What is Conscientious Objection?
We all have a conscience.  Most simply defined, it is a complex inner wisdom which shapes our moral and ethical convictions and consequently controls and inhibits our actions.   There have been times in all of our lives where we, in good conscience, could not participate in an action, perhaps an action which we have supported or participated in the past, because we had a sincere belief that such participation would violate our moral, ethical, and/or religious beliefs.   

Throughout history and today there are those who, in good conscience, cannot participate in the killing and violence of war.  In the Western world, conscientious objection has deep religious roots as many of the early Christian martyrs were executed for refusing to fight as they sought to follow the teachings of Christ.  Many of our country’s earliest settlers came to this land to escape religious persecution due to their unwillingness to participate in war.   

This religious freedom has been tested throughout our countries history in both times of peace and times of war.   During the Revolutionary War a group of Quakers had their muskets forcibly tied to their backs only to be sent home by George Washington.  In WWI, eighteen conscientious objectors died in jail because of abusive treatment.  Today there are those who sit in prisons, live in exile, and await court-martial for following the leadings of their conscience.   Despite facing harsh treatment and ridicule for saying no to war, conscientious objectors throughout our country’s history have been integral members of our society.  They not only took a stand against war and killing, but have been instrumental in shaping our country through such activities as undermining the slave trade and resisting slavery, revolutionizing our mental health system, racially integrating our federal prison system, and leading the civil rights movements.

The honoring of this religious freedom has improved throughout history as our country seeks to fulfill its founding ideals, but much work needs to be done.   Today, there are few people who wrestle with their conscience more than those in our armed forces.   And today, there are members of our military who will arrive at the conclusion that they can no longer in good conscience serve in the armed forces due to the maturing of their moral, ethical, and/or religious beliefs.  We must work as a nation to protect this religious freedom for our brothers and sisters in uniform.  The Military CO Act seeks to afford them such protection.

Who is a Military Conscientious Objector?
Current military policy has defined conscientious objection as the following: “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.” (DOD 1300.6)  This definition has been further clarified by both military policy and our legal system. The following words or phrases found in the above definition are further elucidated:

• “Religious”
• The term “religious” also includes moral and ethical beliefs which have the same force in a person’s life as traditional religious beliefs.
• The term “religious” does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views.

•  “Training and/or belief”
• “Training and/or belief” refers to the source of conviction.  This may come from a lifetime of involvement in an organized religion that teaches active love for the enemy for example (i.e. not killing) or from books, movies, or TV shows.

• “Participation”
• This term highlights the personal nature of the claim.  Thus a CO claim cannot be an abstract critique of war.

• “In War”
• The term “In War” means that a CO does not have to object to the use of violence by a police force or for self-defense.  In the majority of cases a CO believes in the use of nonviolent force.

• “In Any Form”
• This term precludes those who are opposed to a particular war (selective conscientious objector).  If one believes in “Just War Theory”, held by many religious traditions, then typically it is difficult to near impossible to be a conscientious objector under the current legal definition.

Soldiers who meet the above criteria as set forth by the DOD directive, complete a lengthy and challenging written application, and are thoroughly investigated, according to the military’s conscientious objector regulations, are then either granted or denied CO status.  If CO status is granted this will result in either a discharge (1-O status) or assignment to a non-combatant position (1-A-O status).  Approval or denial of a conscientious objector claim is based upon the findings of an appointed investigating officer outside of the individual’s chain of command, their direct chain of command, and a conscientious objector review board.  An individual’s claim is further supported or unsupported by a military chaplain interview as well as a psychiatric evaluation.

Why is the Military CO Act (MCOA) Important?

• Soldiers mature in their religious, moral, and ethical beliefs.
• War, preparations for war, and training to kill provokes a soldier to examine his/her belief structure.
• First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall not pass a law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.
• Article 12 of the American Convention on Human Rights guarantees that “everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion” which includes the right to “change one’s religion or beliefs.”  A soldier, despite being part of an “all-volunteer” force, should not face undue hardship and a suspension of freedom because his/her beliefs have changed.
  
  
• Current System for dealing with conscientious objectors is broken
• Currently there is no statutory right to a CO discharge.  It is only military policy.
• The CO policy was suspended by the Pentagon during the Persian Gulf War in 1991; thousands of COs went to jail or went AWOL because their conscience would not allow them to go to war.  The Boston Globe reported that over 2,500 COs went to jail rather than violate their beliefs.
• Conscientious objectors can face deployment while their claim is pending.
• This endangers other soldiers because conscientious objectors often refuse to fire their weapon.
• The current policy is resource intensive and lengthy for the chain of command.
• Applying for conscientious objection will never be an “easy out” as the burden of proof will always fall on the conscientious objector to convey the sincerity of his/her beliefs through showing “clear and convincing evidence.”  
• According to GAO study released in SEP 2007 the average number of days to process a CO application is 221 days which is a burden to an individual’s chain of command. 
• The approval for discharge must go all the way up the chain of command to a CO review board at the highest levels unlike all other discharges in the military.
• Under the current policy the “burden of proof” falls solely on the conscientious objector to provide “clear or convincing evidence” as to the reasoning for his/her beliefs.
• There have been many cases where the individual who knows the conscientious objector best (i.e—investigative officer) recommends an individual be given CO status after a thorough investigation and yet the individual is denied CO status.  The military can simply deny a claim based upon “any basis in fact.”
• Conflict between military chaplains and conscientious objectors
• As our world becomes more secular, some conscientious objectors have beliefs that would be considered, “non-traditional” although are of “equal” conviction as “traditional religious beliefs.”
• Military chaplains understandably have strong and passionate religious beliefs that directly conflicts with some ethical, moral, and/or religious beliefs of COs.  Many times chaplains confuse the “non-traditional” beliefs of some conscientious objectors as a lack of belief simply due to differences in faith practices.   And many times chaplains consider the religious beliefs of conscientious objectors to suggest Scriptural ignorance which translates into a lack of sincerity.
• No independent and internal review panel for those whose conscientious objector application is denied.
  
  
• Mainline church doctrine supports the “Just-War Theory”
• From around 300AD mainline Christianity has subscribed to the “Just-War Theory.”
• This belief is held by the majority of Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, as well as by the majority of both religious and non-religious people in the United States, and yet this belief is given no credence by the Department of Defense.
• There are many “selective conscientious objectors” in the United States who do not enjoy a “right to freedom of conscience and religion” which undermines our Constitution and the founding ideals of our country.
  

Click here to view a table detailing the key policy changes contained in the MCOA.