I should have included a smiley a the end of my comment (I’m not terribly fond of them for graphical reasons) — please take one as read.
The last I heard he was being considered for "beatification" — one step short of being made a saint — and his theology had been approved by the Vatican. As I understand it, the remaining question is not so much whether his own views were political or theological, as whether his assassin killed him on account of his faith or not.
There are verses that could support Phelps’ view — Proverbs 6.16, for instance, says "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him" — and he can also quote Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don’t think that makes it "not" religion, I think that makes it "hate filled" religion. .I’ve been working off and on at a book to be called "Landmines in the Garden" — the point being precisely that scriptures, which contain some of the noblest and most inspiring words in human culture (the "garden") also have texts that can be used by those who hate to justify their hatred and their deeds of violence. I don’t, for various reasons, think paradise itself has this problem, but human religions do seem to.
Again, I think it is both inflammatory speech and religion. And I stated explicitly in my first post in this series, and at the top of this one, "The fact that I juxtapose a variety of quotations in which the issue of divided lines of command comes up in no way means that I equate the principled opposition to state brutality of one quotation with the wilder reaches of conspiracist rhetoric in another.
It is a final draft — unless and until I revise it for a book project. And I am taking each quote in turn as a voice — in some cases authoritative, in some cases towards the fringe or further out than that — that sheds some light on how different constituencies think about what we might term "dueling obligations". .My initial interest in this question stems from Major Hasan’s eventual decision to kill members of the armed services in which he was both an officer and a physician: my own mode of analysis is then to see that decision in the context of others with similar views (al-Awlaki), others in the same religion but of a different opinion (al-Qaradawi), others of a different sect and political color (Ayatollah Montazeri), others of different religions (Jewish, Christian, Buddhist), and secularists (I’m hoping that term can cover those for whom the Geneva Conventions or the US Constitution might be the basis in principle for their dilemma)..You might say I am gaming the different ways that people approach the idea of a higher moral authority coming in possible conflict with the obligations of military service — but the case of Maj. Hasan is my central focus.
March 13th, 2010 at 5:59 am
Thanks, that is clearer. I think you might want to consider dueling allegiances, too. Take, for example, Watada and Choi. They joined the Army for the specific purposes of political activism in which they violated the UCMJ to bring publicity to their causes. As ridiculous as their actions were, people were clamoring to come to their defense.
.
One minor quibble regarding whether Fred Phelps can justify any of his nonsense with scripture: the Lord hates all sin and none of the sinners. There is no sin that can not be washed away. God no more "hates fags" than He "hates alcoholics." What He does hate is the sin and lack of repentance, but not the person.
March 13th, 2010 at 6:46 am
I imagine Phelps would respond to that with Psalms 5.5- 6: "The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man." .Don’t get me wrong — I like your quibble a lot better than Phelps’ interpretation, but I imagine he’d also say that someone who truly repents can be saved, in line with 1 Timothy 2. 3-5, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of truth…" .Which perhaps brings us to Shakespeare, and "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
March 13th, 2010 at 7:01 am
What I am trying to get at here, in my most recent response — let me explain this a little more clearly — is that verses like Psalms 5. 5-6, quoted above, can be quoted in support of hatred, even though the predominant theme of the New Testament as I understand it is love. So that verse from Psalms — which I probably sang in choir a hundred times as a boy, without ever thinking I was being taught to hate — is like a landmine in the garden of scripture — and may pass unnoticed until someone with an inclination to hatred triggers it. But I have an upcoming post on the story of Phineas / Pinchas in Numbers 25 in preparation, where I’ll get into this side of things more deeply.
.
And thanks for the pointer to Watada and Choi.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I like the diversity of these doublequotes, Charles. The cumulative effect is one of perspective, or of a methodology for observing organizations.One subtheme: "WE WILL NOT BE DESPISED." I’m struck by the sense of minority moral outrage in some, of being righteous amidst a society gone astray. This isn’t universal, but quite apparent.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:21 am
Thanks, Bryan:.I guess I think the parallelism between Archbishop Romero and Ayatollah Montazeri stands out for me — and I’m intrigued by the oppositions (eg) between the attitudes of the Sanhedrin vs the Courage to Refuse folks, with both sides of a political divide claiming that disobedience to military duty may be a moral obligation.. Fascinating.