{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_72786/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_72786","id":"gutenberg_72786","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72786","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Warfare","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Conscientious objectors"],"text":"Of Holy Disobedience\n\n                              _A. J. MUSTE_\n\n                                                               _NUMBER 64_\n                                                           _JANUARY, 1952_\n                                                             _PENDLE HILL_\n                                                             _WALLINGFORD_\n                                                            _PENNSYLVANIA_\n                                                                _35 CENTS_\n\n                  1952 BY PENDLE HILL PRINTED IN THE USA\n\n\n\n\nTHE LAND OF PROPAGANDA IS BUILT ON UNANIMITY\n\n\nThe quotation which follows is from Ignazio Silone\u2019s novel, _Bread and\nWine_, which was a moving exposition of life under Fascism in Italy. The\nconversation between a young woman and an anti-Fascist priest takes place\nin a small Italian town at the end of the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy.\nDuring the night, anti-war and anti-Fascist slogans had been written on\nwalls and steps in the town.\n\n    Bianchina told Don Paolo she couldn\u2019t understand why there was\n    such a lot of fuss about a few inscriptions on the wall.\n\n    Don Paolo was surprised, too. He tried to explain it.\n\n    \u201cThe Land of Propaganda is built on unanimity,\u201d he said. \u201cIf\n    one man says, \u2018No,\u2019 the spell is broken and public order is\n    endangered. The rebel voice must be stifled.\u201d\n\n    \u201cEven if the voice is that of a poor, solitary sick man?\u201d\n\n    \u201cEven then.\u201d\n\n    \u201cEven if it belongs to a peaceful man who thinks in his own\n    way, but does nothing evil apart from that?\u201d\n\n    \u201cEven then.\u201d\n\n    These thoughts served to sadden the girl, but gave the man new\n    heart. He felt ashamed of his previous discouragement.\n\n    \u201cIn the Land of Propaganda,\u201d he said, \u201ca man, any man, any\n    little man who goes on thinking with his own head, imperils\n    public order. Tons of printed paper repeat the government\n    slogans; thousands of loud-speakers, hundreds of thousands of\n    manifestoes and leaflets, legions of orators in the squares\n    and at the crossroads, thousands of priests from the pulpit\n    repeat these slogans ad nauseam, to the point of collective\n    stupefaction. But it is enough for one little man to say \u2018No!\u2019\n    in his neighbor\u2019s ear, or write \u2018No!\u2019 on the wall at night, and\n    public order is endangered.\u201d\n\n    The girl was terrified, but the man was happy again.\n\n    \u201cAnd if they catch him and kill him?\u201d the girl asked.\n\n    \u201cKilling a man who says \u2018No!\u2019 is a risky business,\u201d the priest\n    replied, \u201cbecause even a corpse can go on whispering \u2018No! No!\n    No!\u2019 with a persistence and obstinacy that only certain corpses\n    are capable of. And how can you silence a corpse?\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA book which the French writer, Georges Bernanos, wrote in Brazil\u2014to\nwhich he had exiled himself because he would not remain in France under\nNazi occupation\u2014has just been published in this country. It is entitled\n_Tradition of Freedom_ and is a hymn to freedom, an impassioned warning\nagainst obedience and conformity, especially obedience to the modern\nState engaged in mechanized, total war.\n\nIn the closing pages of this work, Bernanos writes:\n\n    I have thought for a long time now that if, some day, the\n    increasing efficiency of the technique of destruction finally\n    causes our species to disappear from the earth, it will not\n    be cruelty that will be responsible for our extinction and\n    still less, of course, the indignation that cruelty awakens\n    and the reprisals and vengeance that it brings upon itself ...\n    but the docility, the lack of responsibility of the modern\n    man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree.\n    The horrors which we have seen, the still greater horrors we\n    shall presently see, are not signs that rebels, insubordinate,\n    untameable men, are increasing in number throughout the world,\n    but rather that there is a constant increase, a stupendously\n    rapid increase, in the number of obedient, docile men.\n\nIt seems to me that this is a true and timely warning. It might serve as\na text for a general appeal to American youth to adopt and practice the\ngreat and urgent virtues of Holy Disobedience, non-conformity, resistance\ntoward Conscription, Regimentation and War. For the present I want to\nuse Bernanos\u2019 words as an introduction to some observations on the\ndiscussion regarding the absolute and relative role of these \u201cvirtues\u201d\nwhich goes on chiefly among pacifists, members of the Historic Peace\nChurches and other such groups. I think it will be readily apparent,\nhowever, that the principles set forth have a wider bearing and merit\nconsideration by all who are concerned about the maintenance of freedom\nin our time and the abolition of war.\n\nMost believers in democracy and all pacifists begin, of course, with\nan area of agreement as to the moral necessity, the validity and the\npossible social value of No-saying or Holy Disobedience. Pacifists\nand/or conscientious objectors all draw the line at engaging in military\ncombat and most of us indeed at any kind of service in the armed forces.\nBut immediately thereupon questions arise as to whether we should not\nemphasize \u201cpositive and constructive service\u201d rather than the \u201cnegative\u201d\nof refusal to fight or to register; or questions about the relative\nimportance of \u201cresistance\u201d and \u201creconciliation,\u201d and so on. It is to\nthis discussion that I wish to attempt a contribution. It may be that it\nwill be most useful both to young men of draft age and to other readers\nif we concentrate largely on the quite concrete problem of whether the\nformer should register, conform to other requirements of the Selective\nService Act which apply to conscientious objectors and accept or submit\nto the alternative service required of them under the law as amended\nin June, 1951; or whether they shall refuse to register, or if they do\nregister or are \u201cautomatically\u201d registered by the authorities, shall\nrefuse to conform at the next stage; and in any event refuse to render\nany alternative service under conscription. We deal, in other words,\nwith the question whether young men who are eligible for it shall accept\nthe IV-E classification or take the more \u201cabsolutist,\u201d non-registrant\nposition. (For present purposes, consideration of the I-A-O position,\nthe designation used for draftees who are willing to accept service in\nthe armed forces provided this is non-combatant in character, may be\nomitted. The IV-E classification is the designation used for persons who\nare on grounds of religious training and belief opposed to participation\nin any war. Those who are given this classification are required to\nrender alternative service, outside the armed forces and under civilian\nauspices, and designed to serve \u201cthe health, safety and interest of the\nUnited States.\u201d)\n\nTwo preliminary observations are probably necessary in order to avoid\nmisunderstanding. In the first place, in every social movement there are\nvaried trends or emphases, and methods of working. Those who hold to\none approach are likely to be very critical of those who take another.