All living beings are interrelated and interdependent.
Religious naturalism is a framework for religious orientation in which a naturalist worldview is used to respond to types of questions and aspirations that are parts of many religions. It has been described as "a perspective that finds religious meaning in the natural world."
Religious naturalism can be considered intellectually as a
philosophy and it can be embraced as a part of, or as the focus of, a
personal religious orientation. Advocates have stated that it can be a significant option for people
who are unable to embrace religious traditions in which supernatural
presences or events play prominent roles, and that it provides "a deeply
spiritual and inspiring religious vision" that is particularly relevant
in a time of ecological crisis.
Overview
Naturalism
Naturalism
is the view that the natural world is all that exists, and that its
constituents, principles, and relationships are the sole reality. All
that occurs is seen as being due to natural processes, with nothing
supernatural involved.As Sean Carroll has put it:
Naturalism comes down to three things:
There is only one world, the natural world.
The world evolves according to unbroken patterns, the laws of nature.
The only reliable way of learning about the world is by observing it.
Essentially, naturalism is the idea that the world revealed to us by scientific investigation is the one true world.
In religious naturalism, a naturalist view (as described above) defines the bounds of what can be believed as being possible or real. As this does not include a view of a personal god who may cause specific actions or miracles,
or of a soul that may live on after death, religious naturalists draw
from what can be learned about the workings of the natural world as they
try to understand why things happen as they do, and for perspectives
that can help to determine what is right or good (and why) and what we
might aspire to and do.
Religious
Religious responses to the beauty, order, and importance of nature (as the conditions that enable all forms of life)
When the term religious is used with respect to religious
naturalism, it is understood in a general way—separate from the beliefs
or practices of specific established religions, but including types of
questions, aspirations, values, attitudes, feelings, and practices that
are parts of many religious traditions. It can include:
interpretive, spiritual, and moral responses to questions about how things are and which things matter,
beliefs, practices, and ethics that orient people to "the big picture" (including our place in relation to a vast and ancient cosmos and other people and forms of life), and
pursuit of "high-minded goals" (such as truth, wisdom, fulfillment, serenity, self-understanding, justice, and a meaningful life).
As Jerome Stone put it, "One way of getting at what we mean by
religion is that it is our attempt to make sense of our lives and behave
appropriately within the total scheme of things."
When discussing distinctions between religious naturalists and
non-religious (nonspiritual) naturalists, Loyal Rue said: "I regard a
religious or spiritual person to be one who takes ultimate concerns to
heart." He noted that, while "plain old" naturalists share similar views
about what may occur in the world, those who describe themselves as
religious naturalists take nature more "to heart", in seeing it as vitally important, and as something that they may respond to on a deeply personal level.
Shared principles
The main principle of religious naturalism is that a naturalist worldview can serve as a foundation for religious orientation.
Shared principles related to naturalism include views that:
the best way to understand natural processes is through methods
of science; where scientists observe, test, and draw conclusions from
what is seen and non-scientists learn from what scientists have described;
for some topics, such as questions of purpose, meaning, morality,
and emotional or spiritual responses, science may be of limited value
and perspectives from psychology, philosophy, literature, and related
disciplines, plus art, myth, and use of symbols, can contribute to
understanding; and
due to limits in human knowledge, some things are currently not well-understood, and some things may never be known.
Shared principles related to having nature as a focus of religious
orientation include the view that nature is of ultimate importance—as
the forces and ordered processes that enable our lives, and all of life,
and that cause all things to be are as they are. As such, nature can prompt religious responses, which can vary for each person and can include:
a sense of amazement or awe – at the wonder of our lives and our
world, and the beauty, order, and power that can be seen in nature,
appreciation or gratitude – for the gift of life, and opportunities for fulfillment that can come with this,
a sense of humility, in seeing ourselves as small and fleeting parts of a vast and ancient cosmos,
an attitude of acceptance (or appreciation) of mystery, where
learning to become comfortable with the fact that some things are unable
to be known can contribute to peace of mind, and
reverence – in viewing the natural world as sacred (worthy of religious veneration).
Nature is not "worshipped", in the sense of reverent devotion to a deity. Instead, the natural world is respected as a primary source of truth—as it expresses and illustrates the varied principles of nature that enable life and may contribute to well-being.
With this, learning about nature, including human nature (via
both academic and artistic resources and direct personal experiences),
is seen as valuable—as it can provide an informed base of understanding
of how things are and why things happen as they do, expand awareness and
appreciation of the interdependence among all things, prompt an
emotional or spiritual sense of connection with other people and forms
of life in all of nature, and serve as a point of reference for
considering and responding to moral and religious questions and life
challenges.
Tenets
As in many religious orientations, religious naturalism includes a
central story, with a description of how it is believed that our world
and human beings came to be.
In this (based on what can be understood through methods of
science), the cosmos began approximately 13.8 billion years ago as a
massive expansion of energy, which has been described as "the Big Bang". Due to natural forces and processes, this expansion led over time to the emergence of light, nuclear particles, galaxies, stars, and planets. Life on Earth is thought to have emerged more than 3.5 billion years ago—beginning with molecules that combined in ways that enabled them to maintain themselves as stable entities and self-replicate, which evolved to single-cell organisms and then to varied multi-cell
organisms that, over time, included millions of varied species,
including mammals, primates, and humans, living in complex
interdependent ecosystems.
This story has been described as "The Epic of Evolution" and, for religious naturalists, it provides a foundation for
considering how things are, which things matter, and how we should live.
It is also seen as having a potential to unite all humans with a shared
understanding of our world, including conditions that are essential to
all lives, as it is based on the best available scientific knowledge and is widely
accepted among scientists and in many cultures worldwide.
From the perspective of religious naturalism humans are seen as
biological beings—composed of natural substances and products of
evolution who act in ways that are enabled and limited by natural
processes. With this, all of what we think, feel, desire, decide, and do
is due to natural processes and, after death, each person ceases to be,
with no potential for an eternal afterlife or reincarnation. Due to evolving from common ancient roots, many of the processes that
enable our human lives (including aspects of body and mind) are shared
by other types of living things. And, as we recognize what we share, we
can feel a type of kinship or connection with all forms of life. Similarly, recognizing that all forms of life are:
dependent on conditions on Earth (to provide atmosphere, soil, temperature, water, and other requirements for life) and also
interdependent with other forms of life (as sources of food, and in contributing to healthy ecosystems),
and in recognizing and appreciating Earth
as a rare site, in a vast cosmos, where life exists, and as the
environment that is essential for our lives and well-being, this planet
and its life-enabling qualities is seen as being of ultimate concern, which can prompt or warrant a felt need to respect, preserve, and protect the varied ecosystems that sustain us.
Values are seen as having accompanied the emergence of
life—where, unlike rocks and other inanimate objects that perform no
purposeful actions, living things have a type of will that prompts them
to act in ways that enable them (or their group) to survive and
reproduce. With this, life can be seen as a core/primary value, and things that can contribute to life and well-being are also valued.
And, from a religious naturalist perspective, ongoing reproduction and
continuation of life (a "credo of continuation"), has been described as a long-term goal or aspiration.
Morality, likewise, is seen as having emerged in social groups,
as standards for behavior and promotion of virtues that contribute to
the well-being of groups. Evolutionary roots of this can be seen in
groups of primates and some other types of mammals and other creatures,
where empathy, helping others, a sense of fairness, and other elements
of morality have often been seen. It includes promotion of "virtues"
(behaviors seen pro-social or "good").
With perspectives of religious naturalism, moral concern is seen
as extending beyond the well-being of human groups to an "ecomorality"
that also includes concern for the well-being of non-human species (in
part, as this recognizes how non-human life can contribute to the
well-being of humans, and also as it respects the value of all life).
With recognition that moral choices can be complex (where as some
choices benefit one group, they may cause harm to others), an
aspiration is that, beyond aspiring to virtues and adhering to social
rules, religious naturalists can work to develop mature judgement that
prepares them to consider varied aspects of challenges, judge options,
and make choices that consider impact from several perspectives.
