Anti-Obama ad: 'Gather your armies'

[quote="estesbob, post:19, topic:201962"]
Especially of they come armed with revolutionary war period pistols!

I am afraid this ad is the same kind of nonsense we heard when Bush was President-That he was going to declare Martial law and become President for life. The truth is there will be a revolution-it will be in November and it will be at the ballot box

[/quote]

Yep, a peaceful revolution but a revolution none the less. :thumbsup:

That is the kind of revolution we need!!:thumbsup:

[quote="Sabda, post:12, topic:201962"]
Did you forget about the Just War Doctrine of the Church?

[/quote]

No. It's just not relevant to this discussion.

Did I say that? Are those really the only two alternatives? Supine obedience to government edicts or armed insurrection? I think there are plenty of alternatives to the two extremes you posit.

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49

This passage refers to withholding obedience under certain extreme conditions. Withholding obedience is not the same as armed insurrection.

In terms of this ad, the grievances cited, in my opinion, come nowhere near the conditions under which obedience may be legitimately withheld.

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority *within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50 *

Armed insurrection is not within the limits of the natural law or the law of the Gospel.

It's worth remembering that there were insurrectionists who chafed under Roman rule during Jesus' life. It's one of the reasons the Jews rejected Him. They were looking for a Messiah who would militarily crush the Romans.

2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

Rich did a very good job with these. I'll just add that with regard to "success" in point #4, we need to ask ...what is "success" according to the ad? Success ought to mean a more just social order according to Gospel teaching. I doubt that's what the ad's promoters have in mind.

I don't disagree with anything you've cited from the Catechism.

[quote="Sabda, post:18, topic:201962"]
The soldiers ARE a part of the citizens of this nation. They will not just blindly follow the government.

[/quote]

When were you in the Army? Then, you should know that soldiers are trained to follow orders, and they will do so.

As to the American Civil War, U.S. soldiers did obey their officers and fought against the rebellion. There were no mutinies among U.S. soldiers. They knew that Southerners were fellow Americans, but they had no problem seeing them as the enemy and fighting them.

It's a fantasy to believe that American soldiers will refuse to honor their oaths.

Yes, if so, only then. To be sure, I may not want the same outcome others here do, but the ballot box is the only route in our nation towards changing the government.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:24, topic:201962"]

As to the American Civil War, U.S. soldiers did obey their officers and fought against the rebellion. There were no mutinies among U.S. soldiers. They knew that Southerners were fellow Americans, but they had no problem seeing them as the enemy and fighting them.

It's a fantasy to believe that American soldiers will refuse to honor their oaths.

[/quote]

That certainly is not the case. All commissioned officers who resigned their commissions to fight in the Confederacy mutinied. Entire school classes (such as in the case of VMI and other similar institutions in the South) mutinied. Almost half of West Point classes mutinied.

Many officers simply resigned their commissions rather than fight their fellow Americans and desertions were rampent during the Civil War. A lot of the desertions were because of hardship of the march and the fight, however they were a lot less in the South who were much worse off than the soldiers of the North.

Where do you think the Confederate side got their soldiers from? They didn’t all come from the ordinary citizens. Some of them did come from the United States military. Like I have said before soldiers are human beings and come with all the baggage of a human being. If such a war where to happen again the military would split just like it did during the Civil War.

BTW, my dh served 8 yrs in the Air Force and is just about as pro-military as you can get. In fact he is one who firmly believes anyone who runs for the office of President should have military experience. It’s the major reason why he voted for McCain over Obama. I asked him which side he would be on if we had another Civil War. His response “I don’t know, that’s a tough question.”

[quote="gnjsdad, post:23, topic:201962"]
No. It's just not relevant to this discussion.

Did I say that? Are those really the only two alternatives? Supine obedience to government edicts or armed insurrection? I think there are plenty of alternatives to the two extremes you posit.

This passage refers to withholding obedience under certain extreme conditions. Withholding obedience is not the same as armed insurrection.

In terms of this ad, the grievances cited, in my opinion, come nowhere near the conditions under which obedience may be legitimately withheld.

Armed insurrection is not within the limits of the natural law or the law of the Gospel.

It's worth remembering that there were insurrectionists who chafed under Roman rule during Jesus' life. It's one of the reasons the Jews rejected Him. They were looking for a Messiah who would militarily crush the Romans.

Rich did a very good job with these. I'll just add that with regard to "success" in point #4, we need to ask ...what is "success" according to the ad? Success ought to mean a more just social order according to Gospel teaching. I doubt that's what the ad's promoters have in mind.

I don't disagree with anything you've cited from the Catechism.

[/quote]

I'll post the whole passage again just so we can look at as is.

From the Catechism
Quote:

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good;** but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law **and the Law of the Gospel.50

2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

I agree with you on the first part. It let's us know when we should give obedience to the government and when we should not give obedience to the government.

On the second part, notice it says that citizens have the right to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens? I noticed you completely went around that part when you where bolding the passage. Basically what it amounts to is where the government is right, in following God's law you give obedience, where the government is wrong, in not following God's law, you don't. Really simple, the devil is in the details as they say.

