Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could be reserved not only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being but also for those whose views on war derived from a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its ...
The decision is still in effect and actively mentioned as an example of a conscientious objector issue by the United States Selective Service to this day. [8] The case has also been brought up by leaders in other faiths, such as the Mormon faith, [9] in discussions about the issue of conscientious objector status in their faiths.
Conscientious objection is also recognized by the Department of Defense. [3] The Department of Defense defines conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and/or belief". [3] It defines "religious training and/or belief" as:
His local draft board had rejected his application for conscientious objector classification. In a unanimous 8–0 ruling (Thurgood Marshall recused himself due to his previous involvement in the case as a U.S. Department of Justice official), the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction that had been upheld by the Fifth Circuit.
The District Court in the present case faced squarely the issue presented in Sisson, and, being unable to distinguish the case on the facts, refused to follow Sisson." Douglas continues on to extend the right to judge a war as just, or unjust, to each individual "who must make on the basis of his own conscience after studying the facts."
An informed consent clause, although allowing medical professionals not to perform procedures against their conscience, does not allow professionals to give fraudulent information to deter a patient from obtaining such a procedure (such as lying about the risks involved in an abortion to deter one from obtaining one) in order to impose one's belief using deception.
The Court ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses—to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices. [1] This decision led to increased persecution of Witnesses in the United States.
In a previous U.S. Supreme Court case, Witherspoon vs. Illinois (1968), the Court came to the conclusion that "prospective jurors could not be disqualified from jury service simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against it. However, a state may exclude those jurors ...