Court decision, nontheistic conscientious objectors are discriminated against. I wish to introduce into the record at this point the resolution adopted by the American Unitarian Association.

The Committee on Church and State of the American Humanist Association asks that a small modification be made in the statute, adding the words "or personal philosophical or personal moral conviction." Perhaps it would be stili better to add "a past record of devotion to a moral ideal consistent with opposition to military service." We recognize the fact that no person should be allowed to escape duty because of a sudden impulse, not based on thoughtful reflection. We suggest that language definitely excuse the unbeliever on the same basis as the believer.

This request is in line with the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins in which the Supreme Court placed religions which do not accept a Supreme Being on the same basis as religions which do accept a Supreme Being. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia also took this line in the tax case of the Washington Ethical Culture Society.

We also wish to raise the issue whether the new requirement in the enlistees' death is being fairly administered for nonbelievers. The phrase "so help me God" was added by H.R. 218. The House Armed Services Committee has said that these words are "not part of the obligation." But the machinery is compulsory, and we believe that a third form of oath should be provided, one for the enlistee willing to take the oath, one for the enlistee who is ready to affirm, and one for the enlistee who is willing to affirm but not willing to profess atheistic belief. At present the enlistee in the third category would be deeply embarrassed and perhaps hindered in his progress in the armed services by asking for a special exemption. The discussion of this issue in the Senate last year by Senators Morse and Thurmond reveals that the military authorities have not yet made arrangements to treat the nontheistic objector quite fairly.

We ask the Senate to make the proper changes either in the statute or the administrative rules. I ask permission to file, as part of my statement, the published statement of the American Humanist Association, and an article by Lester Forest on "Agnostic Conscientious Objectors." Paul Blanshard.

Mr. BLANSHARD. I feel almost abashed to bring up a point that is so minor in the face of a problem which is so colossal.

I feel especially abashed because I have at one time or another sat on the other side of the Government table, having been a State Department official in the last war with two sons in the conflict, and a member of an Alien Control Board, and I at one time had the job of trying to judge the loyalty of people.

The only point that I want to raise is concerning the fairness of the law as it affects the nontheistic conscientious objector and the present theistic oath which is now administered to enlistees.

In 1940 Congress ruled by statute that a person shall not be subject to service if by reason of religious training and belief he is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form, and the Supreme Court has interpreted that in terms of belief in a Supreme Being.

Now, I don't believe that that is consistent with the recent Supreme Court decisions or with a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

The American Humanist Association, composed largely of university professors and so-called intellectuals in various parts of the country deeply concerned with protecting the rights of the nonorthodox, believes that the statute should be changed to add some phrase like this:

Or personal, philosophical or personal moral convictions or perhaps— and I like this a little better

a past record of devotion to moral ideals consistent with opposition to military service.

I don't for a moment believe that the present military authorities mean to be unfair to conscientious objectors, but it has been pointed out again and again here today by the American Civil Liberties Union and by many of these religious groups here that the distinction is not feasible.

I am particularly sorry that Senator Inouye had to step out because in the Supreme Court this last week it was brought out that there are about 100,000 Buddhists in Hawaii, and one of the large segments of the Buddhist religion rejects the idea of a Supreme Being.

Now what are you going to say when a Buddhist from Hawaii appears before a draft board and says, "I am a conscientious objector but it is part of my religion not to believe in a Supreme Being"?

The truth is that the Supreme Court in two decisions, the case of Torcasso v. Watkins and the case of the Washington Ethical Society v. the DFC, has ruled that there are religions worthy of recognition which do not recognize a Supreme Being.

The Unitarian Church itself, which has a large segment of people who say they do not accept the concept of a Supreme Being, passed a resolution in 1953 to which it still adheres, asking that the Selective Service law be changed.

With your permission, I will enter that resolution in the record. Chairman RUSSELL. Very well.

(The resolution referred to is as follows:)

We believe that universal military training would further promote the militarization of the American mind and way of life; and there is no assurance that the proposed universal military training legislation would result in young men being ready for actual military combat; and the period of regimentation under such training might well be a detrimental break in the mental and emotional development of those young men under training; and the cost of maintaining such a program would be exorbitant and inflationary. We reaffirm our opposition to compulsory peacetime military training, either openly or by indirection unless and until all voluntary methods have proved unworkable.

Therefore be it resolved that we reject legislation enacting universal military training (AUA, 1952).

Being concerned over the increasing acceptance of militarization in our society, and having heretofore opposed all forms of permanent military conscription we deplore Congress having enacted a plan for universal military training, and urge our people to work for its ultimate repeal (UCA, 1955).