Advocates of religious naturalism believe that, as they offer
perspectives that can help to show how things really are in the physical
world, and which things ultimately matter, and as they can contribute
to development of religious attitudes, including humility, gratitude,
compassion, and caring, and enhance exposure to and appreciation of the
many wonders of the natural world, perspectives from religious
naturalism can contribute to personal wholeness, social cohesion, and
awareness and activities that can contribute to preservation of global
ecosystems.
Beyond supporting a credo of continuation that values varied
forms of life and ecosystems, aspirations based on religious naturalism
include:
living in harmony with nature,
exploring and celebrating the mysteries of nature, and
pursuing goals that enable the long-term viability of the biosphere.
As suggested by Donald Crosby, since nature is regarded as a focus of
religious commitment and concern, religious naturalists may "grant to
nature the kind of reverence, awe, love and devotion we in the West have
formerly reserved for God."
History
Core themes in religious naturalism have been present, in varied
cultures, for centuries. But active discussion, with the use of this
name, is relatively recent.
Zeno (c. 334 – c. 262 BCE, a founder of Stoicism) said:
All things are parts of one single
system, which is called Nature ... Virtue consists in a will which is in
agreement with Nature
Views consistent with religious naturalism can be seen in ancient Daoist texts (e.g., Dao De Jing) and some Hindu views (such as God as Nirguna Brahman,
God without attributes). They may also be seen in Western images that
do not focus on active, personal aspects of God, such as Thomas Aquinas' view of God as Pure Act, Augustine's God as Being Itself, and Paul Tillich's view of God as Ground of Being. As Wesley Wildman
has described, views consistent with religious naturalism have long
existed as part of the underside of major religious traditions, often
quietly and sometimes in mystical strands or intellectual
sub-traditions, by practitioners who are not drawn to supernatural
claims.
The earliest uses of the term, religious naturalism, seem to have occurred in the 1800s. In 1846, the American Whig Review described "a seeming 'religious naturalism'", In 1869, American Unitarian Association
literature adjudged:"Religious naturalism differs from this mainly in
the fact that it extends the domain of nature farther outward into space
and time. ...It never transcends nature". Ludwig Feuerbach
wrote that religious naturalism was "the acknowledgment of the Divine
in Nature" and also "an element of the Christian religion", but by no
means that religion's definitive "characteristic" or "tendency".
In 1864, Pope Pius IX condemned religious naturalism in the first seven articles of the Syllabus of Errors.
Mordecai Kaplan (1881–1983), founder of the Jewish Reconstructionist movement, was an early advocate of religious naturalism. He believed that a
naturalistic approach to religion and ethics was possible in a
desacralizing world. He saw God as the sum of all-natural processes.
Other verified usages of the term came in 1940 from George Perrigo Conger and from Edgar S. Brightman. Shortly thereafter, H. H. Dubs wrote an article entitled "Religious Naturalism: An Evaluation", which begins "Religious naturalism is today one of the outstanding
American philosophies of religion..." and discusses ideas developed by Henry Nelson Wieman in books that predate Dubs's article by 20 years.
In 1991 Jerome A. Stone wrote The Minimalist Vision of Transcendence explicitly "to sketch a philosophy of religious naturalism". Use of the term was expanded in the 1990s by Loyal Rue,
who was familiar with it from Brightman's book. Rue used the term in
conversations with several people before 1994, and subsequent
conversations between Rue and Ursula Goodenough [both of whom were active in the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) led to Goodenough's use in her book The Sacred Depths of Nature and by Rue in Religion is Not About God and other writings. Since 1994 numerous authors have used the phrase or expressed similar thinking. Examples include Chet Raymo, Stuart Kauffman and Karl E. Peters.
Mike Ignatowski states that "there were many religious naturalists in
the first half of the 20th century and some even before that" but that
"religious naturalism as a movement didn't come into its own until about
1990 [and] took a major leap forward in 1998 when Ursula Goodenough
published The Sacred Depths of Nature, which is considered one of the founding texts of this movement."
Biologist Ursula Goodenough states:
I profess my Faith. For me, the
existence of all this complexity and awareness and intent and beauty,
and my ability to apprehend it serves as the ultimate meaning and the
ultimate value. The continuation of life reaches around, grabs its own
tail, and forms a sacred circle that requires no further justification,
no Creator, no super-ordinate meaning of meaning, no purpose other than
that the continuation continues until the sun collapses or the final
meteor collides. I confess a credo of continuation. And in so doing, I
confess as well a credo of human continuation
Donald Crosby's Living with Ambiguity published in 2008, has, as its first chapter, "Religion of Nature as a Form of Religious Naturalism".
Loyal Rue's Nature Is Enough published in 2011, discusses "Religion Naturalized, Nature Sanctified" and "The Promise of Religious Naturalism".
Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative
is a history by Dr. Jerome A. Stone (Dec. 2008 release) that presents
this paradigm as a once-forgotten option in religious thinking that is
making a rapid revival. It seeks to explore and encourage religious ways
of responding to the world on a completely naturalistic basis without a
supreme being or ground of being. This book traces this history and
analyzes some of the issues dividing religious naturalists. It covers
the birth of religious naturalism, from George Santayana
to Henry Nelson Wieman and briefly explores religious naturalism in
literature and art. Contested issues are discussed including whether
nature's power or goodness is the focus of attention and also on the
appropriateness of using the term "God". The contributions of more than
twenty living religious naturalists are presented. The last chapter ends
the study by exploring what it is like on the inside to live as a
religious naturalist.
Chet Raymo writes that he had come to the same conclusion as Teilhard de Chardin: "Grace is everywhere", and that naturalistic emergence is in everything and far more magical
than religion-based miracles. A future humankind religion should be
ecumenical, ecological, and embrace the story provided by science as the
"most reliable cosmology".
Carol Wayne White is among a younger generation of scholars whose
model of religious naturalism helps advance socially- and ethically-
oriented models of practice. Using the best available insights from
scientific studies, White conceives of the human as an emergent,
interconnected life form amid spectacular biotic diversity, which has
far-reaching ethical implications within the context of ecology,
religion, and American life. Her religious naturalism contributes to an
intellectual legacy that has attempted to overcome the deficient
conceptions of our myriad nature couched in problematic binary
constructions. In doing so, her religious naturalism not only presents
human beings as biotic forms emerging from evolutionary processes
sharing a deep homology with other sentient beings, it also emphasizes
humans valuing such connection. In Black Lives and Sacred Humanity: Toward an African American Religious Naturalism
(Fordham Press, 2016), White confronts both human–human forms of
injustice and ecological forms of injustice that occur when we fail to
recognize these basic truths.
As P. Roger Gillette summarizes:
Thus was religious naturalism born.
It takes the findings of modern science seriously, and thus is
inherently naturalistic. But it also takes the human needs that led to
the emergence of religious systems seriously, and thus is also
religious. It is religious, or reconnective, in that it seeks and
facilitates human reconnection with one's self, family, larger human
community, local and global ecosystem, and unitary universe ...
Religious reconnection implies love. And love implies concern, concern
for the well-being of the beloved. Religious naturalism thus is marked
by concern for the well-being of the whole of nature. This concern
provides a basis and drive for ethical behavior toward the whole holy
unitary universe.
The literature related to religious naturalism includes many
variations in conceptual framing. This reflects individual takes on
various issues, to some extent various schools of thought, such as basic
naturalism, religious humanism, pantheism, panentheism, and spiritual naturalism that have had time on the conceptual stage, and to some extent differing ways of characterizing Nature.
The current discussion often relates to the issue of whether
belief in a God or God-language and associated concepts have any place
in a framework that treats the physical universe as its essential frame
of reference and the methods of science as providing the preeminent
means for determining what Nature is. There are at least three varieties
of religious naturalism, and three similar but somewhat different ways
to categorize them. They are:
An approach to naturalism using theological language but fundamentally treats God metaphorically.
An approach to naturalism using theological language, but as either
(1) a faith statement or supported by philosophical arguments, or (2)
both, usually leaving open the question whether that usage as metaphor or refers to the ultimate answer that Nature can be.
