The Atheist as Objector

To be classified as a conscientious objector, a man need not be a Quaker, a Mennonite, or a member of some other sect that opposes war as a matter of religious conviction. Instead, a federal law exempts from active military duty anyone who cannot serve because of "religious training and belief." In amending the law last year, Congress struck out the requirement that such a belief be "in a relation to a Supreme Being." In view of this, could an atheist--a person who expressly disavows faith in God --be excused as an objector?

It had never happened until a federal judge in Baltimore last week declared that Michael Shacter, 21, was eligible for such an exemption. A Library of Congress clerk, Shacter had claimed to be a C.O. even though he told his draft board that he was an athe ist. He was denied that classification, and in August was charged with being a draft dodger. Though raised as a Jew--his Orthodox grandfather was a C.O.--Shacter claimed to have his own re ligious faith, based on the belief that "man's mortal soul is the most perfect element in the cosmos." He declared that he could not serve in the Army, because to kill another person "is a sin that no man can endure." But he also admitted that "I do not believe in any being superior to man in the universe."

Influenced by Training. Acquitting Shacter of the charge, Judge Alexander Harvey II declared that his beliefs were clearly "a product of a faith." Harvey pointed out that Shacter was strongly influenced by his early training in Judaism, and indeed had used such religious words as sacred and holy entity. Thus, said the judge, the ruling was consistent with the opinion in the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Seeger. In that decision, Justice Tom Clark broadly interpreted the test of religious belief. To qualify as a C.O., wrote Clark, a man's convictions must be "sincere and meaningful" and "occupy a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God." Seeger, who had voiced "skepticism about the existence of God," did not go so far as to call himself an atheist. Clark pointed this out, concluding that "the question is not, therefore, one between theistic and atheistic beliefs. We do not deal with or intimate any decision on that situation in this case."

According to Washington Lawyer Michael Tigar, the editor of the Selective Service Law Reporter, Judge Harvey's decision extends Clark's opinion "very significantly." Perhaps trying to caution those who may seek reclassification as a result of it, Selective Service Director Lewis Hershey pointedly observed at week's end that "the area of religion is a very complicated one."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.