Re: [ZION] Moral War
At 10:56 1/23/2003 -0900, BLT wrote: Fundamental principle: Self-defense is OK. Everything else is unlawful. 1) We defend ourselves even if it means shedding blood. 2) We never give offense. 3) We never fight except to preserve our lives. 4) We only fight when God commands us to fight. I don't have the reference handy here, but there is somewhat in the DC? about Abraham's rules of engagement. I think these should be added to this list (or at least the list corrected to include them). I won't comment on current state of affairs as it's principles that are being discussed first. Till who adjusted the flint in his musket last night // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
[ZION] Moral War
John, et al, - as you can see I have tried to be more complete, in my answers than perhaps you acknowledge. In fact I have made some modifications to your list of understanding. Read the following from a previous post and then my comments at the end of this post. I would be interested in where we all agree and where we do not with my list and comments. Once we have a better idea of the standards it will be fun to see how the current situation fits with the agreed upon standards. George said in an earlier post: From the first I have used Alma 48, et al, to start the definition of a moral war. I think that John has, in this instance, done an admirable, but basic and incomplete, job of defining what is needed for moral action in the event of war. Therefore, I would like to add a few comments based on my own feelings, as well as some contributions from others in this discussion. I am using Johns comments as a beginning point of discussion, therefore what follows is not a critique, rather an expansion. 1) We defend ourselves even if it means shedding blood. I must add the consideration of doing all we can to avoid killing and destruction insofar as possible. We can not, when given the justification to go to war, use it as a pretense, or cause, to wield unfettered destruction and death upon the enemy. This is against the basic nature of the combatants, who have the tendency and instructions to go out and do all the damage possible to defeat the enemy. The control, however difficult, of such warriors is one aspect of Morality in war 2) We never give offense. We must also act proactively to correct the causes that might give offense, not to the extreme of doing anything at any cost, but we must act to prevent and correct negative conditions throughout the world. 3) We never fight except to preserve our lives. There is an additional consideration as we also have a obligation to preserve principles, not just our lives. There are principles that are worthy to give our lives for. We can preserve our lives by giving in to tyrants. This is not acceptable and is in fact immoral to do so. The reason we fight is as important as the way we fight. The acquisition of land and influence is not a principle that is acceptable as a reason to go to war. But the preservation of Liberty and freedom is a cause for action. The question was asked by one, is it not possible for both sides to fight a moral war? No, it is not!!! We must only fight after we have done all we can to prevent a war. If both sides are trying to do this, war will not occur. Moral action by both parties will always result in peace. For war to occur one or both must be acting immorally. We have every moral right to act in our best interests, in complying with this 3rd consideration, and therefore to act when the other side is preparing or taking the first steps to act against us. Such hostile preparations can be a cause for pre-emptive action, but only after all other means of resolution are exhausted. 4) We only fight when God commands us to fight. This is good, but not possible in today's world. The best we can do is make sure that our definition of Moral war is consistent with Gods commandments and then do our best to comply. 5) We must treat the losers with honor and dignity, irrespective of their prior actions. We must do all we can to mitigate the effects of our actions against them. The moral victor must always look at the loser as a victim of a terrible tragedy, even if brought upon themselves, and must do all they can to correct the negative situation. Other questions such as crossing boundaries or international law or Geneva Convention only are applications of the basic considerations of Moral action in the event of war. We are a people of Peace, both as Church members and as citizens of Nations. I believe this is especially true of the United States, but also of other nations most of the time. You can point out all sorts of actions that might seem to go against the argument, but I think that MOST actions by the US fit into the above criteria. Would anyone disagree with this definition of Moral War? Or would anyone add to this list of requirements? Now if you want the flames to fly - apply this to a real situation and we will see how difficult it is to fight a moral war and apply each of these rules to the conflict. George now adds to the discussion with two additional comments: 1. I have never said that George Bush is like unto Moroni. That is something you have added to the discussion. I have said that the two situations, Alma 48 and today, have a great deal in common, from the point of view of the situation causing the response and what the appropriate response might be today. 2. If you require that the United States, or any other nation, be perfectly righteous before any moral action can be taken, then our discussion is over. Over - because you set an unnecessarily impossible condition for moral action.