Atheistic (no God concept, some modern naturalism, Process Naturalism, C. Robert Mesle, non-militant atheism, antitheism) – Jerome A. Stone, Michael Cavanaugh, Donald A. Crosby, Ursula Goodenough, Daniel Dennett, and Carol Wayne White
A miscellany of individual perspectives – Philip Hefner
The first category has as many sub-groups as there are distinct definitions for god. Believers in a supernatural entity (transcendent) are by definition not religious naturalists, however the matter of a naturalistic concept of God (Immanence) is currently debated. Strong atheists
are not considered religious naturalists in this differentiation. Some
individuals call themselves religious naturalists but refuse to be
categorized. The unique theories of religious naturalists Loyal Rue, Donald A. Crosby, Jerome A. Stone, and Ursula Goodenough are discussed by Michael Hogue in his 2010 book The Promise of Religious Naturalism.
God concepts
Those who conceive of God as the creative process within the universe—example, Henry Nelson Wieman
Those who think of God as the totality of the universe considered religiously—Bernard Loomer.
A third type of religious naturalism sees no need to use the concept or terminology of God—Stone himself and Ursula Goodenough
Stone emphasizes that some religious naturalists do not reject the
concept of God, but if they use the concept, it involves a radical
alteration of the idea such as Gordon Kaufman who defines God as
creativity.
Ignatowski divides religious naturalism into only two types—theistic and non-theistic.
Notable proponents and critics
Proponents
Proponents of religious naturalism are seen from two perspectives.
The first includes contemporary individuals who have discussed and
supported religious naturalism, per se. The other includes historic
individuals who may not have used or been familiar with the term,
"religious naturalism", but who had views that are relevant to and whose
thoughts have contributed to the development of religious naturalism.
Individuals who have openly discussed and supported religious naturalism, include:
Religious naturalism has been criticized from two perspectives. One
is that of traditional Western religion, which disagrees with naturalist
disbelief in a personal God.
Another is that of naturalists who do not agree that a religious sense
can or should be associated with naturalist views. Critics in the first
group include supporters of traditional Jewish, Christian, and Islamic
religions. Critics in the second group include:
Religious naturalists sometimes use the social practices of
traditional religions, including communal gatherings and rituals, to
foster a sense of community, and to serve as reinforcement of its
participants' efforts to expand the scope of their understandings. Some
other groups mainly communicate online. Some known examples of religious
naturalists groupings and congregation leaders are:
Congregation Beth Or, a Jewish congregation near Chicago led by Rabbi David Oler
Congregation of Beth Adam in Loveland Ohio led by Rabbi Robert Barr
Pastor Ian Lawton, minister at the Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, West Michigan and Center for Progressive Christianity
Religious Naturalism is the focus of classes and conferences at some colleges and theology schools. Articles about religious naturalism have appeared frequently in journals, including Zygon, American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, and the International Journal for Philosophy and Religion.
A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of conscience or religion. The term has also been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience. In some countries, conscientious objectors are assigned to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service.
A number of organizations around the world celebrate the principle on May 15 as International Conscientious Objection Day.
On March 8, 1995, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1995/83 stated that "persons performing military service
should not be excluded from the right to have conscientious objections
to military service". This was re-affirmed on April 22, 1998, when resolution 1998/77
recognized that "persons [already] performing military service may develop conscientious objections".
Many conscientious objectors have been executed, imprisoned, or
otherwise penalized when their beliefs led to actions conflicting with
their society's legal system or government. The legal definition and
status of conscientious objection has varied over the years and from
nation to nation. Religious beliefs were a starting point in many
nations for legally granting conscientious objector status.
The earliest recorded conscientious objector, Maximilianus,
was conscripted into the Roman Army in the year 295, but "told the
Proconsul in Numidia that because of his religious convictions he could
not serve in the military". He was executed for this, and was later
canonized as Saint Maximilian.
An early recognition of conscientious objection was granted by William the Silent to the Dutch Mennonites in 1575. They could refuse military service in exchange for a monetary payment.
Formal legislation to exempt objectors from fighting was first granted in mid-18th-century Great Britain following problems with attempting to force Quakers into military service. In 1757, when the first attempt was made to establish a British Militia
as a professional national military reserve, a clause in the Militia
Ballot Act 1757 allowed Quakers exemption from military service.
In the United States,
conscientious objection was permitted from the country's founding,
although regulation was left to individual states prior to the
introduction of conscription.
Everyone has the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community
with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.
However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
left the issue of conscientious objection inexplicit, as in this quote
from War Resisters International:
"Article 18 of the Covenant does put some limits on the right [to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion], stating that [its]
manifestations must not infringe on public safety, order, health or
morals. Some states argue that such limitations [on the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion] would [derivatively] permit them
to make conscientious objection during time of war a threat to public
safety, or mass conscientious objection a disruption to public order,
... [Some states] even [argue] that it is a 'moral' duty to serve the
state in its military."
On 30 July 1993, explicit clarification of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 was made in the United
Nations Human Rights Committee
general comment 22, Paragraph 11: "The Covenant does not explicitly
refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee believes
that such a right can be derived from article 18, inasmuch as the
obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom
of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or belief." In 2006, the committee has found for the first time a right to
conscientious objection under article 18, although not unanimously.
In 1997, an announcement of Amnesty International's forthcoming campaign and briefing for the UN Commission on Human Rights
included this quote: "The right to conscientious objection to military
service is not a marginal concern outside the mainstream of
international human rights protection and promotion."
In 1998, the Human Rights Commission reiterated previous
statements and added "states should ... refrain from subjecting
conscientious objectors ... to repeated punishment for failure to
perform military service". It also encouraged states "to consider granting asylum to those
conscientious objectors compelled to leave their country of origin
because they fear persecution owing to their refusal to perform military
service ..."
171. Not every conviction, genuine though it may be, will constitute a sufficient reason for claiming refugee status after desertion
or draft-evasion. It is not enough for a person to be in disagreement
with his government regarding the political justification for a
particular military action. Where, however, the type of military action,
with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned
by the international community
as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion
or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the
definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.
On 4 June 1967, John Courtney Murray, an American Jesuitpriest and theologian, delivered an address at Western Maryland College
concerning a more specific type of conscientious objection: "the issue
of selective conscientious objection, conscientious objection to
particular wars, or as it is sometimes called, discretionary armed
service."
On 8 March 1971, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Gillette v. United States
that "the exemption for those who oppose 'participation in war in any
form' applies to those who oppose participating in all war and not to
those who object to participation in a particular war only."
On 25 May 2005, journalist Jack Random wrote the following: "The case of Sergeant Kevin Benderman (Iraq War Resister)
raises the burning issue of selective conscientious objection: While it
is universally accepted that an individual cannot be compelled against
conscience to war in general, does the same hold for an individual who
objects, in the depths of the soul, to a particular war?"
Cases of behavior which could be considered as religiously motivated
conscientious objection are historically attested long before the modern
term appeared. For example, the Medieval Orkneyinga Saga mentions that Magnus Erlendsson, Earl of Orkney –
the future Saint Magnus – had a reputation for piety and gentleness,
and because of his religious convictions refused to fight in a Viking
raid on Anglesey, Wales, instead staying on board his ship singing psalms.
Militarism is contrary to the
spirit of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Even from
humanitarian principles alone, it is utterly indefensible. It is our
profound and God-given conviction that none of our people be required to
participate in war of any form and that these God-given convictions of
our members be respected.
Since the American Civil War, Seventh-day Adventists
have been known as non-combatants, and have done work in hospitals or
to give medical care rather than combat roles, and the church has upheld
the non-combative position. Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians
refuse to participate in the armed services on the grounds that they
believe they should be neutral in worldly conflicts and often cite the
latter portion of Isaiah 2:4
which states, "...neither shall they learn war anymore". Other
objections can stem from a deep sense of responsibility toward humanity
as a whole, or from simple denial that any government possesses the moral authority to command warlike behavior from its citizens.
The varied experiences of non-combatants are illustrated by those
of Seventh-day Adventists when there was mandatory military service:
"Many Seventh-day Adventists refuse to enter the army as combatants, but
participate as medics, ambulance drivers, etc. During World War II in
Germany, many SDA conscientious objectors were sent to concentration
camps or mental institutions; some were executed. Some Seventh-day
Adventists volunteered for the US Army's Operation Whitecoat,
participating in research to help others. The Church preferred to call
them "conscientious participants", because they were willing to risk
their lives as test subjects in potentially life-threatening research.