\nDisagreements among those within the same movement may be more intense or\neven bitter than with those on the outside. I suppose it can hardly be\ndenied that every movement has in it individuals whose contribution is\nnegative, and that such individuals do not all come from within one wing\nof the movement. Objective evaluation also leads to the view that the\ncause is forwarded by various methods and through the agency of diverse\nindividuals and groups. But this does not mean that discussion within the\nmovement of trends and methods of work is not useful and essential. Even\nif it were true that each of several strategies was _equally_ valid and\nuseful, it would still be necessary that each be clearly and vigorously\npresented and implemented in order that the movement might develop its\nmaximum impact.\n\nSecondly, in what I shall have to say I am not passing moral judgment on\nindividual draftees. But from the fact that a pacifist minister should\nnot pass moral condemnation on the young man in his congregation who\nin obedience to his conscience enlists or submits to conscription, we\ndo not deduce that this minister should abandon his pacifism or cease\nto witness to it. Similarly, the fact that in the pacifist movement we\nsupport various types of COs in following the lead of conscience does\nnot rule out discussion as to the validity and usefulness of various\nstrategies. It is one thing for a young and immature draftee to follow\na course which amounts to \u201cmaking the best of a bad business\u201d and for\nothers to give him sympathetic understanding and help. It is a very\ndifferent thing for pacifist organizations or churches to advocate such a\ncourse or to rationalize it into something other than it really is.\n\nAs some of the readers of this statement are likely to be aware, the\nwriter has advocated the non-registrant position. The majority in the\npacifist movement probably believe that it is preferable for COs to\naccept or submit to the alternative civilian service which was required\nunder the World War II Selective Service Act and is now again required\nunder \u201cpeacetime conscription.\u201d\n\nThe varied considerations and arguments which currently enter into the\ndiscussion of this choice confronting the youth of draft age tend, as I\nsee it, to fall into three categories, though there is a good deal of\noverlapping. One set of considerations may be said to center largely\naround the idea of Christian or human \u201cvocation\u201d; a second set has to\ndo with the problem of \u201cthe immature 18-year-old\u201d; the third with the\nrelation of the pacifist and citizens generally to military conscription\nand the modern Power-State.\n\nThe argument for accepting alternative service, under the first category,\nhas been stated somewhat as follows:\n\n    God calls us to love and serve our fellowmen. This is for\n    Christians and other pacifists a matter of vocation. If, then,\n    the government in war time, or under peace time conscription,\n    requires some service of mercy or construction from us, which\n    is not obviously and directly a part of war-making, we will\n    raise no objection to undertaking such work. We may even\n    seek, and shall certainly be grateful for the opportunity to\n    demonstrate our desire to be good citizens and helpful members\n    of society, and to show a reconciling spirit.\n\nThis question of the meaning and implications of Christian or human\nvocation in the context of military conscription clearly needs careful\nanalysis.\n\n\nConscription and Vocation\n\nThe question of his vocation does not or should not arise suddenly\nfor the Christian or any morally sensitive and responsible individual\nwhen Congress enacts a conscription law. The committed Christian has\npresumably been engaged in an occupation and a way of living which he\nbelieves to be in accord with the will of God. This need not be some\nunusual or spectacular occupation. A Christian farmer, factory worker,\nminer, teacher, raising a family and giving an example of unselfishness\nto his neighbors; his wife maintaining an unobtrusively wholesome\nChristian home; the children walking in the footsteps of such parents\u2014all\nthese may be following a true Christian vocation.\n\nThen war or peace time conscription comes along. If these people are\npacifists, they hold that direct participation in war or in combat\ntraining is inconsistent with a Christian profession and calling. They\nmust, therefore, refuse such participation. At this point the government\ntells those of them who come under the draft that they must nevertheless\nrender some civilian service within or under the conscription system.\nIn most cases this will be something different from what they have been\ndoing and will involve temporary removal from the home community.\n\nIt has for some time troubled me that a good many pacifists of draft age\nseem ready to acquiesce in this situation and that, furthermore, many\nwho are not directly affected by the draft seem to feel that at such a\ntime they must immediately find something else to do than that which they\nhave been doing\u2014something that is often referred to as \u201cmeaningful\u201d or\n\u201csacrificial.\u201d Was what they were doing then so definitely not meaningful\nor sacrificial? Unfortunately, this is very likely the case in many\ninstances. But it does not follow, as is seemingly often assumed, that\nthis justifies going into some entirely new work, a \u201cproject,\u201d as we say,\nand perhaps preferably some relief work which has some connection with\nthe war effort, something which society will regard as the \u201cequivalent\u201d\nof support of the war effort. Certainly the fact that a young man of\ndraft age has not been following a meaningful or Christian vocation does\nnot automatically or by itself constitute a warrant for submitting to\nconscription for so-called civilian service. It may well be that God\ncalls him at this juncture to put meaning into the life he has been\nliving and into the work he was supposed to be doing.\n\nIt is certainly incumbent on us to search our hearts as to whether this\nrush to get into other jobs and to go to distant places may be motivated\nby fear of men and of the authorities, by a desire to be thought well of,\nby a dread of the social displeasure or actual legal punishment which\nmight fall upon us if we were to continue quietly at the work which we\nhad been doing, living in the home town when war fever, if not outright\nhysteria, seizes the people. \u201cIf I were still pleasing men,\u201d said St.\nPaul, \u201cI should not be the slave of Christ.\u201d\n\n\nThe Normal as Meaningful\n\nI am convinced that our thinking in these matters is often distorted.\nWhat God calls men and women to, fundamentally, is to \u201cbe fruitful and\nmultiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion\u201d over\nthe animal creation\u2014to sow the grain, weave the cloth, build homes and\ntemples to the Eternal. That is what most people should be doing most of\nthe time. In fact, unless they did, even the armies would all soon have\nto stop in their tracks! War comes along and breaks into this normal life\nof human beings. That it does this is one of the gravest indictments of\nwar. To resist this breaking up of orderly family and community life\u2014not\nto yield to the subtle and insistent pressure to do something different\nunder the tacit assumption that the normal cannot be meaningful\u2014is\none of the great services the people who believe in non-violence and\nreconciliation may render. \u201cIn returning and rest shall ye be saved, in\nquietness and in confidence shall be your strength.\u201d\n\nTo look at the matter from another angle, it is sometimes said that it is\nimportant that pacifists should make it clear that they can face hardship\nand danger and are ready to suffer, if need be, on behalf of their\nconvictions. Granted that this is true, it by no means automatically\nfollows that draft-age youths should submit to conscription or that\nother pacifists should on the advent of war or conscription leave what\nthey are doing for other work. It may well be that the most challenging\nopportunity to display courage, hardihood and readiness to suffer will\nbe found precisely in the community in which one has been living and\nin trying to do the ordinary things about which we have been speaking.