Colirio

Even though you edited your original post, this edit still makes very little sense. Drafted soldiers receive the same basic training as the other soldiers. The difference is that they don't want to be there. Those who are forced into combat against their will are a danger to those around them.

This is completely, 100% false. I have stated my support, admiration, and gratitude for those who serve multiple times in this thread and reaffirm it now.

I understand where you are coming from here. However, let's look at the Jehova's Witnesses. They have religious beliefs which teach them to not to go to war. Just like the people of Ammon in the scriptures, there are many who would rather sue for peace and will simply refuse to go to war. And just like the people of Ammon paid taxes in order to support their military protectors, paying taxes is a service to support a national defense. Mormon even speaks of Helaman and those performing religious service were no less serviceable to te people than was Captain Moroni. Alma 48:19 Now behold, Helaman and his brethren were no less serviceable unto the people than was Moroni; for they did preach the word of God, and they did baptize unto repentance all men whosoever would hearken unto their words. I also agree with you that that those who trample on the rights of others can morally and legally have their rights removed.

I agree with you on many things. In fact, I would say that ALL laws are morally based. However, not all morals should have legal enforcement. For instance, I believe it morally just to help my neighbor mow her yard because she is elderly and cannot always afford to have someone else do it for her. I would not want to be legally obligated to do so, however, as this takes away my freedom to choose family time this weekend instead. I want the freedom to make sacrifices at MY discretion, not because some agency will punish me.

And we have come full circle... You need to research the issues caused by drafted soldiers during times of war. You cannot force someone to fight. Instead, they tend to kill their own officers, brothers, and whoever else in an attempt to avoid combat. But what about a non-combative role? Do you wanted a legally obligated soldier changing your vehicle tire? What about cooking your meals? What about setting your computer firewalls? Someone legally obligated to be there who doesn't want to be is a danger to everyone around them. That completely negates the "battle readiness" proposal.

A moral obligation is different than a legal obligation. I agree that there is a moral obligation to defend one's family, freedoms, and nation. That does NOT mean a legal obligation to governmental military service, however.

I don't think so, I know so. I have a strong testimony of the Family Proclamation and it specifically states it. A moral obligation is not the same as a legal obligation. We should love, serve, and help our neighbor. So yes, we have a moral obligation to help according to our talents and abilities. Ok. So, I should stop teaching my children in my home unless I am going to teach all other children in my neighborhood, town, city, state, etc.? After all, you said it's immoral for some children to be privately educated. That is, of course, ridiculous and contrary to what the Family Proclamation states. A moral responsibility is different than a legal responsibility. I agree that morally everyone has a responsibility for defending our families, freedoms, and nation. The issue is that I believe in real liberty. Therefore, it is not moral to legally require the citizens to serve in a military capacity. Congratulations.

The US has the greatest military force in the world right now and it's been achieved through non-compulsory means.

I'm not sure where to begin... The primary responsibility for the teaching of morals and values comes from the fundamental unit of society, which is the family. Since we are comparing education and military service, I can say with absolute fact that government schools have been highly ineffective in teaching morals and values that keep us from tyranny. Do you agree? If so, then clearly the government is not the vehicle best suited for this task. Just like forced government education has not produced a society of brilliant scholars, neither will forced military service produce a society of patriotic, freedom loving individuals. I was a private contractor for the DoD and Homeland Security. I have also worked with military operations in various capacities over the years. For you to say that I have a low opinion of our military men and women shows that you haven't understood a single thing I have typed. I have stated over and over about my love and support of our military. I also come from a strong military family with siblings who are vets. Uncles, brothers-in-law, cousins, nephews, and several of my best friends are all veterans. You don't know anything about me, my family, friends, or history, so for you to be 100% convinced about anything concerning my opinions shows a clear lack of judgment on your part.

Great! Again, I love our military! I support our military! I support those who want to volunteer for military service and think that we should give them better treatment, better pay, better healthcare, and so many other things. I simply do not support forced military service/training. If you (others reading this post, not you particularly, Anatess) believe that military service is important for society then you should support causes that make military service more desirable and forget about what we can do to force them into it. (I.e. You can't be a full citizen with voting rights without it.)

I'm responding to the post before mine. Government education has never been the most effective education. Is it? Just curious, which recent war would you consider to be well waged? Of those recently waged, how many of the conflicts were settled by PMC's? I won't even bother to ask about the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc. as those are not military conflicts, but do show the ineffective nature of government to solve societal issues. I don't disagree that one of the few legitimate functions of government is to provide for a national defense. Where I take issue is the suggestion that every citizen should be forced into military training/service before having the right to vote.

There are certain things that government does very poorly. Education is one of those things. Several on these forums won't even send their kids to a government education center. (school) Would you really desire that the broken government educational centers instruct everyone on how to conduct warfare? Do you really believe this will fix the woes of a broken society? When we get the next "King Noah" type of leader, would you really want your kids having to serve them or else have no voting power to remove them? My belief is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is THE answer, not more government education and/or involvement in our lives.