Over 2,200 Seventh-day Adventists volunteered in experiments involving
various infectious agents during the 1950s through the 1970s in Fort
Detrick, MD." Earlier, a schism
arose during and after World War I between Seventh-day Adventists in
Germany who agreed to serve in the military if conscripted and those who
rejected all participation in warfare—the latter group eventually
forming a separate church (the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement).
In as much as they [Jesus'
teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against
others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war
... The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his
inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense.
They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly
condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.
After the Roman Empire officially embraced Christianity, the just war theory
was developed in order to reconcile warfare with Christian belief.
After Theodosius I made Christianity an official religion of the Empire,
this position slowly developed into the official position of the
Western Church. In the 11th century, there was a further shift of
opinion in the Latin-Christian tradition with the crusades, strengthening the idea and acceptability of holy war. Objectors became a minority. Some theologians see the Constantinian shift and the loss of Christian pacifism as the great failing of the Church.
Ben Salmon
was a Catholic conscientious objector during World War I and outspoken
critic of Just War theology. The Catholic Church denounced him and The New York Times
described him as a "spy suspect". The US military (in which he was
never inducted) charged him with desertion and spreading propaganda,
then sentenced him to death (this was later revised to 25 years hard
labor). On June 5, 1917, Salmon wrote in a letter to President Wilson:
Regardless of nationality, all men
are brothers. God is "our Father who art in heaven". The commandment
"Thou shalt not kill" is unconditional and inexorable. ... The lowly
Nazarene taught us the doctrine of non-resistance, and so convinced was
he of the soundness of that doctrine that he sealed his belief with
death on the cross. When human law conflicts with Divine law, my duty is
clear. Conscience, my infallible guide, impels me to tell you that
prison, death, or both, are infinitely preferable to joining any branch
of the Army.
Nowadays, the Catholic Church teaches that "Public authorities
should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience
refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human
community in some other way." (point 2311 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Because of their conscientious objection to participation in
military service, whether armed or unarmed, Jehovah's Witnesses have
often faced imprisonment or other penalties. In Greece,
for example, before the introduction of alternative civilian service in
1997, hundreds of Witnesses were imprisoned, some for three years or
even more for their refusal. In Armenia,
young Jehovah's Witnesses were imprisoned because of their
conscientious objection to military service; this was discontinued in
November 2013.[40] The government of South Korea also imprisons hundreds for refusing the draft. In Switzerland, virtually every Jehovah's Witness is exempted from military service.
For believers in Indian religions, the opposition to warfare may be based on either the general idea of ahimsa, nonviolence, or on an explicit prohibition of violence by their religion, e.g., for a Buddhist, one of the five precepts
is "Pānātipātā veramaṇi sikkhāpadam samādiyāmi", or "I undertake the
precept to refrain from destroying living creatures", which is in
obvious opposition to the practice of warfare. The 14th Dalai Lama
has stated that war "should be relegated to the dustbin of history". On
the other hand, many Buddhist sects, especially in Japan, have been
thoroughly militarized, warrior monks (yamabushi or sōhei) participating in the civil wars. Hindu beliefs do not go against the concept of war, as seen in the Gita. Both Sikhs and Hindus believe war should be a last resort and should be fought to sustain life and morality in society.
Followers of the Baháʼí Faith
are advised to do social service instead of active army service, but
when this is not possible because of obligations in certain countries,
the Baháʼí laws include loyalty to one's government, and the individual should perform the army service.
Some practitioners of pagan religions, particularly Wicca, may object on the grounds of the Wiccan rede, which states "An it harm none, do what ye will" (or variations). The threefold law may also be grounds for objection.
A notable example of a conscientious objector was the Austrian devout Roman Catholic Christian Franz Jägerstätter, who was executed on August 9, 1943, for openly refusing to serve in the Nazi Wehrmacht, consciously accepting the penalty of death. He was declared Blessed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 for dying for his beliefs, and is viewed as a symbol of self-sacrificing resistance.
Alternatives for objectors
Some conscientious objectors are unwilling to serve the military in
any capacity, while others accept noncombatant roles. While
conscientious objection is usually the refusal to collaborate with
military organizations, as a combatant in war or in any supportive role,
some advocate compromising forms of conscientious objection. One
compromising form is to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service.
Alternatives to military or civilian service include serving an
imprisonment or other punishment for refusing conscription, falsely
claiming unfitness for duty by feigning an allergy or a heart condition,
delaying conscription until the maximum drafting age, or seeking refuge
in a country which does not extradite those wanted for military
conscription. Avoiding military service is sometimes labeled draft dodging,
particularly if the goal is accomplished through dishonesty or evasive
maneuvers. However, many people who support conscription will
distinguish between "bona fide" conscientious objection and draft dodging, which they view as evasion of military service without a valid excuse.
Conservative Mennonites do not object to serving their country in peaceful alternatives (alternative service)
such as hospital work, farming, forestry, road construction and similar
occupations. Their objection is in being part in any military capacity
whether noncombatant or regular service. During World War II and the
Korean, Vietnam war eras they served in many such capacities in
alternative I-W service programs initially through the Mennonite Central
Committee and now through their own alternatives.
Despite the fact that international institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and the Council of Europe (CoE) regard and promote conscientious objection as a human right, as of 2004,
it still does not have a legal basis in most countries. Among the
roughly one-hundred countries that have conscription, only thirty
countries have some legal provisions, 25 of them in Europe. In Europe,
most countries with conscription more or less fulfill international
guidelines on conscientious objection legislation (except for Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Finland and Russia) today. In many countries outside Europe, especially in armed conflict areas (e.g. Democratic Republic of the Congo), conscientious objection is punished severely.
In 1991, The Peace Abbey established the National Registry for
Conscientious Objection where people can publicly state their refusal to
participate in armed conflict.
Conscientious objection around the world
Belgium
Conscription was mandatory to all able-bodied Belgian
males until 1994, when it was suspended. Civilian service was possible
since 1963. Objectors could apply for the status of conscience objector.
When granted, they did an alternative service with the civil service or
with a socio-cultural organisation. The former would last 1.5 times as
long as the shortest military service, the latter twice as long.
After their service, objectors are not allowed to take jobs that
require them to carry weapons, such as police jobs, until the age of 42.
Since conscription was suspended in 1994 and military service is
voluntary, the status of conscience objector can not be granted anymore
in Belgium.
Mennonites and other similar peace churches in Canada were automatically exempt from any type of service during Canada's involvement in World War I by provisions of the Order in Council
of 1873 yet initially, many were imprisoned until the matter was again
resettled. With pressure of public opinion, the Canadian government
barred entry of additional Mennonite and Hutterite immigrants, rescinding the privileges of the Order in Council. During Canada's involvement in World War II,
Canadian conscientious objectors were given the options of noncombatant
military service, serving in the medical or dental corps under military
control or working in parks and on roads under civilian supervision.
Over 95% chose the latter and were placed in Alternative Service camps. Initially the men worked on road building, forestry and firefighting
projects. After May 1943, as the labour shortage developed within the
nation and another Conscription Crisis
burgeoned, men were shifted into agriculture, education and industry.
The 10,700 Canadian objectors were mostly Mennonites (63%) and Dukhobors (20%).
Colombia
Conscientious objection is recognised in Colombia.
Czechoslovakia
In Czechoslovakia,
those not willing to enter mandatory military service could avoid it by
signing a contract for work lasting years in unattractive occupations,
such as mining. Those who did not sign were imprisoned. Both numbers
were tiny. After the communist party lost its power in 1989, alternative civil service was established. As of 2006, both the Czech Republic and Slovakia have abolished conscription. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in both countries now guarantees the right to refuse military service on grounds on conscience or religious belief.
Denmark
Any male getting drafted, but unwilling to serve, has the possibility
to avoid military service by instead serving community service for the
duration of the conscription. According to a poll from July 2011, 2 out
of 3 Danes want conscription abolished.
Eritrea
There is no right to conscientious objection to military service in Eritrea – which is of an indefinite length – and those who refuse the draft are imprisoned. Some Jehovah's Witness conscientious objectors have been in jail since 1994.
