In the U.S., we practice the separation of church and state. Your thoughts on conscientious objectors.?

In the military, everyone who wears a uniform is considered a front line soldier. If the draft should be re-instated, should allowances be made for conscientious objectors for members of the military who are not members of the clergy or physicians (to include nurses and professionally trained medical staff in civilian life).

Is it fair for the front line serviceman/woman who is carrying a weapon to put his/her life on the line, while someone else refuses to carry a weapon based solely on a moral belief?

Should anyone's belief in any God, or moral conviction, be the sole reason to sufficiently disqualify that person from carrying a weapon while serving in the Armed Forces of the U.S.?

Should everyone who is physically and mentally qualified to serve in the Armed Forces be required to carry a weapon.

Your thoughts on conscientious objectors...

A conscientious objector may not carry a gun, but they may still end up putting their life on the line as a medic, helicopter pilot, etc. They just don't believe in taking another life.

"They just don't believe in taking another life..."

Who does! Report It

conscientious objectors have been awarded some of the highest medals for bravery and service

http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/pro...

I'm confused.

What has religion to do with anything?

To object to war is to be intelligent - which is in and of itself opposed to religion.

Conscientious objection to being in the military is not based on religion, but based on moral commitment. It may be because of a person's religious beliefs, but I have known many COs who did not belong to church or practice any religion!

Unless we do away with ALL methods of avoiding service (like going AWOL from the Guard and still being able to become president), I think we must maintain the CO allowance.

I am very liberal, but have long thought that everyone should have to spend two years in the service of the country--in whatever form they choose, from office jobs, to Peace Corps-like organizations, to the military.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion... however, that phrase is quickly followed by... or the free practice thereof.

Translation?

Though the United States Government and military cannot openly support any religion directly, they must also abstain from preventing someone from practicing their beliefs. For many religions in our world, that includes the ideal that killing is morally wrong. Far be it from the US government to declare that patriotism should be above a fundamental spiritual belief.

As mentioned in another answer, COs are not limited to religious personnel, however, for anyone who can prove that they have moral objections to forcing somoene to kill another human being is sufficient cause to declare oneself a conscientious objectors. Althought I shall abstain from bashing any administration, I must say that it would be a travesty to the very idea of freedom of religion for the military to force someone to serve.

This is a very interesting question with what I feel is no definitive answer! Obviously to the people that have strong beilefs in certain faiths feel they shouldn't have to do anything that goes against those beliefs. At the same time if we reinstate the draft, many people who didn't want to go into the military for any number of reasons would be forced to. Personally I don't feel that anyone should have to do something they don't want to do no matter what the reason. There are plenty of people who do want to join the armed forces. If we had never invaded Iraq as some of us were saying all along, there would be no need to even discuss the draft being reinstated! My question to you is if they do reinstate the draft, will there be a repeat of the 60's revolution we saw?

Conscientious objection has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. It's about religious freedom. Separation of church and state is keeping the government from religious entanglements. The government doesn't help religion. But individual religious freedom requires that government should accomadate people. Exempting people as conscientious objectors is a religious accomadation. Did you know that James Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment included conscientious objection?

I'll go one further and say that people should also be exempt from the draft for political convictions. The draft entails active agreement with government policy the same way that it requires a Quaker or Mennonite to repudiate his religious beliefs. Political convictions that a war is unjust can be just as strong as religious convictions that killing is wrong.

You have almost all good answers here. Part of our giving freedoms are independent thought. CO is difficult to have acknowledged by the Military usually without Religious ties. Such as being a Quaker etc. Joyce Kilmer was a CO the poet. H e also was given the Medal of Honor for World War I and there were many others feted for their service. Gary Cooper played Sargent York another hero who was a CO. Their are many of them that have proven to be HEROS. In a perfect World everyone would be one.

First of all, there is no such thing in the Constitution about "Separation of Church and State", as one of the others said, the only prohibition is on preventing the Federal Government from creating a National Religion.

Any person that believes in God would not be in the service and position themselves for killing. God gave ten rules and one of them is Thou shall not kill so if they truely believe in God they wouldn't serve!.

The Catholic Church has much to say about war.

+ Conscientious Objectors +

She teaches: Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/p...

+ Just War +

The 鈥渏ust war鈥?doctrine requires rigorous consideration to determine if defense by military force is legitimate.

Offensive war is never justified.

All the following considerations must be true to justify war:
1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. There must be serious prospects of success;
4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

With love in Christ.