> Why couldn't soldiers be commanded to sneak to some location where the enemy > is hiding, and kill them on arrival? That would be murder. Are you saying > a Baha'i should refuse to cooperate then, but could otherwise kill? I don't > think such a scenario is all that rare, and not enough to say that a soldier > doesn't murder, using the definition you cite.
What are soldiers supposed to do? Sneak up on an enemy soldier and read him his Miranda rights? The US Uniform Code of Military Justice requires that a soldier obey all lawful orders. William Calley obeyed an order from a superior to kill unarmed women, children, and aged people. The military court said that there is a heavy presumption that orders given by a superior officer should be deemed to be lawful. However, some acts are so manifestly beyond the pale, that every reasonable person knows that the order is illegal, and this was such an instance. In such an instance, the soldier is under a legal obligation to disobey the order. This is a rare instance. In general, soldiers are in the business of killing the enemy, and that is not an illegal order. Since it is generally a legal order, even with stealth, this is manifestly different from murder. While killing is against Baha'i principles, if a given country does not make provision for noncombatant positions, inasmuch as the Baha'i Faith recognizes the right of a government to conscript soldiers, a Baha'i must obey the law of the land by 1) submitting to the conscription, and 2) obeying lawful orders. I have heard Baha'is say, "Yes, but there's nothing that says you have to aim your rifle accurately!" That would be sheer treachery, and I think disloyalty to government. In a combat squad, the lives of one's fellow soldiers depend on everybody following through with his duty. You can't have somebody bail out at the critical moment. I recall reading a pilgrim's note where the Guardian said that a Baha'i should seek noncombatant service, but if it is not available, then he should carry his rifle, "And shoot straight!" "Noncombatant" is a term of art. It does not mean merely having primary duties that do not involve violence. For example, in today's US military, even a cook is a combat soldier; every member of the military is deemed to be a combatant. A "noncombatant" is a person who meets two qualifications: Does not perform combat duties, and *will not be called upon to do so.* This was provided for during the Vietnam war, when the military and Selective Service System created the 1-A-O category, which was guaranteed noncombatant; that category no longer exists. Baha'is served in this role as medics, for example. They were not issued weapons, and everybody understood that they would not fire weapons in an emergency. The squad worked around that, with greater or lesser degrees of discontent. Soldiers understand that their lives depend on reliance on their squad members to cover for them, and some did not like having noncombatants assigned to their units. But there were many instances when the noncombatant medics, whether Baha'is or Quakers or Mennonites, showed the sincerity of their beliefs, and by providing medical aid under perilous conditions showed that they were not trying to avoid danger. When the combat soldiers saw that the noncombatant medics could be counted on to provide medical care under fire, much of the time the integrity of the religious beliefs of the medic was acknowledged. In today's US military, there are no noncombatants. Every person who enters the military is deemed to be a combatant, and if the situation requires it, is expected to do as ordered. The House of Justice has directed that the Assemblies are not to make an issue of this. Baha'is are to be provided with the information and make their own decision. The Assemblies are not to meddle with it. (On a far lower point on the scale, but it also is a matter that is not to be made an issue of so I want to mention it because there was a recent posting containing criticism of smoking among the youth -- the guidance of the Guardian and the House of Justice is *not to make an issue of it.* I understand that to mean to leave it alone. That doesn't mean that the Assembly can't provide for no smoking at certain events or locations; it means not to press the issue of not smoking on the believers.) Back to military matters. I came to the Baha'i Faith in 1971. In 1968 when I was still a Catholic, I came within one millimeter of signing up for the Marine Corps ROTC. After graduation I would have been a 90 day wonder, and been sent to Vietnam as a Lieutenant. I doubt I would have survived a month. Anyway, I came across Mahatma Gandhi's writings at that time, dropped the idea of entering the Marines, and became an absolute pacifist. I came out of that background to the Baha'i Faith, and initially had a very hard time with the Baha'i approach to obedience to government, acceptance of conscription, obedience to military orders, and enforcement of international law by military force. I got over it. Now, it makes sense to me, but then, it was hard. As a pacifist, I believed that the Biblical injunction to "turn the other cheek", to "love thine enemy" and to "resist not evil", all from the words of Christ, were a description of how to treat not only a personal enemy -- but that this was divine guidance for how nations should treat nations. I learned as a Baha'i that mercy is for individuals, justice for nations. If someone injures me, I can turn the other cheek. But if a nation's east coast is bombed, it would be madness for the President to turn the other coast. Brent ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