Finland introduced conscription in 1881, but its enforcement was suspended in 1903 as part of Russification. During the Finnish Civil War
in 1918, conscription was reintroduced for all able-bodied men. In
1922, the option of noncombatant military service was introduced, but
service in the military remained compulsory on pain of imprisonment.
After the struggle of pacifist Arndt Pekurinen a law was passed providing for a peacetime-only alternative to military service, or civilian service (Finnish siviilipalvelus). The law was dubbed "Lex Pekurinen" after him. During the Winter War,
Pekurinen and other conscientious objectors were imprisoned, and
Pekurinen was eventually executed at the front in 1941, during the Continuation War.
After the war, a conscientious objector's civilian service lasted
16 months, whereas military service was 8 months at its shortest. To
qualify for civilian service, an objector had to explain his conviction
before a board of inspection that included military officers and
clergymen. In 1987, the duration of the service was shortened to 13
months and the board of inspection was abolished. In 2008, the term was
further shortened to 12 months to match the duration of the longest
military service (that of officer trainees and technical crew). Today, a
person subject to conscription may apply for civilian service at any
time before or during his military service, and the application is
accepted as a matter of course. A female performing voluntary military
service can quit her service anytime during the first 45 days, however,
if she wants to quit after those 45 days she would be treated like a
male and assigned to civilian service.
Persons who have completed their civilian service during
peacetime have, according to the legislation enacted in 2008, the right
to serve in non-military duties also during a crisis situation. They may
be called to serve in various duties with the rescue services or other
necessary work of a non-military nature. Persons who declare themselves
to be conscientious objectors only after a crisis has started must,
however, prove their conviction before a special board. Before the new
legislation, the right to conscientious objection was acknowledged only
in peacetime. The changes to the service term and to the legal status of
objectors during a crisis situation were made as a response to human
rights concerns voiced by several international bodies, who are overseeing the implementation of human rights agreements. These
organisations had demanded Finland to take measures to improve its
legislation concerning conscientious objectors, which they considered
discriminatory. None of these organisations have yet raised concerns on
the current legislation.
There are a small number of total objectors who refuse even
civilian service, and are imprisoned for six months. This is not
registered into the person's criminal record.
France
Stamp created by the Centre de défense des objecteurs de conscience (around 1936)
The creation of a legal status for conscientious objectors in France
was the subject of a long struggle involving for instance or the
much-publicised trials of Protestant activists Jacques Martin, Philippe Vernier and Camille Rombault in 1932–1933 or the hunger strike of anarchistLouis Lecoin in 1962.
The legal status law was passed in December 1963, 43 years (and many prison sentences) after the first requests.
In 1983, a new law passed by socialist Interior Minister Pierre Joxe
considerably improved this status, simplifying the conditions under
which the status would be granted. Conscientious objectors were then
free to choose an activity in the social realm where they would spend
their civil service time. However, in order to avoid too many
applications for civil service at the expense of the military, the
duration of the civil service is however kept twice as long as the
military service.
The effect of these laws was suspended in 2001 when compulsory
military service was abolished in France. The special prison at
Strasbourg for Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse to join any military, was
also abolished.
Since 1986, the associations defending conscientious objection in France have chosen to celebrate their cause on 15 May.
In Nazi Germany,
conscientious objection was not recognized in the law. In theory,
objectors would be drafted and then court-martialled for desertion. The
practice was even harsher: going beyond the letter of an already
extremely flexible law, conscientious objection was considered subversion of military strength, a crime normally punished with death. On 15 September 1939, August Dickmann, a Jehovah's Witness, and the first conscientious objector of the war to be executed, died by a firing squad at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Among others, Franz Jägerstätter was executed after his conscientious objection, on the grounds that he could not fight for an evil force.
After World War II in East Germany,
there was no official right to conscientious objection. Nevertheless,
and uniquely among the Eastern bloc, objections were accepted and the
objectors assigned to construction units. They were however part of the
military, so that a fully civilian alternative did not exist. Also, "construction soldiers" were discriminated against in their later professional life.
West Germany and reunified Germany
According to Article 4(3) of the German constitution:
"No person may be forced against their conscience to perform armed
military service. Details shall be regulated by a federal law."
According to Article 12a, a law may be passed to require every male from the age of 18 to military service called Wehrdienst; also, a law can require conscientious objectors to perform non-military service instead called Wehrersatzdienst, literally "military replacement service", or colloquially Zivildienst. These laws were applicable and demanded compulsory service in the German armed forces (German: Bundeswehr)
until the abolition of draft in 2011. Initially, each conscientious
objector had to appear in person to a panel hearing at the draft office
(or contest a negative decision at the administrative court).
The suspension of the procedure (1977), allowing to "object with a post
card", was ruled unconstitutional in 1978. Beginning in 1983,
competence was shifted to the Kreiswehrersatzamt (district
military replacement office), which had discretion to either approve or
reject a conscientious objection, which had to consist of a detailed
written statement by an applicant giving reasons as to why the applicant
was conscientiously objecting. This was generally just a formality, and
objections were not often rejected. In later years in particular
however, with the rise of the Internet, conscientious objections fell
into disrepute because of the ease of being able to simply download
existing example objections. It earned some conscientious objections the
suspicion of an applicant simply attempting an easy way out of military
service. On the other hand, certain organizations within the German
peace movement had been offering pamphlets for decades giving
suggestions to applicants as to the proper wording and structure of an
objection which would have the greatest chances of success.
Following a 1985 Federal Constitution Court decision,
Wehrersatzdienst could be no simple choice of convenience for an
applicant, but he had to cite veritable conflict of conscience which
made him unable to perform any kind of military service at all. If there
was doubt about the true nature of an objector's application, he could
be summoned to appear before a panel at the Kreiswehrersatzamt to
explain his reasons in person. An approved conscientious objection in
any case then meant that an applicant was required by law to perform
Wehrersatzdienst. Complete objection both to military and replacement
service was known as Totalverweigerung; it was illegal and could be punished with a fine or a suspended custodial sentence.
Nearly the only legal way to get both out of military service and
replacement service was to be deemed physically unfit for military
service. Both men who entered military service and those who wanted to
go into replacement service had to pass a military physical examination
at the military replacement office. Five categories/levels of physical
fitness, or Tauglichkeitsstufen, existed. Tauglichkeitsstufe 5, in short T5, meant that a person was rejected for military service and thus also did not need to enter replacement service. T5
status was usually only granted if a person had physical or mental
disabilities or was otherwise significantly impaired, such as due to
very poor eyesight or debilitating chronic illnesses. However, in the
last years of the draft, T5 was increasingly given to potential recruits
with only minor physical or mental handicaps.
Another way to get out of service completely was the two brothers rule,
which stated that if two older brothers had already served in the
military, any following male children of a family were exempt from
service.
Due to West Berlin's
special status between the end of the Second World War and 1990 as a
city governed by foreign military powers, draft did not apply within its
borders. This made Berlin a safe haven for many young people who chose
to move to the city to prevent criminal court repercussions for Totalverweigerung. As Totalverweigerer
were often part of the far-left political spectrum, this was one factor
which spawned a politically active left-wing and left-wing radical
scene in the city.
Wehrersatzdienst was for a long time considerably longer than
military service, by up to a third, even when the duration of service
was gradually reduced following reunification and the end of the Cold
War. This was held by some as a violation of constitutional principles,
but was upheld in several court decisions based on the reasoning that
former service personnel could be redrafted for military exercises
called Wehrübungen, while somebody who had served out his
replacement service could not. Moreover, work conditions under military
service typically involved more hardship and inconvenience than
Wehrersatzdienst. In 2004, military service and Wehrersatzdienst were
then made to last equal lengths of time.
Military service and draft were controversial during much of
their existence. Reasons included the consideration that Germans could
be made to fight against their fellow Germans in East Germany. Moreover,
draft only applied to men, which was seen as gender based
discrimination by some, but was often countered by the argument that
women usually gave up their careers either temporarily or permanently to
raise their children. With the end of the Cold War and the German
military's primary purpose of defending its home territory increasingly
looking doubtful, draft also began to become more arbitrary, as only
certain portions of a particular birth year were drafted (usually those
in very healthy physical condition), while others were not. This was
seen as a problem of Wehrgerechtigkeit, or equal justice of military service.
