For any military members reading this, I hope you're encouraged to file your own request to be discharged as a conscientious objector. The truth is that war is immoral, and it's abhorrent that you're threatened with imprisonment if you stop working in support of it on anything but the military's terms.
Again, here's a link to the organization that has been my biggest asset in seeking discharge:
Center on Conscience & War: http://centeronconscience.org/home.shtml
*They assist military members with many issues beyond conscientious objection, and their toll-free confidential phone number is 1-800-379-2679.
Posts
FAR OUT! Just make sure you read that paper work you’re signing very closely. Make sure it doesn’t have any gag rules about not continuing to speak out against the War Beast.
ReplyDeleteExcellent, Mr. Lakemacher. Well done.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what kind of value this verbal answer has, but if it means you're actually going to be discharged, congratulations and kind fighting for freedom. You're doing an amazing job at educating people.
ReplyDeleteAm sure Dan would honor any gag rule as he is a man of integrity! Congratulations on achieving the discharge you desired! Your efforts and patience have been rewarded. I believe there's room for both viewpoints - conscientious objector and military servant. As an American I support you both! That's what freedom is all about.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anonymous above ...
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm quite sure that Daniel would NOT agree to any sort of a gag order BECAUSE he is a man of integrity. The idea that people within the "military" would try to stop him from speaking out about their despicable actions (an abhorrent but not inconceivable thought) just goes to prove that there is no moral justification for war. If their response to his critiques amounts to nothing more than "Shut up or we'll hurt you," they are tacitly conceding that they have no arguments in defense of themselves that will stand up to intellectual scrutiny.
As for the idea that Daniel's "efforts and patience have been rewarded," there is no evidence to support that assertion. This isn't like the "Supreme Court" where the reason for a decision has to be explained. For all any of us will ever know, MILPERSMAN (whoever or whatever that may be) might have flipped a coin to decide whether or not Daniel's request for discharge would be approved. We are talking about an organization that spends months intentionally subjecting its members to arbitrary punishments and rewards for the sake of ensuring that people stop believing that there is a connection between their behavior and the outcome of their behavior. It's called boot camp, and this psychological abuse is necessary to ensure that individuals will commit murder without question on demand.
Additionally, it is quite possible for people who hold a wide array of diverse opinions about how to best order their lives to coexist peacefully. Human variation is practically infinite and makes for interesting and enjoyable interactions. However, it's ludicrous to say that morally contradictory explanations of the same behavior can simultaneously be held. Conscientious objectors assert that the military exists for the fundamentally immoral purpose of committing systematic murder and destruction of private property and the means by which this is accomplished is fraud and theft. On the other hand, military servants assert that they are providing a valuable protection service for other individuals within a specific geographic location. Both explanations of the actions taken by the group that calls itself the military could be wrong, but they cannot both be right. Either military members commit murder (as conscientious objectors assert) or they don't (as military servants assert). To say that you support both is to say that you support committing murder and you support not committing murder. Which is it?
Heather Lakemacher
Well Heather, I perfer to think of it as taking out the trash *grin* but your logic is fairly good. Cheers!
ReplyDelete