{"id":8328,"date":"2010-11-15T00:00:45","date_gmt":"2010-11-14T23:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=8328"},"modified":"2010-11-10T20:35:17","modified_gmt":"2010-11-10T19:35:17","slug":"war-and-conscience-expanding-the-definition-of-conscientious-objection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2010\/11\/war-and-conscience-expanding-the-definition-of-conscientious-objection\/","title":{"rendered":"War and Conscience: Expanding the Definition of Conscientious Objection"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since Vietnam, the military\u2019s rules governing conscientious objector<\/a> status have effectively required service members to declare themselves pacifists in order to qualify. Conscientious objection, as defined by military regulation <\/a>(pdf) is \u201ca firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms.\u201d<\/p>\n

That phrase, \u201cwar in any form,\u201d has meant that people who objected to war X, but not war Y, were almost certain not to receive objector status. In recent years, some service members filed for the status arguing that they were willing to serve in Afghanistan but not Iraq. Their applications failed.<\/p>\n

Nidal Malik Hasan,<\/a> the Army major charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood last year, reportedly considered seeking conscientious objector status because he opposed fighting against other Muslims. But he was told he would not qualify because he was not against all wars.<\/p>\n

But today, Nov. 10, a coalition of around 60 mostly left-leaning religious, veterans and anti-war groups are calling on Congress to expand the definition of conscientious objection to allow opposition to a particular war. Leaders of the coalition, the Truth Commission on Conscience in War,<\/a> assert that broadening the definition would probably lead to more troops applying to become conscientious objectors. But it would also allow for greater religious freedom in the military and improve morale among the troops, they say.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor many of us, it is a religious freedom issue,\u201d said Rita N. Brock, one of the main organizers of the commission. \u201cThe only religious conscience protected now is for pacifists. But the majority of people are not pacifists. I\u2019m not a pacifist. We have a relative view of when violence is appropriate and not appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ms. Brock, a former professor of religion and women\u2019s studies whose stepfather fought in World War II and Vietnam, said one of the commission\u2019s goals is to allow service members who oppose certain wars to remain in the military, serving either in noncombat roles or in conflicts they can support.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe want to make it easier for them to follow their moral conscience and serve in the military,\u201d she said. \u201cWe want to forestall moral injury,<\/a> which is a Veterans Administration category of treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Paradoxically, her willingness to support conscientious objectors who want to remain in the military made it hard for the commission to raise money, Ms. Brock said. \u201cPeace activists couldn\u2019t get behind the idea of supporting the military,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

The Truth Commission, which Ms. Brock and a co-organizer modeled after a commission formed in South Africa after the fall of apartheid, held hearings at Riverside Church in New York last March in which more than a dozen authors, theologians, veterans, mental health experts and anti-war activists testified.<\/p>\n

Their testimony can be seen here<\/a> and the commission\u2019s final report can be read here.<\/a> (pdf)<\/p>\n

The report asserts that \u201cmoral dilemmas\u201d have contributed to the rising number of suicides among service members, though scientific evidence for that is far from conclusive. And commission leaders argue that the number of active duty troops with \u201cmoral dilemmas\u201d about one or both wars that the United States is currently fighting is much higher than the relatively small number of service members who apply for conscientious objector each year.<\/p>\n

(According to a report<\/a> (pdf) by the Government Accountability Office in 2007, 425 service members sought objector status between 2002 and 2006; about half were approved.)<\/p>\n

The commission next plans to recruit members of Congress to sponsor legislation to change the current rules. One draft bill includes provisions that would increase protections for service members who seek conscientious objector status, including the requirement that applicants not be required to deploy.<\/p>\n

The chances of getting such legislation through a Republican-controlled House are slim, commission members acknowledge. Even before the elections, many Democrats opposed expanding the definition of conscientious objector, arguing that it would allow service members to avoid deployment for political, not just religious, reasons.<\/p>\n

But that won\u2019t stop the members from trying, they say.<\/p>\n

\u201cHow strong is our democracy if we can\u2019t seriously support people who are trying to be true to their values,\u201d said Bill Galvin, counseling coordinator for the Center on Conscience & War,<\/a> a group that has been helping conscientious objectors since World War II.<\/p>\n

\u201cEspecially when they are decent values, like: I don\u2019t want to kill or hurt people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 nytimes.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since Vietnam, the military\u2019s rules governing conscientious objector status have effectively required service members to declare themselves pacifists in order to qualify. Conscientious objection, as defined by military regulation (pdf) is \u201ca firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms.\u201d That phrase, \u201cwar in any form,\u201d has meant that people who objected to war X, but not war Y, were almost certain not to receive objector status. In recent years, some service members filed for the status arguing that they were willing to serve in Afghanistan but not Iraq. Their applications failed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-militarism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8328","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}