What do you think about Conscientious Objection?
139514
Those who chose to take advantage of the rights and freedoms supported by this country, its government, and its military, who then refuse to not serve after enlisting (and this does happen) or after being drafted, are about the most dishonorable people around. These people think they are entitled to all the good with none of the bad.\n\nFreedom is not "free". Freedom is earned and paid for constantly. Now while I doubt seriously that we will see a draft without some major world wide conventional war, we have things like the draft in place so that we as a country can call up people to arms to protect our way of life. Those who do not "want" to protect this country in a time of crisis (who still want all the perks) would be similar to someone who wants to earn a paycheck without actually doing the job.\n\nThose who wish to conscientiously object, should just renounce their citizenship and move to another country. Those that do not should be treated for what they are, traitors.
1187701
We are doing about that in sociology at the moment! \n\nWe are doing about how youth in increasingly subject to preventative targeting and restriction from public space, and we have already tried the classical music treatment in England and it has worked really well!!  Im not sure when exactly but it was about 2 yrs ago that I heard about it being played in train stations at night.\n\nI think it pretty much does work....who wants to listen to Stravinsky at their favourite hang out place? Who would want to listen to Public Enemy over a romantic meal? I think the reasons it works are obvious.\n\nI think its a great Idea and although most of the people on my course say it was an outrage and the result of unfair stereotyping..........they seem to forget that young ppl can feel intimidated by other young ppl and are the  main victms of youth crime. So the interests its protecting arent some great opressive "force" hovering above about the descend at any minute to encapture us all, as some ppl seem to annoyingly and stupidly believe. I think I am the only one being honest in  our seminars sometimes, the rest just follow whatever view is fashionable and non offensive to hold. It does my head in as you are probably seeing right now!!\n\nWhen has it been the right to intimidate people and cause trouble? Its addressing a real and exisiting problem and it frustrates me that no one wants to say it.
980909
kreevich, are you mad???  If the draft is reestablished there will be a national service option instead of a military one.  Do you actually believe this?\n\nWhy don't you tell this to all of the maimed Vietnam Veterans and all of the families who lost loved ones during that war.\n\nIn past wars with drafts, most so called Conscientious Objectors served as medics and other "non-combat" frontline personnel.  And do you think our current enemy will respect red cross armbands on our military men and women?  To them the red cross would be a distinguishable firing target!\n\n\nAnyway, I don't think restarting the draft is such a bad idea.  The youth of this country has gotten too soft.  Besides, many liberals have often stated that we are the only "civilized" country that has the death penalty, basically comparing the US to Europe.  Well, many European countries do have a draft, so we are yet again out of step with our "civilized" European allies.  Some of these countries are:  Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and others.
917920
There is a good discussion on conscience in Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience\n\nHope this helps!
556227
I love it.  Everyone sees this issue only in black and white.  What happens to those that can't serve for whatever reason?  Medical, mental, hardship, etc.\n\nMost European countries have the right of it.  They have a mandatory 12 months military service, with the option of continuing on if the soldier wishes.  They are paid a minimum amount of money during the 12 months, but everything is provided for them.\n\nIF they cannot do the military for whatever reason (medical, mental, hardship, etc), then they will do 24 months of community service (volunteer fire dept, meals on wheels, etc).
440206
If it is in the best interest of the person the euthanasia is meant for, then its good. Go for it. If the person can be saved, it's considered murder. Not by the medical party, but by the deciders.
856792
I cannot find any opinion of the Catholic Church on the burning of flags. But the Church does have clear teachings about the duties of citizens.\n\nCivil allegiance is the duty of loyalty and obedience which a person owes to the country of which he is a citizen. \n\nCitizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities that are contrary to \n+ The demands of the moral order\n+ The fundamental rights of persons\n+ The teachings of the Gospel.\n\nRefusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. \n\n"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mt 22:21) \n\n"We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)\n\nWith love in Christ.
934003
First impulse: yes.\n\nThen, I remember we have a nasty tendancy to imprison/punish the innocent, so the evidence would have to be pretty overwhelming. Otherwise, no.
915529
How quick are people here to jump blindly to all kinds of conclusions about this.  Firstly, most people are forgetting that your question as us if WE were sentenced to death....perhaps some people here should try to get their head round that bit of the concept first before assuming that anyone should be sentenced to death.  \n\nThere have been a lot of miscarriages of justice - in the UK think of people who have been released years after being sentenced because they were wrongly imprisoned in the first place. You can't bring people back from the dead so there's a moral and ethical question people ought to ask themselves about whether the death penalty - is something that is right in the first place.  Thankfully in the UK we abolished it but there are plenty of other countries that still exercise this sentencing option.  \n\nWhen is it right to sentence someone to death, and when is it not?\n\nOf course this question has probably been prompted by the news that Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death for crimes against humanity.  Even in the case of such a tyrant he did not act alone - he had people around him who supported him in his actions.  Yes some will have done it out of fear, but for everyone of those there will have been someone who did it with the same intent as Saddam.  Whilst I abhor his actions is it right that he carries this alone?\n\nOf course, in an instance like this people's gut reactions will think I'm a bleeding heart liberal.  But now imagine you're in a train carriage with two other people.  One gets up and brutally stabbing the other before jumping off the still moving train.  You're found bent over the body with blood on your hands.  The CCTV wasn't working and all the evidence points at you.  Do you still believe in the death penalty?\n\nThere've been cases where people have been sentenced to death despite having the mental age of a child and not knowing the difference between right and wrong - they're particularly tragic.  And then there are the options themselves as to the way you die.  Lethal injection etc.  They say that some methods are quicker than others.  The quickest, I understand, is meant to take almost immediate effect and yet in some US States where they offer this the doctor still does not declare the patient dead for 30 minutes, suggesting that it is not as quick as they claim. If it has to be then surely it should be by the quickest method possible.  As if someone is to die a slow death then are we not committing an act of torture leading to death?  Don't we become as bad as the person who's committed the crime?
