Capt. Peter Brown, a 2004 West Point graduate, was only continuing his military career when he joined the U.S. Army. But he soon realized that committing violent acts against other men was something he could not do. Nevertheless, the Army did not recognize his plight for over a year.
Brown said his correspondence with seminaries previous to his deployment in Iraq helped change his ethical beliefs. His newly found religious obligation made him a pacifist. This inevitably kept him from carrying a loaded weapon or ordering his troops to fire weapons. Thus, he requested to be discharged from the Army based on his conscientious objector status.
By taking more than a year to release Brown from an environment that caused clashes with his beliefs, though, the Army put unnecessary stress on Brown and took valuable time from him. It also acted against his right to religious liberty and against what Americans for two and a half centuries have called the “pursuit of happiness.”
According to Deborah Karpatkin, Brown’s American Civil Liberties Union attorney, “Peter Brown showed by clear and convincing evidence that he is a deeply sincere conscientious objector because of his religious training and beliefs. It should not have required the filing of a lawsuit for the Army to recognize those beliefs.”
Although there are many more pressing issues the Army must deal with, an institution as powerful and resourceful as the Army should not take so long to decide upon the freedom of an American citizen. This is especially true if he is confined to a place he does not want to be in for moral reasons.
Brown’s request is not the only case the Army has had to consider. Of the 426 applications for conscientious objector status filed thus far, 188 were denied and 14 are still pending.
That is not to support those who use these allowances as an illegitimate reason to excuse themselves from duty. Such people shed doubt on the genuine pleas of soldiers like Brown and fail to uphold to the honorable intentions behind their military oaths.
But when such pressing matters as those of Capt. Brown are not acted upon immediately, it is hard not to lose faith in the motives of military institutions.
This is even more alarming for ROTC members, such as those here at UCLA, who are not only obligated to serve their country but who also have academic priorities to adhere to. Students do not have a year to wait for the military to decide whether their reasons for dismissal are legitimate or not. They have grades to maintain and grueling physical training to continue.
More importantly, such strict and time-consuming procedures may prevent students in ROTC from pursuing religious diversity on the college campus. Although they have agreed to uphold the contract they have entered into, they should not feel obligated to sacrifice their freedom of religious exploration.
It is unnecessary for military institutions to play power politics when it comes to deciding a soldier’s future.
In Brown’s case, the Army rejected the assertions of an Army-appointed chaplain and an investigator who confirmed Brown’s legitimate request.
By not even accepting the reports of their own appointed officials, the Army appears to be working to further its own power while hindering the liberty and ethics its soldiers.
Change is a part of human experience. For the Army to argue against change ““ as in the case of Brown’s religious conformity ““ it is putting itself on a course toward denying people their humanity.
This is a principle I am sure the Army does not, and most certainly would not, want to uphold.
Therefore, it is necessary that the Army abide by its own standards.
It exists to preserve the freedom of Americans to pursue diverse choices. But it needs to grant the same liberty to its own troops first.
E-mail Tehrani at ntehrani@media.ucla.edu.
Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.