Conscientious objector
From Freepedia
A conscientious objector is an individual whose personal beliefs are incompatible with military service, perhaps with any role in the armed forces or just with a particular war. This constitutes a conflict in the case of conscription.
Conscientious objectors may distinguish between wars of offensive aggression and defensive wars. The opposition to war need not be absolute and total, but may depend on circumstance. The only real criterion that defines a conscientious objector is that they be sincerely following the dictates of their conscience.
The legal status of conscientious objectors has varied over the years and from nation to nation. Many conscientious objectors have been imprisoned or executed for refusing to participate in wars. In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that it is not necessary for a conscientious objector to have a religious basis for their beliefs.
Contents |
Religious motives
The reasons for refusing to serve are varied. Many conscientious objectors are so for religious reasons — notably, the Quakers are pacifist by doctrine and Jehovah's Witnesses, who, while not strictly speaking pacifists, refuse to participate in the armed services on the grounds that they believe Christians should be neutral in worldly conflicts. Some look at Romans 12:19, which says, Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. Other objections can stem from a deep sense of responsibility toward humanity as a whole, or from simple denial that any government should have that kind of moral authority.
One argument used by some Christian objectors is that every soldier should be given the choice to go home before every battle according to Deuteronomy 20:8 which states, Then the officers shall add, "Is any man afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his brothers will not become disheartened too." By this interpretation, any military draft as well as all military service that is based on enlistment in years or tours of duty would be unethical without the option to refuse any battle without punishment. This interpretation makes almost all wars in violation of Christian Just War Theory.
Because of their conscientious objection to participation in military service, whether armed or unarmed, Jehovah's Witnesses have often faced imprisonment or other penalties. In Greece, for example, before the introduction of alternative civilian service in 1997, hundreds of Witnesses were imprisoned, some for three years or even more for their refusal. More recently, in Armenia, young Jehovah's Witnesses have been imprisoned (and remain in prison) because of their conscientious objection to military service. In Switzerland, virtually every Jehovah's Witness is exempted from military service. The Finnish government exempts Jehovah's Witnesses from the draft completely.
Alternatives for objectors
Some conscientious objectors are unwilling to serve the military in any capacity, while others are willing to serve in non-combatant roles. In World War I, many conscientious objectors in the US drove ambulances, often under fire. In World War II, some conscientious objectors in the US volunteered for hazardous scientific experiments. After the War, conscientious objectors in the Soviet Union or the German Democratic Republic were typically assigned to construction units, in the absence of a fully civilian alternative to military service.
Today, in several countries objectors can serve as field paramedics in the army (which is, by some opinions, no real alternative as it helps to make war more humane instead of preventing it), or they can serve without arms, but this has its problems too. In European countries like Germany or Switzerland, there is a possibility to join Civilian Service, to which admission is given after review of a written application or after a hearing about the state of conscience (see below). In Switzerland, the Civilian Service is 1.5 times as long as the military service; German civilan service has, since 1983, to be longer than military duty by statute. The military doctrine on civilian service is upheld, however: in case of war, civilian draftees are to replace those on active military duty in their civilian professions.
The last theoretical alternatives to avoid military or civilian service altogether would be to be punished for draft dodging and serve a prison time; or to falsely claim unfitness for duty by faking an allergy or a heart condition; or to delay conscription until the maximum drafting age; or to flee to a country which does not turn draft dodgers in. In the US, this has been the case during the Vietnam War as many young people fled to Canada.
Hearings about the state of the conscience
In the US, every conscientous objector has to appear in front of a panel of experts, which consists of psychiatrists, army chaplains and officers. In Switzerland, the panel consists entirely of civilians and military personnel have no authority whatsoever. In Germany, objections to military service are filed in writing, and an oral hearing is only scheduled if the written memorial has been unconvincing; in practice, due to the heavy workload - nowadays about half of all draftees in a given year file memorials as conscientious objectors - the competent authority reviews written applications only summarily, and it denies the alternative of a civilian service only in cases of grave shortcomings or inconsistencies in the written memorial. Commonly, once an objector is summoned to a hearing, he has to explain what experiences drove him to recognise a conflict concerning his conscience.