[ZION] Moral War
I see Captain Moroni also living in such a time. He was fighting a corrupt government, but his cause was still just. You'll note that Pahoran was kicked out of power for a time, but the government was recovered (though never quite the same afteward). There's a good possibility that some corruption remained in their government even after Moroni kicked the kingmen into prison. There were lower judges doing corrupt things, even while the main judge was righteous, and vice versa. We can't paint the Nephite government with such a broad stroke of whiteness, when we know there is no such thing as a perfect government without perfect people. Our nation has problems, but there are many good people trying to regain power over the government to return it to righteousness. Would you not agree that GWBush is a better man than Clinton? Are the Republican House and Senate not right now discussing issues to stop partial birth abortion? We don't read about gambling, or pornography in the BoM, though I'm sure they were there. Alcohol was used in Moroni's battles, both against the Lamanites, but also the Nephite armies drank (they tested their alcohol on their prisoners). Moroni fought a moral war, even when his government was corrupt. In fact, it was the corrupt faction that sought to end the warring with treaties. Something to think about. K'aya K'ama, Gerald (Gary) Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html LDS Evidences, Family History, Food Storage, etc. JWR: I think we are in general agreement about what constitutes a moral war, but I'm not certain. We seem to read Alma 48 differently. Both you and Gary seem to see both Captain Moroni and George W. Bush as the guys with the white hats, and Saddam Hussein and Iraq as the guys with the black hats. For me, I don't see how the USA can be the white hats as long as it has legalized pornography, gambling, adultery, sodomy, abortion, alcohol use, and the socialistic redistribution of the wealth. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Moral War
Gary favored us with: Are the Republican House and Senate not right now discussing issues to stop charter-prohibited subject? They may be talking about it, but unless something is actually done, and laws are passed and enforced, then it doesn't make the world any safer for the innocents. Geoff -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
[ZION] Moral War
John W. Redelfs suggested the following as a general description of Moral War. We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10). -- President Hinckley, October General Conference, 2001) And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians. (Alma 48:10) Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. (Alma 48:14) And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity. (Alma 48:16) John continues: Surely in these passages we can find some statement of belief on what is moral action, can't we? 1) We defend ourselves even if it means shedding blood. 2) We never give offense. 3) We never fight except to preserve our lives. 4) We only fight when God commands us to fight. George adds to the discussion: From the first I have used Alma 48, et al, to start the definition of a moral war. I think that John has, in this instance, done an admirable, but basic and incomplete, job of defining what is needed for moral action in the event of war. Therefore, I would like to add a few comments based on my own feelings, as well as some contributions from others in this discussion. I am using Johns comments as a beginning point of discussion, therefore what follows is not a critique, rather an expansion. 1) We defend ourselves even if it means shedding blood. I must add the consideration of doing all we can to avoid killing and destruction insofar as possible. We can not, when given the justification to go to war, use it as a pretense, or cause, to wield unfettered destruction and death upon the enemy. This is against the basic nature of the combatants, who have the tendency and instructions to go out and do all the damage possible to defeat the enemy. The control, however difficult, of such warriors is one aspect of Morality in war 2) We never give offense. We must also act proactively to correct the causes that might give offense, not to the extreme of doing anything at any cost, but we must act to prevent and correct negative conditions throughout the world. 3) We never fight except to preserve our lives. There is an additional consideration as we also have a obligation to preserve principles, not just our lives. There are principles that are worthy to give our lives for. We can preserve our lives by giving in to tyrants. This is not acceptable and is in fact immoral to do so. The reason we fight is as important as the way we fight. The acquisition of land and influence is not a principle that is acceptable as a reason to go to war. But the preservation of Liberty and freedom is a cause for action. The question was asked by one, is it not possible for both sides to fight a moral war? No, it is not!!! We must only fight after we have done all we can to prevent a war. If both sides are trying to do this, war will not occur. Moral action by both parties will always result in peace. For war to occur one or both must be acting immorally. We have every moral right to act in our best interests, in complying with this 3rd consideration, and therefore to act when the other side is preparing or taking the first steps to act against us. Such hostile preparations can be a cause for pre-emptive action, but only after all other means of resolution are exhausted. 