\nThere is reason to think that some Congressmen may have been influenced\nin supporting the \u201cdeferment,\u201d or virtual exemption, for COs under the\noriginal 1948 United States Selective Service Act because they were\nconvinced that few who claim to be COs would have the nerve to stand up\nagainst the pressure to which one would be subjected as he tried to\ngo his normal way in his home town or college, when others were being\ndrafted and forced to leave home or college. Obviously, only a pacifist\nwho was leading, not a self-indulgent but a disciplined life, who was\nready to face danger and suffering and who deeply loved his fellows,\ncould follow such a course. It is possible that some leave the home or\ncollege environment not because they wish to face hardship but because\nthey yield to the temptation to try to avoid it.\n\nLet us, after these preliminary observations, try to determine how\u2014from\nthe standpoint of the concept of Christian vocation\u2014the pacifist may\njudge the action of a government which requires so-called alternative\nconscript service of him or of his children or fellow-pacifists. There\nare, so far as I can see, only three possible verdicts. One possibility\nis to say that the government is demanding that these conscripts shall\nat least temporarily _abandon_ their Christian or true vocation for work\nto which they clearly are _not_ \u201ccalled.\u201d A second possibility is to\nsay that the government is competent in these special circumstances to\ndetermine, and has correctly determined, that the alternative service\nto which it assigns COs constitutes their Christian vocation for the\ntime being. The third possibility is to reason that when the government\nthus forces a Christian into another occupation, it is performing an\nunwarranted and sinful act but that the Christian\u2019s duty in such a\nsituation is to practice non-resistance. It, therefore, becomes his\nvocation to undertake the work which is imposed upon him, not because it\nis in itself somehow good but because non-resistance to evil constitutes\nChristian behavior.\n\nThe first case is easily disposed of. If the individual is convinced\nthat he is being forced out of his Christian or human vocation into\nsomething which, therefore, requires him to disobey God or conscience,\nhe has no alternative but to refuse to comply with the State\u2019s demand,\nperhaps resist it non-violently, and take the consequences. He will\nstill probably be forced out of his accustomed place and work but his\nnon-conformity or non-cooperation with the State\u2019s demand at this point\nbecomes his true vocation.\n\nThe second possible attitude listed a moment ago is to hold that, in the\ncontext of conscription and provided it does not require service in the\narmed forces, the State may determine what one\u2019s Christian vocation is.\nSome of the Mennonite statements and those of some other pacifists seem\nto me to fall under this head. The position seems to me a very precarious\none and I question whether Mennonites, for example, can maintain it as\nconsistent with their own theology and Christian ethics.\n\n\nThe Role of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses\n\nIn the first place, it is essential in the Christian concept of vocation\nthat the \u201ccall\u201d is from the Spirit speaking in the heart of the believer.\nAnd the believer must always remain in a position where he can be free\nto respond to the prompting of the Spirit. But how can this be under a\nconscription regime? The position of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses that they cannot\nsubmit to conscription because they must always be free to \u201cwitness\u201d to\nthe faith, is in this respect surely a strong and impressive one. It has\na bearing also, incidentally, on what we said some paragraphs earlier\nunder general observations about Christian vocation. It seems to me that\nChristian pacifists need to give much more thought than they have done\nto the question whether in this particular respect the Witnesses, so far\nfrom being eccentric, are not taking the clear and consistent, centrally\nChristian, stand. The fact that the Witnesses can hardly be classified as\npacifists in the usual sense of the term does not affect the relevance\nof this question for pacifists and indeed for Christians generally.\n\nFurthermore in Mennonite thought, government, the State, though it is \u201can\nordinance of God\u201d to curb sin, is itself by definition also sinful, not\nChristian, not a part of \u201cthe order of redemption.\u201d Where, then, does the\nState get the competence, or the mandate to determine, of all things, the\n_Christian_ vocation of a _believer_? And particularly the war-making\narm or department of the State? If the war department or its adjunct,\nSelective Service, is qualified to determine Christian vocation as part\nof its conduct of, or preparation for, a war, then why should not the\nlabor department in peace time tell Christians where to work?\n\nThere remains a third possible position, namely, that the State is\nundoubtedly doing an evil thing in taking the individual out of the\nwork to which he feels God has called him but that the principle of\nnon-resistance to evil then comes into operation and submission to this\nevil becomes the vocation of the persecuted Christian. Given certain\npremises, there is logic in this position, but it is nevertheless open to\nserious question. In the first place, non-resistance to an evil should\nnot mean cooperation with it. \u201cDepart from evil and do good,\u201d is the\nlaw. Pacifists in general, and Christian pacifists in particular, have\nto ask whether in conforming with any of the provisions of a draft law\nand especially in rendering conscript service regarded as of \u201cnational\nimportance\u201d by a war-making state, they are not helping conscription to\nrun smoothly, helping thus to force conscription on millions of youth and\nthus in turn promoting war, since conscription is an integral part of\nan armaments race. The phenomenon of increased tension between nations\nwhen they lengthen the compulsory service period for youth is a familiar\none. This, of course, raises the whole question of our evaluation of the\nmeaning and role of military conscription, to which we shall return\nlater.\n\nIn the meantime, one or two other comments need to be made on the phase\nof our problem under discussion. If what is really happening is that\nthe war-making state is inflicting an evil on people, forcing them away\nfrom their vocation, subjecting them to a measure of persecution, then\nit seems we ought to keep this clearly in our own minds and ought not\nto let the government or public assume that we think otherwise. The\nexpressions of \u201cgratitude\u201d which we have sometimes heard addressed to\ngovernment for \u201cpermitting\u201d pacifists to render alternative service seem\ninappropriate. We cannot have it both ways: accuse the State of the grave\nsin of invading the realm of Christian vocation and at the same time\nthank it for doing us a \u201cfavor\u201d by making the invasion less than total.\nThe State is not doing God or Christian people a favor in recognizing\nconscience, though that is what most United States Congressmen think they\nare doing in making some provision for COs. The pacifist who in any way\nencourages this notion is in danger of helping to give currency to the\nidea that conscience is a private whim which legislators may see fit to\nindulge for prudential reasons, as long as those who are afflicted with\nthis peculiarity are very few in numbers. If non-resistant pacifists\nget off the high ground of patiently bowing the neck to Caesar\u2019s yoke,\nletting Caesar inflict the scourge of civilian conscript service upon\nthem, they are immediately on the low ground of bargaining for indulgence\nfor a small and, in that view, not too principled or brave a minority.