For the list of the Molokan CO Advisory Board, just email us at molokanco@jps.net :
e-MAIL your questions to molokanco@jps.net regarding Molokan objection to war and military service, the Selective Service System, and National Service. Answers will be provided by the moderator.
Comment: Don't know if this is still true today, but when I signed up for Tuition Aid (Pell Grant, Stafford Loan, etc.) for College, there is a part that says you must be registered with the Selective Service. Conviently, there is a "check box" which says you grant the Selective Service permission to register you on your behalf. Obviously you won't be able to write your objection on the registration card if you do it this way.
Question: When I attended the draft seminar's, It was stated to write "Religious Conscientious Objector" vs. "Conscientious Objector". Why the difference and does that still hold true today?
ANSWER: The Selective Service only recognizes conscientious objector claims that have religion as its basis, no other types of claims are acceptable. The use of the word religious then becomes redundant.
A C.O. is defined by the Military Selective Service Act, in the following words, "by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." The exemption is directly aligned with the First Amendment statement of freedom of religion. The state cannot force a person to violate his proven religious convictions. It is important to note that political, economic or humanitarian reasons are insufficient as a claim of conscientious objection to war and military service. Every conscientious objection claim must be associated with religious belief or an equally-valid conviction resulting from a divine authority above that of the state, or else it will be rejected. (Selective Service regulations, 32 CFR XVI, Sec. 1636.4 and .5)
Registration is only applicable up to a male's 26th birthday. If you have not registered by that date, then it does not matter any more. But if the college forms require it, best to register by mail, so you can include the statement about being opposed to war in any form.
This website below lists each States' penalties and/or restrictions for non-registrants. Just highlight the link below and paste it into your address bar.
http://feat.nisbco.org/statepen_chart.pdf
Comment: It is important to also note that no one has been prosecuted for failing to register for the draft since 1986. Non-registrants are in the several million. The reasons for not prosecuting anyone are the following:
1. The Selective Service System does not have the time or money to do so. They operate on a shoe-string budget of $28 million per year.
2. The Federal Courts have more important things to do.
But this should not be reason for a young Molokan not to register. If conscription or National Service is ever legislated, at that time, the Selective Service will make it difficult for a person who has not registered to acquire any type of exemption.
QUESTION: I've realized that many people would have remained adamant and refrained from registering but they made it to where people can't qualify for many things unless they are registered so the people register eventually out of need.
Can you share abit about how registering ROC is important rather than ignoring it? and that by registering ROC is the way to show ones beliefs in regards to war?
ANSWER: Correction to your statement: No one has been prosecuted since 1986 for failing to register for the draft. In one respect, it is a personal confession of your convictions when you state that you are a C.O. when you register. Loss of benefits for not registering are noted in the above link, posted by stevepiv.
In 1969, when I turned 18, and at the height of the Viet-Nam War, I walked into the Selective Service office in downtown LA and told the man behind the counter that I was registering as a conscientious objector. At that point I committed myself to this conviction and I do not regret it one bit. Most of my generation did the same thing.
Question: According to your comment (as listed above) does this mean the Selective Service does NOT require Female registration, at this time?
Is there any talk to your knowledge (on Capital Hill, or wherever they talk about this stuff ) if this may be placed into effect in the future? If so, when may they institute such practices? Also, how imminent, do you believe / or in your opinion, may a Draft be instituted?
ANSWER: Only males are required to register. Selective Service has no plans or intentions for the registration of females.
The present intent of Congress, the President and the Pentagon is an all-volunteer army. The president made this statement during the second debate with John Kerry, that there will be no draft during his term of office. Pentagon military officials have no intent introducing conscription, because they learned the lesson from Viet-Nam, that you cannot force someone to give their life for their country or kill for their country; the best army is volunteer. To require conscription is self-defeating.
