| Sunday, December 15, 2002 A talk for the Prairie Unitarian Universalist Society. As we reflect on the headlines and TV stories about war on terrorism and the threatened war with Iraq, we naturally think of the implications of this for those young men and women of an age eligible for military service. Where we question the wisdom and morality of war, the questions about conscientious objection follow understandably. I view this question through my own experience. I am a veteran of world war two. I volunteered induction, and as an 18 year old who followed closely the news of the Nazi horrors in Europe and the Japanese aggression in the Pacific, I was convinced of the rightness of going into service and doing what I could. The issue of conscientious objection did not exist for me. During the war, I served in the Signal Corp and the Medical Corp. After basic training, I never had my hand on a rifle. I used a camera in non combat assignments in the Philippines and after the war in Japan. The turning point for me was the dropping of the first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. I had been a reader of science fiction, and I knew something about the destructive potential of nuclear weapons. I knew that war was obsolete as a method of protecting human values including liberty. Either we eliminated war, or war would knock us back to the stone age if it didn't eliminate the human race entirely. However you frame the question, whatever the motive, the time comes when, if you are of military age, you have to decide which way to go, to fight and be part of the war machine or find an alternative. When the Korean war started, the draft was resumed, and I applied for CO status. Being a veteran, I got a veteran's exemption. The important thing was that looking into the questions asked in the application form for CO status led me to more deeply pursue a study that has gone on the rest of my life, a study into the nature of nonviolence as an alternative to violence. Conscientious objection, as we know it today, may have begun in the 16th century in Europe with the Mennonites and in the 17th century in England with the Society of Friends, the Quakers, who saw the contradiction in the civil wars fought in the 1640s and 50s. Quakers opted out of those wars and defined themselves, in part, by their adherence to peaceful ways. During the American Revolution and the Civil war, COs could buy their way out of military service or provide noncombat assistance. During World War one, the story is mixed. Some COs were imprisoned, a few died in prison, some went to France in ambulance units. Some were allowed to do alternative service. The alternative service model tried late in World War one, became a central feature of conscientious objection during the draft from 1940 to the end of the draft in 1972. To provide information and counseling for potential COs, three traditional peace churches, the Society of Friends, the Mennonites, and the Church of the Brethren together founded the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, the CCCO. They provided potential COs with information on the process ofthe draft so COs could prepare themselves. From the start of W.W.II until 1972 the process a draftee would go through started with registering and later receiving a notice of classification 1A. At that point the young man had an opportunity to request another classification including CO status. A form for that purpose could be requested. When he received the form, the agony started. He had just a few days to answer some tough questions. If he didn't get the form back to Selective Service within the time allowed, I think it was just one week, his application would be denied. Here are some of the questions asked. 1) Describe the beliefs which are the basis for your claim as a conscientious objector. 2) Will your beliefs permit you to serve in the armed forces in a position where the use of weapons is not required? If not, why not? 3) Explain how you acquired the beliefs which are the basis of your claim. 4) Explain what most clearly shows that your beliefs are deeply held. 5) Do your beliefs affect the way you live? Describe how your beliefs will affect the way you will earn your living or the types of activity you participate in during nonworking hours. 6) Describe any specific actions or incidents in your life that show you believe as you do? 7) Given your beliefs, under what circumstances is a violent response justified? Many who had not prepared themselves well in advance, had a very difficult time finding answers in a few days to those questions. Some had a nervous breakdown over the dilemmas built into the questions. The advice given by CO counselors then, and now, is the prepare well in advance. The CCCO organization continues to provide current information to help young men decide whether or not they are COs, and if they are, to be recognized as such. Since the end of the draft in 1972, they continue to provide assistance to men and women in the military who, after enlisting, and finding out what they would be expected to do during war, discovered that they were COs. The US Military defines CO as a firm, fixed and sincere objection to war in any form or the bearing of arms because of deeply held moral, ethical or religious beliefs. Fortunately, that recognition of the CO position is there. However, getting out of the military with an honorable discharge as a CO is an arduous, painful, and