\nStanding on that lower ground they have very little bargaining _power_\nand the results will reflect that fact\u2014and pretty much did during World\nWar II. On the other hand, both in Great Britain and in the United States\nthe sufferings which the COs endured in World War I when there was\nvirtually no legal or social recognition of them, were, according to all\ncompetent observers, largely responsible for the fact that fairly liberal\nprovisions for COs were made in World War II. The Army did not want to\n\u201cbe bothered with these fellows again.\u201d\n\n\nTwo Miles or None\n\nThis does not, of course, mean that if the imposition of alternative\nservice is accepted, it should be rendered grudgingly or that feelings\nof hostility toward government officials with whom one may deal are\nappropriate. Quite the contrary. If we decide to go with Caesar one mile,\nthe Gospel enjoins us to go two! We have the choice of not going along at\nall or going two miles, but not a skimpy one mile.\n\nI think it is now generally admitted that there was not a great deal of\nthis glad, spontaneous \u201csecond miling\u201d on the part of the conscript COs\nin World War II, though there was considerable talk about it among older\nfolks. Civilian Public Service in large measure simply did not operate on\nthe high spiritual plane that was originally hoped and is still sometimes\nimplied or stated, but was for many making the best of a bad business,\nperhaps for lack of clear leading or the courage to follow another course.\n\nIt will be recalled that there were a considerable number of Civilian\nPublic Service men who declared flatly that it was inconsistent, and\nindeed hypocritical, to talk of spontaneous service under conscription.\n\u201cWe are here,\u201d they said, \u201cnot because our desire to serve brought us\nhere. We are here because the government as part of its war program\npassed a conscription law and under that law took us by the scruff of the\nneck and is forcing us to do this job. We have no choice but this or the\narmy or jail. That fact is bound to color this whole experience, except\nperhaps for those who can shut their eyes to reality. Any one who denies\nthis is a hypocrite.\u201d\n\nIt seems to me these COs placed the finger on an essential point.\nCompulsion does enter into \u201cservice\u201d under a conscription law. It\naffects the whole picture. Therefore, the evaluation to be made of the\nIV-E position and of alternative service under it is not disposed of\nby asserting that \u201cservice is at least as real a part of Christian or\npacifist life as witness or resistance.\u201d That statement is perfectly\ncorrect. Service of men, fellowship with them, on the one hand, and\nnon-cooperation with evil, witness against injustice, non-violent\nresistance, on the other hand, are both essential in the pacifist\nway of life. There is some of each in every pacifist life. The most\n\u201creconciling\u201d one refuses to use a gun or even, probably, to put on\na uniform. Some of the most extreme \u201cresisters\u201d in prison were known\nfor the thoughtful and gentle service they rendered to criminal\nfellow-inmates. A very discerning English pacifist observed: \u201cFor some\ntheir witness is their service, for others their service is their\nwitness,\u201d or resistance. Each type needs to be on guard against the\ntemptations peculiar to it, including the temptation to question the\nmotives or underestimate the contribution of pacifists of the other type.\n\nBut the service which is the essence of pacifism is free, spontaneous,\njoyous, sacrificial, unbought. To magnify or glorify this is by no means\nautomatically to magnify or glorify the IV-E position _under the draft_.\nHere, as we have pointed out, an element enters which is contradictory to\npacifism, freedom and spontaneity\u2014_the element of compulsion in a context\nof war and war preparation_.\n\nIt seems to me that it is important for pacifists to bear this in mind\nas we make plans to deal with the problem of alternative service under\nthe amended 1948 Selective Service Act. No matter how \u201cliberal\u201d or\n\u201cconsiderate\u201d the conditions for administering alternative service may\nbe in the estimation of government officials or the pacifist agencies,\nif alternative service is accepted or acquiesced in at all, it will\ninevitably pose grave problems from the standpoint of Christian vocation\nand it will not, I think, be possible to escape the contamination or\ncorruption which \u201cconscription\u201d infuses into \u201cservice.\u201d At the moment\nit seems possible that Selective Service regulations will permit some\nindividuals to remain at their accustomed occupations. We put aside for\nthe time being certain questions to which we shall return as to what\nthe act of registration itself implies in the context of conscription\nfor atomic and biological war. Here we emphasize that once a man has\nappealed to the State to permit him to remain in his job and has been\ngranted such permission, it is not exactly the same job as it was before.\nOthers will not be given the same permission, and he should not evade the\nquestion whether he can acquiesce in and to a degree benefit from such\ndiscrimination. He will have to consider whether the consideration in his\ncase arises from the fact that officials regard his work as in some way a\ncontribution to the war effort, or from a desire to placate and silence\nan influential person. If he should conclude that he ought to change\njobs, he would have to consult the authorities again, and what then?\n\nIn conferences with Selective Service officials efforts are being made to\navoid some of the features of the war-time Civilian Public Service set-up\nwhich deeply troubled a good many Friends\u2014such as the close supervision\nby military men allegedly functioning as civilians and the undesirable\nand frustrating character of much of the work to which IV-E men were\nassigned. Even if substantial concessions are obtained, it will be well\nfor us to be on guard against idealizing the situation. It is hoped that\na good many young men will be in effect furloughed to projects at home\nand abroad which will not be exclusively for COs of draft age and which\nwill have real social value. It will not be the same as if these men had\nundertaken these jobs out of a sense of vocation and mission, apart from\nthe context of conscription. We know that for the most part they did not\nvolunteer until conscription came along. The same questions which the\nman who is permitted to remain in his own job faces, will confront these\nyoung men on projects. In addition, their term of service and rates of\npay will be set by the government.\n\nTo sum up this first part of our analysis, it is my conclusion that the\none consistent attitude toward conscript alternative service from the\nstandpoint of Christian vocation\u2014if one accepts such work at all\u2014is that\nwhich regards submission or non-resistance to the evil which the State\nimposes upon him when it interferes with his normal occupation, as the\nvocation or duty of the Christian man. Any other attitude seems to me\nto involve a considerable measure of rationalization. The Mennonites\ncame nearest to adopting this non-resistant position and the fact that\nthe experience of Mennonite youths in Civilian Public Service was less\nfrustrating and brought better results than was the case with others,\nsave in exceptional instances, seems to me to bear out my analysis. As\nwe have pointed out, those who non-resistantly take up their cross of\nconscription should bear it joyously and be ready to carry it the second\nmile.\n\n\nThe Immature Eighteen-Year-Old\n\nWe turn next to a brief consideration of the arguments for the IV-E as\nagainst the non-registrant position which center around the problem of\n\u201cthe immature 18-year-old youth.