Author: Kent Busse
(a guest writing, posted by Bridget Rorem)
I recently read the New York Times article, “More Joining U.S. Military as Jobs Dwindle“…
This reinforces my idea that we need to have an official draft (universal national service) so that the country will not feel good about the poverty draft. It is too easy for people to vote to send somebody else’s children to combat. My version of the draft is a FREE CHOICE between military and alternative service–no exceptions, no excuses. If enough Americans believe in having a military, we will have one. We will vote with our feet–the same as we do in the marketplace. It is the same principle as the Alternative Peace Tax Fund.
On the surface I’m a bad Quaker (a misfit in AFSC) because I believe there SHOULD be a draft. I hope the above paragraph clarifies what I mean by that.
FURTHERMORE: (organized economic feasibility) In ancient Rome, one senator realized that they could not recall the Roman Army because there was not enough food in all of Rome to feed it. Our economy has reached the corresponding stage–it would totally collapse if the U.S. military disappeared in an instant. My approach is to CHANGE WHAT THE MILITARY DOES: replace search and destroy with search and rescue. It would be a vehicle for scientific research (e.g. feeding the world population) and distribution of cooperative initiatives to end the causes of war. The Department of Peace discussions tend toward this direction. Having UNIVERSAL military / alternative service would also be a wrenching shift in the economy, but it could be designed logically.
AND FINALLY: (public safety is a MUTUAL responsibility) Even in a world with evenly distributed wealth, open democracy, etc. there may be a need for police presence to deal with the anomalies of individuals who become violent for whatever reason remains to do so. To me military means “A does to B,” while acceptable police work is “A, B, C, D” mutually carry out the standards of behavior that THEY HAVE MUTUALLY CHOSEN to enforce ON THEMSELVES.
What do you think?
Bridget –
First off, welcome to the blogosphere!
As to your thoughtful, provocative post–it has so much potential that I can only pick at the surface for now. But for what it’s worth–brava for tackling a difficult subject, and for being the “squeaky wheel” in the antiwar community as well.
I think it might be worth asking whether the draft you propose would focus on mandatory service at a particular time of life–say, ages 18-19 (which for some would delay college for a year or two)–or at any time? Also, would it be retroactive, so those of us of a certain age (ahem) would now be required to give (or prove past) community service of some sort?
It may be worth noting that many, if not most, American adults do perform “alternative service,” whether or not government subsidized or mandated, at some point in their lives. Lawyers in Illinois now report their pro bono publico (“for the good of the community”) contributions, whether in time or dollars, to our disciplinary commission; there’s no minimum requirement at present, but most of us understand the moral obligation to “give back” to the community which authorizes us to practice the licensed profession of law. In another way, my husband, a career scientist whose research is 100% taxpayer funded, made the conscious decision to stay in the national laboratory system (where he probably makes less than he would in private industry), where he could do the basic materials research he loves, without consideration of the profit motive which drives private-lab research and development. I’d guess both of us would be willing to take orders to do what we are already doing for (say) another year or so, especially if we ended up getting some basic benefits (like universal health insurance, say!), under the sort of universal draft you are proposing.
But getting back to your vision–did I say that I’m in total agreement, by the way?–while I’m not sure how much draftees with (say) high school educations could do in the way of scientific research, I’m quite sure that those of them who are able-bodied could bring great benefits to our aging population (home visits, meals-on-wheels, lawn mowing, listening!), whether they wore military-style uniforms or not. They would also be welcome additions to county forestry crews, hospitals, schools, even prisons–not as inmates, either, but as office staff, youth mentors, or in other positions inmates can’t or don’t now fill.
The system you propose is, I think, exactly what is in place in Germany today, where a young family friend (classified 1A at age 18 and avidly courted by the military at that time) spent a year or two after high school working in homes for the aged to fulfill his national service obligation. He’s now in graduate school in South Africa, studying international policy.
Patricia
I really like your idea of mandatory service for everyone, with a choice between military service and public service.
My beef about current Quaker programs that try to keep military recruiters out of schools is that we’re not offering any other opportunity similar to the military, where you get not only income but health insurance and an opportunity to both take college courses and get your college degree should you survive your service.
Our collective social class uniformity keeps us from seeing the economic realities that face the majority of graduating high school students. We think it’s enough to just tell people the truth.
With mandatory service, every one gets an opportunity to serve in the way they feel is best for them and their families and not just those with enough means to choose college or something else.
