This article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/national/main4473382.shtml is about a soldier in the U.S. Army attaining conscientious objector status through a federal judge. The soldier claims that he had a religious awakening two years ago that left him opposed to war. Military investigators failed in their attempt to show that the soldier’s religious objections to war were insincere.
The Military Selective Service Act states that the armed forces can not make a person, “by reason of religious training and belief,” serve if they are conscientiously opposed to war in any form. This does not include political, sociological, philosophical, or moral views that are not religiously based.
This is a form of establishing religion in my opinion because it is expressly saying that only religious views are important enough to attain conscientious objector status. People who do not have a religious background would not be allowed this status even if they lived their entire life preaching non-violence.
The Army attempted to challenge this soldier’s religious objections as insincere one year ago and he was forced to go through federal court. This might give the federal court too much power. They might view a Christian background as more favorable than some of the less “established” religions which brings up the question of what constitutes religion. Does this allow people who do not want to be in war to take advantage of the system by saying their religious views make them a CO when someone who is actually opposed, but non-religious, can’t?
Lastly, the U.S. District Judge that ruled determined the Army did not provide a “basis in fact” to show that the soldier’s beliefs were insincere. How could a court ever factually determine that someone does or does not believe something? It seems to me that everybody should be able to achieve CO status if they take their case to a federal level because it is impossible to determine whether someone is acting with good faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
This issue seemed to have come up earlier in class—how does a Federal court determine whether something is done “in good faith?” This is iffy to me. On the one hand, I think it is incredibly important to respect people who wish to live a life without killing others. However, on the other hand, since the courts have made a precedent on not ruling on the authenticity of faith, it would be irresponsible to make this ruling. If I were to take a position, I would go with the latter. The slippery slope would suggest it would not be in the best interest for federal courts to decide the validity of one’s faith.
I am torn on the ideals that you present Francisco. On one hand, I agree- it is absolutely atrocious to claim that only religious beliefs are reason enough to make a person exempt from active duty. However, on the other, we must remember that the draft is not currently instated and that people serving in our military are there by choice. This is significant because if we face the realities of the situation, could America have a standing militia if they allowed such political or social moral growths as a basis for breaking contract? Think about the effects war has on a person and the fact that the actual military is significantly different from the way recruitment officers present it. Very few people enjoy killing enemy combatants (despite the adequate military trainings that make you hate them severely) and enough blood on your hands would give anyone a reason to claim a passivist revolution. Then there is the fact that we continue to extend their terms while shortening their leave. In regards to proving a belief, in the time of the draft, a person could prove their belief in passivism or non-violence through a tangible trail of active protest. Character witnesses, publications, documented protests, and religious views were all taken into account. It was hard, but it could be done and was required! I personally think we need to examine the ethics of our military methods (recruitment, execution- literally and figuratively- and training methods) and clean up those problems because there should be no soldier left behind when they have reached their breaking point of “patriotic service”.
There is a Supreme Court case relevant to this concept of conscientious objections based not on religious beliefs but on, I believe the wording was, 'Deep convictions' which were explicitly described by the appellant as non-religious. It in 'US v Seeger' the courts avoided the constitutional issues involved in this case and, "rather, determined to interpret the Congressional act of 1948 as not restricting conscientious objection to those only who declared faith in God." So, there does seem to be an
Act on the books allowing for such non-religious objection to military service, though, admittedly I am less familiar with the logic of this case. It was unanimous, though, that's quite interesting. I realize this was military case and not in civilian courts but one would assume that the Military Service Act would not contradict a Supreme Court ruling--then again they seem to ignore any other laws awarded authority by any nation-state or international body.
I agree that there is an establishment issue in this case. The establishment clause requires the government to not only be neutral between different religions, but also be neutral between religion and irreligion. Because this soldier is exempt from completing his military service contract based on his religious beliefs, but wouldn’t be exempt from such contract based on nonreligious moral beliefs, the Military Selective Service Act is inconsistent with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Religion is clearly preferred over irreligion in this case.
I also believe, as I shared in class when agreeing with Jackson’s dissent in United States v. Ballard (1944), that it is not the role of the government (judicial branch), nor should the government have the right to place judgment on sincerity of one’s religious convictions in the court of law. No judge or jury should have the right to pass judgment on the sincerity of any person’s religious beliefs.
