Who are these Innocents?

Friday, 7th April 2006. Whilst reading an article on news.bbc.co.uk entitled 'Iraqis' Shock as Mosque Targeted', I came across a quote from a photograher of the AFP news agency that got me thinking.

"I saw a woman dressed in a traditional abaya (head-to-toe veil) blow herself up at the main entrance of the mosque as innocent worshippers were stepping out," said Mustafa Ahmed.

Now, having been in the armed forces for sixteen years of my life I have come across the term 'Innocent Civilians', in the news, on numerous occasions and I always felt that the expression was somewhat prejudicial. For Civilians to be 'Innocent', it somehow implies that soldiers are, to a greater or lesser extent, Guilty of some crime or transgression against humanity. I resented this implication, especially as my role in the Army, as a Medical Laboratory Technician, was entirely devoted to the preservation and well-being of Soldiers and Civilians alike.

However, by the taking of the Queen's shilling and by contracting myself to do the bidding of the Government of the Day, no matter how inhumane that command might be, I suppose I was, in the eyes of others, tainted with the guilt of the higher authority that I served. I may not have agreed with all the orders that we were given, but I carried them out nonetheless through a sense of duty, obedience, and fear. We were not allowed to think for ourselves, that was part of the 'Job Description'.

So, when someone describes a group of people as 'Innocent Worshippers', I begin to wonder if that description is entirely fair and consistent with expression, 'Innocent Civilians', or if in fact the word 'Innocent' is either being over-used or applied in the wrong context. Worshippers are, after all, the foot-soldiers of a religion and if they pull on the uniform of that religion and do its bidding, then surely they are no more innocent than the soldiers of an invading or occupying Army?

To take the analogy of the Innocent Civilian v Guilty Soldier one stage further; it is against the law in England to join the Regular Army before the age of seventeen and half, and young soldiers cannot be sent into a war zone until they have reached their 18th birthday. This law is designed to protect the "innocent" children of our society from becoming political cannon-fodder before they reach an age at which it is deemed they are capable of thinking for themselves. Some might argue that even 18 is too young to fully understand the implications of "joining-up". Once you sign that dotted line all your innocence is taken away!

How is it then, that churches (and in this I include all religions), are allowed to recruit their foot-soldiers from the minute that little "innocent" draws his or her first breath? Some are then subjected to ritual child mutilation, which if performed on an unwilling adult would be classed as Serious Sexual Assault, and all are then indoctrinated in the hate-filled teachings of their ancient ancestors, before they have even learnt to walk and talk. As Prof. Richard Dawkins quite rightly puts it; "All religion is Child Abuse".

I personally fail to see how the terms "Innocent" and "Worshippers" can ever be reconciled into the same sentance. In my opinion, any Parent, Pedagogue, Priest, Imam, Rabbi, etc... who forces his or her will and religio-political dogma onto the infinitely malleable mind of an innocent child, in a delibrerate attempt to recruit them into their "army of god" before they are of an age at which they can maturely consider the ramifications, sanity and morality of their enlistment (I prefer to use the term "conscription"), should justly be tried, convicted and sent to prison on the charge of Gross Indecency and Child Abuse and the key should be thrown away.