Should soldiers who believe in God be denied weapons?

[cantata]

Hitler was also privately an atheist by all accuonts and even attempted to create a new religion based around Wotan. Check out the sort of events that happened at Wewelsburg castle.

Wotan's a god. If Hitler believed in him, he wasn't an atheist.

 

[LittleNipper]

Would this work to make wars more humane and less often?

How is this biblical? Why not deny weapons to non-believers?

 

[LittleNipper]

Wotan's a god. If Hitler believed in him, he wasn't an atheist.

Hitler believed in himself ---- does that make him an atheist?

 

[quatona]

Hitler believed in himself ---- does that make him an atheist?

No.

 

[LittleNipper]

The wars America are fighting do not have the citizen's support. They should end or we should say its for the oil and take it. This occupation with nebulous exit conditions is killing and maiming the flower of our youth.

The support is that we would rather a few hundred die there, than for a million to die here.

 

[Big Empty Circle]

The support is that we would rather a few hundred die there, than for a million to die here.

And attacking a country who had not attacked us and gave no suggestion that they were going to do so, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, accomplishes this how? And... "a few hundred..." might check your numbers again on that one. Last time I checked, several thousand US soliders and several HUNDRED thousand Iraqi civilians were dead from the Iraq conflict alone. By that reasoning, why not just attack, say, Mongolia? Can you prove that they AREN'T planning an attack on America? Wouldn't it be better just to lose a few hundred lives putting them in their place and destroying any military capacity they might have, than risk them attacking us here?

As to the OP... no, I don't think denying religious soldiers weapon is a good idea. Like any gun control initiative, it sounds nice in theory (as does eliminating guns entirely), but in practice it would just lead to the "bad guys" being the only ones holding weapons (religious zealots in other countries, not to mention those "believers" in our own military who were willing to lie to get a gun.)

 

[Exhausted]

Hitler believed in himself ---- does that make him an atheist?

You know what part of debating I love to death?

Semantics!

 

[cantata]

Hitler believed in himself ---- does that make him an atheist?

I'm pretty sure almost all human beings, atheist or otherwise, believe in their own existence. It'd be tricky not to.

 

[Paulos23]

Actually atheists have killed more people in the past hundred years than Christians could ever dream of. From Stalin to Pol Pot to Mao Communism takes the cake when it comes to mass killing. For some reason they seem to like using starvation to kill, its an odd tangent.

No one has killed in the name of Atheism. There are no tenets or dogma in Atheism to kill for, just a not non-belief in God.

But lets say I except your argument that religions are responsible for their members for what they do. The count for Atheists would be a positive 1 billion plus. This is mostly due to Norman Borlaug, who many consider the father of the 'Green Revolution'. Using secular methods, he increased crop production world wide. Because of this he is credited with saving over a billion lives. When you add in the medical advances of secular science the number would go much higher. This outweighs any 'atheist' killings by petty dictators.

 

[wanderingone]

I dunno.. if they were soldiers in the middle of combat it probably wouldn't make them more humane... (after all inhumane folks don't always carry around a gun) but it just might make them more dead... war is hardly the choice of those sent out to conduct them.

(ooh just thought of an old song.. who sang that.. "Let's start a war said maggie one day..." the exploited? maybe...)

 

[LittleNipper]

And attacking a country who had not attacked us and gave no suggestion that they were going to do so, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, accomplishes this how? And... "a few hundred..." might check your numbers again on that one. Last time I checked, several thousand US soliders and several HUNDRED thousand Iraqi civilians were dead from the Iraq conflict alone. By that reasoning, why not just attack, say, Mongolia? Can you prove that they AREN'T planning an attack on America? Wouldn't it be better just to lose a few hundred lives putting them in their place and destroying any military capacity they might have, than risk them attacking us here?

As to the OP... no, I don't think denying religious soldiers weapon is a good idea. Like any gun control initiative, it sounds nice in theory (as does eliminating guns entirely), but in practice it would just lead to the "bad guys" being the only ones holding weapons (religious zealots in other countries, not to mention those "believers" in our own military who were willing to lie to get a gun.)

We may never know what might have happened if Iraq was not attacked. The reality is that the weapons could have been moved to another country. The other reality is that the former govenment (which was a defeated nation, by the way) would not cooperate with any requests without constant aggrevations and threats. Sort of like a prisoner telling his captors that he had no intention of surrendering though already caught.