717293
i cant judge them because i have not lost a child to war.  i cannot even imagine what they must be feeling.  i think they should have the right to protest and have their children remembered.  however having said that their children knew they could be called to serve in war time when they joined.  my guy is in the army and i would be lost in life without him but i am realistic that it could happen any day when he is deployed.  the fear of losing your soldier is unreal so i cant imagine the pain of it.
622482
Well, from a practical POV, encouraging people to volunteer is OK (think AmeriCorps) but forcing them is logistically tricky.\n\nIf you're arguing affirmative at all, then I would say the Armed Forces option or AmeriCorps/Learn and Serve America would be better bets. \n\nFrom a negative standpoint, there's the whole infringing freedom thing.\n\n(Personally, this answerer thinks that requiring service is a good thing, but maybe it should stay on a local level, seeing as how the govt. has enough going on right now.)
782477
I use this forum to witness to others about God and Christ. To each their own but I will continue to do what I do. Quakers are, as far as I know, very nice folks and they have their beliefs as I have mine. I was in the Army with a Quaker and he was a conscientious objector and would not go to combat. I respect him for that.
735451
I don't.  Why would I?  You volunteer to defend a free society so that people can choose the life they want.  For some, that life is in the military.  For others, it's elsewhere.  Being part of a free society means you acknowledge the validity of other people's choices.  You fight so that they can have that.
1087557
I'd address three topics:\n\n1.Is it justified (eg. eye for an eye, revenge Vs rehabilitation, rights of the victim and their family, risk of miscarriage etc)\n2.Is it effective (eg. is it a deterent, does it make better societies, is it cheaper than permanent incarceration etc)\n3.Is it legal (eg. is it a cruel and unusual punishment, the position of international law, etc)\n\nYou've probably been asked the US/UK part because we are fairly similar societies with a largely common ancestry\nand tradition, but the UK abolished the death penalty whilst much of the US still uses it.  You can go two ways on this - \n1. the US is a much younger society still in a vigourous development phase facing the challenges of it's huge size and diversity so frontier justice is still appropriate (similar claims for China by the way, the other big executor).  when the UK was trying to hold a huge empire together it executed loads of people too.\n2. the existence in the US of a more fundemental christianity gives people a different perspective on life (and death) from the broadly humanist (post christian) views in Europe (including the UK) where morality is more personal and less something learned from religion.  Religious Europe was a very bloody place indeed for hundreds of years.\n\nHope this helps, BTW my opinion is that it is as morally justifiable as war.  I really don't want to have to do it, but sometimes I might have to protect my family and society.  Right now I think both our societies could live without capital punishment, and therefore should - but that could change.
517231
Your conscience is a given, growth and change throughout your life will be minimal to non existent. Reason changes with time and understanding of events. Thus action is decided by reasoning not conscience.
906137
They are talking  if the draft is ever brought back, which as a Retired Senior Enlisted, I really doubt, it will include a section where schooling does not exempt anyone from the draft after they receive the degree they are presently enrolled in.  In other words, you can only stay in college for so many years and you would still serve your time.  \nAs to disagreeing, you can file as a conscientious objector, however read about those in IRAQ who have refused to return or go at all.  They have been charged or will be charged and will face a Military Courts Martial which will ruin their life.  For your information and that of other doubters, a Military Courts Martial carries the same weight as a Federal Court or State Court Conviction.  You lose all rights and have a very hard time finding a decent job anywhere.  Stop and think, is it really worth ruining your life.  All wars are horrid and take many lives, however history has shown that most of them have been necessary to prevent a tyranny from taking over.  What about Hitler in World War II?  What would have happened had no one stopped him?  What language do you think you would be speaking today?\nMaybe you should read the lyrics to a song called: An Open Letter to My Teenage Son. \nIf the website does not work, simply go to any search engine: Type in Lyrics>An Open Letter To My Teenage Son and it will bring up the site for you.  I read it again the other night and it still holds the same meaning as when the father recorded it.\nTo the Soldier who posted on here in reply to your question:\n\nTake Care my Friend, there are those of us out there who support you and what you are doing.  It is not an easy task when the one sided media posts the information they want the public to know.\nTake Care and We Salute You Folks OVER THERE 100%.\n\nA Retired Chief Petty Officer
16594
The moral issues you cited, by category, should be deemed lifestyle preferences. As a non-lawyer, but as someone who has studied law, my point of view of this issue is that the state should only intervene if there is demonstrable harm present. Some say it should be merely harm, or potential harm, but that will never wash in front of our Supreme Court.