rpjs

For me it's academic as not only am I too old to have to register with the SSS, my eyesight is so bad that any army that deemed me fit for military service would have to be on the verge of capitulation to do so.

I am not a pacifist, but I do object to conscription on principle. I'd resist being conscripted by the UK if I was living there, because it would be without my consent. Brenda and her minions have never asked me if I'm willing to bear arms for Queen and Country. If conscription were reintroduced in the UK it would be deemed that I would simply because I was born a UK citizen.

But here's the thing: becoming a US citizen as an immigrant, is a choice, and the US makes it clear that a condition of it being granted is willingness to serve, subject to the exceptions herein discussed. As I'm not a pacifist, I'd have to check the "Yes" box for the question, and I'd willingly accept conscription in the unlikely event it happened as I have been asked for my consent and given it.

Sally Redux

Are you just making up your own definition?

Michael

I agree but there is a very fine line between being a pacifist and not being a pacifist. Most people (including myself) don't believe that they have a right to take another person's life unless they feel threatened. During WWII it was much easier to perceive that threat but with today's wars, it is much harder to perceive the threat.

Today just saying you are a pacifist somehow doesn't seem real since the threat doesn't seem real. Just not liking the taking of another person's life is common among both pacifists and non pacifists.

Until Pearl Harbor was bombed, most of congress and Americans were pacifists since it was assumed that the oceans would protect us.

md95065

I pretty much agree with you (and, FWIW, while I am generally opposed to war and violence I do not consider myself to be a pacifist - what I will or will not be prepared to do will depend on the circumstances in which I find myself at the time).

The problem here was all about the way in which "religion" was being used as the one and only litmus test of whether of not a person could be considered to be a bona fide pacifist.

Sally Redux

I wonder if they would actually check up on your religious affiliation and practice.

It's quite ridiculous and has no place in modern society. While they're at it, ditch the tax breaks.

sir_eccles

It brings to light a distinction between being "against wars" and being "against this war" which then leads on to the moral right of all soldiers to question immoral orders. Do we get to pick and choose which things we find distasteful as it suits us?

Nutek

Religion seems to cause most conflicts. Funny that you need to use it as a reason to not join in.

kimilseung

I have not read up on the recent incident, but I did read up on not serving, it was a while ago now so I may have selective memory, but while it seemed easier to prove your position from a religious point of view I don't remember anything that stipulated it as a requirement. So this might be a storm in a tea-cup. Although the issue might be lack of documented evidence which if so, is giving churches a lot of unworthy credibility if they just take the religious word for it

Mrs Danvers

Oh I'm a pacifist. But you can bet your bottom dollar I've taken shooting lessons. And guess what? They were fun!

But in real life I'm a nurse and should something terrible happen I'm probably going to end up what I do anyway.

RoadWarriorFromLP

There are two issues:

-A draft is constitutional. One can't object to being included in it except as a "conscientious objector"

-A "conscientious objector" has to have religious grounds, essentially for First Amendment reasons. It's a religious freedom issue, not so much a value judgment of whether your reasoning is good or otherwise valid.

kimilseung

As I wrote above, I was not under that assumption, can you reference that?

edit: I just did a quick google and got this:
"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical"
from http://www.sss.gov/fsconsobj.htm

md95065

While you may very well be correct in your analysis of the constitutional issues as they have been interpreted in the past it doesn't alter the fact that, if the constitution does indeed imply that only members of an organized religion or church can have a "conscientious objection" (and, presumably, "a conscience") then the constitution is wrong (and, of course, it wouldn't be the first time that has happened ...)

... and, come to think of it, doesn't that interpretation violate the equal protection clause by giving more "rights" to people that have religious beliefs than to people who do not ...

RoadWarriorFromLP

US v. Seeger

"the test of belief 'in a relation to a Supreme Being' is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption."

The belief doesn't have to be a specific faith, but it does have to be sincerely held and hold the importance in your life that a religion does.

It's a matter of degree. If you have trouble proving that you really mean it and that it comes from some greater place, then the argument could fail. Seeger was able to cite philosophers, etc. and establish that he had a belief system to guide him, which made his position akin to a faith.

RoadWarriorFromLP

The original language of the Second Amendment read as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The Congress dumped the "no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" clause because they didn't want the average citizen to be able to pick and choose their wars.

This is an old issue, and the country has generally been loathe to allow too many people to escape service. A lot of conscientious objectors have their requests denied.

md95065

... and actually I am pretty much OK with that - what I am not OK with is the idea that someone who claims that their conscientious objection is based on their religious beliefs is more likely to have that claim accepted than someone whose beliefs do not involve religion ...