Then-German President Roman Herzog
said in a 1994 speech (which was frequently cited as an argument for
draft abolition) that only the necessity for national defense, not any
other arguments can justify draft. On the other hand, this logic tended
to not be extended to men serving Wehrersatzdienst, as they usually
worked in fields of public health, elderly care,
medical assistance or assistance for the disabled. Their relatively
low-paid work was seen as an ever more important backbone of a health
sector which was grappling with rapidly increasing costs of care.
In 2011 the mandatory draft was abolished in Germany, mainly due to a perceived lack of aforementioned necessity. The Bundeswehr
now solely relies on service members who deliberately choose it as a
career path. Neither Article 12a (establishing the possibility of draft)
nor Article 4 (3) (permitting conscientious objection) have been
removed from the German Constitution. In theory, this makes a full
reversion to draft (and Wehrersatzdienst) possible, if it is thought to
be necessary.
Hungary
Conscription was suspended in Hungary in 2004. Before being drafted
anyone can apply for the status of conscientious objector and fulfill
his duties in unarmed military service or civilian service.
All Israeli citizens
and permanent residents are liable to military service. However, the
Ministry of Defense has used its discretion under article 36 of this law
to automatically exempt all non-Jewish women and all Arab men, except
for the Druze, from military service ever since Israel was established. Israeli Arabs may volunteer to perform military service, but very few do so (except among the Bedouin population of Israel).
In discussing the status of the armed forces shortly after the
founding of the State of Israel, representatives of orthodox religious
parties argued that yeshiva
students should be exempt from military service. This derives from the
Jewish tradition that if a man wants to dedicate his life to religious
study, society must allow him to do so. The request of orthodox
political parties to "prevent neglect of studying the Torah" was granted
by the authorities. But in recent years this exemption practice has
become the subject of debate in Israeli society, as the absolute and the
relative numbers of the men who received this exemption rose sharply. In 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in the case of Ressler et al. v. The Knesset et al.. that the blanket exemption granted to ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students was ultra vires
the authority of the Minister of Defence, and that it violated Basic
Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and was, therefore, unconstitutional.
As for conscientious objection, in 2002, in the case of David Zonschein et al. v. Military Advocate General et al., the Supreme Court reiterated its position that selective conscientious
objection was not permitted, adding that conscientious objection could
only be recognized in cases of general objection to military service.
Women can claim exemption from military service on grounds of
conscience under arts. 39 (c) and 40 of the Defense Service Law,
according to which religious reasons can be grounds for exemption.
Italy
Until 2004 conscription was mandatory to all able-bodied Italian
males. Those who were born in the last months of the year typically
used to serve in the Navy, unless judged unable for ship service (in
this case they could be sent back to Army or Air Force). Until 1972,
objectors were considered as traitors
and tried by a military tribunal; after 1972, objectors could choose an
alternative civilian service, which was eight months longer than
standard military service (fifteen months, then twelve, as for Army and
Air Force, 24 months, then eighteen, then twelve as for the Navy). Since such length was judged too punitive, an arrangement was made to
make the civilian service as long as the military service. Since 2004,
Italian males no longer need to object because military service has been
turned into volunteer for both men and women.
Marshall Islands
In the Republic of the Marshall Islands
no person can be conscripted if, after being afforded a reasonable
opportunity to do so, he has established that he is a conscientious
objector to participation in war (Marshall Islands Constitution Article
II Section 11).
The Netherlands
Conscription was mandatory to all able-bodied Dutch males until 1 May
1997, when it was suspended. The Law on conscientious objections
military services is active since 27 September 1962. Objectors have to work a third time
longer in civil service than is normal for military service. The civil
service have to be provided by government services, or by institutions
designated for employment of conscientious objectors designated by the
Secretary of Social Affairs and Employment, who work in the public
interest.
In 1916 conscription was introduced in New Zealand, with only Quakers, Christadelphians, and Seventh-day Adventists having automatic exemption from the conscription. During the First World War, between 1,500 and 2,000 objectors and
defaulters were convicted, or came under state control, for their
opposition to war. At least 64 of these were still at Waikeria Prison on 5 March 1919 – some of whom had gone on hunger strike in protest.
Also during the First World War fourteen objectors, including Archibald Baxter, were forcibly sent to the front lines and were subject to Field Punishment
No. 1, which "involved being tethered tightly by the wrists to a
sloping pole to ensure their bodies hung with their hands taking all
their weight."
During World War Two, conscription was re-introduced in 1940 and
5000 men applied for an exemption on the grounds of conscientious
objection. Of these, 800 were imprisoned for the length of the war, and were
barred from voting for ten years when they were released following the
end of the war.
The white minority government of Rhodesia
and white Rhodesian society had little tolerance for conscientious
objectors to the country's national service scheme during the Rhodesian Bush War.
In 1972 none of the 34 applicants for conscientious objector status
were approved. Men who refused to undertake national service due to
their beliefs were jailed or fined. In 1973 a juvenile was caned for conscientious objection. By 1978 it was also an offence to advocate for conscientious objection.
Romania
In Romania, as of 23 October 2006 conscription was suspended, therefore, the status of conscience objector does not apply. This came about due to a 2003 constitutional amendment which allowed the parliament to make military service optional. The Romanian Parliament
voted to abolish conscription in October 2005, with the vote
formalizing one of many military modernization and reform programs that
Romania agreed to when it joined NATO.
The Russian Empire allowed Russian Mennonites to run and maintain forestry service
units in South Russia in lieu of their military obligation. The program
was under church control from 1881 through 1918, reaching a peak of
seven thousand conscientious objectors during World War I. An additional
five thousand Mennonites formed complete hospital units and transported
wounded from the battlefield to Moscow and Ekaterinoslav hospitals.
After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Leon Trotsky issued a decree allowing alternative service for religious objectors whose sincerity was determined upon examination. Vladimir Chertkov, a follower of Leo Tolstoy, chaired the United Council of Religious Fellowships and Groups, which successfully freed 8000 conscientious objectors from military service during the Russian Civil War. The law was not applied uniformly and hundreds of objectors were imprisoned and over 200 were executed. The United Council was forced to cease activity in December 1920, but alternative service was available under the New Economic Policy until it was abolished in 1936. Unlike the earlier forestry and hospital service, later conscientious
objectors were classified "enemies of the people" and their alternative
service was performed in remote areas in a gulag-like environment in order to break their resistance and encourage enlistment.
In the present day, Russian draft legislation allows people to choose an alternative
civilian service for religious or ideological reasons. Most objectors
are employed in healthcare, construction, forestry and post industries,
serving 18 to 21 months.
Serbia
Serbia introduced civil service for Conscientious objectors in 2009. the service lasted 9 months and people serving were task to help out in
government facilities such as post offices, kindergartens, hospitals
etc. In 2020 during COVID-19 they were called to help prepare military
hospitals for the influx of military and civilian patients.
When civil service was introduced the mandatory military service period
was reduced from 12 months to 6 months.
Mandatory military service was abolished in 2011.
During the 1980s, hundreds of South African white males dodged the draft, refused the call-up or objected to conscription in the South African Defence Force. Some simply deserted, or joined organisations such as the End Conscription Campaign, an anti-war movement banned in 1988, while others fled into exile and joined the Committee on South African War Resistance.
Most lived in a state of internal exile, forced to go underground
within the borders of the country until a moratorium on conscription was
declared in 1993. Opposition to the Angolan War, was rife in English-speaking campuses, and later the war in the townships became the focus of these groupings.
The terminology conscientious objector technically has not existed in
Korean dictionary until recently. In fact, significant majority of
Korean citizens simply associate conscientious objectors with draft
dodging, and are unaware of the fact that conscientious objector
draftees in other westernized countries are required to serve in
alternative services. Since the establishment of the Republic of Korea,
thousands of conscientious objectors had no choice but to be imprisoned
as criminals. Every year about 500 young men, mostly Jehovah's
Witnesses, are arrested for refusing the draft.
South Korea's stance has drawn criticism from The U.N. Human
Rights Committee, which argues that South Korea is violating article 18
of the ICCPR, which guarantees freedom of thought and conscience. In
2006, 2010, and again in 2011 the U.N. Human Rights Committee, after
reviewing petitions from South Korean conscientious objectors, declared
that the government was violating Article 18 of the ICCPR, the provision
that guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion.
