(Return
to CO.Quaker.org Home Page)
Conscience
and War
By
David Chandler
[This is a more recent discussion (cf. Webb
School Chapel Talk) of some aspects of objection to war on the basis
of conscience. It is a response to those who uncritically accept the
government's definition of a conscientious objector.]
If you sincerely
feel that the current war, or any particular war, is an unjust war and
you would be violating your conscience to participate in it, you are
a conscientious objector in the most literal sense. The law does not
recognize your right to object to a specific war, but you are a conscientious
objector nonetheless. "Conscientious objector" is not something
you apply to become on the basis of what is permitted by law. It is
a declaration that you will not fight and that your objection is on
the basis of your conscience. People have taken this stand throughout
history in all nations and in all wars. Those who refuse to fight for
reasons of conscience are sometimes persecuted, sometimes imprisoned,
or executed (even in US history). Occasionally nations recognize the
right to refuse to fight, but the laws cannot define the limits of conscience.
The right to follow
ones conscience is a fundamental human right. The sanctity of the individual
and the individual conscience is the foundation of all our freedoms.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, all follow
from the freedom of the individual to judge for himself or herself what
is right and wrong, what is wise and what is foolish. Individual conscience
is not infallible, but any political system that forces people to violate
their conscience is surely worse: it is totalitarian.
Respect for individual
conscience in regard to war is given lip service but not full implementation
in our Selective Service System. A person who would object to fighting
in all wars may be given alternate service, working as an orderly in
a hospital or mental ward, for instance. However a person who just as
sincerely follows his conscience in objecting to a particular war is
not eligible for this consideration.
The Catholic Church
and many main line Protestant churches subscribe to what is called the
"just war" theory. They assert that war is evil, but in rare
circumstances it may be less evil than the alternatives. Therefore they
feel it is permissible to participate in some wars, provided they meet
certain criteria. Some would argue that no war has ever lived up to
the criteria for a just war. Many people believe the current war in
particular fails to live up to the criteria. It is not a war of last
resort, the evils perpetrated are not proportionate to the good that
is sought, and the goals are economic and political dominance, not human
justice.
If you feel that
some other war was a just war, but the current war is not, you would
be told you are choosing on the grounds of politics, not conscience.
Yet the whole premise of the just war theory is the freedom to decide
on the merits of the particular situation being confronted. In taking
a stand against a particular war you could be just as sincere in following
your conscience as someone who claims to object to all wars.
Why should anyone
ever be forced to violate his or her conscience? If so many people object
that an army cannot be raised, the wisdom of going to war must surely
be questioned. If the cause is truly just, the public at large will
support it. If politicians had to consider whether the public would
willingly respond before going to war, there would be a check on the
ability of privileged elites to send the poor and disenfranchised into
battle to satisfy their greed.
If your conscience
tells you that you cannot fight in a specific war for specific reasons,
then you owe it to your conscience not to join, or allow yourself to
be drafted into, a military machine in which you are not given the freedom
to make that judgment. True, your alternate service might take the form
of a prison term, but you would be in good company. There have been
many prisoners of conscience throughout history and throughout the world
today. If we believe that the United States should be a leader in respecting
human rights, we must struggle to expand the legal definition of conscientious
objector to include all those who truly seek to follow their conscience.
|