News Should religious beliefs determine military duties?

[Frame Dragger]

The way I see it, both are instances where a person shirks there duty because of personally held beliefs.

A pacifist might think that it is wrong to kill because no one should have the power to take another life, and a birther objects because Obama doesn't. Same thing to me.

One is a valid ideology, the other is a paranoid/racist delusion?

 

[BobG]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html"

It seemed to work for this guy.

What about those who object to the Iraq War because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN—they are essentially objecting to the source of their orders. Under their objections, if it was the UN that was sending them to War, as opposed to their own President, they'd have no problem fighting.

I'd prefer it if this guys went to prison for what he's doing, and while I won't claim (though I think it's certainly possible) that he's doing this for self-serving motives as opposed to sincere belief, it doesn't matter all that much to me. He swore an oath and he's been called to fulfill that oath—but I also think that there should be absolutely no exceptions for any conscientious objectors.

Do your duty or go to prison—though I've often thought a suitable punishment for this sort of offense is permanent revocation of citizenship.

I understand objection on the grounds of a war, but not who is starting it. When I think of objector I think of vietnam, this is not the same thing at all. Why bring anything else into this when the issue is one of delusion, not conscience.

There definitely is a difference between opposing war in general and opposing the decisions of an elected US government - both in society's perception and in how each is treated by the government.

Even life-long members of pacifist religions (Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren) have been drafted to serve in the military. They just get assigned non-combat roles (this same option was offered to and turned down by Watada for his Iraq deployment, even if I personally think it was inappropriate for his particular situation) or assigned some alternative service altogether (Quakers provided relief to civilian war victims in France and Germany in World War I, pretty much staffed the forestry service and worked in mental hospitals during World War II, etc).

The US has a not so long tradition of extending tolerance for a person's moral convictions (much more so during the 20th century on than in America's early history, where being a conscientous objector could mean marching in front of the combat troops with a rifle physically tied to your back - if you won't fight, you can at least cause the enemy to waste some of their bullets on you).

While I may not share their religious beliefs, I've always had a lot of respect for how Quakers balance their religious beliefs and support for their country.

 

[Choronzon]

One is a valid ideology, the other is a paranoid/racist delusion?

They're both nothing more than beliefs chosen by a number of people. There is no reason to believe pacifism is anything more than moral cowardice or an unwillingness to defend one's nation just like there is really no reason to believe that the birther movement is founded on anything more than hatred of Obama or racism.

Bottom line, if one citizen doesn't have to pick up a rifle because he/she doesn't want to kill people, then the next citizen shouldn't have to because he/she doesn't like black people. In my opinion, anyways, which I admit is only worth exactly as much as yours—no more.

 

[Frame Dragger]

They're both nothing more than beliefs chosen by a number of people. There is no reason to believe pacifism is anything more than moral cowardice or an unwillingness to defend one's nation just like there is really no reason to believe that the birther movement is founded on anything more than hatred of Obama or racism.

Bottom line, if one citizen doesn't have to pick up a rifle because he/she doesn't want to kill people, then the next citizen shouldn't have to because he/she doesn't like black people. In my opinion, anyways, which I admit is only worth exactly as much as yours—no more.

You're entitled to your opinion. My response is a shocked expression followed by laughter.

 

[Galteeth]

You're entitled to your opinion. My response is a shocked expression followed by laughter.

While his argument on the face seems absurd, consider the following example. Supposse a particular religion has a rule disallowing its members from serving in any capacity with a person of different race. Why would freedom of religion cover one religously based objection but not another? It does seem the government in a sense, if they allowed one exemption but not another, would be evaluating the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

While his argument on the face seems absurd, consider the following example. Supposse a particular religion has a rule disallowing its members from serving in any capacity with a person of different race. Why would freedom of religion cover one religously based objection but not another? It does seem the government in a sense, if they allowed one exemption but not another, would be evaluating the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

It is not necessarily a matter of evaluating the legitimacy of religious beliefs. One can simply consider the impact on individual rights. There are religions that do not allow their adherents to be in contact with females on certain days or when they are menstruating. It is still not legal to discriminate against women or deny them their rights based on the day of the year or month.

 

[BobG]

While his argument on the face seems absurd, consider the following example. Supposse a particular religion has a rule disallowing its members from serving in any capacity with a person of different race. Why would freedom of religion cover one religously based objection but not another? It does seem the government in a sense, if they allowed one exemption but not another, would be evaluating the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

Yes, the government used to evaluate the legitimacy of religious convictions when it decided whether to assign conscientious objector status. Lifelong members of religions with a long history of pacifism were almost automatically granted conscientious objector status, based on the legitimacy their religion built up over time. That legitimacy was built by the actions of past members demonstrating the beliefs were sincere; not on the beliefs themselves.

That changed some in 1971, with the USSC's ruling in Gillette v United States. Conscientious objector status should be based on the individual's beliefs about war, not what religion he belongs to. Except when a person is only 19, it's a lot harder to demonstrate a personal history of being opposed to war than it is to show membership in a church, so some bias, whether intended or not, is practically unavoidable.

In other words, it was a legitimate concern for the military that many draftees with no prior opinions about war would suddenly find the idea of personally dying in a war to be very objectionable. The military was justified in asking for some objective confirmation that a person was, and had been for some time, opposed to war on moral grounds (and not political grounds).

Gillette v United States is also why Watada had no chance to win his case about deploying to Iraq, since it upheld the government's stance that a person couldn't be a conscientious objector to one particular war. Objecting to a particular war would be objecting on political grounds; not moral convictions about war in general.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Yes, the government used to evaluate the legitimacy of religious convictions when it decided whether to assign conscientious objector status. Lifelong members of religions with a long history of pacifism were almost automatically granted conscientious objector status, based on the legitimacy their religion built up over time. That legitimacy was built by the actions of past members demonstrating the beliefs were sincere; not on the beliefs themselves.

That changed some in 1971, with the USSC's ruling in Gillette v United States. Conscientious objector status should be based on the individual's beliefs about war, not what religion he belongs to. Except when a person is only 19, it's a lot harder to demonstrate a personal history of being opposed to war than it is to show membership in a church, so some bias, whether intended or not, is practically unavoidable.

In other words, it was a legitimate concern for the military that many draftees with no prior opinions about war would suddenly find the idea of personally dying in a war to be very objectionable. The military was justified in asking for some objective confirmation that a person was, and had been for some time, opposed to war on moral grounds (and not political grounds).

Gillette v United States is also why Watada had no chance to win his case about deploying to Iraq, since it upheld the government's stance that a person couldn't be a conscientious objector to one particular war. Objecting to a particular war would be objecting on political grounds; not moral convictions about war in general.

That makes a great deal of sense, a wise legal decision.