The bolded part seems to me to just be more rationalization for agreeing that people have the right to not follow laws that they disagree with. If the law permitting CO's required govt approval and he did not get it, subjective or not, then he has to follow the law and serve unless and until he gets the approval. Period.

 

 

As to your children, if you think they needed to develop the ability to reason, then you wouldn't have made the rule, you would have said, "here's my advice on why you shouldn't do this, but you make up your mind yourself". But in those circumstances when you specifically told them they cannot do something and they did it anyway, I sincerely doubt you would say, "its okay that you intentionally and willfully broke the rule I set forth because you were just standing up for something you believed in".

 

As for the blind obedience issue, I have zero problem with raising concerns about rules and expressing those concerns to the law makers. But until the law maker (be that the President, Congress, your school teacher, the police officer on the street or you, as the parent) changes the rule then the rule is followed.

 

Just think what a mess you would have running a business or supervising employees if every time you told a subordinate to do something that they disagreed with, they could refuse to do it. It would be a mess. If Ali refused to serve because he disagreed with the justification of the war, it is no different. If he thought the war was illegal, then he resorts to the courts to have that determination made. Until that happens, he complies with the law.

 

I have to admit that as an attorney, I am totally disappointed with the justification for disobeying the law that I have read on here. Extremely disappointed.

 

C'mon, Lneck. Defense Lawyers manipulate the law, find loopholes and make their living getting their clients the least penalty they can.

 

And, Ali did NOT run from the consequences. He believed in his objection, and the government didn't agree. In your post above, it seems to me that you feel that someone who broke the law should be jailed until their case is tried. When you say he should have complied with the law in this case, that's what it amounts to. Had he complied, he'd have been shipped out before they would have even heard his case...you know it as well as I.

 

I love that you question why I may set rules, or that you seem to assume my motives. Like all parents, I have been known to set some rules that aren't necessarily in the best interests of anyone but myself....for instance, I don't want to deal with the consequences of having to be inconvenienced, or helping my son or daughter through some less-than-rosy outcome. It's a lot easier to set a rule and avoid such instances altogether. I wouldn't say that I expect most people to agree with my way of doing things. But, for the most part, it's worked for my family. Although they've made mistakes, and some big ones, they're good people. They're able to make a decision, and they are able to accept the consequences of their decisions, and they don't look to blame anyone else for their situations. They also face up to their consequences squarely.

There in lies the Catch-22 of the government's status of conceintious objector. You think his reason wasn't legitimate. He believed it was. How can one person (or governmental entity) say what is to be a legitimate "conscience" of another?

 

 

If he disagreed with with the govt's determination, he prevails on the courts to overturn the determination. If he wins in court, he's a CO. If he doesn't, he's not. In either event, he just does not thumb his nose at the law and does what he wants. Seems pretty simple to me.

For the record, I don't consider anyone who filed for a waiver as a concientious objector a draft dodger. The provision was set up through our government to provide a legitimate route to pursue as a reason to not be drafted. To me, this is no different than those who chose to pursue higher education instead of being drafted. The governement provided that option. The fact that the status of concientious objector had to be approved by the government on a case by case basis means to me that there is at least a fairly significant subjectivity in the process.

 

I consider a "dodger" one who completely by-passes the pursuit of a legitimate route. Ali did not just "run". He stood up for his beliefs, followed the proper routes, and bore the consequences.

 

LNeck, I don't like it when one of my kids disobeys my rules, but I do recognize at times they will, and my job is to make sure they know the consequences. I've rarely forbade my kids from anything. But I have always let them know what the consequences could/would be if they chose a particular course of action. I've always made sure that those consequences were meted out when the time came as well. I don't believe in blind obedience. I believe that kids need to develop an ability to reason and make decisions for themselves, and have always worked very hard to make sure I stick to that principle in raising my children. Have they done things I don't approve of? Oh, ABSOLUTELY! However, there have been times that when they've chosen to go against my "rule", I've realized at a later date my rule was not the "right thing". I'm not above admitting that I erred in my "laying down the law".

Excellent post. :thumb:

If he disagreed with with the govt's determination, he prevails on the courts to overturn the determination. If he wins in court, he's a CO. If he doesn't, he's not. In either event, he just does not thumb his nose at the law and does what he wants. Seems pretty simple to me.

He eventually did win in the supreme court, that's why he was allowed to fight again.

His CO was the result of joining the Black Nation of Islam who were against the war due to the feeling that blacks were fighting for a nation in which they were not equal. This is not a legitimate reason for a CO. You stated earlier that he had risked everything he achieved for his beliefs. I say he risked his beliefs and achievements to save his hide. There is no greater calling than to serve. He was the very face of a doger.

That isn't why he was a CO. In the faith of Islam true followers are not allowed to go to war unless declared by Allah.

C'mon, Lneck. Defense Lawyers manipulate the law, find loopholes and make their living getting their clients the least penalty they can.

