Conscientious Objectors: A Constitutional Debate

The status of conscientious objectors has been a constitutional issue due to the right to freedom of religion. Conscientious objectors are individuals who refuse to perform military service based on their religious or moral beliefs. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom, and the issue of conscientious objection has been the subject of several Supreme Court cases, such as United States v. Seeger (1965) and Gillette v. United States (1971). These cases have addressed the question of whether conscientious objection is limited to those with religious beliefs or extends to those with moral or ethical objections as well. While there is currently no specific statute or case law dealing with conscientious objection, international human rights frameworks, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, provide a legal basis for recognizing conscientious objection.

Explore related products

The Right to Conscientious Objection to Military Service and Turkey’s Obligations under International Human Rights Law

$36.21 $54.99

Classics of American Political and Constitutional Thought, Volume 1: Origins through the Civil War

$32

A Constitutional History of the United States

$49.6

The U.S. Constitution And Fascinating Facts About It

$4.85 $4.95

The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life, Vol. 1: The Odyssey of the Religion Clauses (New Forum Books)

$26.96 $81

Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787

$10.55 $19.99

Conscientious objection and freedom of religion

Conscientious objection refers to the right of an individual to refuse to perform military service based on their religious, moral, or ethical beliefs. This right is protected by the First Amendment in the United States, which guarantees freedom of religion and conscience. The First Amendment states:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The status of conscientious objectors has been a constitutional issue due to this protection of religious freedom. In the case of United States v. Seeger (1965), the Court interpreted the exemption to include those whose beliefs included a "Supreme Being", thus protecting the right to conscientious objection for those with religious beliefs. However, in Gillette v. United States (1971), the Court restricted conscientious objector status to those opposed to "war in any form", which validated Congress's choice to limit this status to those with religious foundations for their beliefs.

In some countries, conscientious objectors are assigned to alternative civilian service instead of military service. This is the case in Germany, where Article 4(3) of the Constitution states:

> No person may be forced against their conscience to perform armed military service.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, also upholds the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Article 18 states:

> Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

Despite these protections, conscientious objection remains a complex issue. In South Korea, for example, the government has been criticised by the U.N. Human Rights Committee for violating Article 18 of the ICCPR, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This criticism arose from petitions by South Korean conscientious objectors, highlighting the ongoing constitutional challenges surrounding conscientious objection and freedom of religion.

Conscientious objection and the right to alternative civilian service

Conscientious objection refers to an individual's right to refuse to perform military service based on freedom of conscience or religion. The status of conscientious objectors has been a constitutional issue due to the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. In the United States, the debate around conscientious objection has centred on whether it should be limited to those with religious objections to war or extended to those with moral or ethical objections.

Historically, conscientious objection was primarily associated with members of ""peace churches"" like the Quakers, Mennonites, and the Brethren, who practised pacifism. During World War I, the Selective Service Act of 1917 and the Draft Act of 1917 provided exemptions for conscientious objectors who were affiliated with well-recognized religious groups with pacifist tenets. However, those who objected on political, moral, or personal grounds were conscripted and punished if they refused to serve.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of conscientious objection in several cases, including United States v. Seeger (1965) and Welsh v. United States (1970). In United States v. Seeger, the Court interpreted the exemption to apply to those with a belief system that occupies a place in their life similar to the role of God in an orthodox believer's life. The "Supreme Being" clause was later deleted, and in Welsh v. United States, the Court construed the religion requirement to include moral, ethical, or religious grounds.

In Gillette v. United States (1971), the Court confronted a constitutional dilemma. Gillette objected to the Vietnam War but was not opposed to all wars. The Court clarified that objection to a particular war was not a valid basis for conscientious objection, upholding the congressional restriction of conscientious objector status to those opposed to "war in any form."

In Germany, the constitution protects the right to conscientious objection. Article 4(3) states, "No person may be forced against their conscience to perform armed military service," and Article 12a allows for conscientious objectors to perform non-military service (Wehrersatzdienst) or civilian service (Zivildienst) instead of military service. However, after World War II in East Germany, while objections were accepted, objectors were assigned to construction units within the military, and a fully civilian alternative did not exist.

While conscription has been suspended in some countries, conscientious objection remains relevant. The OHCHR believes that international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, create a legal framework that enables conscientious objection.

Conscientious objection in case law

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, which has been interpreted by courts to include the right to conscientious objection. The Supreme Court has been called upon to interpret the exemption for conscientious objection and its relation to the First Amendment, particularly in the context of military conscription during times of war.

