The courage of the
conscientious objector
Commentary
by DICK DORWORTH
The law requires
only that a person be conscientiously opposed to the planned and organized
killing of combatant and non-combatant alike that takes place in warfare.
Tom was
never a close friend and I had not seen him in many years, but he was a
friend I admired and enjoyed. I learned this morning that he had died
after a brief illness. While his passing saddens, Tom lived a long and
rich life of his own choosing. I mean, he was his own man. Tom was the
first conscientious objector I ever knew. Actually, he was the first CO or
"conscie" I ever knew of; that is, before him I had not heard
the term or realized that one could honorably oppose the majority’s
viewpoint of the day or maintain personal integrity by standing one’s
ground against the sycophantic if passionate flow of social conformity.
Tom had
been a CO during World War II, a time and war when that status was
accorded even less merit and social respectability than now. During World
War II more than 5000 people went to prison for their CO beliefs, though
Tom served in a non-combative role. I first met him when I was a high
school student in Reno, Nevada, in the mid 1950s, a time of Eisenhower
blandness, McCarthyinsm, atomic bombs being detonated in the Nevada
desert, uniformity, conformity, consumerism, and a national fear of
communism not too unlike the current fear of terrorism. It was a time,
like now, when questioning authority was unlikely to result in rational
discourse. Tom was older, an artist by nature, an English teacher in my
high school by trade, and a fellow skier. He never talked with me about
being a CO, but we all knew he had served in a non-combative role during
WWII, and we knew he wasn’t afraid of authority, unpopularity,
non-conformity or the dictates of his own conscience, which, it always
seemed to me, was both clean and courageous.
Since the
time of the Colonies, before there was a Constitution, the conscientious
objector has had rights in this country. Subsequent U.S. law does not
"require any person to be subject to combatant training and service
in the armed forces of the U.S. who, by reason of religious training and
belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any
form." However, the law states that "the term ‘religious
training and belief’ does not include essentially political,
sociological or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral
code." But in 1965 and in 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
words "religious training and belief" must now be interpreted to
include personal moral and ethical beliefs that have the same force in
people’s lives as traditional religious beliefs. That is, sincere
personal moral and ethical beliefs in opposition to personal participation
in war has the same legal standing as does believing in the authority and
teachings of an organized and established religion. The operative word in
the last sentence is "sincere," and for a CO to establish such
sincerity is not an always easy task.
During the
Vietnam War, the two best known of thousands of American conscientious
objectors were Muhammad Ali, the boxer, and David Harris, the political
and environmental activist and writer. Harris, who was married to Joan
Baez at the time, went to jail for his beliefs. Ali, who was stripped of
his world heavyweight boxing title because of his beliefs, fought in the
courts for five years until he won in the U.S. Supreme Court. After this
victory, Ali returned to the ring and won back his heavyweight title. His
1966 explanation for refusing to be drafted into the U.S. military has
been much quoted and said it all: "I ain’t got no quarrel with them
Viet Cong." He also said, "No Viet Cong ever called me ‘nigger.’"
While Harris and Ali were well known and received a great deal of
publicity in the mainstream media (most of it negative), the courage they
exhibited and the price they paid for living according to their beliefs
was no greater (and certainly no less) than that of many others. No one
who ever saw him fight (much less those who got in the ring with him)
could justify questioning Ali’s courage or calling him a coward, the
usual knee-jerk reaction to the conscience in action of a conscientious
objector.
Some
believe they should and would fight in a war for a just cause, but insist
that they be allowed to refuse to fight wars they think are wrong. These
people are called "selective conscientious objectors," but under
U.S. law one cannot pick and choose between the "just" and
"unjust" war. The current statute states that CO claimants must
object to "participation in war in any form." How to
differentiate or define a "just" and an "unjust" war
is an interesting if probably unanswerable problem, but some selective COs
believe that the conditions for a "just war" cannot be met in
modern times.
A CO need
not believe in the principle of nonviolence or to be opposed to all forms
of violence, the use of force, police powers or even the taking of human
life. The law requires only that a person be conscientiously opposed to
the planned and organized killing of combatant and non-combatant alike
that takes place in warfare. One can be a CO and still be willing to use
violence against another individual in order to protect yourself or your
friends.
People don’t,
and don’t like to, talk about the CO. The topic raises a myriad of
uncomfortable issues—most notably for Christians, the fifth commandment—but
also such tangential issues as whether the state exists for the sake of
the people or the people for the sake of the state (or, even, whether they
both exist for the sake of the corporation), the influence of the
military-industrial-complex on American economic and foreign policy, and
individual responsibility for personal conscience.
He was
hardly the first, but Tom was the first person I knew who confronted these
issues, stood against the impetus to war, and had the courage to abide by
his conscience and his conviction that there has to be a better way.