\u201d A number of 18-year-olds, it is pointed\nout, have a strong aversion to war and a leaning toward pacifism. They\nare, however, emotionally immature. If they have no choice but the army\nor jail all but a few will choose the army and are likely to be lost\nto the pacifist cause. They could be held and possibly even developed\ninto a radical pacifist position, if they had a third choice, namely,\ncivilian service. On the other hand, the youth who in the absence of such\na third possibility, chooses prison rather than the army may suffer grave\npsychological injury.\n\nI am sure no one will be disposed to be callous or \u201ctough\u201d in his\nattitude toward any youth faced with a problem such as we are discussing.\nAny one in the position of a counselor to an individual will want to\navoid \u201cpsychological pressuring\u201d to induce him to take this or that\ncourse, and will strive to help the young man to make his own decision,\nin accord with his own inner need and conviction, rather than to impose a\ndecision upon him. But I conceive that it would be my duty as a Christian\nminister to have this same attitude in talking and praying with a young\nman who was going into the Army. I would have no right, nor do I think\nit would do any good, to \u201cpressure\u201d him against his conviction and\ninner need, to refuse service. But this would certainly not mean that I\ngive up my own pacifist convictions, or refrain from doing all I can in\ngeneral to spread them or from making this particular young man aware of\nmy own thoughts and feelings. This in spite of the fact that if young\nmen who had planned to submit to the draft are consequently won to the\npacifist position, this may entail considerable suffering on their part,\nanguish for parents who disagree with them, and so on. It is fairly\ncertain, incidentally, that in many typical Southern communities\u2014and by\nno means exclusively in the South\u2014a youth who chose the I-A-O (medical\ncorps) position, not to mention IV-E, would have as tough a time as a\nnon-registrant in many metropolitan centers. We cannot, then, escape the\nconclusion that as we have a responsibility to decide for the pacifist\nor non-pacifist position and to bear witness for pacifism, if that is\nthe stand we take, so as pacifists we have a responsibility to decide\nwhether complete non-cooperation with military conscription is the more\nconsistent, committed and effective stand or not, and if we decide for\nthe former, then to do what we can to make our stand and the reasons for\nit known.\n\nI have the impression that even a great many, perhaps the majority, of\npacifist ministers will work harder to keep a young pacifist parishioner\nfrom taking the \u201cabsolutist\u201d position and going to jail rather than into\ncivilian service, than they would work to get the run of the mill young\nparishioners to think seriously about not going into the army. They\nseem somehow to feel that a more awful thing is happening to the young\nCO who goes to jail than to the 18-year-old who goes into the army. It\nis my impression that this same feeling is an unconscious factor in the\nthinking of many lay pacifists when they react strongly against the idea\nof COs going to prison. This puzzles me greatly. Why should they have\nthis reaction?\n\n\nArmy or Jail?\n\nTo my mind\u2014even apart from the sufficiently appalling factor of being\nsystematically trained for wholesale killing and subjected to the risk of\nbeing killed in brutal war\u2014there are few if any more evil and perilous\nsituations to put young men into than the armed forces. I should feel\nmuch deeper grief over having possibly had some part in getting some\nyouth to go into the armed forces than over having some responsibility\nfor bringing a young man to go to prison for conscience\u2019s sake. Are\nthe qualms people feel about youthful COs going to prison in certain\ninstances perhaps due to the fact that taking the non-registrant position\nis something very unusual and regarded with social disapproval, whereas\nbecoming a soldier is extremely common and meets with the highest social\napproval? It may be, therefore, that there are some ministers and other\nolder people who should examine themselves as to whether their feelings\nin the matter under discussion are due to the fact that they themselves\nmight find life in the community or in the church very uncomfortable\nif they were suspected of having influenced a youth to take a radical\nanti-draft stand, whereas all men will speak well of them\u2014or at least not\ntoo ill\u2014if they have helped, or at least not hindered, young Christians\nin adjusting themselves to the idea of going into the army. Is it just\npossible that we older people are sometimes concerned with sparing\nourselves when we think we are solely concerned about sparing teen-agers?\n\nTo return to the 18-year-old. There are young men who on physical and\npsychological grounds are exempted from army service. There may well be\nCOs who should on similar grounds be exempted from any kind of service.\nIf such a physically or mentally ill CO is refused exemption, he should\nperhaps be discouraged from undergoing the risks of prison experience if\nthere is an alternative for him. This still leaves us with the problem of\nthe majority of pacifist and non-pacifist youth who are not ill.\n\nWhen we find ourselves concerned about what the teen-age religious CO who\ngoes to prison must undergo and inclined to think that there is here an\nabsolutely conclusive case for providing alternative service and urging\nmost such COs to avail themselves of it, we might first take a look at\ntwo other categories of youth who are subject to the draft. One of them\nconsists of those actually drafted into the armed services; the other of\nthe so-called non-religious COs.\n\nThe great mass of teen-agers are going to be put through rigorous\nmilitary training with all the hardships, the toughening and the\ntemptations which this entails. They have to be ready to undergo actual\nbattle experience. Many of them will actually experience modern war at\nthe front. Is what the CO undergoes in prison vastly more terrible than\nthis? Is it as terrible? It may be said that the soldier has social\napprobation whereas the pacifist, especially the \u201cabsolutist\u201d meets\nsocial disapprobation and even ostracism. This is indeed a sore trial and\nmany cannot endure it. Frankly, I am still left with more grief and pity\nin my heart for the teen-age soldier than for the teen-age \u201cabsolutist\u201d\nCO. I am still left with a question whether we have a right to take any\ntime and energy away from the struggle to lift the curse of conscription\nfrom the mass of youth and put it into an effort to secure alternative\nconscript service for COs.\n\nThere are, as we know, teen-age \u201cabsolutists\u201d who feel the same way and\nwho have demonstrated that they can endure whatever they may be called\nupon to endure. Nor is their lot without its compensations. They, also,\n\u201chave their reward.\u201d\n\n\nThe So-Called Non-Religious CO\n\nReligious COs who accept the IV-E classification and older pacifists\nwho advocate this course have also to consider the non-religious CO.