The government's National Action Plan for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights has not shown a clear stance on the pressing
human rights issues such as, among other things, the rights of
conscientious objectors to military service.
In September 2007, the government announced a program to give
conscientious objectors an opportunity to participate in alternative
civilian service. The program stipulates three years of civilian service that is not
connected with the military in any way. However, that program has been
postponed indefinitely after the succeeding administration took office
in 2008.
The government argues that introducing an alternative service
would jeopardize national security and undermine social equality and
cohesion. This is amid an increasing number of countries which retain
compulsory service have introduced alternatives. In addition, some
countries, including those with national security concerns have shown
that alternative service can be successfully implemented.
On 15 January 2009 the Korean Presidential Commission on
Suspicious Deaths in the Military released its decision acknowledging
that the government was responsible for the deaths of five young men,
who were Jehovah's Witnesses and had forcibly been conscripted into the
army.
The deaths resulted from "the state's anti-human rights violence" and
"its acts of brutality" during the 1970s that continued into the
mid-1980s. This decision is significant since it is the first one
recognizing the state's responsibility for deaths resulting from
violence within the military. According to the commission's decision, "the beatings and acts of
brutality committed against them by military officials were attempts to
compel and coerce them to act against their conscience (religion) and
were unconstitutional, anti-human rights acts that infringed severely
upon the freedom of conscience (religion) guaranteed in the
Constitution."
The records of conscientious objectors to military service are kept by a
governmental investigative body as criminal files for five years. As a
consequence, conscientious objectors are not allowed to enter a
government office and apply for any type of national certification exam.
It is also very unlikely that they will be employed by any company that
inquires about criminal records.
Conscientious
objectors ... often spend the rest of their lives tainted by their
decision... Criminal records from draft dodging make it difficult for
objectors to find good jobs and the issue of army service is often
raised by potential employers during job interviews.
From 2000 to 2008, Korean Military Manpower Administration said that
at least 4,958 men have objected to service in the military because of
religious beliefs. Among those, 4,925 were Jehovah's Witnesses, 3 were
Buddhists, and the other 30 refused the mandatory service because of
conscientious objections other than religious reasons. Since 1950, there have been more than 16,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
sentenced to a combined total of 31,256 years for refusing to perform
military service. If alternative service is not provided, some 500 to
900 young men will continue to be added each year to the list of
conscientious objectors criminalized in Korea.
In 2015, Lee Yeda was the first conscientious objector to be allowed to live in France via asylum.
In June 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled 6–3 that Article 5
of the country's Military Service Act is unconstitutional because it
fails to provide an alternative civilian national service for
conscientious objectors. As of 2018, 19,300 South Korean conscientious
objectors had gone to prison since 1953. The Defense Ministry said it
would honor the ruling by introducing alternative services as soon as
possible.
On 1 November 2018, the Supreme Court of Korea decided that
conscientious objection is a valid reason to refuse mandatory military
service, and vacated and remanded the appellate court's decision finding
a Jehovah's Witness guilty of the objection.
Spain
Conscientious objection was not permitted in Francoist Spain. Conscientious objectors usually refused to serve on religious grounds,
such as being Jehovah's Witnesses, and were placed in prison for the
duration of their sentences. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 acknowledged conscientious objectors. The Spanish parliament established a longer service (Prestación Social Sustitutoria) as an alternative to the Army. In spite of this, a strong movement appeared that refused both services. The Red Cross
was the only important organisation employing objectors. Because of
this, the waiting lists for the PSS were long, especially in areas like Navarre, where pacifism, Basque nationalism and a low unemployment rate discouraged young males from the army. Thousands of insumisos
(non-submittants) publicly refused the PSS, and hundreds were
imprisoned. In addition a number of those in the military decided to
refuse further duties. A number of people not liable for military
service made declarations of self-incrimination, stating that they had
encouraged insumisión. The government, fearing popular reaction, reduced the length of service and instead of sentencing insumisos to prison declared them unfit for public service.
Fronting the decreasing birth rate and the popular opposition to
an army seen as a continuating institution of one of the pillars of the
dictatorship's regime, the Spanish government tried to modernise the
model carried from the Franco
era, professionalizing it and thus bringing an end to conscription by
the end of 2001. The new army tried to provide an education for civilian
life and participated in peace operations in Bosnia.
There is the possibility of avoiding military service by instead serving civilian services for the duration of the conscription.
Turkey
Conscientious objection is highly controversial in Turkey. Turkey and Azerbaijan
are the only two countries refusing to recognize conscientious
objection and sustain their membership in the Council of Europe. In
January 2006, the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) found Turkey had violated article 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (prohibition of degrading treatment) in a case dealing
with the conscientious objection of Osman Murat Ülke. In 2005, Mehmet Tarhan
was sentenced to four years in a military prison as a conscientious
objector (he was unexpectedly released in March 2006). Journalist Perihan Mağden
was tried by a Turkish court for supporting Tarhan and advocating
conscientious objection as a human right; but later, she was acquitted.
As of March 2011, there were 125 objectors including 25 female
objectors in Turkey. Another 256 people of Kurdish origin also had
announced their conscientious objection to military service. Conscientious objector İnan Süver was named a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.
On 14 November 2011, the Ministry of Justice
announced a draft proposal to legalise conscientious objection in
Turkey and that it was to take effect two weeks after approval by the
President to the change. This decision to legalize by the Turkish government was because of
pressure from the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR gave the
Turkish government a deadline until the end of 2011 to legalize
conscientious objection. The draft was withdrawn afterwards.
A commission was founded within the National Assembly of the Republic
to write a new constitution in 2012. The commission is still in
negotiations on various articles and conscientious objection is one of
the most controversial issues.
Conscientious Objector memorial in Tavistock Square Gardens, London—dedicated on 15 May 1994
The United Kingdom recognised the right of individuals not to fight
in the 18th century following major problems with attempting to force Quakers into military service. The Militia Ballot Act of 1757 allowed Quakers to be excluded from service in the Militia. It then ceased to be a major issue, since Britain's armed forces were generally all-volunteer. Press gangs
were used to strengthen army and navy rolls on occasions from the 16th
to the early 19th centuries. Pressed men did have the right of appeal,
in the case of sailors, to the Admiralty. The Royal Navy last took pressed men during the Napoleonic Wars.
A more general right to refuse military service was not introduced until the First World War. Britain introduced conscription with the Military Service Act
of January 1916, which came into full effect on 2 March 1916. The Act
allowed for objectors to be absolutely exempted, to perform alternative
civilian service or to serve as a non-combatant in the army Non-Combatant Corps, according to the extent to which they could convince a Military Service Tribunal of the quality of their objection.
Around 16,000 men were recorded as conscientious objectors, with
Quakers, traditionally pacifist, forming a large proportion: 4,500
objectors were exempted on condition of doing civilian "work of national
importance", such as farming, forestry or social service; and 7,000
were conscripted into the specially-created Non-Combatant Corps. Six
thousand were refused any exemption and forced into main army regiments;
if they then refused to obey orders, they were court-martialled and sent to prison. Thus, the well-known pacifist and religious writer Stephen Henry Hobhouse
was called up in 1916: he and many other Quaker activists took the
unconditionalist stand, refusing both military and alternative service,
and on enforced enlistment were court-martialled and imprisoned for
disobedience. Conscientious objectors formed only a tiny proportion of Military
Service Tribunals' cases over the conscription period, estimated at 2
per cent. Tribunals were notoriously harsh towards conscientious objectors,
reflecting widespread public opinion that they were lazy, degenerate,
ungrateful 'shirkers' seeking to benefit from the sacrifices of others.
In an attempt to press the issue, in May 1916 a group of thirty-five objectors, including the Richmond Sixteen, were taken to France as conscripts and given military orders, the disobedience of which would warrant a death sentence. These men, known as "The Frenchmen", refused; the four ringleaders
were formally sentenced to death by court-martial but immediately
reprieved, with commutation to ten-years' penal servitude.