 

And, Ali did NOT run from the consequences. He believed in his objection, and the government didn't agree. In your post above, it seems to me that you feel that someone who broke the law should be jailed until their case is tried. When you say he should have complied with the law in this case, that's what it amounts to. Had he complied, he'd have been shipped out before they would have even heard his case...you know it as well as I.

 

I love that you question why I may set rules, or that you seem to assume my motives. Like all parents, I have been known to set some rules that aren't necessarily in the best interests of anyone but myself....for instance, I don't want to deal with the consequences of having to be inconvenienced, or helping my son or daughter through some less-than-rosy outcome. It's a lot easier to set a rule and avoid such instances altogether. I wouldn't say that I expect most people to agree with my way of doing things. But, for the most part, it's worked for my family. Although they've made mistakes, and some big ones, they're good people. They're able to make a decision, and they are able to accept the consequences of their decisions, and they don't look to blame anyone else for their situations. They also face up to their consequences squarely.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point about defense lawyers as it relates to glorifying people that violate the law, which is the issue with Ali that we have been discussing. Frankly, I have particular distain for lawyers that violate the law and certainly do not put them on a pedestal for violating laws that they personally disagree with. Again, that's the issue we are addressing, aren't we?

 

So what if he got shipped out while he appealed his CO determination to the courts (and I'm assuming he tried to get a determination that he was a CO and it was denied because I don't personally know that he did...never was into Ali the same way some folks were/are. He was just a fighter; another jock). Perhaps he could have received an injunction to prevent him from being shipped out. In any event, he, you and I should comply with the laws.

 

As for me questioning the motivations of your parental decisions, not sure where you got that from in my posts and apologize for you feeling that I questioned your motivations. Didn't mean to. I honestly couldn't care less about your motivations for your rules, as it is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether you would tolerate intentional violations by your children of your rules. Quite to the contrary of questioning your motivations, I assume you have good reasons for your rules or you would not have the rules in place to begin with.

 

And I don't think someone accused of a crime should be jailed until tried (absent some legitimate concern by the govt that the accused will attempt to flee). But I most certainly do feel that someone, heck everyone, should comply with all laws until those laws are overturned.

Lest we forget, he also did a GREAT DEAL of humanitarian work, especially in Africa, after his fighting career was over.

 

http://www.ali.com/news/default.asp?newsId=11

Lest we forget, he also did a GREAT DEAL of humanitarian work, especially in Africa, after his fighting career was over.

 

http://www.ali.com/news/default.asp?newsId=11

 

I truly and genuinely commend him for his humanitarian work. That's good stuff and certainly worthy of recognition.

I consider a "dodger" one who completely by-passes the pursuit of a legitimate route. Ali did not just "run". He stood up for his beliefs, followed the proper routes, and bore the consequences.

 

 

- However this is American, not a Islamic Country, our country doesn't run under Allah. If you want to be Islamic and live the Islamic law then you should live in a Islamic Country.

- A good religion would admonish their people to obey the laws of the land of where they live.

I consider a "dodger" one who completely by-passes the pursuit of a legitimate route. Ali did not just "run". He stood up for his beliefs, followed the proper routes, and bore the consequences.

 

 

- However this is American, not a Islamic Country, our country doesn't run under Allah. If you want to be Islamic and live the Islamic law then you should live in a Islamic Country.

- A good religion would admonish their people to obey the laws of the land of where they live.

 

 

That may be one of the scariest statement i have seen on this board.

I consider a "dodger" one who completely by-passes the pursuit of a legitimate route. Ali did not just "run". He stood up for his beliefs, followed the proper routes, and bore the consequences.

 

 

- However this is American, not a Islamic Country, our country doesn't run under Allah. If you want to be Islamic and live the Islamic law then you should live in a Islamic Country.

- A good religion would admonish their people to obey the laws of the land of where they live.

 

Wasn't our country founded on religious freedom?

Wasn't our country founded on religious freedom?

Exactly.:thumb:

That may be one of the scariest statement i have seen on this board.

:thumb:

To answer the question in a quasi-non-political way:

 

I watched Ali fight many times. Not in person, of course, but with my dad, on TV. My dad loved boxing, and we watched many fights. The Ali fights, along with Leonard fights and Foreman fights stand out in my mind. Ali was bigger than boxing though. He was charasmatic. He's my first memory of a "Sports Star", someone bigger than their sport. Boxing was huge then, and had been huge for decades by the time I was born. I still have a love for boxing, and mostly because of Ali. He made watching boxing fun. It was entertaining to watch his style, and hear what he had to say. I hate that boxing is now pretty much a "second tier" sport.

 

After his career ended, Ali didn't fade into the sunset. Ali not only made himself bigger than his sport while still participating, he's the first athlete I can remember who was as recognizable as a movie star.

 

In the years since his career ended, he's made good use of his time, and of his resources to do many good things. That only raises his esteem in my eyes.

 

I mean, Foreman was great, but hey....I don't see Ali hawkin' grills on TV.

I think it's important to note that at the time of his objections to Vietnam he spent three years, in his prime, stripped of his title and not allowed to box. Those are three years he could have spend dominating and entertaining. Then he comes back and beats Foreman and Frazier.