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.
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.