Larry, as an attorney you know that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment have often been at odds with each other. The former protects freedom from religion and the latter protects freedom of religion. The branches of government, particularly Congress and the courts, are always faced with a balancing act. Didn't the Selective Service Acts of 1940 and 1948 "establish religion" by giving special status to religious objectors who professed a belief in a "Supreme Being" while denying that same status to everyone else? Yes, I know the Supreme Court's Seeger decision in 1965 knocked out the "Supreme Being" requirement, but it affirmed Congress's stipulation that CO status be granted only for "religious training and belief," even as it broadened the scope of what that language meant.

Beyond conscientious objection, the USA's conscription laws of 1863, 1917, 1940, 1948, and 1967 all exempted clergymen ("ministers of the Gospel") from military service. Was that not establishing religion?

The bottom line is that I am against consvription as a general principle, but if we must have it, then I believe local Selective Service boards must be mandated to consider all claims of conscientious objection, whatever the basis. Otherwise, Congress would have given religion in general, and the Historic Peace Churches in particular, a special status which amounts to establsihment of religion. In the same vein, I also believe there should be no exemption for the clergy. Let individuals claim conscientious objector status if they will. Otherwise, let them face the same three way moral dilemma other young men face (and which young women may very well face): service versus evasion versus open resistance.

--- Steve