“‘I was only following orders’ is never an excuse. The Nuremburg Trials showed America and the world that citizenry as well as soldiers have the unrelinquishable obligation to refuse complicity in war crimes perpetrated by their government… If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols – if they stood up and threw their weapons down – no President could ever initiate a war of choice again. When we say, “… Against all enemies foreign and domestic,” what if elected leaders became the enemy? Whose orders do we follow? The answer is the conscience that lies in each soldier, each American, and each human being.” – First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, at a Veterans for Peace Convention, 2006, reminding us of why we fought World War II.
In a recent post I discussed the differences in views of morality as seen by conservatives compared to liberals. In
that post I noted that the primary difference in views of morality by conservatives compared to liberals is that conservatives rely primarily on “authorities” to define what is moral, whereas liberals rely primarily on their own minds, experiences, empathy, and consciences. Here are some striking examples to illustrate the hollowness of the authority based approach.
Rep. Mark Souder and abstinence only sex educationOne of the best-known “authorities” on “abstinence only” sex education is (was) the
recently resigned Republican Congressman, Mark Souder. In his career in the U.S. House of Representatives he has been one of the most aggressive advocates of “abstinence only” sex education for teenagers. The rationale for this method of “sex education” is primarily moral, rather than practical. Advocates claim that sex among the non-married is immoral because God says so.
Not only do the “abstinence only” advocates recommend omitting other methods of pregnancy and STD prevention from education programs, but they frequently make the claim that condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancy or STDs – which neatly justifies their “moral” views. Here is
a video of Rep. Souder and a staffer of his, Tracy Jackson, expounding on the merits and virtues of “abstinence only” sex education. Souder can be seen in the video complaining about those who advocate the teaching of sex education without infusing it with his idea of “morals”.
But the “education” advocated by these faith-based educators provides false information. What do they mean when they say that condoms are ineffective? They mean that they are sometimes ineffective, i.e. less than 100% effective. But the truth is that neither sperm nor most STD causing organisms are capable of penetrating condoms. So the only times they might be ineffective is when a condom breaks or when semen overflows around the condom. Consequently, condoms are about
98% effective in preventing pregnancy, and highly effective in preventing STDs as well, as in
a study which showed that more than 100 couples (in which one of the pair was infected with HIV) who used condoms demonstrated
no transmission of HIV, whereas 10% who didn’t use condoms transmitted the infection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) recommends comprehensive sex education for teenagers, as opposed to abstinence only.
So do all major public health and medical organizations and associations.
As for abstinence only sex education: Studies have shown that
more than half who “pledge” to refrain from non-marital sex admit to being unable to do so. An
expert panel found it ineffective, though
$176 million per year was spent on it during the George W. Bush years.
In short, “Studies overwhelmingly have found little or no evidence that abstinence-only courses change teen sexual behavior in ways that would avert pregnancies or the spread of STDs”.
Hell, the “abstinence only” method doesn’t even work well with those who preach it – as ex-Congressman Souder ought to know, since he recently had to resign his House seat after being
caught in a double extra-marital affair with a staffer. Souder publicly lamented his sin against God. But his sin against all the teenagers who developed unwanted pregnancy or HIV infection because of his “morals” is much more serious.
There is a very good reason why “abstinence only” doesn’t work, in addition to the fact that very good methods of prevention are withheld from this method of “education”: Sex and intimacy are powerful human needs for most people. Few teenagers can resist it when the temptation stares them in the face, and abstract lectures about God’s disapproval frequently take a back seat to those temptations.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger on the morality of homosexualityDr. Schlessinger is another one of our nation’s most predominant “moralists”. Recently she announced on her TV show that homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18.2. I recently came across an
open letter to her from one of her “fans”, commenting on her comment about homosexuality. The letter is sarcastic and meant as a joke. But it actually provides some great arguments against the kind of faith-based authoritarian morality preached by Dr. Schlessinger and her ilk. Here are some excerpts:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them…
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? …
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? ...
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Jerry
Lieutenant Ehren Watada on the morality of the Iraq War and occupationLieutenant Ehren Watata was the first U.S. military officer to refuse to be deployed to Iraq for George W. Bush’s Iraq War. Lt. Watada didn’t request conscientious objector status because his opposition to the Iraq War was based on his belief of that specific war’s immorality and illegality, whereas conscientious objector status must be based on opposition to
all wars.
