Created: Tuesday, December 17, 1996
Last Updated: March 14, 2002
 
Enclosure #2 (Exhibit B): Request for Conscientious Objector Status (1-0)

Specialist Goldthwaite, John R., (SSN withheld from HTML)

Required Information as per AR 600-43 Appendix B

The purpose of this second enclosure is to restate, clarify and expound upon my previous statement and demonstrate how my belief applies to conscientious objection as described in this regulation.

B-1

  1. Training and belief.

    (6) An explanation as to what in the person's life most conspicuously demonstrates the consistency and depth of his or her beliefs that gave rise to his or her claim.

    Were I to have converted to some religious sect, my response to this request would have been something along the lines of, "I regularly attend services and daily study the doctrines of my new faith." Also, religious conversion being a more or less common phenomenon, it would have made it easier for those in my chain of command to understand how a person, devoted to one faith for so many years, could have changed so suddenly and radically.

    I have spent much of the last year and a half devoted to a re-evaluation of my religious and moral beliefs and although I have not properly converted to a new religion, I have abandoned the religion of my parents. This, I believe, demonstrates the depth of my belief. As far as the consistency of my belief is concerned, that will take some explaining. although I have not converted to a new religion, I consider the principle of equal freedom the basis of my new system of belief and will, therefore, use the section below which asks for a description of the creed of my new "religion" to explain it.

    (7) An explanation as to how the applicant's daily life style has changed as a result of his or her beliefs and what future actions he or she plans to continue to support his or her beliefs.

  2. Participation in organizations

    (1) Information as to whether the person has ever been a member of any military organization or establishment before entering upon his or her present term of service. If so, the name and address of such organization will be given together with reasons why he or she became a member.

    As I stated previously, I joined the Navy in 1984. I had various reasons for joining, my father was retired from the Navy, a good friend of mine had recently joined, it was a chance to continue my education for free (Russian language), it was good pay compared to the other jobs I could find, I felt it was a patriotic duty and I was under the impression, due to my religious beliefs, that I was foreordained to serve in the military.

    In 1994 when I joined the Army, my reasons were somewhat the same. I had friends who were in the Army, I was looking for a job and a career and I still felt it was a patriotic and religious duty to serve in the military. Due to the blinding effect of the religious dogma I had grown up with, I had never seriously considered the arguments brought against military service just as I had never seriously considered the arguments brought against my religious faith. My reasons for joining were based on beliefs I no longer hold and considerations which were dependant on the validity of my previous beliefs.

    In a nutshell, when I joined the military in 1984 and again in 1994, I felt it was my religious and patriotic duty to serve in the military. Today, I am no longer religious and I am no longer patriotic. I don't believe in the legitimacy of nations any more than I believe in the legitimacy of organized crime. I don't believe in the borders between nations any more than I believe in the territorial boundaries of inner city gangs, and I don't believe in national defense any more than I believe in gang warfare. And just as I would defend myself from the intrusion of a gang or gang member, so I would defend myself from a soldier or soldiers invading my property and assaulting my person or the persons of anyone living with me.

    I DO believe that all men should be equal (to say that all men are equal or that they are created equal would be a denial of reality) and that all men should be free.

    (2) A statement as to whether the person is a member of a religious sect or organization. If so, the statement will show

    (a) The name of the sect, and the name and location of its governing body or head, if known.

    (b) When, where, and how the applicant became a member of the sect or organization.

    (c) The name and location of any church, congregation, or meeting that the applicant customarily attends; the extent of the applicant's participation in the church group or meeting.

    (d) The name, title, and present address of the pastor or leader of such church, congregation, or meeting.

    (e) A description of the creed or official statements, if any, of said religious sect or organization in relation to the applicant's participation in war and if the creed or statements are known to him.

    I am an atheist. Since atheism is not a positive belief but merely the lack of a positive belief in some supernatural being, it wouldn't make much sense to describe my creed or moral beliefs based on atheism. However, I have abandoned the moral code I grew up with and have replaced it with a code of my own invention based on the principle of equal freedom or Natural Law as described by Lysander Spooner, John Locke and others.

    Natural Law as described in the writings of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, Lysander Spooner, Herbert Spencer and others is based on the principle of equal freedom. I prefer to call it the Law of Equal Freedom. For me, the laws of nature are non-moralistic. That is to say, they are neither good nor evil, they simply exist as for example the law of gravity. It would be silly to say that the law of gravity is a good law, it simply exists independent of any moral considerations. The law of nature and the only law of nature which relates to human behavior is the same law which relates to animal behavior, that is, the survival of the fittest. The law which "states" that the strong will prevail and the weak will die or be otherwise subdued. This law is neither good nor evil, it simply exists and humans living in the state of nature would be as much subject to it as they are subject to gravity and all of the other laws of nature.

    The Law of Equal Freedom is not a law in the same sense as the laws of nature. It is a moral law. Moral laws do not describe the way things are but the way things ought to be. In making the distinction between the way things are and the way things ought to be we necessarily make the assumption that the way things are in nature is not the way things ought to be for man. In other words, the way things are in the state of nature where the strong take advantage of the weak, is not the way things ought to be in a civilized society. For a moral law to be consistent, it cannot permit the strong to take advantage of the weak. The Law of Equal Freedom maintains that all men should be equal and that all men should be free. In the words of John Locke, "...a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit,.... A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another,...."

    The following quotes give a general idea of the principle of equal freedom.

    "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

    - Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Ethics, vol. II, part IV, ch. 6., § 272.

    "...every one has a right to do anything that injures no one else.

    - Arthur Schopenhauer, Government.

    "Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property, and the corresponding and co equal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property."

    - Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes, Section I.

    "...each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others;...."

    - Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. I, section III.

Index



29 MAY 96:
 
 
05 SEP 96:
 
18 JUN 96:
 
Enclosure #1
 
06 SEP 96:
 
CO hearing
Enclosure #2
24 JUN 96:
 
Chaplain's report
 
11 SEP 96:
 
Investigating officer's conclusions
Exhibit C
25 JUL 96:
 
Medical Officer's report
 
16 SEP 96:
 
Rebuttal
 
26 AUG 96:
 
Chaplain interviewed
 
06 DEC 96:
 
DA memorandum
 
27 AUG 96:
 
Platoon Leader interviewed
 
11 APR 97:
 
e-mail to Senator McCain.
 
28 AUG 96:
 
SPC Hopkins interviewed
 
09 MAY 97:
 
Honorable Discharge
 
 
This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

© 1996 golwis@yahoo.com