Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan
I don't doubt that this is what they're doing - this is more likely just Beuracracy as opposed to Malice - but that's precisely the problem. The idea that this kind of conviction can only come from faith/faith-like things.
In fact, What's interesting in the second link, where it says atheists are not excluded, is the wording:
So it seems that the only way an Atheist can get an exemption is if it's determined that the claim springs in part from FAITH.
In any case, Kontan - if you hold that it's acceptable to lie in this situation - why not just lie when you take the oath? And for that matter why don't atheists or gays or trans people just stay in the closet for their entire lives?
Oppression never goes away if it's not confronted - which I suspect is why the woman in question cited her atheism the way she did in her original letter.
The point isn' that you can just lie - the point is you shouldn't HAVE to lie.
|
Please stop comparing being an atheist to being a gender or sexual minority. Its not the same at all.
"Faith" is the language used because this is replacing the old rule that you had to be of a particular religion that had it set in stone that military service is wrong. The Court can't say anyone who's anyone who kinda thinks war is wrong is exempt, this rule was made during the Vietnam War, remember, and after the escalation in 1968. Desertion rates were high and the penalty severe. A lot of people were trying a lot of different things to get out. Some men showed up to the draft board in dresses, shot up on drugs beforehand, etc. And a lot draft boards didn't care, one board had a member of the KKK on the board for years.
You can't get CO status if you disagree with a particular war. You have to be a pacifist. You have to strongly be a pacifist. The Supreme Court can't give so much legitmacy to disagreeing with a particular war, which would have excluded most draft able men and most of the enlisted army, or even a inkling that all wars are bad. Its easier to prove when you're a devout Mennonite, but how does a Muslim or atheist prove it (yes, the Supreme Court ruled that atheists can be COs a year before they decided Muhammad Ali could claim as a Muslim he was a CO, after years of legal wrangling)? They have to show that their conviction is as strong as the faith of a Mennonite.
They can't say that pacifism is a logical rational choice. Where would the war go then? They have to say it can only operate as a faith, a personal conviction that is very strong but is not based on evidence or rationality. Your disagreement with war has to be a strong
personal conviction (faith), not an argument.
And I'd argue that being atheist and being faithless are not mutually exclusive. Aside from atheist religions like Raelianism, or Humanists, general examples like activism requires faith in the good of humanity and the ability for humanity to change, despite all the despairing news we hear every day. Otherwise what's the point? Anyone who faces an uphill battle kinda needs some kind of faith to see it through.