Skip to main content

United States v. Seeger

U.S. Marines in Operation Allen Brook (Vietnam War) 001I read the decision in US v. Seeger recently. It was one of those Vietnam era draft-objector cases.

It's worth reading and even re-reading, not only for historical interest, but because the Justices gave the impression of a genuine grappling with difficult theological terrain.

The Selective Service Act in effect at the time carved out an exemption for those who conscientiously opposed war out of their "religious training and belief" and it defined "religious" in a way that seemed to entail belief in a Supreme Being. Seeger (1965) marked the emergence of a broader notion of a conscientious objector, one going beyond the usual denominational suspects.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/

One of the draft resisters involved in this case had explained to his draft board that he believed there was "some power manifest in nature" which he was obeying by refusing to go to war. They could if they wanted "call that a belief in the Supreme Being or God. Those just do not happen to be the words I use."

The Supreme Court said, in effect, that he didn't have to use such words.

I appreciate their invocation of the theologian Paul Tillich, who wrote:  "The source of this affirmation of meaning within meaninglessness, of certitude within doubt, is not the God of traditional theism, but the 'God above God.' the power of being, which works through those who have no name for it, not even the name God."


Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryDecember 9, 2013 at 8:33 AM

    Exemptions from laws based on religious beliefs—whether of the traditional variety or the Seeger variety—at the same time go too far and not far enough. The First Amendment opens, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two clauses—the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause— conflict when the government gives an exemption based on religious beliefs. This is because an “establishment” of religion includes a governmental benefit to religion, and that is what an exemption is. No religion is entitled to an exemption; if it were, then the government could not apply the law against murder to religions that believe in human sacrifices.

    Thus, the law goes too far when it grants any exemptions based on religious belief. Such exemptions constitute a gift to religion, contrary, at least to the spirit of the Establishment Clause. And, in so favoring religion, such exemptions don’t go far enough. Suppose that I oppose a war not because of my religious beliefs, but because I think that the particular war is immoral—that my country unjustifiably invaded another country. Wouldn’t my reasoned decision be more worthy of respect than a belief that every war is wrong, regardless of the basis of the belief or the consequences of not fighting the war (Hitler’s taking over Europe, for example)? A religious opposition to war, after all, may have no more basis than that my parents raised me in a particular religion and did so because their parents raised them in that religion, and so forth. Thus, if the government is going to give the gift of an exemption, it should not do so on the basis of a person’s religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more