Common questions at hearings
- In general: How and when did you decide against the military service? Why can't you arrange military service with your conscience? What prohibits you to serve in the military?
- Military service: Do you fear having to fight, or to use force? Do you want to abolish the army? What do you think about the phrase "We have the army to defend us, not to kill others"?
- Use of force: What would you do if you're attacked? What do you feel when you see that others are attacked? What is violence, exactly? Would you rather experience losses than having to use force?
- Belief: What does your belief say? Would you describe yourself as a pacifist? What basic values, beside objecting to violence, do you have? What entity gives you the certainty that your thinking and your feelings are right?
- Implementation of your beliefs: Why didn't you chose to go into prison if your conscience is that strong? Why didn't you use medical reasons to avoid military service? What do you actually do to further peace, or is your attitude the only peaceful thing about you?
- Personality: Who is in charge of defending your children in case of an armed conflict? Do you live your ethical principles inside your family? What books do you read? What do you demand from yourself? Are you merely a leader, a follower or a loner?
These are common questions from Swiss hearings.[1] By and large, these are asked in many other countries. They help to determine if the objector is politically motivated or if he is just too lazy to serve the country; or if he truly has a conflict stemming from his conscience. Arguments like "The army is senseless", "It is not just to wage wars" or opposition to involvement in a specific war (World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War; a hypothetical war of West Germany against fellow Germans from the GDR during the Cold War) will hardly ever be accepted. He has only, and convincingly, to show that his conscience does not allow participation in an organisation which is intended to use violence.
Criticism of such hearings
Hypothetical situations
In hearings about one's personal conflicts of conscience, here and there some subtleties may arise. One example from interrogations in Germany was about a plank of wood floating on the sea, and you, shipwrecked, need cling to it in order to save your life. Another person swims nearby and he also is in severe need of this plank. If you deny him this plank, you are apparently ready to accept the killing of a human being, and therefore able to serve in the military. Otherwise, when you would give the plank to your fellow shipwrecked being, you are willing to die and therefore not credible. "Well, it comes to a fight!" is not a good answer either because it is elusive, and in stating that there would be a fight you imply that somebody might get killed.
In other examples, the interviewers wanted to know if you're ready to kill someone in personal self-defence, perhaps when your girlfriend is in immediate danger. The analogy to a possible commitment in the military is wrong since defending an emotionally close person rarely damages your personality, but in the military you're forced into a situation where you have to commit collective self-defence. Another example was that by driving a car, you could kill someone by mistake. Since the objector in question refused to waive his driving licence, he was deemed to be untrustworthy.
In various places, questions about such hypothetical situations have come into disuse because they do not explore the present-day state of the objector's conflict of conscience, but possible future actions which, with a great probability, will never take place. In the 1980s, this type of questions were abolished in Germany after the Constitutional Court found them unconstitutional.
Similar hearings and questions about hypothetical situations were in use in Finland for the most part of the history of Finnish conscientious objection, from its introduction in the 1930s to the 1980s, when they were abolished. Today, draftees have to specify whether they are objecting for religious or ethical reasons, but hearings are no longer held.
Hearings for those willing to serve?
Many conscient objectors find it unfair having to prove that they have reasons to object. They maintain that people who are willing to serve in the military should be subject to such hearings because they are more willing to kill, and a readiness to take others' lives is something the society tries to prevent.
See also
- Amnesty International
- Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
- Christian anarchism
- Conscientious objection throughout the world
- Fellowship of Reconciliation
- Friends' Ambulance Unit
- List of pacifist faiths
- Pacifism
- Peace Churches
- Tax resistance
- War Resisters League
- Parisi v. Davidson
External links
- Center on Conscience and War (formerly the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors)
- Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO)
- Conscience - the peace tax campaign
- International Fellowship of Reconciliation
- National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee
- War Resisters International
- "Thoughts for Young Men ..." a one-page leaflet
- Manifesto against conscription and the military system, with an updated list of all signatories from 1993 to 2005