 

[Verv]

Is the implication here that atheists attempting to be rid of religion was NOT a product of its time?


Also, yes, the fact the Inquisition was used against other Christians clearly makes it much less insane than it being used against non Christians!

Well, the point was that it was quite an intriguing time and it had many political reasons.

It is also believed that many of the Jews who were targeted were not hereditary Jews but rather people who had converted to Judaism during the Berber occupation so as to avoid persecution on as large of levels.

I think all violence at all times has a lot more reasons than ideology.

Really now? He certainly claimed to be christian often enough.

In public, yes. He was the popular leader of a traditionally Christian country.

However, private conversations put him as an atheist.

Just because somethings are worth fighting for, that doesn't mean that fighting must take place. The point of discussion is to find constructive solutions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

OK.

Maybe we should never fight but I cannot envision such a world and such talk is so ridiculous to me.

I think no one should ever be hungry but I do not go around saying that because it just sounds stupid.

Wotan's a god. If Hitler believed in him, he wasn't an atheist.

And that wasn't the point of the religion -- Hitler spoke highly of Shintoism and was jealous that Germany did not have a religion like Shinto that could center the nation in nationalism. He wanted to essentially re-create Nordic paganism not because he believed it was true but because of the inspiring ideas that one can insert.

Hitler recognized humanity's need for deeper belief.

 

[stan1980]

Not my point. When have soldiers ever declared war? It is politicians, usually with support from the citizenry in democratic nations, that start wars.

I can never get my head around this sort of thinking.

Yes, it is politicians who declare war, but I can not for the life of me understand how someone can say soldiers aren't to blame for wars. If it wasn't for the millions of men and women around the world who willingly sign up to become trained killers, there would be no one to fight for the politicians. The sooner the general public (in every country) wake up and realise being a soldier is NOT an acceptable job the better.

No soldiers No wars!

 

[stan1980]

war is hardly the choice of those sent out to conduct them.

That is rubbish. Soldiers might not choose which wars they fight in, but the fact is when they sign up they have chosen a career which will very likely mean they will be contributing to wars. So, yes, war is their choice.

 

[Exhausted]

Yes because all soldiers chose their profession.

And they were completely free of societal influences, and they are able to become soldiers without any of the continuous government money put into the military.

Man, that much sarcasm is HARD.

 

[stan1980]

And they were completely free of societal influences,

I realise societal influences play some part, but they hardly had a gun to their head when they joined. Everyone has seen pictures on news channels of innocent children who have lost their limbs and stuff like that. It's heartbreaking. How someone can still join the forces and actually contribute to that sort of misery is beyond me.

 

[Exhausted]

And the rest of my post was totally irrelevant, yes?

 

[Verv]

I can never get my head around this sort of thinking.

Yes, it is politicians who declare war, but I can not for the life of me understand how someone can say soldiers aren't to blame for wars. If it wasn't for the millions of men and women around the world who willingly sign up to become trained killers, there would be no one to fight for the politicians. The sooner the general public (in every country) wake up and realise being a soldier is NOT an acceptable job the better.

No soldiers No wars!

I am sorry...

Not everyone agrees with you.

War is necessary for the defense of the rights of people all over the world. Because evil does not put its weapons down, nor can good.

And ironically: the nations with voluntary military service and not compulsory are almost always the nations who find themselves on the side of righteousness.

Your view seems really close minded towards war and really overbearing.

 

[stan1980]

And the rest of my post was totally irrelevant, yes?

I thought so... I'll comment on the rest anyways...

Yes because all soldiers chose their profession.

Yes most do.

and they are able to become soldiers without any of the continuous government money put into the military.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Yes, the government are to blame too, that doesn't take anything away from the soldiers part in war.

Honestly, the people who say the soldiers hands are clean need their heads testing. By signing up to the army you are fully endorsing war in my book.

 

[Exhausted]

Of course, I didn't mean to imply that the soldiers were innocents, being used by a cruel, uncaring government.

I am inclined to think that there is always more than enough blame to go around. The soldiers must bear the guilt of the lives they have taken, and the government must take responsibility for the wars it started and financed.