My debate with Tom at Being Thomas Luongo continues, and I’m really starting to enjoy it. Tom has challenged my ideas at their very foundation, and I welcome that challenge. It gives me the chance (as I said in an e-mailed note to him) to really examine my beliefs and try to learn something about myself. That’s not always easy to do, and my biggest fear is that I’ll do a poor job of defending and explaining my beliefs. I worry about that for fear that I’ll poorly represent those who share my beliefs. I don’t see myself as a spokesman for all southern conservative Christian men, but I recognize the inherent hubris in having deemed my own ideas worthy of public consideration. If your beliefs about God, country, and duty are similar to my own, I hope you feel that I’ve presented them well. If I haven’t, please forgive me. I say that sincerely. C.S. Lewis is my hero, but, of course, I’m nowhere near his league when it comes to crafting language or advancing the Apologetic cause. One quality I do share with Tom is that we both can get a little long-winded.

I’ll address some of Tom’s specific points:

>The problem I have is with the implications you attach to the word 'right,' as if your rights come from some other place. Now, some say they come from God, I say they derive from your being a human being.<

There’s where you and I have our first and most critical ideological separation. I’m one of those who believes that our rights come from God. I’d call your beliefs humanism, and you may well be comfortable with that label. I think that our differences here are so basic as to prevent either of us from winning the other over to his own side.

While I think we’d both agree that our rights are inalienable, we probably interpret that word differently. My position is that our rights are God given, and that no man has the right to take away what God has given to all.

I think that my feelings about the draft are probably grounded in my belief about our rights being a gift from God. While I do believe that those rights are given freely by God to all men in the form of free will, I also believe that a sense of duty is incumbent upon all of us who recognize the source of those rights. Don’t misinterpret me, I realize that it might sound like I’m suggesting that our relationship with God is quid pro quo; “I’ll give you something since you’ve given me something.” That’s not what I’m trying to say. From my point of view, a sense of duty is natural and even unavoidable if you view your rights… your very life itself… as the gift of God. To that end, I believe that answering the call of military service, if it is needed by the nation, is a fundamental way of serving the common good... and that serving the common good is a fundamental way of responding to a sense of duty to God.

I do realize that it is possible to share my belief in God and still disagree with my ideas about the draft. I recognize the basics of the argument of conscientious objectors. I feel the need to restate periodically that I do not propose to represent the beliefs of all Christians by what I’m writing. I represent no one but myself, and the ideas I’m explaining and defending are none but my own.

>… your rights are personal and only an unrepentant socialist would believe that your society or government is the source of your rights.<

Agreed. Again, my sense of duty is not a matter of being compelled by law. I suppose my idea of duty is that it is as inherent and as natural as free will itself.

>Now, in your post you talk about the 'rights of citizenship.' That phrase doesn't parse well. You may have the 'privelege' of citizenship, as granted by your society/government within their legal framework, but not your 'rights.' Again, your rights are your own. <

By “rights of citizenship,” I mean those rights guaranteed by the rule of law. I see a distinction between God-given rights, which are the natural and inalienable ones… and legal rights, which are those agreed upon for each individual by the collective. I suppose I see citizenship as something of a contract between the individual and the government that serves him or her. I see it as a set of “if-thens” that are agreed to by all parties involved. I hope I’m clearly explaining how I see that distinction.

>Remember, rights are things that only people have. Governments have powers, granted to them by the people which ordained them (see the preamble to the Constitution). So, I'd like to know how the government can have the 'right' to force me into service to do it's bidding? <

My point of view is that the draft is a part of our history and a well-established cornerstone of citizenship. I spoke of a “contract” that the individual makes with his or her government in the form of citizenship. Part of that contract, as I see it, is a willingness to serve the collective in a military capacity if the collective (or the majority of it) agrees that the draft is necessary and serves the greater good. I think that’s a fairly mainstream view about the draft and how/when it should be used. I’d submit that such use of the draft is so basic that anyone who disagrees with it would do well to find a more suitable collective to join. Yeah, that sounds like a mandarin way to say “Love it or leave it, buddy!” But, that’s not what I have in mind. I guess I’m just trying to break it down to basics.

>Moreover, any task that has to be forced upon a free-acting adult is a task whose motives and consequences should be questioned. <

I agree whole-heartedly. Don’t for one minute think that I’m suggesting that anyone submit to the draft without introspection and without examining the nature of the conflict that he or she is being asked to serve in. I don’t believe in blind, Orwellian service to a government. I do believe, though, in majority rule and the greater good of the collective.

I think you and I have fundamentally different ideas about what government is, as well. I get the idea, if I’m reading you correctly, that you see it as a foreign and different body from it’s citizens. I simply see it as a voice and tool of the citizens. I don’t believe that the draft is something to be imposed by a ruling body (i.e., government) but a condition to be agreed to, individually and collectively, by the citizens themselves. If the majority of the individuals in the collective are opposed to the draft, then by all means, there should be no draft. Of course, at this point, we’re being totally speculative and hypothetical. But then, my original question about the draft, by and large, was hypothetical.

>If it was such a good idea to invade this country or kill these people, there would be no need to forcably do anything, except maybe turn away unqualified volunteers.<

Well, to get back to the specific conflict at hand, currently there is no need for a draft. Again, as we’ve already discussed, my original question about the draft was, arguably, a “loaded question.” It had more to do with my perception of duty than it did with the situation in the middle east in 2005.

>The freeloader vs. team-player argument is specious as well for the simple reason that we are all economically active and as such contribute to a particular cause via the division of labor and our leveraging our unique talents/skills/dispositions to our maximal advantage. So, while you may offer yourself up as infantry, I may be testing the food that goes into your rations to ensure your health<

Agreed… but, again, I was referring specifically to the issue of the draft and the sense of duty I associate with it. I’m not saying that the only way to serve the greater good is to serve in the military. I am saying, though, that I recognize that the nation has called it’s young people to duty in the draft before, and that I hope that if it needs to again, those called will share my sense of duty.

I hope I’ve explained my positions well, Tom, and I look forward to hearing your take on what I’ve had to say. For that matter, I look forward to hearing anyone’s take on my ideas. The comments link, as always, is immediately below this line.