Should We Follow Orders?
What would the world be if people didn’t follow orders? If everyone did what they wanted. We have a name for that, it’s called, anarchy. Can you imagine if no one followed orders in a company, the company would go bankrupt real soon. Or if no one followed orders in the home, people would be coming home at any time they please; no one sitting at the dinner table with you; children’s rooms would be a mess, etc. What about in the military, soldiers would be taking leave whenever they wanted; military equipment not maintained; many things stolen; a battle never won, perhaps, never fought. What if society, as a whole, don’t follow orders. What a messed up world this would be. We all agree on this.
But should orders be followed in all cases? Some may say yes, but is this good? Should all orders, not matter what they are, be followed? What about the military, should soldiers take orders regardless of what they are, even if it means killing innocent people? After all, they are following orders.
We’ll get back to the military later, right now, I want to talk about Christians.
In the Bible, God commands us to following His laws. He gave His children, orders, known as Commandments. Now He also told us that if we don’t follow His Holy Word, there would be consequences. You can read this in Deuteronomy, chapter 14, for example.
Since God, in His wisdom, gave His people Commandment, that means that if we get different commandments (orders, laws, etc.) from men, we should obey Him rather than men. The Apostle Paul said that we should obey God rather than men. As a Christian, we should do as we are told in the Bible, and if we do, we would have to break orders given by man if it’s on conflict with the Bible.
Back to the military.
When men and women sign up for military service, they must swear allegiance to the United States, and up hold its laws. We are told to following the orders of our officers, who in turn follow orders from their superiors, who in turn follow orders by Congress, and; to following orders by their Commander in Chief—the US president. If they want you to go to a certain country and kill people, you have to go. If you are told to fight your own people you have to do so. (Increasingly now, soldiers are being trained for civil disturbance in the US, with the possibility of fighting against our own people.)
When you enter into a contract with someone else, all the duties and obligations are spelled out. If both sides agree, they sign it and work together. If one party does something contrary to the contract, the other has the right to terminate it. This is understood. If one party changes even one part of the contract, or does something in the contract that is not allowed, the other party has the moral and legal right to break it. If its taken to court, he would be up held (provided there is justice in the court).
What are contracts, basically? They are an agreement between two or more parties to provide some kind of service, product and/or money. In other words, material things. Yet, when a civilian joins the military, he is putting his life on the line, if necessary. In short, he has much more at steak than a person who enters a business contract. Yet, a soldier would go off to war, bleed and even die, without even knowing what the war was about, or given one sided information about the purpose. (As a side note, General Eisenhower asked a group of students in 1952 why we fought in WWII, and they didn’t even know.) When a person enters a business contract, it’s with the understanding of the conditions spelled out. However, when a person enters the military, it’s under certain conditions. For example, a soldier is in the military in 1990, then shortly after that he finds himself in Iraq, in a war that he doesn’t believe in. In short the contract changes, and he has no say so whatsoever. Yet, he has to be willing to give up much more than what a business contract calls for—his life! The most important thing that a person has, and he has no say so in it. Strange!
Under a draft, a young man has no choice but to enter the army. The terrible thing is, is that a draft is often during a war. In peace or war, there is no choice for the young recruit. There he is forced, whether he likes it or not, to enter into a contract. Where is the freedom and liberty in that? The hypocritical thing is, that in war time, the government always says we are fighting for the very same thing that is denied the soldier. Bull!! If you don’t sign up for the draft or enlist, you can go to prison. Great! By refusing to enter into a contract, the government, in effect, looks at you as an enemy and puts you in prison, as they would a captured enemy soldier. Of course, you can be a ‘conscientious objector’, but this has caused some people problems, too.
Say there isn’t a war, and you decide to enlist. After you do so, you find out that there is much intimidation by Blacks, and hazing by senior soldiers. This, you didn’t know at the time you signed up. Thus, the conditions are intolerable for a White Christian. Can you get out? No. If you insist, or go AWOL, you are thrown in a military prison. People see the injustice if a businessman wants to be a partner in a company, but isn’t told of the employee problems and the difficult working conditions, which would effect future profits. All of this was hidden when you check out the factory. If such a contract was entered into, and such things were concealed, a person can take this to court and win. Yet, people can’t see the injustice if this happens to a soldier.