\nUnder United States Law it is the so-called religious CO who is eligible\nfor this classification; the so-called non-religious CO, though he\nmay by unanimous consent be equally sincere, is not. The latter has\nno choice except the army or jail. The fact that he is only 18 years\nold does not alter that. Nothing in this entire field of pacifist\npolicy and behavior is, frankly, harder for me to understand than how\nreligious COs and many of the leaders of the peace churches and of\nthe Fellowship of Reconciliation, can acquiesce in this situation and\naccept what is regarded as an advantage, a preferred position, under\nit. The white CO who accepted conscript alternative service when the\nNegro CO was automatically forced to choose the army or prison would be\nin an invidious position. So would the Gentile when his Jewish comrade\nwas thus discriminated against. But in my mind the case is far more\ndeplorable when it is the religious and the supposedly non-religious man\nwho are involved. The white man or the Gentile might actually believe in\ndiscrimination or not regard it too seriously when the discrimination is\nin his favor. But for the religious man it should surely be a central and\nindispensable part of his faith that discrimination, most of all where\ntwo men acting in obedience to conscience are involved, is unthinkable\nand that if there is discrimination, he cannot be the beneficiary of it.\n\nAt any rate, the argument that there must be alternative service\nbecause _immature_ 18-year-olds must by no means be subjected to prison\nexperience seems to me to become completely impotent in the mouths\nof those religious pacifists who acquiesce in the arrangement under\ndiscussion and enable it to work\u2014unless indeed they mean to contend that\nthe average religious CO has less stamina than the non-religious CO and\nthat, therefore, the former should be given gentler treatment.\n\nAdvocacy of alternative service for the teen-age CO is based on\nconsiderations relating to the future of the pacifist movement, as well\nas on the effect on the COs themselves. It is argued that if the only\nchoice young pacifists have is the army or jail, there will be very few\npacifists. This argument was not, however, first advanced when the draft\nage was lowered. It was often heard during World War II when most COs\nwere older and more seasoned. It has always impressed me as a dubious\nargument and I wonder where it leads us. What, for example, is the\nrelationship of this argument to the one which is also advanced\u2014sometimes\nby the same person\u2014that the IV-E position is very meaningful and perhaps\nto be preferred to the more \u201cabsolutist\u201d one, because it is the IV-E man\nwho gives a glorious demonstration of the spirit of selfless service\nwhich is the essence of pacifism at its best? These two concepts cannot\nvery well be harnessed together as a team. We can hardly contend in one\nand the same breath that we want alternative service because most young\npacifists are not ready to follow a stronger and more sacrificial course\n_and_ that we want it because it is the strongest and most meaningful\ncourse pacifists can follow. It seems to me we have to decide whether our\nproblem is to find shelter for COs or whether it is to find freedom and\nthe opportunity for self-expression and service, even though the price be\nhigh.\n\nTo consider the matter for a moment from the tactical viewpoint, it seems\nquite certain that the number of 18-year-olds who take either the IV-E\nor the non-registrant position (perhaps even the I-A-O position might be\nincluded) will at least at the outset be small. The draft now gets the\nyoung man at the very age when it is most difficult for him to stand out\nin any way from the mass of his fellows. Even if he is intellectually\npretty well convinced of the pacifist position, he is not emotionally\nmature enough to take it. It is a fair guess that the accessions to\nthe pacifist movement, if military service and/or training becomes\nuniversal, will in the future come mainly from young people who have gone\nthrough the experience of life in the armed forces. In other words, the\nadditional number of pacifists recruited because alternative service is\nprovided may turn out to be very small. If so, the numerical advantage\nfrom the adoption of a less uncompromising pacifism is illusory.\n\nThere is one other factor which may be mentioned in this context, that we\nlive in an age when the role of minorities is an increasingly difficult\none. The pressures and the actual persecution to which they are subjected\nare severe. The trend is still partially obscured in the United States\nbut if we pause to reflect that not a single bomb has as yet fallen on\nthis country, we shall realize that this country is not an exception to\nthe trend toward greater conformity and regimentation. As the New York\n_Times_ editorialized some time ago in commenting on some features of the\nMcCarran Act, if we are already resorting to such repressive measures,\nwhat will we do when a real crisis comes? In other words, while we spend\na good deal of time arguing that COs should have some choice other than\nthe army or jail, we are probably moving into a time when that will\nessentially be the only choice that members of minorities, including\npacifists, have. It would seem then that our thought and energy should be\ndevoted to two issues: whether and how this trend toward totalitarianism\ncan be halted and how we may prepare and discipline ourselves to meet the\ntests which our fellow-pacifists in some other lands have already had to\nmeet?\n\n\nThe Nature of Conscription\n\nThis, however, leads to the third and last of the issues we are trying\nto explore: the true nature of conscription, of modern war, and of\nthe conscripting, war-making State\u2014and the attitude which pacifists\nconsequently should take toward them.\n\nParticipation in alternative service is quite often defended on the\nground that our opposition is to war rather than conscription; except\nin the matter of war we are as ready to serve the nation as anybody;\ntherefore, as long as we are not drafted for combat or forced against\nour will into the armed services, we are ready to render whatever service\nof a civilian character may be imposed upon us.\n\nIs this a sound position? Let me emphasize that it is conscription for\nwar under the conditions of the second half of the twentieth century that\nwe are talking about. The question as to whether sometime and under some\ncircumstances we might accept conscription for some conceivable purpose\nnot related to war, is not here at stake. It is academic and irrelevant.\nThe question with which we are dealing is that of conscripting youth in\nand for modern war.\n\nAs pacifists we are opposed to all war. Even if recruitment were entirely\non a voluntary basis, we would be opposed. It seems to me we might\ninfer from this that we should be _a fortiori_ opposed to military\nconscription, for here in addition to the factor of war itself, the\nelement of coercion by government enters in, coercion which places young\nboys in a military regime where they are deprived of freedom of choice\nin virtually all essential matters. They may not have the slightest\ninterest in the war, yet they are made to kill by order. This is surely a\nfundamental violation of the human spirit which must cause the pacifist\nto shudder.\n\nThe reply is sometimes made that pacifists are _not_ being conscripted\nfor military purposes and therefore\u2014presumably\u2014_they_ are not faced\nwith the issue of the nature of military conscription. I shall later\ncontend that it is not really possible to separate conscription and war,\nas I think this argument does. Here I wish to suggest that even if the\nquestion is the conscription of non-pacifist youth, it is a fundamental\nmistake for pacifists ever to relent in their opposition to this evil,\never to devote their energies primarily to securing provisions for COs\nin a draft law or to lapse into a feeling that conscription has somehow\nbecome more palatable if such provisions are made by the State. It is\nnot our own children if we are pacifist parents, our fellow-pacifist\nChristians if we are churchmen, about whom we should be most deeply\nconcerned. In the first place, that is a narrow and perhaps self-centered\nattitude. In the second place, pacifist youths have some inner resources\nfor meeting the issue under discussion. The terrible thing which we\nshould never lose sight of, to which we should never reconcile our\nspirits, is that the great mass of 18-year-olds are drafted for war. They\nare given no choice. Few are at the stage of development where they are\ncapable of making fully rational and responsible choice. Thus the fathers\nimmolate the sons, the older generation immolates the younger, on the\naltar of Moloch. What God centuries ago forbade Abraham to do even to his\nown son\u2014\u201cLay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto\nhim\u201d\u2014this we do by decree to the entire youth of a nation.