Are you talking about Elder Ulisses Soares? If so, he's Brazilian, not Hispanic. Regardless, we are all children of God. Man-made labels have far less interest to me than something that helps us become ONE with CHRIST.

.

Beside the point. That is is an issue of policy and procedural negotiation. The truth is that we could do away with income tax altogether if we got the socialists out of office. There have been many other methods (fair tax, etc.) that could work. However, this simply changes the procedural way in which responsibilities of citizens are met.

In watching the announcement and talk given, I am excited about the idea because I see it as spiritual progression. It's not really about the logistics of how many hours are spent at a meetinghouse. It's about strengthening the families by having a more Christ-centered home. If the the membership goes home after two hours and does nothing further to the gospel teaching in their home, then they will falter spiritually. If, on the other hand, the members go home and apply the new program that was outlined, then they will be blessed in greater measure than they previously were. New revelation which will strengthen families for the coming days is thrilling to me!

That is exactly the obligation of military service. Being obligated to *die* for the interests of political leaders is the end of your mortal experience should they choose. In military service for this country, you take an oath to die for your country. Nobody is saying that being willing to serve their country in a military role isn't noble. It is. And I am very grateful and honor those who do. And I totally understand the need of having a commander-in-chief who understands the value of human life. I reject the proposal that the only way to appreciate human life is to have been a soldier. Preposterous. The entire reason this country threw off the shackles of an oppressive government was because of their desires for freedom from tyrannical rule. So, you would then place those shackles back onto the people, turning them from citizens back into subjects, unless they are willing to die for whatever political leader who happens to be in office at the time? I reject your desires to limit my liberty and spit on the very idea.

Such as sustaining the laws of the government and paying their taxes? If so, then I agree. I would even agree that citizens SHOULD be willing to die in defense of their loved ones and liberties. But mandatory enforcement would infringe on first amendment rights, IMO.

A portion. Not the totality of your mortality. 1. You are still free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in the manner you see fit with a portion of what you make going towards a national defense, infrastructure, etc. 2. Military service means being obligated to die for the interests of your political leaders. The real issue is what was was stated in my original post. The problems of forced military service in times of war is well documented. Drafted soldiers in Vietnam, for example, purposely tried to set their commanders in the line of fire to have them killed. When that didn't always work, there were cases of soldiers murdering their commanding officers and blaming it on enemy fire. They did not want to fight. You cannot easily force someone to give their life for a cause they do not believe in. In the end, you have a fraction of the group having to carry the workload of the rest of the group who won't work. Sound familiar? It should. It's how every other government program operates.

Responsibilities? Yes. That is why people pay taxes. Just like the people of Ammon paid the way for the Nephites to protect them. And those who pay their taxes are entitled to the regulated financial benefits.

As a martial combatives instructor who has trained probably thousands of students over the years, I don't disagree that militia training could be valuable. I also believe that the military experience can be a wonderful thing for a young man. I also believe that freedom isn't free, it is the duty of every citizen to defend their religion, family, and freedom, and that means that people SHOULD seek the means and understanding to be able to do so. However, that does not mean that the government needs to be that training. It especially doesn't mean that the government should enforce a law which demands it of its citizenry. The natural outcome of Traveler's suggestion of only ex-military having the right to vote is dangerous. You would have the suppression of entire segments of society whose religious beliefs and physical ailments mean that they have no voice. That is the opposite of freedom. The suggestion of government assistance being given only to those who served in the military is downright silly IMO. They live here, pay taxes into the system, and contribute to society like other people, so why should they be excluded? Because they weren't soldiers for two years? 🙄 I have lived and worked in third world countries. I have seen what starvation actually looks like. It is awful. I am glad we don't let people starve. The system we have is imperfect, yes. But I'm glad it's there.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are conflating militia with military. The distinction between the two is of great importance to maintaining our liberty from an oppressive government.

The atrocities committed by drafted soldiers against their fellow soldiers during combat have been well documented. I dont disagree that military service can be a great vehicle towards learning respect, duty towards one's country, and self-discipline. However, I will also state that there are MANY ways that these same principles can be attained without military service. Likewise, I have met many people who were broken both physically and psychologically by war. The absolute BEST way to infuse these principles into one's nature is through the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the support of the family. The breakdown of these two important elements in our society is the root cause for our woes. To state that we should limit our right to vote or receive governmental aid to those who have served military service runs counter to what the founding fathers intended. Now, if you want to discuss whether only land owners should be allowed to vote, you have my undivided attention! 🤗

Flake had this to say: “Obviously. I’ve felt that this delay is as much to help him {Kavanaugh} as us. My hope is that some Democrats will say “Hey, we may not change our vote, but this process was worthy of the institution, and we feel satisfied.” That means something,” he said. “The country needs to hear that.” Flake Defends Delay 1. I don't disagree that such an outcome would be nice. 2. To believe it will happen requires your head to be at least several feet into the sand...

Sorry about that. There was supposed to be a winking emoji after what I said. 😄