2. Although the United States has not imposed conscription since 1973, the government can still legally
do so. Currently, all male U.S. residents and citizens must register with the Selective Service, upon turning
eighteen, providing a record that can be used in future drafts. However, exemptions can be made for
those found physically unfit for combat or those who are found to be “conscientious objectors” to war and
morally opposed to combat. Those exempted may serve in roles that do not require using weapons (such
as providing medical aid) or participate in other forms of national service such as “conservation, caring for
the very young or very old, education, [or] healthcare.” Those who object to even these forms of service
can face time in prison.
Throughout U.S. history, the requirements for having one’s “conscientious objector” status recognized
have varied. Since the beginning of military service in local militias, exemptions were provided for those
who were members of certain churches that obligated pacifism, such as the Mennonites, Amish, Quakers,
and the Church of the Brethren. Although members of non-Christian religions that prohibit participation in
combat were also exempted from conscription, potential objectors still had to carefully describe the creed
or official statements of their religion, sect, or organization that prohibited participation in combat.
Stephen Carey, born in Philadelphia in 1915 to a Quaker family, received a draft notice in 1942, in the
midst of World War II. He claimed and obtained conscientious objector status because of his religious
beliefs, and served in civilian work camps throughout the war.
In 1970, during the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court significantly expanded the number of people who
could legally be exempted from military service. In Welsh v. United States, the Court ruled that the
defendant, Welsh, who had refused to be inducted into the military because he opposed all actions in
which people killed others – including war – could be exempt from military service for purely secular
reasons. Non-religious conscientious objectors could be recognized as long as their moral views were
“held with the same strength of traditional religious convictions.” A second Supreme Court case in 1971,
Gillette v. United States, established limits to the liberalized conscientious objector status laws. That
decision affirmed that exemption from military service could be granted for secular reasons but could not
be granted to those whose objections were based solely on their perceived “justness” of the war in
question.
Stephen Carey would probably have agreed with the finding in Welsh, but he may have taken issue
with the finding in Gillette. ''I have no illusions that my pacifist views are going to prevail, none at all,''
Carey said. ''But every great change in expanding the dimensions of human freedom has come from very
3. Definition
“A firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any
form or the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and/or
belief.”
In any form: all war, not just a particular war(s)
religious: includes moral and ethical beliefs that have the same
force in a person’s life as traditional religious beliefs; does not
include political views
training and/or belief: source of conviction; the experiences and
values you hold that do not allow you to participate in military service
or the bearing of arms; may come from organized religion,
experiences, etc.
*Beliefs have to change changed, or “crystalized,” since
4. Discussion Questions
• Under what circumstances, if any, should someone
be able to object to military service?
• Can one legitimately object to serving in a “just
war”? How would a “just war” be defined?
5. One Soldier’s Inner Struggle
http://www.pbs.org/pov/soldiersofconscience/video_cla
ssroom2.php
• Aidan Delgado, an Iraq War veteran, remembers
finding out about the September 11 attacks, his
indoctrination in basic training and contemplating the
morality of killing another human being. Ultimately,
he questions whether he can kill without giving into
hatred.
7. History of Conscientious
Objection Research
• One completed question sheet per group
• Group 1: Revolutionary War and Civil War
• Group 2: World War I and World War II
• Group 3: Korean War, Vietnam War, and Post-Vietnam
Era/Persian Gulf War
• Group 4: Present Day and Historic Peace Churches
• Group 5: Women
• Answer each of the 4 questions listed for each of the
wars/groups listed in the heading of your group’s article.
• Write your names on the question sheet!
8. The Problem with
Conscientious Objectors
http://www.pbs.org/pov/soldiersofconscience/video_cla
ssroom4.php
• Major Pete Kilner, a veteran of the Iraq War,
comments on what he believes to be the
fundamental problem with conscientiously objecting
to war: If a person decides to not protect himself
out of principle, that is one thing, but is it
acceptable to not fight when it puts someone
else in danger?
9. Sometimes Killing Is
Morally Justified
http://www.pbs.org/pov/soldiersofconscience/video_cla
ssroom5.php#.UoDawxai3ww
• Maj. Pete Kilner argues that in particular situations,
war is not only justified, it is the morally right
situation. Human dignity, he explains, is worth
nothing if it is not defended.
10. What if the Good Samaritan
hade come sooner?
http://www.pbs.org/pov/soldiersofconscience/video_cla
ssroom6.php#.UoDa7Bai3ww
• Maj. Pete Kilner recalls the Biblical story of The
Good Samaritan. Had the Good Samaritan arrived
earlier in the story, when the victim was still
being beaten, would it have been the Christian
thing to do to use (possibly lethal) force to stop
the beating?
12. Just War Theory
• A doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical
and Catholic origin
• Holds that a violent conflict must meet the following
conditions:
13. Can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted
before the use of force can be justified.
Must be waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by
actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned
by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
Can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense
against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the
justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be
fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to
redress the injury.
Can only be fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury
incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
Ultimate goal must be to re-establish peace; peace established after the war must
be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
Violence used must be proportional to the injury suffered; prohibited from using
force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
Weapons used must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.
Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to
avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are
unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.