\n\nWe need to ask ourselves whether such conscription is in any real sense\na lesser evil. As we have already said, the pacifist is opposed to war\nand we have all sensed the danger of arguing against conscription _on the\nground that_ the nation could raise all the troops it needed by voluntary\nenlistment. Nevertheless, there is a point to an impassioned argument\nwhich George Bernanos makes in the book we mentioned at the outset.\nHe states that the man created by western or Christian civilization\n\u201cdisappeared in the day conscription became law ... the principle is a\ntotalitarian principle if ever there was one\u2014so much so that you could\ndeduce the whole system from it, as you can deduce the whole of geometry\nfrom the propositions of Euclid.\u201d\n\nTo the question as to whether France, the Fatherland, should not be\ndefended if in peril, he has the Fatherland answer: \u201cI very much doubt\nwhether my salvation requires such monstrous behavior\u201d as defense by\nmodern war methods. If men wanted to die on behalf of the Fatherland,\nmoreover, that would be one thing but \u201cmaking a clean sweep, with one\nscoop of the hand, of an entire male population\u201d is another matter\naltogether: \u201cYou tell me that, in saving me, they save themselves. Yes,\nif they can remain free; no, if they allow you to destroy, by this\nunheard of measure, the national covenant. For as soon as you have, by\nsimple decree, created millions of French soldiers, it will be held as\nproven that you have sovereign rights over the persons and the goods of\nevery Frenchman, that there are no rights higher than yours and where,\nthen, will your usurpations stop? Won\u2019t you presently presume to decide\nwhat is just and what is unjust, what is Evil and what is Good?\u201d\n\nIt is pretty certainly an oversimplification to suggest, as Bernanos\nhere does, that the entire totalitarian, mechanized \u201csystem\u201d under\nwhich men today live or into which they are increasingly drawn even in\ncountries where a semblance of freedom and spontaneity remains, can be\ntraced to its source in the military conscription which was instituted\nby the French Revolution in the eighteenth century. But what cannot,\nit seems to me, be successfully denied is that today totalitarianism,\ndepersonalization, conscription, war, and the conscripting, war-making\npower-state are inextricably linked together. They constitute a whole,\na \u201csystem.\u201d It is a disease, a creeping paralysis, which affects\nall nations, on both sides of the global conflict. Revolution and\ncounter-revolution, \u201cpeoples\u2019 democracies\u201d and \u201cwestern democracies,\u201d the\n\u201cpeace-loving\u201d nations on both sides in the war, are cast in this mold of\nconformity, mechanization and violence. This is the Beast which, in the\nlanguage of the Apocalypse, is seeking to usurp the place of the Lamb.\n\nWe know that \u201cwar will stop at nothing\u201d and we are clear that as\npacifists we can have nothing to do with it. But I do not think that it\nis possible to distinguish between war and conscription, to say that the\nformer is and the latter is not an instrument or mark of the Beast.\n\n\nDisobedience Becomes Imperative\n\nNon-conformity, Holy Disobedience, becomes a virtue and indeed a\nnecessary and indispensable measure of spiritual self-preservation,\nin a day when the impulse to conform, to acquiesce, to go along, is\nthe instrument which is used to subject men to totalitarian rule and\ninvolve them in permanent war. To create the impression at least of\noutward unanimity, the impression that there is no \u201creal\u201d opposition,\nis something for which all dictators and military leaders strive\nassiduously. The more it seems that there is no opposition, the less\nworthwhile it seems to an ever larger number of people to cherish even\nthe thought of opposition. Surely, in such a situation it is important\nnot to place the pinch of incense before Caesar\u2019s image, not to make\nthe gesture of conformity which is involved, let us say, in registering\nunder a military conscription law. When the object is so plainly to\ncreate a situation where the individual no longer has a choice except\ntotal conformity or else the concentration camp or death; when reliable\npeople tell us seriously that experiments are being conducted with drugs\nwhich will paralyze the wills of opponents within a nation or in an\nenemy country, it is surely neither right nor wise to wait until the\n\u201csystem\u201d has driven us into a corner where we cannot retain a vestige of\nself-respect unless we say No. It does not seem wise or right to wait\nuntil this evil catches up with us, but rather to go out to meet it\u2014to\n_resist_\u2014before it has gone any further.\n\nAs Bernanos reminds us, \u201cthings are moving fast, dear reader, they are\nmoving very fast.\u201d He recalls that he \u201clived at a time when passport\nformalities seemed to have vanished forever.\u201d A man could \u201ctravel around\nthe world with nothing in his wallet but his visiting card.\u201d He recalls\nthat \u201ctwenty years ago, Frenchmen of the middle class refused to have\ntheir fingerprints taken; fingerprints were the concern of convicts.\u201d\nBut the word \u201ccriminal\u201d has \u201cswollen to such prodigious proportions that\nit now includes every citizen who dislikes the Regime, the System, the\nParty, or the man who represents them.... The moment, perhaps, is not\nfar off when it will seem natural for us to leave the front-door key in\nthe lock at night so that the police may enter at any hour of the day or\nnight, _as it is to open our pocket-books to every official demand_. And\nwhen the State decides that it would be a practical measure ... to put\nsome outward sign on us, why should we hesitate to have ourselves branded\non the cheek or on the buttock, with a hot iron, like cattle? The purges\nof \u2018wrong-thinkers,\u2019 so dear to the totalitarian regimes, would thus\nbecome infinitely easier.\u201d\n\nTo me it seems that submitting to conscription even for civilian service\nis permitting oneself thus to be branded by the State. It makes the work\nof the State in preparing for war and in securing the desired impression\nof unanimity much easier. It seems, therefore, that pacifists should\nrefuse to be thus branded.\n\nIn the introductory chapter to Kay Boyle\u2019s volume of short stories about\noccupied Germany, _The Smoking Mountain_, there is an episode which seems\nto me to emphasize the need of Resistance and of not waiting until it\nis indeed too late. She tells about a woman, professor of philology in\na Hessian university who said of the German experience with Nazism: \u201cIt\nwas a gradual process.\u201d When the first _Jews Not Wanted_ signs went up,\n\u201cthere was never any protest made about them, and, after a few months,\nnot only we, but even the Jews who lived in that town, walked past\nwithout noticing any more that they were there. Does it seem impossible\nto you that this should have happened to civilized people anywhere?\u201d\n\nThe philology professor went on to say that after a while she put up a\npicture of Hitler in her class-room. After twice refusing to take the\noath of allegiance to Hitler, she was persuaded by her students to take\nit. \u201cThey argued that in taking this oath, which so many anti-Nazis had\ntaken before me, _I was committing myself to nothing, and that I could\nexert more influence as a professor than as an outcast in the town_.