When you enter a business contract, the terms are fixed. Even treaties between countries, what each nation agrees to is spelled out. However, when a soldier enters the military, many things are in a state of flux.
By the way, I’d like to add here that the same applies towards the police departments, FBI, ATF, IRS, and virtually all departments of the US government. Why? Because their actions are depended on the every changing whims of the politicians. For example, today you can own a gun, tomorrow you can’t. Thus, policemen arrest people for things that were legal yesterday, but illegal today.
Because of this, we hear such things as: “My is not to question why, but to do and die,” and, “Sorry, madam, I don’t make laws, I only enforce them,” or, “My country, right or wrong, my country.”
The reason why we have problem like this is, that soldiers, policemen and other enforcement agencies, unquestionably carry out orders. Even those that don’t like it, the still carry them out.
For those who say that what kind of country would we have if people didn’t carry out orders. I say, we’d have a much better one. What brought about our freedom? The American Revolution. Why did people fight in the Revolution? Because there was enough of them that DIDN’T OBEY ORDERS! Think about it. Colonial Americans were under orders to obey the governing British authorities, who in turn obeyed the laws of Parliament and King George III. But our forefathers said, “That is enough, we won’t carry out your orders. In fact, we’ll fight against you,” or words to this effect. The fact that enough people did it, enable us to gain our freedom (which we have since then lost). So thank God people ceased to carry out orders.
Should people revolt now? They should, but we don’t have the numbers to succeed. However, that day is coming. More and more people are seeing the lies, oppression, imprisonment and even murders of their fellow men. But before a people can rebel physically, they must rebel mentally. And that is what many organizations are helping in doing, with their books, publications, meetings and finally, Web pages.
Back to the military.
What if an officer told his people to surrender, but some of them didn’t. This would be called rebellion, wouldn’t it? However, in the meantime, the commanding officer and his followers surrender, but the rest fought on. Now, one of two things would happen, either they lose and or they win. If they lose, what can the officer do to them? Nothing. At least they killed a few more of the enemy, which he should be glad. If they win, the officer and others would probably be free, and they achieved their objective. If the officer is mad in either case, then he is a traitor, in which case he should be capture.
A nation fights another nation because, collectively, they are attacked. So, what if an individual is attacked. Doesn’t he have the same right to attack the enemy, even if the rest of the nation remains docile? It is the individual’s life who is at stake, and it is he alone who must decide to fight or not to fight, regardless of what others might think. Many times, others criticise an individual because he is fighting the government (usually the police who are carrying out their orders). Is this not the situation many people have found themselves in?
In order for a government to control the people, many times they attack us individually. The police go after one individual to make an example of him, or they may choose to go after one group with the same purpose. The government hopes that individuals and even groups will not resist, as it will make their job of forcing everyone to comply to whatever law they wish. So, in effect, when the police tries to arrest someone, they, in effect, have declared war on that person. It that person decision if he thinks his freedom and life is worth fighting for or not. Most people don’t put up resistance, as their psychology is such, that no one else is fighting them; that no state of war has been declared by their nation; that they don’t have others that they can call on for support.
If the mafia tries to take away a person property, it is more likely that that person will fight them. Naturally, if they out number him, he will usually not do anything, but if thinks he has a fair chance of winning, he’ll do his best to kill them. In this case, he also knows that he has the support of the society in general, and the police in particular. But what if the government tries to take away his property, is this not just as wrong. Just because its the government, doesn’t make it right. And for those few brave individuals that do stand up for their rights, even though they are all alone, they should be applauded. If many people do the same thing, then the government would not be able to get away with the things that they do. So, even the faint heart would like the freedom secured by others, though he didn’t do anything to obtain it. Nay, in fact, he might have criticized such actions.
posted by Health Smart @ 10:23 AM
0 comments
