Scene: Brisbane Federal Court circa 1970 Dave sits in court room listens to conscientious objection cases heard under the National Service Act. A Quaker takes the stand, “I am a Quacker and therefore a pacifist” ………..the testimony then goes on to describe how long he has been a Quacker etc etc…….. Judge: “Objection valid under the Act. The witness is exempt from military service” The next objector is a life long Catholic.He takes the stand: “I am a Catholic, a Christian and therefore I obey the 10 commandments etc. etc. …..” Judge:”Objection valid under the Act. Tthe witness is exempt from military service” The next objector is Dave…an atheist. “I abhor the war in Vietnam it is a war carried out for political reasons and has nothing to do with defending the country, I refuse to kill people for political reasons, I refuse to act like a terrorist etc etc……………..” Judge: Ponders for an embarrassing long time. Calls a recess. Returns and court is reconvened. “I find that although the witness has strongly held intellectual objections to the Vietnam war his objection is not to be considered conscientious as defined under the Act. Application refused”

My question is this:- Why is it that a strongly held sincere view held by an atheist has less validity than a strongly held sincere view by a religious believer? Dave

~~~

Andrew Bromage wrote:

> G’day all.

>

> “D.Castles” <> writes:

>

> >My question is this:- Why is it that a strongly held sincere view held by

an > >atheist has less validity than a strongly held sincere view by a

religious > >believer?

>

> That’s really a legal question, not a religious one. But since you

> asked, at the time, you could gain exemption from conscription by

> registering as a conscientious objector. The catch is that you had

> to object to _all_ wars, not just a particular war. The law changed in

> 1992 so that this is no longer the case.

>

> Cheers,

> Andrew Bromage

It wasn’t quite as simple as this Andrew. And although, as you say, it is a legal question the law only exists to reflect the moral stance of the community does it not? The question in my case wasn’t whether I objected to all wars or to a particular war (the pacifist stance) but the reason that the objection was held. The “object to all wars” defence was an urban myth that was prevalent at the time. The judge made it quite clear in his summing up (you can read it if you bother to dig it out) that the point was whether my objection was “conscientious” or intellectual. The Act never really explained or defined the term conscientious but it was interpeted in an obviously political way. It was even fairly difficult to demonstrate that your religious beliefs led to a “conscientious objection”. It seemed that a view taken from a religious standpoint was held as conscientious in obvious cases of religious piety. This was virtually the only way one could prove a conscientiously held belief. It follows therefore that if a person is not religious then they have no conscience (read morality). I expect that most of you religious types will agree with this but it was a new one to me at the time. (mind you I was only 21, stupid, had no legal representation, no parents and knew nearly nothing about the law). Has anything changed? A few years ago I found myself in court charged with driving through a red light. I actually hadn’t driven through a red light (I entered on the yellow) and the charge came about because the policewoman lady didn’t like my attitude because I argued with her and demonstrated the contempt in which I held her. In court I read an affirmation, The policeperson made an oath on the Bible. I told the complete and utter truth. The policeperson told a complete pack of obvious lies. I was found guilty, why? The judge could hardly contain his hatred for me from the moment I read the affirmation. Once again I was stuffed before I even began. Dave

~~~

G’day all.

“D.Castles” <> writes:

>The “object to all wars” defence was an urban myth that was prevalent

>at the time.

I got my information from a Senate discussion paper from a few years ago which stated pretty clearly that it’s true. It doesn’t look like an urban myth to me.

>The

>judge made it quite clear in his summing up (you can read it if you

>other to dig it out) that the point was whether my objection was

>”conscientious” or intellectual.

That’s interesting. I’m not sure what the difference is, either.

>It follows therefore that if a person is not

>religious then they have no conscience (read morality). I expect that

>most of you religious types will agree with this but it was a new one

>to me at the time.

You may find a few religious types who believe this, but it’s rare. It’s more common to find religious types who claim that there is no consistent objective basis for a non-religious morality, but even if that were true, I personally think it’s asking a bit much for people to be consistent and objective at the same time.

>(mind you I was only 21, stupid, had no legal representation, no parents

and >knew nearly nothing about the law).

You’re asking for trouble if you have no legal representation, of course, but I figure you’ve worked that much out by now.

>Has anything changed?

Yes. The law changed in 1992, as I said.

>In court I read an affirmation, The policeperson made an oath on the Bible.

>I told the complete and utter truth.

>The policeperson told a complete pack of obvious lies.

>I was found guilty, why?

Maybe you should have sought legal representation.

Cheers, Andrew Bromage

[18/9/01]