Latest information from military recruitment is that the army will meet its goals for 2005 without any problem, and these analysts plan years ahead. It is cheaper for the military to extend the service of the personnel in Iraq and elsewhere than to enlist and train new soldiers. According to the Military Selective Service Act, the president does not presently have the authority to implement conscription. The Pentagon must inform Congress of the need of additional military personnel, and then Congress will legislate the need for conscription, if it agrees with the requests of the Pentagon, and then will allocate additional money, and bestow on the President the authority to implement conscription. This is not an easy task.
Even if everybody lies and Congress does legislate conscription tomorrow, the Selective Service System has 6 months and 13 days to provide the first recruits. But it will take the Selective Service $500 million from Congress: to staff itself, open 1,200 draft boards, and hire 13,000 new employees and train them. None of this is being done at present, nor does the Selective Service have any money or time to do so. Aggressive recruitment on high school and college campuses is cheaper and more effective.
Do not be lead astray by sensationalism, and these people say 10 days and you're drafted. During Viet-Nam with conscription in effect it was 10 days, but right now the Selective Service operates on a shoe-string budget of $28 million, and many in Congress would like to close it down. In fact, the Pentagon is on another wave of military base closures to reduce its size. Today's military wants quality, not quantity. If they want cannon fodder, they just need to lower their standards.
Even though there are 150,000 troops in Iraq, the total available US military force is 1.5 million active, and 1 million reserves. The US military has over 100,000 available troops stationed in US military bases in England, France, Germany and Italy, including the entire Mediterranean 7th Fleet, all of which are ready for use, even if enlistment declines. The Iraqi conflict is hardly using 10% of America's available military strength.
During the campaign against Bush, some anti-Bush people spread propaganda that he had secret agenda for a draft beginning June 15, 2005. But this was proven to be false when Congress on October 5, 2004, exposed the fraud and defeated the National Military Service bill. (The rumor also circulated in the Molokan community.)
The present threat and for the next several years is aggressive military recruitment on high school and college campuses. Even if something does occur, some major terrorist tragedy or attack, people will volunteer and join without compulsion, because of American patriotism, and this is the problem for the Molokan community. You will be surprized at the amount of patriotism that pervades our community from the American sector. Conscription is not the threat that we must prepare for, but volunteer enlistment, and due to the patriotism that infiltrates our community from the American society .
Latest from the Center on Conscience and War
On May 26, 2005 Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) renewed his call for the reinstatement of the military draft. Rep. Rangel re-introduced his notorious draft bill from the last Congress under the same name with a new number, the Universal National Service Act of 2005 (H.R. 2723).
The good news is that H.R. 2723 does not have any original co-sponsors. Rep. Rangel, so far, is the sole sponsor of the bill. Furthermore, Rangel’s new bill is less objectionable. It gives better provisions for conscientious objectors than his conscription bill in the previous Congress. CO provision in H.R. 2723 reflects the language that is already in law under the Selective Service Act. Anyone opposed to “participation in war in any form” will be exempt from military service and will be required to perform alternative civilian service. H.R. 2723 was referred to the Armed Services committee, where it is expected to stay.
Additionally, on May 18, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.R. 2455) to repeal the Selective Service Act. Paul’s bill will eliminate the Selective Service System and give a definite assurance that a draft is truly, not coming back.
The majority of Congressional members are saying that they will not support a draft.
More News from the Selective Service
In the latest issue of the Register, Sept-Oct 2005, published by the Selective Service System, one article discusses some Buddhists who met with SSS officials regarding conscription and alternative service. This Buddhist group in America is opposed to serving in the US military. The following is the text from the Register regarding their meeting:
National Headquarters, July 5, 2005. Mr. Dick Flahavan, Associate Director of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Ms. Cassandra Costley, head of the Alternative Service Division, met with the guests. This was the first time Buddhists met with Selective Service officials at National Headquarters.