Compulsory service is a violation of a person’s right of self-determination, assumes the government has the right and wisdom to remove the basic rights of a segment of the population, and debases the spirit of charitable work to that of compulsory work undertaken out of fear of punishment. I view it as unethical. As a homeschooling parent dedicated to rearing my children in the spirit of service, the notion that the government should dictate my children’s service to their community is repugnant to me. As a community college teacher working with young people from a blue collar neighborhood, I cringe at the thought of them being treated with such disdain for their individual rights and personal and family needs. Compelling every young person of a certain age to some kind of service ignores cultural, personal, intellectual, and developmental diversity of this age group. It also ignores the fact that a “no exceptions” rule would result in a number of people who are developmentally, mentally, or psychologically unfit for such service to be placed in a situation that jeopardizes their health and well being. We have already seen how such a “no exceptions” attitude has caused deep injuries for students within the No Child Left Behind public schools. We need to advocate for greater private and public contributions to peaceful and community-sustaining endeavors rather than resort to punitive, draconian measures that reduce public service to public servitude. We must have viable alternatives to the military particularly for working class kids and others who are attracted to the military as a means of achieving financial and educational success. I support the idea of a national system of alternative service for young people but not the idea of compelling them to serve. Voluntary service is ennobling. Coerced service is dehumanizing.
Dear Friends,
This is my first look around the blog, on which I’m having a few problems and ask your patience and understanding.
First, it is rather unclear who is writing some of the various comments — particularly the initial one to which others then respond. The early ones are presumably by Breeze, starting around the conference she attended on behalf of Illinois Yearly Meeting, and I thank her for having initiated this forum. However, her name (as far as I can tell) doesn’t appear, and I really do like to see people take ownership for their viewpoints as published. Possibly the software can be manipulated so that in the future we can see who is advocating what position.
Secondly, on this present thread I see Patricia welcoming Bridget to the blogosphere. Does that mean, then, that Bridget is the one advocating mandatory government-compelled service?
If that’s the case, I have to express my disappointment as well as disagreement. I should take responsibility for not having pursued some of this discussion while we were on P.R.C. together — and this blog does give the appearance of being a forum of the Peace Resources Committee of Illinois Yearly Meeting (on which I had served but am on no longer.)
Several years ago I was glad to have forwarded to the ILYM website the following resource, which I urge people to prayerfully consider. I would ask if and why we may be divinely led to move away from what Friends came to regarding the evil of conscription in the past:
http://iym.quaker.org/programs/prc/richmond1968.htm
I am fully and enthusiastically in favor of Friends, and others, giving service to their fellow human beings. And I’m glad to see some play here for the initiative coming out of 57th Street Meeting to provide a year-long setting for people voluntarily to give such service . This was also well-advocated at the national consultation that Mark Mattaini (PRC committee member) and I were recently at held at Pendle Hill.
However, I strongly point out that as soon as service is compelled, under sanction of imprisonment if not followed, then it is involuntary servitude, and I cannot in any way advocate it. Obviously if service is not killing people, it is better than what the military may command. But it would still be conscription, and I firmly believe we Quakers have a testimony against that.
The minute you say “mandatory” you are implicitly invoking the whole criminal-justice apparatus of enforcement: prosecution, imprisonment, life-long felony records. I have too many friends (and some relatives) who did jail time in conscientious opposition to conscription for me not to say something at this time, in honor of their witness.
Maybe we’re not aware of that tradition, and need to do some more exploring together of what and why we as Qakers have a historic testimony on this matter. On this, we may in fact be closer to libertarians and conservatives than to liberals (using those terms loosely) who look to governmental mandates to get supposedly good things done.
I’m sorry to be unpleasant, but I don’t want the advocacy of forced labor to go unchallenged.
Also, by the way, I hope that those posting here can give their full names — and home Meetings too, if that’s OK.
My membership is with Breeze and Mark and Bridget (see “Members” at the top) at 57th Street in Chicago, though for the past dozen years I’ve been active among and worshipping with Friends in Columbia, Missouri.
Shalom, – -DHF
Because I’m not an AUTHOR on this web site, the post was made by two of my best friends who ARE. However, they should not bear the burden of defending my proposal. I’ll come out of the closet.