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

One of the achievements of Unitarianism has been a fellowship in which persons of varying theological beliefs worship and work in mutual recognition and respect. The Selective Service law now provides nonmilitary assignment of conscientious objectors only if their "religious training and belief" expressly includes "belief in a Supreme Being.' This definition has led to the imprisonment of many sincerely religious young men who do not express their beliefs in such traditional language, and it violates the integrity of our religious fellowship.

The first amendment indicates that an official theological definition of the nature of religion lies beyond the proper province of secular government. There

fore, we deplore the continued use of only a theistic test in determining eligibility for special assignment as a conscientious objector (AUA, 1953).

Whereas the Congress of the United States continues in practice to employ the "belief in a Supreme Being" as the test of "religious" objection to military training or service, and men whose grounds of objection would be recognized as religious by Universalists are still being denied recognition because of this definition, we challenge the use of the words "Supreme Being" as any exclusive test of religious conviction and call upon the Congress of the United States and Selective Service officials to recognize the broadly religious implications of social and philosophical objections to war (UCA, 1959).

The right to hold any religious belief or disbelief is an essential to our American democracy guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. However, there is increasingly widespread insistence upon religious conformity.

The "religious training and belief" requirement for recogniion of conscientious objection to military service under the Universal Military Training and Service Act has been interpreted to mean belief in a Supreme Being. Some religious liberals cannot subscribe to this and hence are denied recognition, prosecuted, and imprisoned.

Therefore be it resolved that we (1) deplore the present pressures toward conformity and orthodoxy in matters of conscience and religious belief; (2) call the attention of liberal religious groups and individuals to the narrow interpretation of religious belief in the present draft law, with consequent nonrecognition and discriminatory treatment of conscientious objectors whose beliefs are primarily ethical and nontheistic; and finally (3) urge our churches to be alert to combat any infringements on freedom of conscience and religion, and to give moral, spiritual, and practical support and counsel to individuals whose rights are so threatened or infringed upon (AUA, 1955).

Whereas Universalists require no specific assent to mere words as a condition of fellowship and acceptance among them, or of membership, they support those members who have taken the position of conscientious objection to military service. The present Selective Service law recognizes only those objectors who assent to a belief in a Supreme Being, but the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution militates against sectarian definitions of religion by any governmental authority. We call upon the Attorney General of the United States to broaden the administration of the law, and upon Congress to amend the law to recognize the validity of objection to war by Universalists and others, in those cases where the objection is based upon sincere, moral or philosophical grounds, or upon those grounds not based upon traditional Western theologies (UCA, 1957).

Mr. BLANSHARD. Now, there is one other point I would like to bring up, and that is this:

There was added by H.R. 218 the phrase, "So help me God" to the enlistee's oath.

This was brought up in the Senate in a discussion between Senator Morse and Senator Thurmond last year.

The House committee said that the words "So help me God" are not part of the obligation, but there is nothing in the law which indicates that this is not part of the obligation.

In the debate on the Senate floor, Senator Thurmond admitted that, in his opinion, no enlistee would be obliged to add the phrase. But Senator Morse pointed out, and these are his words:

Suppose that, after the bill is passed, a constitutent writes to me and informs me that he offered to enlist in the Air Force and was accepted, and that when the time came for him to be fully recruited, he was asked to raise his right hand and swear, but he refused and said, "I will affirm," and then they allowed him to affirm, but the affirmation ended with the words, "So help me God," and he said, "I can't accept that because I don't believe in God."

Continuing the quotation from Senator Morse:

My question is this: Will it then be possible to fall back on the committee report and to offer such a person a third form, namely, an affirmation which stops before reaching the words, "So help me God"?

And Senator Thurmond replied:

I would say that the policies in the armed services, as I understand it, have been not to require the addition of the words "So help me God," and thus far there has been no difficulty. Of course, if difficulty were to arise, the matter could be tested in a court. I would welcome a test on this point.

The point I want to raise, Senator, is this:

It would be very simple to have a third form for the nontheistic conscientious objector who is asked to sign neither the affirmation statement "so help me God" or the oath statement "so help me God," but simply an oath or an affirmation without that phrase.

I hope that the committee sees that this is a vital moral point, and I would like to file, with my statement, a very perceptive article by Lester Forest which is quite brief, called the Agnostic Conscientious Objectors.

Senator RUSSELL. That statement will appear in the record. (The article referred to is as follows:)

[Reprinted from the Humanist, vol. 21, No. 6, 1961]

AGNOSTIC CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Concerning the nonbeliever as "C.O."

(By Lester Forest 1)

The American Humanist Association, Humanist House, Yellow Springs, Ohio

REFERENCES

"The Legal Status of the Agnostic 'C.O.," by Charles H. Lyttle, the Humanist, vol. IX, No. 2, 1949. *** "Are You a Conscientious Objector?" also "The Draft Law and Your Choices," Friends Peace Committee, 1520 Race St., Philadelphia. *** Torcaso v. Watkins, U.S. Supreme Court, 1961. "No person can be punished for *** professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs," etc. (Summary sheet available from AHA.)