Mr. Flahavan briefed the Buddhists on the Selective Service System, its mission, and the current Administration’s position regarding the draft. He added that rumors of dates when a draft was supposed to start have passed, and Congress’ latest vote on a bill to reinstate a military draft was defeated, 402 to two.
Ms. Costley explained that conscientious objectors who are opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. She stated that this program matches conscientious objectors with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of alternative service include jobs in conservation, caring for the very young or very old, education, and health.”
This rumor of a secret draft for June 2005 also circulated in the Molokan community, but in October 2004, Congress defeated the National Military Service bill. It is the intent of the present adminstration to have a complete volunteer army for the indefinite future. As in the past, it is not conscription that is the primary threat, but patriotism and a lack of knowledge of the tenets and history of our Molokan Christian community. In case of future legislation of conscription, the Selective Service is already making arrangements for COs to serve in alternative service.
Some comments regarding the Iraqi War:
Wars have an origin, and which are usually political and economic in nature, and so with the present Iraqi War. To understand the Bush-Halliburton connection with the invasion and war, we need to go back 15 years to the Kuwaiti war. After the defeat of Iraq, it was placed under economic sanctions by the US, and the northern 1/3 and southern 1/3 became "no-fly" zones. The elder President George H.W. Bush hoped that economic deprivation - embargo - of Iraqi residents would break the back of the government, rather than further war. But this did not occur. Instead, countries in Europe, like France, that need petroleum (since their countries do not produce it), made arrangements with Iraq to buy their oil in Euros once the embargo was lifted. During the 12 years of embargo, Iraq reverted into a poverty-stricken 3rd world country and without the ability to manufacture any weapons of mass destruction. The 8-year war with Iran also depleted their economy.
Of course, once the US government heard about the arrangements between France and Iraq, plans were started to use war to take over Iraq, so the US could acquire the oil and US dollars would be used, instead of Iraq selling oil to Europe and getting Euros for it. Preparations for a war against Iraq began about half-way through the second term of the presidency of William Clinton, about 1998.
Since Richard Chaney once was the CEO of Halliburton, a company involved in the petroleum industry, he was the primary candidate for Vice-President, now with the proposed war against Iraq already in the planning. Since Saddam Hussein was a dictator, the US plan was to walk in, depose the dictator, be hailed as heroes, and take over the petroleum industry under the administration of Halliburton, so the US could handle Iraqi oil in US$, instead of Iraq selling it to Europe in Euros. Of course, the propaganda to justify invasion that the Bush-Chaney team fed the American population was the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was supposed to be harboring and manufacturing, which was a lie.
The catalyst to starting the invasion was the tragic Twin Towers attack of Sept 11, 2001, even though no Iraqi association could be proven. Nonetheless, the US congress and the naive American public went along with the plan (at the present bin Laden is still in asylum in the mountains of northern Afghanistan or some local region).
But the lesson of Vietnam meant nothing to these US military brass and government officials, that foreign countries do not want the help of America with their internal problems, regardless of their severity. This would equally extend to middle-eastern Islamic countries: they do not want Americans to interfere with their personal national politics either. America at present is doomed to remain in Iraq, even with the consequences of 2,500 American soldiers dead, 17,000 wounded, many American civilians executed by Iraqi anti-American forces, over 40,000 – and closer to 100,000 – Iraqi civilians dead, and the destruction of their country, economy and civilization. America is doomed to remain in Iraq, because American military and political leaders know that they cannot leave, because if the US does leave, after the end of the civil war that will definitely occur, they know that the Iraqis will sell their oil in Euros to central European countries. By keeping the US army there, and at whatever cost in lives, and deceiving the Americans telling them that the Iraqis want democracy, Bush-Chaney have a chance at Iraqi oil in US$. This is not a good situation for the US, and will not end anytime soon, and nobody knows what the result will be. War is money, politics and power, and it is a massive deception for the US government to tell us that US soldiers are there fighting to protect our freedoms. The soldiers are there to protect and give their lives for American big business, just as with Vietnam.
