gracie said:
ok. but wouldn't that get them in trouble with superiors? even if they did survive a shoot-out?
In practice, it got them dead. It didn't take long for the military to figure out what our religious limitations were, really.
And think of it in military terms -- if you're on patrol with some guys and one of them is absolutely not going to shoot the "enemy" that's NOT someone you want in your patrol.
It was in everyone's best interest to figure out how we could be drafted, serve our country, and not compromise our religious principles.
As for getting into trouble with the superiors, from our pov any trouble we got into with US superiors for following our religion pale in comparison to what the Iranian gov't has been doing since '79 and the mullas since before that.
what i'm saying is that i sympathize with those folks who get into the action of war and fighting and are like "oh my god! i had no idea! i can't do this!" and that they shouldn't be obliged to shoot or to obey orders to shoot / run people over with tanks / raid houses / beat people / whatever is being asked of them. this is basically what, it seems, Watada is facing as an issue. and possible punishment for his rejection of fighting.
One presumes Watada wasn't drafted? In which case, how much of a fool does one have to be not to realize that being in the armed services as a combatant means you might actually be sent into combat?
And how do you get to be a lieutenant and not realize this? I'm kinda baffled here.
If he'd had a change in his religious status or something, there are papers to file for that and you can get your status changed. You don't just say, "no sir, I ain't goin" and refuse to deploy. That's just a bit...bizarre.