One notable case is United States v. Seeger (1965), where the Court interpreted the language of the exemption to include those who had a "religious training and belief" and believed in a "Supreme Being". This interpretation was later expanded in Welsh v. United States (1970) to include moral, ethical, or religious grounds, even if the individual did not belong to an orthodox religious sect.

Another case, Gillette v. United States (1971), addressed the issue of conscientious objection in the context of the Vietnam War. The Court in this case declined to provide additional relief to conscientious objectors, clarifying that objection to a particular war was not a valid basis for asserting conscientious objection.

In Germany, the Federal Constitution Court decided in 1985 that conscientious objectors must cite a veritable conflict of conscience that made them unable to perform any kind of military service, rather than simply choosing military service out of convenience.

While conscientious objection is often based on religious beliefs, some countries, like Romania, have amended their constitutions to make military service optional, effectively abolishing conscription and the need for conscientious objection status.

Explore related products

Constitutional Government and Free Enterprise: A Biblical Christian Worldview Approach and Emphasis Interactive Notes

$52.5

The Constitution: Our Written Legacy

$25.84 $35.48

The American Constitution, Its Origins and Development

$52.54

Perilous Times: Free Speech In Wartime : From The Sedition Act Of 1798 To The War On Terrorism

$24.17 $35

Religion and the Constitution, Volume 2: Establishment and Fairness

$47 $47

The United States Constitution and Citizens' Rights: The Interpretation and Mis-Interpretation of the American Contract for Governance

$19.99

Conscientious objection and the difficulty of determining sincerity

Conscientious objection is the right claimed by an individual to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of conscience, religion, or personal beliefs. The status of conscientious objectors has been a constitutional issue due to the difficulty in determining the sincerity of their objections, especially when claims are based on personal beliefs rather than religious doctrine.

Historically, conscientious objection was primarily associated with members of "peace churches", such as the Quakers, Mennonites, and the Church of the Brethren, who practiced pacifism. However, the concept has evolved to include objections based on political, moral, ethical, or sociological grounds, which can be more challenging to assess.

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and the right to conscientious objection has been recognised in various court cases. In United States v. Seeger (1965), the Court interpreted the exemption to include those who believed in a "'Supreme Being', encompassing all types of faith. Later, in Welsh v. United States (1970), the Court construed the religion requirement more broadly to include moral, ethical, or religious grounds, recognising that the validity of a belief should not be the main inquiry as it could lead to inconsistencies and excessive deliberation.

Despite these rulings, determining the sincerity of conscientious objection claims remains a complex issue. In Gillette v. United States (1971), the Court restricted conscientious objection status to those opposed to "war in any form", excluding those opposed to specific wars. This highlighted the challenge of differentiating sincere conscientious objectors from those with fraudulent claims, especially when objections are based on personal beliefs rather than religious doctrine.

The rise of the Internet has further complicated this issue, as individuals can easily download and replicate existing conscientious objection statements, raising doubts about the sincerity of their claims. As a result, some countries, like Germany, have implemented measures where applicants must appear before a panel to explain their reasons for objecting, demonstrating a genuine conflict of conscience that makes them unable to perform any kind of military service.

Conscientious objection and the First Amendment

Conscientious objection is the "right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of conscience or religion. The status of conscientious objectors has been a constitutional issue because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The German Constitution, for instance, states that "No person may be forced against their conscience to perform armed military service".

In the United States, the issue of conscientious objection has been addressed in several court cases, including United States v. Seeger (1965), Welsh v. United States (1970), and Gillette v. United States (1971). In United States v. Seeger, the Court interpreted the exemption limiting conscientious objector status to those with "religious training and belief" to mean that a person must have a belief that occupies a significant place in their life, similar to the role of God in the life of an orthodox believer. The "Supreme Being" clause was later deleted, and in Welsh v. United States, the religion requirement was construed as inclusive of moral, ethical, or religious grounds.

In Gillette v. United States, the Court confronted a constitutional problem regarding the congressional restriction of conscientious objector status to those opposed to "war in any form". The Court acknowledged that some religious or conscientious objectors were only opposed to specific wars, judging the "justness" of each war based on various factors. The Court ultimately rejected Gillette's claim, clarifying that objection to a particular war is not a valid basis for conscientious objection.

The treatment of conscientious objectors has varied historically, with some receiving exemptions, while others have been fined or imprisoned. Before the American Revolution, most conscientious objectors were members of "peace churches" like the Quakers and Mennonites, who practised pacifism. During World War I, alternative service options were provided for religious objectors, but those with political, moral, or personal objections were conscripted and punished if they refused. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 during World War II mandated alternative service for those who refused to fight due to religious beliefs.

Frequently asked questions