exhausting process, but thousands have made that journey, usually with the help of the CCCO. In 1982 Draft registration was resumed even though the selective service mechanism was not used to induct men. Since then, young men have been required to register for the draft at the post office within a month before or after turning 18. Penalties for non registration can be severe and include losing financial aids for attending college. The Selective Service Administration has not issued regulations specifying what procedure would be used to provide exemptions for conscientious objection. The procedure may be something like this: If the draft is reactivated, those registered would be assigned a lottery number. Depending on the number of men needed, some percentage would be classified 1A. Those whose numbers came up in the lottery would receive an order to report for induction. On receiving that order, they would have a few days to apply for an exemption including CO status. This could begin a series of hurdles similar to those the earlier generation of COs had to cross. Some form would need to be completed with questions like those I gave previously. Those who had given no thought to the questions of peace or war, those who had taken no action on peace issues or had not demonstrated a commitment to humanitarian work would have a hard time making a CO claim. The CCCO recommends several steps be taken soon. Get a copy of the book titled Choosing Peace: a Handbook of War, Peace and your Conscience. It is published by the CCCO. It details both philosophical considerations and technicalities of the process the potential CO will need to know. Be active in the peace movement or related humanitarian activities to demonstrate genuineness of opposition to military means. Keep documentation of your activities. Write letters to the editor and keep copies Keep copies of correspondence or other documents showing work for peace Discuss your commitment to peace with friends, pastor, parents, Get them to write letters of support as documentation of sincerity. If you are a member of a faith community, know and refer to the position your denomination has taken on CO status and war. The Unitarian-Universalists long ago adopted a strong stand supporting the decision to become a conscientious objector. That statement should be available from your denomination offices, if not if your library. The CCCO also has those statements on file. It published a book of them, now long out of print, but probably it can be found in Unitarian Universalist libraries. Ask yourself are you prepared to go to prison if turned down. This maybe a test of your sincerity. Give personal experiences with the training or teachings of your faith. Few men received CO status just on the basis of their written application. Most that I know about had to go through one or more hearing before the local draft board and answer their questions. Some had to go through a long series of hearings and appeals ending up in court. In those hearings, the questions often were tougher than those in the application form. What do you do when .... (fill in the blank with any violent and aggressive action from) i. the raving maniac about to attack your grandmother to ii. Hitler rolling into Poland or iii. Saddam Hussein going into Kuwait. You would be expected to come up, off the top of your head, with answers to questions that philosophers have struggled with for centuries without reaching agreement. Candidates for CO status did find some answers to those questions, however. If we assume that the insane violent attacker is a sub human of no worth, then killing might be rationalized, but if we consider that both the aggressor and the victim are beings of value, and you can define value in several ways; children of God, a loved brother or friend suffering from illness, however you might define the infinite worth of another being, then the task becomes more complicated. How can the violence be interrupted so as to save both the aggressor and the victim? There is no simple answer to that question but bold and creative action can divert or calm impeding violence and create the opportunity for constructively dealing with the causes of the hostility. The question of nations like Hitler's Germany frequently comes up. While there are some dramatic examples of nonviolence resistance against totalitarian aggression, the answer is really in prevention. This leads us into examining history and seeing what could have been done differently If, at the end of WW I Germany had not been held to conditions that brought on the disastrous economic collapse of the 1920s, Hitler's rise to power might well not have happened. Peace and Justice go hand in hand. While rethinking history is a game that can be played both ways, it is a useful exercise because it points to the importance of prevention. It points to the need for early recognition of the suffering of our fellow humans and organizing the resources of the world to address the pain and injustice that can become the motivators for totalitarian rule and aggression. In looking at the possible answers to those hard questions, we may find it useful to distinguish between three ways of looking at the issues. One is the rationale for providing the CO exemption. The second is the idealized pacifist position supported or attacked by theoretical arguments about what if it would happen under ideal or hypothetical