In regard to the third part, did you miss that little word UNLESS? No where does that passage state the citizens can not form an armed resistance. What the passage does do is give guidelines for what qualifies as being legitimate armed resistance.

Like I said above we're not there yet. Well we get there? I don't know, I for one certainly hope not but we do appear to be heading down the same road. At least for the moment it looks that way. Hopefully we can change that.

There were no mutinies. Those officers and cadets resigned their commissions. They did not conspire to overthrown the U.S. government. Big difference.

Many officers simply resigned their commissions.

Exactly. They didn’t mutiny.

[quote="Sabda, post:28, topic:201962"]

Basically what it amounts to is where the government is right, in following God's law you give obedience, where the government is wrong, in not following God's law, you don't.

[/quote]

And, who decides the point at which the government is not following God's Law? The Pope? The bishops? Preachers? Ministers? Your next door neighbor?

[quote="Sabda, post:27, topic:201962"]
Where do you think the Confederate side got their soldiers from? They didn't all come from the ordinary citizens. Some of them did come from the United States military.

[/quote]

The operative word is "some." Those who remained loyal to the United States had no compunction about killing the rebels.

If such a war where to happen again the military would split just like it did during the Civil War.

Saith the crystal ball?

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:31, topic:201962"]
The operative word is "some." Those who remained loyal to the United States had no compunction about killing the rebels.

Saith the crystal ball?

[/quote]

:ehh:, That's not what I have read. What I have read is that the leaders where constantly having to remind their troops not to befriend the other side because their troops would pause when they came upon their new friend during combat. The new friends would not, both sides did this. Also, this was a war where brother was against brother, father, against son etc. These where not strangers fighting against each other but family and friends big difference. This was a nation that was literally at war with itself. It was not a nation fighting another nation, again big difference.

The Pope would not decide that you know that. The bishops are not going to stand up in mass and say “ok start fighting” either. We would look to the official teachings of the Church and go from there. I’m not saying that it would be an easy decision to make, it wouldn’t. I’m also not going to say just what exactly the criteria would be but the official teachings of the Church do allow for it under restricted circumstances.

I don't agree with President Obama or his health care policy, but I don't think we should start an armed rebellion over it. I agree that our rebellion should be in the ballot box.

I think the ad is pretty irresponsible for a candidate given our nation's history of violence against presidents. I don't think Barber should have approved of the message, & I think the discussion here kind of demonstrates it is seditious. "Gather your armies"?! Sheesh!

If they resigned and turned around and fought the same people they served, that could be considered mutiny. Disobeying an order in the military which is found to be a lawful order could be considered mutiny, most likely it wouldn’t but it could. If a court marshal finds the order to be lawful.

Art. 94. (§ 894.) 2004 Mutiny or Sedition.

    (a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—
        (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
        (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
        (3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
    (b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

That’s not the way the leaders on each side saw it. The Confederates did see themselves as another nation, and actively sought recognition as such by foreign countries. Furthermore, each side fought the other with the same vigor and savagery that they would have against any other “nation.”

If the soldier finds the order unlawful he does not have to follow it. They are not all sheep, I would have disobeyed any order to fire upon civilians if I did not personally feel that they were a serious threat to my own safety or the safety of another civilian who was acting lawfully.

As to the American Civil War, U.S. soldiers did obey their officers and fought against the rebellion. There were no mutinies among U.S. soldiers. They knew that Southerners were fellow Americans, but they had no problem seeing them as the enemy and fighting them.

Obviously. But that does not mean there were no mutinies.

Mutiny in the Civil War
Webb B. Garrison

Covers about 200 incidents.

It’s a fantasy to believe that American soldiers will refuse to honor their oaths.

It’s also a fantasy to believe that American soldiers will honor them either.

Once they resigned, they were no longer bound to follow orders of their former services. They, in effect, just joined another army. It would have been mutiny if, say, a NY regiment turned around and began fighting against U.S. forces while still under oath to the U.S.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:38, topic:201962"]
Once they resigned, they were no longer bound to follow orders of their former services. They, in effect, just joined another army. It would have been mutiny if, say, a NY regiment turned around and began fighting against U.S. forces while still under oath to the U.S.

[/quote]

Well, I'm no expert but I bet there were a few who did not officially resign.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:37, topic:201962"]
If the soldier finds the order unlawful he does not have to follow it.

[/quote]

Were you in the Service? You should therefore know that deciding on your own to disobey an order on the grounds that it is unlawful is a very serious thing to do, the charge against you will be very serious, it puts the entire burden of proof on yourself, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for you to prove. The military operates under the assumption that all orders given are legitimate. They cannot tolerate individual soldiers deciding which order they will obey and which they will not.

I would have disobeyed any order to fire upon civilians if I did not personally feel that they were a serious threat to my own safety or the safety of another civilian who was acting lawfully.

Personally? Gulp! I can already see you standing at the top of the gallows. How are you to decide of an instant that these civilians are a threat or not?

Mutiny in the Civil War
Webb B. Garrison

Covers about 200 incidents.

How many men served on each side? How many actions did the soldiers see? How long was the war? 200 incidents? Insignificant.

It's also a fantasy to believe that American soldiers will honor them either.

Quite to the contrary. American soldiers honor their oaths loyally.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.