God OR Country ?

[Rooster7]

I agree with Quixote and Glenn. Just to further expound, and perhaps just to rattle a cage or two (sometimes I'm not sure of my own motives...I have to work on that) -

 

1) Any Christian who would put God second to anything, needs to read his Bible more. From a common sense perspective - My life as a citizen of this country, and as a husband and father is temporal. My life as a child of God is eternal. You do the math.

 

2) Any man who would put his family second to his country, may be a "great patriot", but has failed one of his first duties to God...to protect and provide for his family.

 

3) Any nation that would ask its citizens to forfeit their faith and their family for the sake of country isn't worth fighting for.

[sctmom]

I have been reading about the origins and current practices of the major world religions.

 

It is interesting how some of them started with the rulers of the nations being worshipped. They were assumed to be gods or sent by gods. Those people did not separate duty to country and duty to god/gods. If the rulers changed and therefore the religion changed, most just went to worshipping the new religion.

 

Early on this was an issue for Christians in Roman times because they would not worship the Roman empire.

 

I think Rooster has summed things up pretty well. You could even substitue the word "Christian" with a few other religions, but not all. Some groups do not seem to put high value on family. They also are twisting their religions practices to promote their political causes (i.e. Taliban).

 

[Rooster7]

I should have added this as number four -

 

4) Any country that enables a man to worship God as his conscience dictates, allows him the opportunity to provide for his family, and protects its citizens, IS worth fighting for.

 

God, Family, Country...To me, it's a no-brainer.

[eisely]

For what it is worth, the US Government recognizes and accepts, to a degree, that some people will put duty to God before the dictates of government. Conscientious Objectors are expected to serve in war time along with other citizens who may be called up. Many have done so with distinction in the Medical Corps and never carried a weapon.

 

Also, for what it is worth, there is a stone table over the side entrance to St. Mary's Church at the University of Notre Dame inscribed, "God, Country, Notre Dame" that suggests a priority.

[acco40]

This debate reminds me of the JFK election. Some have a difficult time separating not only church and state but God and church (or The Church). JFK, the USA's first Roman Catholic president, was askd if he would answer first to the Pope in Rome (Vatican) or to the country. Of course to get elected, JFK said his first priority would be the country.

[littlebillie]

"Of course to get elected, JFK said his first priority would be the country."

 

This suggests that you think he only said this to get elected, and not that he actually meant the words. Was that your truly intent?

 

If so, is there documentation?

[NJCubScouter]

Just looking around after my computer-less vacation, and I see this thread is still perking along.

 

It is interesting that after a week and a half, NOBODY has been able to present a real-life example in THIS country of a conflict between "duty to God" and "duty to country." I guess it is a sign of the religious freedom that we have in this country that the two "duties" rarely if ever come into conflict. Or to put it another way, what Rooster said in his point number 4. If your country is good enough, and free enough, doing your duty to your country will never (or very rarely) interfere with doing your duty to God.

 

By the way, the writers of the Scout Oath seem to have thought the same thing. The Oath does not say I promise to do my duty to God and my duty to my country when I am able to do both; or even my duty to God and my duty to my country; it says MY DUTY TO GOD AND MY COUNTRY. It is stated as a single duty, not two different ones. I realize that this is partly a matter of semantics and that the writer was probably thinking more of how many syllables fit onto a line, but it does seem at least a little significant in this discussion.

 

"Duty to family" has also been injected into this discussion. Again, there are no concrete examples that require you to put family ahead of country. Once again, Rooster's point number 4 wraps them all together -- we have the freedom to protect and provide for our families, which for some of us serves a religious duty as well. I can, however, think of some examples where, arguably, we put "country" ahead of "family." Wouldn't brothers killing brothers in the Civil War fall into that category? And if duty to country includes obeying the law, I think we generally put duty to country first when we protect and provide for our family within the confines of the law. If my family were hungry and penniless, it would still be wrong for me to steal money or food from someone else to feed them. It would be my responsibility to do what I had to do, within the law, to provide for them.

[evmori]

NJ,

Read my post of 7/23/2002. This is a valid conflict.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[VH_50]

The government has, at least in this century, been willing to acommodate conscientious objectors up to a point . . . so long as they agree to serve in a way that doesn't require them to bear arms.

 

BUT . . .

 

1) What about people whose objection to war is so strong that they cannot, in conscience, aid a warring government in *any* way (if I'm an army medic, and I do my job well, I'm ultimately supporting the process of taking human life)?

 

2) What about people who do not object to bearing arms against an armed, uniformed enemy but refuse (on religious grounds) to knowingly attack civilians. Say--a pilot who refuses an order to bomb an enemy leader's home in the middle of the night because of the risk of killing the intended victim's spouse, kids, or servants.

 

3) What about people who (while having no objection to wartime violence in principle), object to the current, *particular* war as unjust and unprincipled. Say--the Israeli reservists who refued to serve in the Occupied Territories.

 

Until we've seen how the government handles cases like these, I suspect we shouldn't be too placid about official tolerance of those who place God before Country in wartime.

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, I think the example you gave is so unrealistic that it actually supports my point. We do not live in a country that forces its citizens to make that kind of decision. If we did, I suspect that the government would also make other kinds of decisions that were so irrational and repressive that we would not be having this discussion.

 

Think about China, or Iran. What do people there think of when "duty to country" is discussed? I suspect that what they think about is what will happen to them if they do not act sufficiently patriotic. They are also told what their "duty to God" (if any) is, and how they are to exercise it. THAT is the kind of country where people are forced to do things, which if not exactly what you mentioned, are sometimes equally distateful and offensive to any reasonable conception of God, or secular morality.

 

In those types of places, a reasonable view of "duty to country" would be to overthrow the government and institute one that more closely resembles ours. And that is exactly why those governments act so repressively, to prevent such movements from succeeding.

[evmori]

NJ,

Duty to God should always come before duty to country. God is in control of everything.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

Duty to God should always come before duty to country.

 

I think you are missing my point. Let me try it this way: Can you give me an example from YOUR life, that actually happened, in which you believe you violated your duty to your country because you could not satisfy your duty to God and your duty to your country at the same time?

 

God is in control of everything.

 

That is your belief. It is not the belief of everyone who believes in God (and I am including those who believe in God as a concept independent of the Bible or any other book.) That fact is part of what causes different people to define their "duty to God" differently, as I have discussed previously.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[evmori]

NJ,

Can't give you any examples.

 

Since you believe in God as a concept perhaps you could explain how we as humans came to be.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed asked me:

 

Since you believe in God as a concept perhaps you could explain how we as humans came to be.

 

Actually, I didn't say I believe that, and I didn't say I don't. Unlike some people, I rarely find it appropriate to announce and discuss the details of my personal religious beliefs. Nor do I find it necessary to justify my beliefs to others.

[acco40]

The "God is a concept" reference reminded me of a lyric by John Winston Lennon, "God is a concept, by which we measure our pain."

 

I don't really want to get into the "God is in control of everything." or as I believe John Calvin phrased it, predestination, vs. human free will debate.

 

I came into being because of actions by my mother and father more years ago than I care to remember.