This does not, of course, mean that if the imposition of alternative
service is accepted, it should be rendered grudgingly or that feelings
of hostility toward government officials with whom one may deal are
appropriate. Quite the contrary. If we decide to go with Caesar one mile,
the Gospel enjoins us to go two! We have the choice of not going along at
all or going two miles, but not a skimpy one mile.
I think it is now generally admitted that there was not a great deal of
this glad, spontaneous “second miling” on the part of the conscript COs
in World War II, though there was considerable talk about it among older
folks. Civilian Public Service in large measure simply did not operate on
the high spiritual plane that was originally hoped and is still sometimes
implied or stated, but was for many making the best of a bad business,
perhaps for lack of clear leading or the courage to follow another course.
It will be recalled that there were a considerable number of Civilian
Public Service men who declared flatly that it was inconsistent, and
indeed hypocritical, to talk of spontaneous service under conscription.
“We are here,” they said, “not because our desire to serve brought us
here. We are here because the government as part of its war program
passed a conscription law and under that law took us by the scruff of the
neck and is forcing us to do this job. We have no choice but this or the
army or jail. That fact is bound to color this whole experience, except
perhaps for those who can shut their eyes to reality. Any one who denies
this is a hypocrite.”
It seems to me these COs placed the finger on an essential point.
Compulsion does enter into “service” under a conscription law. It
affects the whole picture. Therefore, the evaluation to be made of the
IV-E position and of alternative service under it is not disposed of
by asserting that “service is at least as real a part of Christian or
pacifist life as witness or resistance.” That statement is perfectly
correct. Service of men, fellowship with them, on the one hand, and
non-cooperation with evil, witness against injustice, non-violent
resistance, on the other hand, are both essential in the pacifist
way of life. There is some of each in every pacifist life. The most
“reconciling” one refuses to use a gun or even, probably, to put on
a uniform. Some of the most extreme “resisters” in prison were known
for the thoughtful and gentle service they rendered to criminal
fellow-inmates. A very discerning English pacifist observed: “For some
their witness is their service, for others their service is their
witness,” or resistance. Each type needs to be on guard against the
temptations peculiar to it, including the temptation to question the
motives or underestimate the contribution of pacifists of the other type.
But the service which is the essence of pacifism is free, spontaneous,
joyous, sacrificial, unbought. To magnify or glorify this is by no means
automatically to magnify or glorify the IV-E position _under the draft_.
Here, as we have pointed out, an element enters which is contradictory to
pacifism, freedom and spontaneity—_the element of compulsion in a context
of war and war preparation_.
It seems to me that it is important for pacifists to bear this in mind
as we make plans to deal with the problem of alternative service under
the amended 1948 Selective Service Act. No matter how “liberal” or
“considerate” the conditions for administering alternative service may
be in the estimation of government officials or the pacifist agencies,
if alternative service is accepted or acquiesced in at all, it will
inevitably pose grave problems from the standpoint of Christian vocation
and it will not, I think, be possible to escape the contamination or
corruption which “conscription” infuses into “service.” At the moment
it seems possible that Selective Service regulations will permit some
individuals to remain at their accustomed occupations. We put aside for
the time being certain questions to which we shall return as to what
the act of registration itself implies in the context of conscription
for atomic and biological war. Here we emphasize that once a man has
appealed to the State to permit him to remain in his job and has been
granted such permission, it is not exactly the same job as it was before.
Others will not be given the same permission, and he should not evade the
question whether he can acquiesce in and to a degree benefit from such
discrimination. He will have to consider whether the consideration in his
case arises from the fact that officials regard his work as in some way a
contribution to the war effort, or from a desire to placate and silence
an influential person. If he should conclude that he ought to change
jobs, he would have to consult the authorities again, and what then?
In conferences with Selective Service officials efforts are being made to
avoid some of the features of the war-time Civilian Public Service set-up
which deeply troubled a good many Friends—such as the close supervision
by military men allegedly functioning as civilians and the undesirable
and frustrating character of much of the work to which IV-E men were
assigned. Even if substantial concessions are obtained, it will be well
for us to be on guard against idealizing the situation. It is hoped that
a good many young men will be in effect furloughed to projects at home
and abroad which will not be exclusively for COs of draft age and which
will have real social value. It will not be the same as if these men had
undertaken these jobs out of a sense of vocation and mission, apart from
the context of conscription. We know that for the most part they did not
volunteer until conscription came along. The same questions which the
man who is permitted to remain in his own job faces, will confront these
young men on projects. In addition, their term of service and rates of
pay will be set by the government.
To sum up this first part of our analysis, it is my conclusion that the
one consistent attitude toward conscript alternative service from the
standpoint of Christian vocation—if one accepts such work at all—is that
which regards submission or non-resistance to the evil which the State
imposes upon him when it interferes with his normal occupation, as the
vocation or duty of the Christian man. Any other attitude seems to me
to involve a considerable measure of rationalization. The Mennonites
came nearest to adopting this non-resistant position and the fact that
the experience of Mennonite youths in Civilian Public Service was less
frustrating and brought better results than was the case with others,
save in exceptional instances, seems to me to bear out my analysis. As
we have pointed out, those who non-resistantly take up their cross of
conscription should bear it joyously and be ready to carry it the second
mile.