Although a few objectors were accepted for non-combatant service in the Royal Army Medical Corps,
acting as nursing/paramedic assistants, the majority of non-combatants
served in the Non-Combatant Corps on non-lethal stores, road and railway
building and general labouring in the UK and France. Conscientious
objectors who were deemed not to have made any useful contribution to
the state were formally disenfranchised (through a clause inserted in the Representation of the People Act 1918
at the insistence of back-bench MPs) for the five years 1 September
1921 – 31 August 1926, but as it was a last-minute amendment there was
no administrative machinery to enforce it, which was admitted to be a
"dead letter".
Britain's conscription legislation of 1916 did not apply to Ireland, despite it then being part of the United Kingdom.
In 1918 the Army's manpower shortage led to passing a further act
enabling conscription in Ireland if and when the government saw fit. In
the event, the government never saw fit, although the legislation led to
the Conscription Crisis of 1918. British conscription in the Second World War did not apply to Northern Ireland. Many Irishmen volunteered to fight in both world wars. The various parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth
had their own laws: in general, all the larger countries of the Empire
participated, and some were, in proportion to their population, major
participants in the First World War.
In the Second World War, following the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939,
there were nearly 60,000 registered Conscientious Objectors. Testing by
tribunals resumed, this time by special Conscientious Objection
Tribunals chaired by a judge, and the effects were much less harsh. If
objectors were not a member of the Quakers or some similar pacifist
organisation, it was generally enough to say that they objected to
"warfare as a means of settling international disputes", a phrase from
the Kellogg–Briand Pact
of 1928. The tribunals could grant full exemption, exemption
conditional on alternative service, exemption only from combatant
duties, or dismiss the application. Of the 61,000 who were registered,
3,000 were given complete exemption; 18,000 applications were initially
dismissed, but a number of such applicants succeeded at the Appellate
Tribunal, sometimes after a "qualifying" sentence of three-months'
imprisonment for an offence deemed to have been committed on grounds of
conscience. Of those directed to non-combatant military service almost
7,000 were allocated to the Non-Combatant Corps, re-activated in
mid-1940; its companies worked in clothing and food stores, in
transport, or any military project not requiring the handling of
"material of an aggressive nature". In November 1940 it was decided to
allow troops in the NCC to volunteer for work in bomb disposal and over 350 men volunteered. Other non-combatants worked in the Royal Army Medical Corps. For conscientious objectors exempted conditional upon performing civil work, acceptable occupations were farm work, mining, firefighting and the ambulance service.
About 5,500 objectors were imprisoned, most charged with refusal to
attend a medical examination as a necessary preliminary to call-up after
being refused exemption, and some charged with non-compliance with the
terms of conditional exemption. A further 1,000 were court-martialled by
the armed forces and sent to military detention barracks or civil
prisons. Unlike the First World War, most sentences were relatively
short, and there was no pattern of continually repeated sentences. The
social stigma attached to 'conchies' (as they were called) was
considerable; regardless of the genuineness of their motives, cowardice
was often imputed.
Conscription in the United Kingdom was retained, with rights of conscientious objection, as National Service
until the last call-up in 1960 and the last discharge in 1963. The use
of all volunteer soldiers was hoped to remove the need to consider
conscientious objectors. Ever since the First World War, there have been
volunteer members of the armed forces who have developed a
conscientious objection to service; a procedure was devised for them in
the Second World War and with adaptations, it continues.
At least two state constitutions have recognized an individual right
not to bear arms. Pennsylvania's Constitution of 1790 states "Those who
conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so;
but shall pay an equivalent for personal service." New Hampshire's Constitution of 1784 states "No person, who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall
be compelled thereto."
There are currently legal provisions in the United States for recognizing conscientious objection, both through the Selective Service System and through the Department of Defense.
The United States currently recognizes religious and moral objections
to all war, but not selective objections to specific wars. Conscientious objectors in the United States may perform either
civilian work or noncombatant service in lieu of combatant military
service.
Historically, conscientious objectors in the United States have
faced significant challenges and, at times, persecution, particularly
during major conflicts such as World War I, World War II, and the
Vietnam War. Apart from many cases of harassment and social outcasting, individuals
who refused to comply with draft board orders or to participate in
approved alternative service were often subject to criminal prosecution
and imprisonment. While some objectors served in noncombatant military
roles, such as medics, others were assigned to civilian public service.
In many cases, these individuals received no military pay or benefits,
including those provided to their families, creating further hardship
during their period of service.
Legal Objections
In United States v. Seeger (1965), the Supreme Court expanded the
interpretation of conscientious objection under the Universal Military
Training and Service Act by ruling that individuals could qualify for
exemption from military service based on deeply held moral or ethical
beliefs, even if those beliefs were not grounded in traditional theistic
religion.
In Welsh v. United States (1970), the Supreme Court extended the
precedent set in Seeger by holding that a genuinely held moral or
ethical opposition to war could qualify for conscientious objector
status, even if the individual did not profess belief in a "Supreme
Being." Elliot Ashton Welsh II, who refused induction based on deeply
held pacifist convictions that he derived from a personal moral code
rather than religious doctrine, was initially denied CO status and
convicted. The Court reversed that conviction, affirming that § 6(j) of
the Universal Military Training and Service Act encompasses sincere
moral beliefs that function in a person's life like traditional
religious beliefs. By recognizing non‑theistic yet deeply held
convictions as eligible for exemption, Welsh further broadened the legal
definition of religion and solidified protections for secular
conscientious objectors.
In Gillette v. United States (401 U.S. 437), the Supreme Court
held that conscientious objector status under the Military Selective
Service Act is limited to individuals who oppose participation in all
wars, not merely specific conflicts. The case involved Guy Gillette, who
opposed the Vietnam War on moral grounds but did not claim pacifism in
general. The Court ruled against him, reaffirming that the law does not
protect selective objection. This decision clarified and limited the
scope of Seeger and Welsh, drawing a firm legal line between universal
pacifism, protected under U.S. law, and individual opposition to
particular wars, which remains unrecognized in conscientious objector
claims.[112]
In Switzerland, conscientious objection is rooted in article 18 of the Federal Constitution,
inscribed in 1874, though the practice dates to the 16th century among
Anabaptists. Until 1927, objection was treated as desertion and severely
punished. The 1927 Swiss Military Penal Code first distinguished it
from desertion without decriminalization, while the 1950 revision
provided modest concessions for religious and moral objectors. Support
grew dramatically from the 1970s onward, with refusals to serve reaching
788 in 1984, prompting political debate on alternative civilian
service.
Following two failed popular initiatives (1977, 1984), the 1990
"Barras reform" decriminalized conscientious objection and established civilian service
as an alternative to military duty. A 1992 constitutional amendment
(article 18, revised to article 59 in the 1999 Constitution) formally
recognized this right, and the Civil Service Act took effect in 1996.
Between 2011 and 2017, civilian service participants increased from
4,700 to 6,800, reflecting growing social acceptance. Subsequent
attempts by centre-right parties to make civilian service less
attractive failed in 2020.
Other countries
As of 2005, conscientious objectors in several countries may serve as
field paramedics in the army (although some do not consider this a
genuine alternative, as they feel it merely helps to make war more
humane instead of preventing it). Alternatively, they may serve without
arms, although this, too, has its problems. In certain European
countries such as Austria, Greece and Switzerland,
there is the option of performing an alternative civilian service,
subject to the review of a written application or after a hearing about
the state of conscience. In Greece, the alternative civilian service is
twice as long as the corresponding military service; in Austria Zivildienst is one-third times longer, the Swiss Zivildienst
is one and one-half times longer than military service. In 2005, the
Swiss parliament considered whether willingness to serve one and a half
times longer than an army recruit was sufficient proof of sincerity,
citing that the cost of judging the state of conscience of a few
thousand men per year was too great.
Conscientious objection in professional forces
Only two European Union countries – Germany and the Netherlands –
recognize the right to conscientious objection for contract and
professional military personnel.
In the United States, military personnel who come to a conviction
of conscientious objection during their tour of duty must appear in
front of a panel of experts, which consists of psychiatrists, military
chaplains and officers.
In Switzerland, the panel consists entirely of civilians, and
military personnel have no authority whatsoever. In Germany, the draft
has been suspended since 2011.
.jpg)