From Jehovah’s Witnesses I’ve heard very much stronger arguments against compulsory national service, which my friends labeled a violation of human rights, denial of religious freedom and human choice, dictatorial compulsion, government interference, and the like. In law school twenty-five years ago I more or less rebutted their other argument against state interference, namely against court-ordered blood transfusion to minors. It is very painful for me to side against my Witness friends on either issue, but I do. To me the privilege of full voting rights is dependent more upon my completion of national service than upon my tax contribution.
I agonized extensively over using Hillary’s phrase “no exceptions, no excuses.” Humanizing the inflexible tone means VERY THOUGHTFULLY adapting the service requirement to the ability of the candidate. I had in mind a former employer who had been given medical discharge from the Army–rather clearly for inability to keep up with the academic level requirement. She was one of the most pleasant persons I’ve ever met, and I would not deprive her of doing SOMETHING to receive full, honorable recognition. While mainstreaming in the public schools can be extremely cruel and unwise, I expect a custom fitting of national service that really accommodates individual ability levels as well as beliefs.
Are you aware that when I volunteered for alternative service, I was able to find my own (hospital or similar) job placement (which, by the way, did not materialize after I flunked the physical)? It was a privilege to choose my own place to serve a social duty I acknowledge.
Further, I still seek conversation with Jehovah’s Witnesses so as to accommodate THEIR belief sensitivities. I’m ever hopeful that this can, indeed, be done.
Sorry for any confusion or frustration by new visitors to this site; it was not PRC’s intention for the names of each original post’s author (such as Bridget’s posting of this one) to seem anonymous.
When we write each post we do so logged in as ourselves and didn’t realize that authorship wasn’t publicly appearing. I have now edited all 13 posts to include this information. Thanks for visiting “How Do You See Peace?” and adding your thoughts!
And thank you Breeze, once more, for providing this forum in which we can see the evolving perspectives within Peace Resources Committee of ILYM, and also contributions from folks from other parts of the world — indeed, the World Wide Web.
Your technical corrections — taking time as it must have — make all this much clearer, and I’m glad at least to know with whom I might be arguing! (Well, let’s say “exploring differences of perspective and experience.”)
In an open forum like this, it’s important that we have a Moderator — and I personally thank you for giving the required time on an ongoing basis — to intercept potentially misleading or even damaging contributions that are offered. You are helping us know with whom we may be having this public conversation. There might be times when a person posting is asked by the Moderator to consider expressing something in a different way — either to avoid giving personal affront, or to make a point come through more clearly. I gladly submit myself to this discipline when I write a note such as this.
Every one on your PRC is helping the Yearly Meeting look at a broad range of issues under your purview and charge. These are personal and international. They are political and economic. They are ethical and theological. They are local and global. We need all the good thinking we can get, and I’m quite grateful that we have this new avenue for exploring them together. Ultimately, some of them will make their way toward Yearly Meeting decisions and even programs.
Let us see, then, what Love can do. And intelligence and commitment and information and community.
Good wishes, one and all!
-DHF
(presently at Columbia Friends Meeting in Missouri.)
Greetings to all. I think that pairing compulsory military and community service, though it sounds well intentioned, is one of those proverbial slippery slopes. Here are 3 ways to look at it.
1. It reinforces the government’s “right” to control people’s lives, validating compulsory military service. Demanding that citizens give up a portion of our lives to do what the government wants us to do is quite different from making a conscientious choice to serve our communities. The effect of JFK’s famous comment was to inspire young people to make a conscious choice, not to compel them.
2. It sets our country as an institution above ourselves as human beings, as something to which we owe “patriotism.” I flunked out of Patriotism 101 because it seems to me that the government should serve its citizens, not the other way around. I owe fealty to God, not to the government.
3. Try putting compulsory community service into a different context. Think about requiring a year of community service before accepting anyone into full adult membership in a monthly meeting.
I sympathize with the desire to try to provide equity in a military system that targets the poor due to a lack of economic equity. However, as a Quaker and pacifist I’d prefer less compulsion and more conscience.
Concerning compulsory service to the State:
I see that in my initial remarks on March 6 (in which I apologize for raising procedural/management questions that should have been handled elsewhere) I gave only one link but intended two. Friends in the U.S., broadly representing all branches, gathered TWICE in this last century to express their concern about and principled stand against conscription. Once was in 1948, when a new Cold War military draft was going into effect — against which a former clerk of our Yearly Meeting (Bob Wixom) witnessed by noncooperating and going to prison. You can read that Declaration (one of many “Richmond Declarations”) at this site:
http://iym.quaker.org/programs/prc/richmond1948.htm
Then again, after the 1967 (Vietnam era) new draft law was initiated, Quakers again gathered to say what our historic position has been: not ONLY against bearing arms and wearing uniforms (i.e., the I-O vs. I-A or I-A-O draft classifications), but also challenging conscription itself — which meant explicit support for non-registrants, or those who under conscience severed their relationship with the Selective Service System. Once more, the link to THAT statement is here:
http://iym.quaker.org/programs/prc/richmond1968.htm
Let’s keep the dialog going on this matter. Just because Quakers and others aren’t presently being drafted doesn’t mean we should lose touch with this aspect of our Peace Testimony.