circumstances. The third is a pragmatic peace maker position which is based on emerging workable knowledge of how conflicts have been resolved peacefully. The CO question is a little different from the pacifist or peace maker questions, but the CO is often expected to take his or her views to the logical conclusion of advocating a stereotyped and idealized pacifist position for the nation which then can be debated on hypothetical grounds. Let's take another approach to the questions. A well armed nation can tolerate a small minority of COs as long as the military has the people and resources it needs. Besides that, the army doesn't want COs in its ranks questioning each lethal strategy or authoritarian discipline. The pacifist position, which many COs take, would move the world toward disarmament. Build a world without the military and without war. Substitute nonviolence for violence. But it has only a hypothetical basis for speculating on how this could come about. The peace maker avoids the idealized paradoxes of the stereotyped pacifist position. Paradoxically many veterans, including military officers with the rank of general and admiral have come to see the folly of war and the need for nonviolent ways to prevent war. A middle way is emerging that makes it possible to work realistically for aworld without war. This involves strengthening international institutions and early constructive intervention to address injustice and developing conflict. Apply the methods of conflict resolution to redirect energies toward constructive outcomes. This was demonstrated through the methods of Mediation demonstrated by the work of Jimmy Carter and recognized by his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. The CO, by taking a personal stand against war, with the expectation that his or her life will reflect those beliefs and values, can make a valuable contribution to society. Many COs have gone on to make important contributions to society by translating the values that lead them to take the CO position into careers in the helping professions. I started out referring to the current threat of war with Iraq as a reminder that expanded war would lead to a reactivated military draft. Yes, that is possible, but it is not the main reason for young people becoming an active part of the peace movement. It is their future. All of us need to build a culture of peace, a culture of positive address to the problems of this shrinking world. The military response only adds to the problems. Many observe with deep concern the dangerous tension between the United States of America and Iraq, including our U.S. government's assertion of the possible need for a "preemptive" war. Many who are not pacifists join the peacemakers to wholeheartedly oppose such a war, waged for any reason. We believe the current conflict can be resolved if we join in a spirit of reconciliation and love and build bridges through peaceful, good faith efforts. Therefore, we call upon the leaders and the people of Iraq, the United States, and all nations to begin dialogue now to construct the common ground that can take away the occasion for war and take away war itself. The war on terrorism inspires extending that dialogue further. To think clearly about terrorism, it's useful to define it. In 1937 the League of Nations defined terrorism as: "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public. The violence of terrorism attributed to the al-Qaeda network is opposed by United States military action. Some terrorists have been killed and more will be killed. As a side effect, military errors resulted in deaths and injury to innocent civilians. The killing generates resentment that motivates others to join the terrorist ranks. Some terrorists escape and go further underground to emerge later. There may be no one with whom to negotiatea peace settlement. What lesson can be learned from this? Terrorism cannot be defeated by military means. This is because terrorism is a symptom of other problems that have been long neglected. What can be done? The focus of United States foreign policy could be on steps toward ending war including the war between Israel and Palestine. Further, advocate that the U.S. work with the United Nations for peace and justice rather than acting unilaterally. When the present crisis begins to be resolved, let the people and nations of the world strengthen the capacity of the United Nations to identify the early warning signs of conflict and terrorism. Urge all involved to examine their actions and learn from their effect on others. Apply all the knowledge and wisdom humanity has discovered to resolve whatever problems are involved. Apply what mediators have learned about conflict resolution. Reallocate what the nation now spends on waging war to preventing war. Make war unnecessary by eliminating the causes of war. The way is not easy, but because of the destructiveness of war and the vulnerability of our technological society, we affirm the ancient way of war is incompatible with the survival of civilization. We can urge our elected representatives to strengthen the United Nations so it can work to prevent war and terrorism rather than try to defeat it after it becomes manifest. To bring this broad perspective back to the conscientious objector, there is plenty of good work for any young person to do who wishes to establish a track record of work for peace. And not just young persons. Jackson Tiffany |