In response to Brittany's comments:
I think it’s important you address that this soldier voluntarily enlisted and entered a contract with the U.S. military and that this isn’t an issue over dodging a draft. The voluntariness of the soldier in enlisting in the military makes a big difference. As for your comments on the ‘skewed’ vision military recruiters paint for prospect recruits: While I would agree that 18 year olds fresh out of high school or still attending high school are somewhat still impressionable, I think it’s wrong to fault the military for the naivety of such an adult choosing to enlist in our armed forces, i.e. entering a contract in which they made be called upon to go to war and sacrifice their life for our country. However, this is a topic for a different discussion.
I have no doubt that seeing death in war first-hand can have a profound effect on a person. At the same time, I have no doubt that the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq would rather not put their lives at risk, especially when our justification for going into Iraq in the first place have been so widely put into question.
The Supreme Court has established that sincerity of belief determines whether some laws are in violation of the free exercise clause. However, Judge Sedwick's ruling sets an extremely dangerous precedent, for several reasons. First of all, as Francisco argues, the ruling could give preference to Christian religious opposition to war; yet as Carmine points out, Seeger does acknowledge secular arguments for conscientious objection. Secondly, it is difficult to develop a concrete guideline for determining sincerity. I think that Matt goes too far in suggesting that the court did not rule/has no precedent in ruling on the authenticity of faith; but he does correctly identify a slippery slope.
I think, though, that Brittanie has the realistic view on the issue. Pfc. Barnes enlisted in military service - he was not drafted and did not enter into his contract against his will. If we discharged every soldier who had qualms about joining the military, we simply could not maintain a cohesive, effective army. I don't suggest that Pfc. Barnes simply wanted to go home and had no legitimate objection to war, but we have to account for that contingency.
This ruling could have a dramatic impact on the war, and maybe that is what the judge intended. I do see the judiciary as a check against the military, and I wouldn't want to be overseas right now, either. But this might set disastrous precedent for when we legitimately need defense forces in the future. We will obviously see soon enough.
I agree with the original poster in that there should be no religious exception an legal duty. In this particular case, I think the individual is wrong in the first place as he chose to sign up for military service. To then object to going to war is clearly hypocritical. But in terms of selective service or other legal responsibility that we all have as Americans (including jury duty), there should be absolutely no regard for religious opposition. I believe this on two points. First if we are to believe (as I do) that we are a country where religion and law are to strictly remain separate and if we are to have no establishment of religion, then we cannot suggest that religion has any relevance to legal matters. Secondly, the courts should have no place in the determination of one's religious convictions. If the courts are deciding the nature of one's religious beliefs, then the state is essentially establishing itself as an arbitrator of religion.
This is definitely an interesting situation. On one hand, the soldier did sign up for the military, so he knew that there was a possibility of going to war. On the other hand, it is difficult to access a person’s sincerity when it comes to religious issues. I wonder why he signed up for the military in the first place. This definitely sets a precedent for other cases in the future. Our military would be in big trouble if everyone that was sent to war claimed a “religious awakening,” which caused them not to want to serve out the commitment they made.
I have high respect for people who choose to serve their country by joining the military. Nonetheless, I don’t think that you should be able to back out of a contract because the person made the choice to sign up in the first place.
Finally, I would argue that this person probably isn’t the only one overseas who opposes the war. I’m sure that there are several men and women who are serving that feel that way. However, why should we make an exception for someone when there is supposed to be a separation of church/religion and state, and how are we supposed to know if their actions really are in “good faith?”
FREEDOM OF EXERCISE.
The word exercise is related to action. Granted, the state cannot allow exemption from law when that action infringes on the rights of others, however, in this case no ones' rights are infringed upon by allowing a soldier exemption from a law (contract). Some might make the argument that we wouldn't have a standing army if everyone who didn't want to fight didn't--this is highly speculative. Especially considering historical evidence which shows that during wars thought to be popular by the citizenry there is a surge of volunteerism by the population. Think about it, how many of your grandfathers are proud to have fought in "The Good War" (WW2), as opposed to those who are irreversibly damaged and maintain vicious bitterness to their service in 'Nam.
Even if the slope was proven to be so slippery, so be it! Let them come home until we are given damn good reason for being there. Because once we have that reason we got hundreds of thousands of gun-toting belligerent red-blooded Americans who are more then happy to shoot Bambi square between the eyes, let alone another human proved to be a threatening enemy.
Sending people to wars they don't wish to fight, regardless of volunteering or contractual agreements, is draconian authoritarianism contrary to liberal democracy on so many levels that I am disgusted by the fact that people would actually endorse such a concept in the 21st century after the embarrassing bloody history of unwarranted, unjustified, inhumane, capitalistic wars our country has spearheaded.
Post a Comment