4) We only fight when God commands us to fight. This is good, but not possible in today's world. The best we can do is make sure that our definition of Moral war is consistent with Gods commandments and then do our best to comply. 5) We must treat the losers with honor and dignity, irrespective of their prior actions. We must do all we can to mitigate the effects of our actions against them. The moral victor must always look at the loser as a victim of a terrible tragedy, even if brought upon themselves, and must do all they can to correct the negative situation. Other questions such as crossing boundaries or international law or Geneva Convention only are applications of the basic considerations of Moral
Re: [ZION] Moral War
George Cobabe favored us with: The question was asked by one, is it not possible for both sides to fight a moral war? No, it is not!!! We must only fight after we have done all we can to prevent a war. If both sides are trying to do this, war will not occur. Moral action by both parties will always result in peace. For war to occur one or both must be acting immorally. What do you think, George? Is the coming war with Iraq a fight between one moral party ad one immoral party? Or is it a fight between two immoral parties? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Moral War
John, I am willing to answer, and defend, but first answer the question that we have been discussing. Are we in general agreement as to what constitutes a Moral War? If so then we can apply the test and come up with a satisfactory conclusion. If not, then why bother? as discussion will not be possible! George - Original Message - From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ZION] Moral War George Cobabe favored us with: The question was asked by one, is it not possible for both sides to fight a moral war? No, it is not!!! We must only fight after we have done all we can to prevent a war. If both sides are trying to do this, war will not occur. Moral action by both parties will always result in peace. For war to occur one or both must be acting immorally. What do you think, George? Is the coming war with Iraq a fight between one moral party ad one immoral party? Or is it a fight between two immoral parties? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Moral War
George Cobabe favored us with: John, I am willing to answer, and defend, but first answer the question that we have been discussing. Are we in general agreement as to what constitutes a Moral War? If so then we can apply the test and come up with a satisfactory conclusion. If not, then why bother? as discussion will not be possible! I think we are in general agreement about what constitutes a moral war, but I'm not certain. We seem to read Alma 48 differently. Both you and Gary seem to see both Captain Moroni and George W. Bush as the guys with the white hats, and Saddam Hussein and Iraq as the guys with the black hats. For me, I don't see how the USA can be the white hats as long as it has legalized pornography, gambling, adultery, sodomy, abortion, alcohol use, and the socialistic redistribution of the wealth. I don't think that the USA is any more righteous than it was when the Joseph and Hyrum were lynched, the saints were driven out of the country or the Savior's church was forced by the federal government to change our religion to comply with the hypocritical morals of the Protestant majority. If anything, it is more wicked today than it was during the 19th century. I see all this pompous talk about freedom and the American way as hypocrisy. I believe that the USA has a highly immoral foreign policy projecting its military presence all over the world and trying to force its values on other nations. To me it obvious that we do not have our acts together nearly well enough to dictate to others. But perhaps the biggest reason that I am not certain we have a general agreement as to what constitutes a moral war, is the fact that you have not been as succinct in expressing your opinion on the matter as I have. I have said: Fundamental principle: Self-defense is OK. Everything else is unlawful. 1) We defend ourselves even if it means shedding blood. 2) We never give offense. 3) We never fight except to preserve our lives. 4) We only fight when God commands us to fight. In my opinion the current situation fails the definition of a moral war on all four counts. Let Saddam Hussein strike us here at home and then invade Iraq. If we stop meddling in his part of the world, perhaps he will not strike us here at home. In all probability he won't. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. --Lord Acton, 1887 == All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