Glad we have this forum. Thanks for maintaining it, Breeze!
-DHF
Editorial note: David originally posted this Comment under another thread, but as it is more appropriate to this one I (Breeze) moved it.
Draft (military or otherwise) Coming?
Just because the recent “Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act” enhances, and somewhat centralizes (as well as funds) a VOLUNTARY set of programs doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t also keep our eyes open concerning proposals for COMPULSORY national service. My suggestion is for f/Friends to stay in touch with the Center for Conscience and War and sign up (top left, enter e-mail address) for their “Urgent Action Alerts.” And, if you’re not getting it already, ask for their quarterly magazine “The Reporter, for Conscience Sake.”
This is the venerable and reliable group that provided a number of draft- and military-counseling workshops for us in the earliest days of the Peace Resources Committee.
Friends, I’m very late coming in here. But it still might be worthwhile. Here is another instance of Friends forgetting our history. There was a a time, not that long ago,, when some meetings disowned not only Friends who served in the military, but also those who served in alternative civilian service (or who paid fines for not serving in the militarry). Why? Because these Friends felt that refusing military service was RIGHT, and no one should do something else to excuse it. You can read all about this in any one of Peter Brock’s books about the history of the Quaker Peace Testimony.
The idea of a “fair” draft is a complete chimera. There never has been one, and never will be. A vast system of compulsory labor is by its very nature unfair. Any Friend, anyone at all, if in decent health, can do worthwhile civilian service, without government compulsion. Those of us who were draft counselors during the Vietnam war can remember how unfair the military examining stations were, how they changed their standards depending on the day-to-day needs of the military for soldiers, how they drafted far more men in pro-military regions (e.g., the South) than in anti-military regions. One can be entirely sure that a great many of the men and women of military age would do ANYTHING that they could think of to avoid any compulsory service. After all, Liberty and Freedom are American traditions.
And what about young mothers? Do we want to discourage and dishearten them? To take their children away for a period of time? Isn’t their service worthwhile civilian service? Last but not least, though most Friends seem not to know this, our country already has a truly wonderful program of VOLUNTARY civilian service, open to all young adults in decent health. It’s called AMERICORPS, or the domestic Peace Corps. It varies from state to state, but in most states it is not especially militarized (and one can always go to another state to join). It offers basic subsistence expenses, and generous college scholarships upon completion of its programs. If you’ve watched the news from New Orleans in recent years, you would have seen proud Americorps volunteers with their banners, celebrating the completion of recon- struction projects. My daughter servced in Americorps for two one-year terms, and earned big enough college scholarships for two years’ studies. Does anyone honestly think that such things would happen in a compulsory system?
I’m no longer a Quaker, so know that Mr. Mott’s comments (regarding “forgetting my history”) are not directed at me. However, I do confess I’m amazed to hear that a person might have been disowned from a Friends Meeting for performing alternative service or paying a fine. As David Finke intimated in an earlier post, this puts Quakers/Quakerism at a far right extreme politically, akin to libertarianism, and does not seem to me particularly consistent with a loving Christian (or even universalist) outlook upon those who love both God and fellow-man (woman). It gets right to the heart of whether the Religious Society of Friends is willing to be a “peace church,” witnessing and working within the world (and in an interfaith way, I would suppose) for better outcomes, or determined to become a splinter quasi-political party, purging itself of anyone who doesn’t agree with its (non-creedal??) agenda. Honestly I think George Fox must be rolling over in his grave.
It’s often hard to figure out what the most loving response might be. For a long time, many Friends owned slaves. After 100 years, Friends made a collective decision not to own slaves any more, and—reluctantly—-the Society decided to disown those who would not free their slaves. If we had not made this decision, doubtless many Friends would still have been slave holders as long as that was possible. Our usefulness as abolitionists would have been very small, I think.
