Conscientious objection redux (Judaism and conscience)

May 15 was International Conscientious Objection Day.  I wrote about that last year.

A single clause at the end of the middle paragraph of a news item caught my eye on May 20 this year:  An Israeli war cabinet member is reportedly threatening to quit if his demands are not met.  Such power plays (within a massive exhibition of power) are concerning at best.  From a nationalistic perspective, a couple of this cabinet member’s demands seem reasonable, but this item does not:  “end military service exemptions for Orthodox Jews.”  – “Israeli Cabinet Pressure,” 1440 Digest, 5/20/24

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

I wondered what the history of thought on conscientious objection was within Judaism.  it seems that it is more linked to Yeshiva work, i.e., study of the scriptures, than to conscience.  In other words, it’s more about exemption for “orthodoxy” than it is about belief systems.  In the second article linked above, it is also specified that “selective conscientious objection” (emph mine  -bc) is not permitted.  I assume that means it’s only to be a group thing, a mass exemption.  And I would object to that.  Conscience should be allowed to determine actions in a civilized society.

The idea that some Jews would not be allowed conscientious objection is but one evidence that the so-called “Jewish state” should be called the “Israeli state” instead.  Militarism might have the protection of the Jewish faith as one of its objectives, but the militarism of the Israeli nation-state must not be brought to bear on the free exercise of faith.  I know there is a history of bloody mass conflict with the Jews/Israelites as both perpetrator and victim, dating back to Abraham.  But to deny the conscience and freedom of religion bypasses the importance individual faith, and it runs counter to the idea of the Jews being the light to the gentiles.

I’ll close the same way I closed a year ago.  I draw a distinction between Jewish believers and Christian believers.  Whatever you think about the former, the way of Jesus is a non-warring way.  May more followers of Jesus Christ move toward conscientious objection and pacifism, no matter how these ideals are, or are not, linked.

 

On principle

On principle, I decided not to sit here.

While my son attended a younger friend’s play, I went to the river to read, hoping for bit of a soul-treat.  From 100 yards away, the first place I saw to sit was the bench shown above.  Few people were around, and it looked like an out-of-the-way place to sit and watch the river, enjoy a beverage, and be by myself for an hour.  As I drew nearer, I realized it was a military memorial and began to question my choice of spots.

And then I saw the biblical text engraved on the bench.  And I have two issues with that:

1. To yank a biblical text from its context and re-appropriate it is careless and disrespectful, even in a secular place.
2. To compare deaths in a military event to Jesus’ laying down His life in crucifixion offends my soul.

I thought for a few moments about the sitting, and I didn’t think anyone would notice me, but on principle, I would not allow myself to sit there.  And so I made my way to another bench, trying not to think about the people who unwittingly relate the two events.  The most egregious error was in the making of the bench and the engraving of the words.  Even passersby must not be led somehow to think somehow that the military men who were struck down by an act of military violence were somehow in the same league as Jesus, who allowed Himself to be put to death for all sinners.  He is the one who “laid down His life for His friends.”  When Jesus was conversing with the disciples just before His death, the words were about the relationship of disciples to Jesus, to each other, and to the hurting, needful world.  While the words were about times to come, from that moment through the coming crucifixion and beyond, they have no direct relationship to 20th-century military theaters.

As an antidote for the toxin of a gospel passage misused on a park bench, I’ll soon offer a more contextual treatment of a section of the John-gospel, on my other blog.