\u201d\n\nShe concluded by saying that she now had a picture of a Jew, Spinoza,\nwhere Hitler\u2019s picture used to hang, and added: \u201cPerhaps you will think\nthat I did this ten years too late, and perhaps you are right in thinking\nthis. _Perhaps there was something else we could all of us have done,\nbut we never seemed to find a way to do it, either as individuals or as\na group, we never seemed to find a way._\u201d A decision by the pacifist\nmovement in this country to break completely with conscription, to give\nup the idea that we can \u201cexert more influence\u201d if we conform in some\nmeasure, do not resist to the uttermost\u2014this might awaken our countrymen\nto a realization of the precipice on the edge of which we stand. It might\nbe the making of our movement.\n\n\nThe Reconciling Resistance\n\nThus to embrace Holy Disobedience is not to substitute Resistance for\nReconciliation. It is to practice both Reconciliation and Resistance. In\nso far as we help to build up or smooth the way for American militarism\nand the regimentation which accompanies it, we are certainly not\npractising reconciliation toward the millions of people in the Communist\nbloc countries against whom American war preparations, including\nconscription, are directed. Nor are we practising reconciliation toward\nthe hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa whom we condemn to poverty\nand drive into the arms of Communism by our addiction to military\n\u201cdefense.\u201d Nor are we practising love toward our own fellow-citizens,\nincluding also the multitude of youths in the armed services, if, against\nour deepest insight, we help to fasten the chains of conscription and war\nupon them.\n\nOur works of mercy, healing and reconstruction will have a deeper and\nmore genuinely reconciling effect when they are not entangled with\nconscript service for \u201cthe health, safety and interest\u201d of the United\nStates or any other war-making State. It is highly doubtful whether\nChristian mission boards can permit any of their projects in the Orient\nto be manned by men supposed to be working for \u201cthe health, safety and\ninterest\u201d of the United States. The Gospel of reconciliation will be\npreached with a new freedom and power when the preachers have broken\ndecisively with American militarism. It can surely not be preached at all\nin Communist lands by those who have not made that break. It will be when\nwe have gotten off the back of what someone has called the wild elephant\nof militarism and conscription on to the solid ground of freedom, and\nonly then, that we shall be able to live and work constructively. Like\nAbraham we shall have to depart from the City-which-is in order that we\nmay help to build the City-which-is-to-be, whose true builder and maker\nis God.\n\nIt is, of course, possible, perhaps even likely, that if we set ourselves\napart as those who will have no dealings whatever with conscription, will\nnot place the pinch of incense before Caesar\u2019s image, our fellow-citizens\nwill stone us, as Stephen was stoned when he reminded his people that it\nwas they who had \u201creceived the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept\nit not.\u201d So may we be stoned for reminding our people of a tradition of\nfreedom and peace which was also, in a real sense, \u201cordained by angels\u201d\nand which we no longer keep. But, it will thus become possible for\nthem, as for Paul, even amidst the search for new victims to persecute,\nsuddenly to see again the face of Christ and the vision of a new\nJerusalem.\n\nSome one may at this point reflect that earlier in this paper I counseled\nagainst people too readily leaving the normal path of life and that I\nam now counseling a policy which is certain to create disturbance in\nindividual lives, families and communities. That is so. But to depart\nfrom the common way in response or reaction to a conscription law, in the\nattempt to adapt oneself to an abnormal state of society, is one thing.\nTo leave father, mother, wife, child, yea and one\u2019s own life also, at the\nbehest of Christ or conscience is quite another. Our generation will not\nreturn to a condition under which every man may sit under his own vine\nand fig tree, with none to make him afraid, unless there are those who\nare willing to pay the high cost of redemption and deliverance from a\nregime of regimentation, terror and war.\n\nFinally, it is of crucial importance that we should understand that for\nthe individual to pit himself in Holy Disobedience against the war-making\nand conscripting State, wherever it or he be located, is not an act of\ndespair or defeatism. Rather, I think we may say that precisely this\nindividual refusal to \u201cgo along\u201d is now the beginning and the core of any\nrealistic and practical movement against war and for a more peaceful and\nbrotherly world. For it becomes daily clearer that political and military\nleaders pay virtually no attention to protests against current foreign\npolicy and pleas for peace when they know perfectly well that when it\ncomes to a showdown, all but a handful of the millions of protesters will\n\u201cgo along\u201d with the war to which the policy leads. All but a handful\nwill submit to conscription. Few of the protesters will so much as risk\ntheir jobs in the cause of \u201cpeace.\u201d The failure of the policymakers to\nchange their course does not, save perhaps in very rare instances, mean\nthat they are evil men who want war. They feel, as indeed they so often\ndeclare in crucial moments, that the issues are so complicated, the\nforces arrayed against them so strong, that they \u201chave no choice\u201d but\nto add another score of billions to the military budget, and so on and\non. Why should they think there is any reality, hope or salvation in\n\u201cpeace advocates\u201d who when the moment of decision comes also act on the\nassumption that they \u201chave no choice\u201d but to conform?\n\nPrecisely in a day when the individual appears to be utterly helpless, to\n\u201chave no choice,\u201d when the aim of the \u201csystem\u201d is to convince him that he\nis helpless as an individual and that the only way to meet regimentation\nis by regimentation, there is absolutely no hope save in going back\nto the beginning. The human being, the child of God, must assert his\nhumanity and his sonship again. He must exercise the choice which he\nno longer has as something accorded him by society, which he \u201cnaked,\nweaponless, armourless, without shield or spear, but only with naked\nhands and open eyes\u201d must create again. He must understand that this\nnaked human being is the one _real_ thing in the face of the mechanics\nand the mechanized institutions of our age. He, by the grace of God, is\nthe seed of all the human life there will be on earth in the future,\nthough he may have to die to make that harvest possible. As _Life_\nmagazine stated in its unexpectedly profound and stirring editorial of\nAugust 20, 1945, its first issue after the atom bombing of Hiroshima:\n\u201cOur sole safeguard against the very real danger of a reversion\nto barbarism is the kind of morality which compels the individual\nconscience, be the group right or wrong. The individual conscience\nagainst the atomic bomb? Yes. There is no other way.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Pendle Hill is a center for religious and social study maintained by\nmembers of the Society of Friends. Pamphlets and occasional books are\npublished on matters that grow out of the current life and thought of the\ncenter. Authors of pamphlets still in print include Howard H. Brinton,\nGerald Heard, Harold C. Goddard, Thomas R. Kelly, Gilbert Kilpack, and\nElizabeth Gray Vining. For subscription to the yearly series of Pendle\nHill Pamphlets, purchase of single pamphlets or books write_:\n\n                        PENDLE HILL PUBLICATIONS\n                        WALLINGFORD, PENNSYLVANIA","title":"Of holy disobedience","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":10417}