During the Civil War, Friends were in a dilemma concerning military service—at least Friends in the North. In the end, probably half the male Friends of military age on the Union side did perform military service, and very few of these men were disowned if they made even perfunctory acknowledgement of their “mistake.” It’s hard to see how any other policy among Friends could have avoided both the death of the Peace Testimony and the death of the Society itself. At any rate, the Civil War was the end, in the United States, of any attempt by Friends to make the Quaker Peace Testimony something universally obeyed among our members. Now we think that we must be individualists to be loving. Yet this is a fairly new idea for Friends.
Within my memory, many Friends’ yearly meetings still made collective decisions. For example, in many if not most yearly meetings, alcoholic beverages were considered prohibited. This was considered a loving policy—-a policy that enouraged non-Friends as well as Friends not to use these dangerous substances. A Friend who used alcoholic beverages despite the “advices” in the discipline, by the 1950’s, not be disowned, but probably would be “labored” with.” By the same token—-though I think now that this is a bit amusing—-someone in the Quaker community, whether member or not, who addressed another with an honorific like “Mr.” would have been “eldered”; we were all
on a first-name basis and used no titles!
Don’t worry, Priscilla. The days of disciplined Quakerism are completely gone.
Jeremy Mott
Sorry Patricia, I got your name wrong.
Are there NO other Friends here who know something about Americorps? It seems to me that it does exactly what everyone on this site wants—-except that it is not compulsory. We certainly could require Americorps service as
a preliminary of Quaker membership—except that we would probably not get many new members! After all, many of our members are very well educated, and would consider them- selves “above” such a requirement. By the way, Americorps scholarships are available to those who do similar service in other organizations, such as Brethren Volunteer Service. They are a very good deal; the scholarships that the military offers often turn out to be “phantom,” i.e., they disappear if one doesn’t get a good enough type of discharge.
Jeremy Mott
It is so interesting to see the conversation taking place here. My sister, also a Friend, was an Americorps volunteer several years ago & I’ve asked her to share her thoughts about the discussion thus far and her experiences.
Hello Friends!
Yes, it’s true I am Breeze’s sister and I did participate in the Americorps program for a one-year term. I had graduated with my Bachelor of Arts degree in Latin American Studies from the University of Kansas and was looking for a way to build my resume while the job market improved and figure out what type of career path I wanted to go down.
Americorps has three different branches (State/National programs that provide service to community needs in education, public safety, health and environment; NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) team-based residential program where members are assigned to one of five campuses; and the VISTA program designed to specifically fight poverty. I encourage you to go to their website (americorps.gov), look around and learn more. I participated in a local state program called KAMU – Kansas Association for the Medically Uninsured – where I was placed at a non-profit dental clinic in my own community of Lawrence, KS. There I was able to learn about the public health system directly on the front lines and was even inspired to explore it further as a career. I now am the Program Coordinator for a non-profit program called MetroCARE in Kansas City that provides donated specialty care to uninsured patients. In the last 3 years, we have grown the program to over 600 physicians in 40 different specialties that provide 100% charity care in everything from double knee replacements to hysterectomies to cancer treatment.
I think it’s fair to say that without my year of volunteer work through Americorps, I would not have ended up in the field I’m in. Therefore, it changed my life. I do call it “volunteer work” as oppose to a full-time job, because although I worked 40 hours/week I was compensated with a living stipend of $720/month after taxes. Yes, our government taxes the small wage. I worked a second job waitressing to make ends meat and even qualified for food stamps. I was also given an education award of $4,725 that I gave right back to our government to pay off a chunk of student loans. They then slapped me with $800 tax bill (that I’m still paying off), because yes, those awards are also taxed. I feel very strongly that these stipends and educations awards should be exempt from taxes as we already are compensated so little for the hard work we put in to our community and nation.
In response to the comments about volunteering for peace service vs. military service – I would support our government requiring one year of mandatory service (with a few changes like the taxes mentioned above). I understand if you require it you then take away the volunteer mentality of it, but I don’t think it would be a bad idea for everyone to get more involved with their local communities and the problems they face on all levels – health, education, poverty, environment, etc. I think it would be most beneficial for those like myself who are in transition periods of life as a young adult, but could also see the value for those who may need a career change later in life or are retired. Also if you were able to choose an area you were passionate about rather then being told where and what service you would be doing would help sustain some of that personal freedom.
I wonder what kind of country this would be if everyone was required to walk in someone else’s shoes, help out a neighbor and for a year, not be so selfish?