THE NONTHEISTIC CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR

World youth is uneasy, defiant, and searching. Perhaps no more than in past centuries but never before has man faced the prospect of global destruction. Fearing one's own death, or the destruction of one's land and country or even a part of the world is not the same as fearing total world annihilation. One of man's inherent drives is self-perpetuation; with that cut off a psychic imbalance may follow with its unrest, manifest in the world today.

Whereas prior to the H-bomb, banner-waving, marching, and picketing for peace may have been expected of members of peace-churches, isolationists, and peace-groups suspected of being Communist inspired, now the American citizenry in general thinks and moves with caution and the longing for peace stirs every heart. The posters and placards of housewives on a peace-walk to Washington, D.C., are "observed and the message received" by the President of the United States. The air today is sufficiently charged so that loving peace and standing up to be counted for peace is not quickly branded as unpatriotic, naive, or appeasing, and is no longer disloyal.

This might be the decade in which the nontheist, nonbeliever conscientious objector (CO) will be granted equal status with the CO whose exemption stems from religious training and belief related to a supreme being. A review of the CO status and certain pertinent judicial thinking will bring this view into focus.

THE DRAFT LAWS

Although the history of exemption from military service may be traced back to colonial times, for our purposes we need go no further than the Act of 1917. Congress then exempted from military service regular or ordained ministers of

1 Lester Forest is chairman of the Committee on Family Relations of the American Humanist Association and a member of the Committee on Church and State. This article is the outgrowth of a study made by him for the Committee on Church and State, which approved the policy outlined.

religion, students in theological schools, and persons who belonged to a group which forbade participation in war, and whose own religious convictions were in accord with those of the group.

In 1940 Congress ruled that no person shall be subject to military service "who by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." This was a transition from exemption based upon group consideration to individual conviction, but a conviction that must be based or founded in "religious training and belief."

There was not too much difficulty in interpreting this clause and it served to keep nonreligious objectors from exemption. However, two cases did allow objectors exemption under a very broad construction by the courts. Congress was jealous of these two who escaped; by an amendment in 1948 it added a restricting and narrowing definition to "religious training and belief":

"Religious training and belief in this connection means an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."

There are no court cases reported since 1948 that uphold exemption without including a belief tied in with a supreme being concept. In 1957 one case, the only one found, upheld a registrant who said his concept of a Supreme Being is Love; the Court held this sufficient and within the meaning of the Act to grant exemption. Humanists today, if not granted exemption by the local draft board, would not be successful in an appeal to the courts.

Thus, although Congress made progress by considering individual conviction, the 1948 amendment set up a wall between those who believed in a Supreme Being and those who did not.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DRAFT

Apart from interpretation of statutory requirements, the courts have examined whether there is any violation of the clauses in our Constitution that deal with free exercise of religion or the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court has uniformly held that there is no violation of any constitutional rights in view of Congress' war powers. In 1931 the Court unanimously said that the right of Congress to require military service from every able-bodied man could not be challenged:

"The privilege of the native-born conscientious objector to avoid bearing arms comes, not from the Constitution, but from acts of Congress. That body may grant or withhold the exemption as in its wisdom it sees fit; and, if it be withheld, the conscientious objector cannot successfully assert the privilege. No other conclusion is compatible with the well-nigh limitless extent of the war powers *** which include, by necessary implication, the power, in the last extremity, to compel the armed service of any citizen in the land, without regard to his objections or his views in respect of the justice or morality of the particular war or of war in general."

A

Thus the familiar principle is brought into play that whatever government may take away altogether, it may grant, if it wishes, only on certain conditions. Federal Court in 1952 reviewed the 1948 amendment as follows:

"In sum, as the exemption from participation in war on the ground of religious training and belief can be granted or withheld by Congress, the Congress is free to determine the persons to whom it will grant it, and may deny it to persons whose opinions the Congress does not class as 'religious' in the ordinary acceptance of the word. So, assuming that the definition of 'religious training and belief' * * * is restrictive, such restriction is within the constitutional power of the Congress. *** The definition which the Congress introduced into the 1948 amendment comports with the spirit in which 'religion' is understood generally, and the manner in which it has been defined by the courts. It is couched in terms of the relationship of the individual to a Supreme Being, and comports with the standard or accepted understanding of the meaning of 'religion' in American society." This is the present position of the CO; this is the law of the land.

THE NONBELIEVER

What of the conscientious objector who is sincere in opposing war but cannot relate his conviction to a Supreme Being? Is there any hope for a change? Can anything be done? Yes, and Congress is the only body that can make the change. Through its Committee on Church and State the American Humanist Association recommended to Congress that it strike out the 1948 amendment and