His speech to the Veterans for Peace Convention in Seattle, August 2006, is one of the most eloquent and important speeches against a U.S. war that I’ve ever read or heard. His speech serves not just as an argument against the Iraq War, but as a great argument for a brand of morality based on individual conscience rather than on a ruling “authority”. I believe that the most important aspect of Watada’s speech was his reminding us that when we tried the Nazis for war crimes at Nuremberg following World War II we didn’t accept “just following orders” as a valid excuse for avoiding conviction for war crimes. Most our country seems to have forgotten that crucially important lesson – or there are too many Americans who believe that Americans should be immune to international law and standards of morality. Watada faced up to six years in prison at the time of his speech, though
he finally won his case. Here are some excerpts:
What I have to say is not a matter of authority – but from one citizen to another… It seems as though nothing we’ve done, from vigils to protests to letters to Congress, have had any effect in persuading the powers that be… We may fail. But nothing we have tried has worked so far. It is time for change and the change starts with all of us.
Watada’s radical idea to end an immoral and illegal warToday, I speak with you about a radical idea. It is one born from the very concept of the American soldier. It became instrumental in ending the Vietnam War – but it has been long since forgotten. The idea is this: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.
Now it is not an easy task for the soldier. For he or she must be aware that they are being used for ill-gain. They must hold themselves responsible for individual action. They must remember duty to the Constitution and the people supersedes the ideologies of their leadership. The soldier must be willing to face ostracism by their peers, worry over the survival of their families, and of course the loss of personal freedom. They must know that resisting an authoritarian government at home is equally important to fighting a foreign aggressor on the battlefield. Finally, those wearing the uniform must know beyond any shadow of a doubt that by refusing immoral and illegal orders they will be supported by the people not with mere words but by action.
On the need to put conscience – true morality – above blind obedience to authorityThe American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed. Awareness of the history of atrocities and destruction committed in the name of America – either through direct military intervention or by proxy war – is crucial. They must realize that this is a war not out of self-defense but by choice, for profit and imperialistic domination… They must know that neither Congress nor this administration has the authority to violate the prohibition against pre-emptive war – an American law that still stands today. This same administration uses us for rampant violations of time-tested laws banning torture and degradation of prisoners of war. Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crimes. They must know some of these facts, if not all, in order to act.
Mark Twain once remarked, “Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country …” By this, each and every American soldier, marine, airman, and sailor is responsible for their choices and their actions…
The oath we take swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people. Enlisting in the military does not relinquish one’s right to seek the truth – neither does it excuse one from rational thought nor the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. “I was only following orders” is never an excuse.
The Nuremburg Trials showed America and the world that citizenry as well as soldiers have the unrelinquishable obligation to refuse complicity in war crimes perpetrated by their government. Widespread torture and inhumane treatment of detainees is a war crime. A war of aggression born through an unofficial policy of prevention is a crime against the peace. An occupation violating the very essence of international humanitarian law and sovereignty is a crime against humanity…
The Constitution is no mere document – neither is it old, out-dated, or irrelevant. It is the embodiment of all that Americans hold dear: truth, justice, and equality for all. It is the formula for a government of the people and by the people. It is a government that is transparent and accountable to whom they serve. It dictates a system of checks and balances and separation of powers to prevent the evil that is tyranny…
If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols – if they stood up and threw their weapons down – no President could ever initiate a war of choice again. When we say, “… Against all enemies foreign and domestic,” what if elected leaders became the enemy? Whose orders do we follow? The answer is the conscience that lies in each soldier, each American, and each human being. Our duty to the Constitution is an obligation, not a choice…
Never again Those who called for war prior to the invasion compared diplomacy with Saddam to the compromises made with Hitler. I say, we compromise now by allowing a government that uses war as the first option instead of the last to act with impunity. Many have said this about the World Trade Towers, “Never Again.” I agree. Never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free – be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now – the time to stand up and be counted is today.
This speech explains as well as any I’ve seen why it is unacceptable to defer ones moral principles to any self-proclaimed “authority”.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
