Statement before the Justice Department, Rev. Wm. Sloane Coffin, Jr.

October 20, 1967

What we are here to do is not a natural, easy thing for any of us. We are writers, professors, clergy, and this is not our "thing". But it must have been with precisely such people as we in mind that the poet Peguy wrote : "The worst of particularities is to withold oneself, the worst ignorance is not to act, the worst lie is to steal away."

So we are here to be with conscientious men in their hour of conscience; and because like them we cannot stand around with dry feet while human decency goes away for the third time in Vietnam.

This week again protesters against the war were described by high government officials as "naive", "wild-eyed idealists". On the contrary, it is not wild-eyed idealism but clear-eyed revulsion that brings us to one of number put it: "If what the United States is doing in Vietnam is right, what is there left to be called wrong?"

Many of us are veterans, and all of us have the highest sympathy for our boys in Vietnam. They know what a dirty, bloody war it is. But they have been told that the ends justify the means, and that the cleansing water of victory will wash clean their hands of all the blood and dirt. No wonder they hate those who say "There must be no cleansing water." But what they must strive to understand, hard as it is, is that there can be no cleansing water if military victory spells moral defeat.

We have the highest sympathy also for those who back the war because their sons or lovers or husbands are fighting or have died in Vietnam. But they too must understand a very basic thing - that sacrifice in and of itself confers no sanctity. Even if half a million of our boys were to die in Vietnam that would not make the cause one whit more sacred. Yet we realize how hard that knowledge is to appropriate when one's husband is numbered among the sacrificed.

The mother of a son lost in Vietnam once told me "My son used to write how much he and his company were doing for the orphans. But I used to answer 'if you want to help the orphans, son, you must stop killing their fathers and mothers.'"

Like this mother we do not dispute the good intentions, the good works of endless good Americans in Vietnam. But we do insist that no amount of good intentions for good works, nor certainly government rhetoric to the contrary, can offset the fact that American policy in Vietnam is a policy run amuck. It is immoral, and if that is true then it is not we who are demoralizing our boys in Vietnam but the government, which asks them to immoral things.

As the war to us is immoral so also is the draft. For the National Selective Service Act not only places a major burden of the war on the backs of the poor; it also confronts thousands

- 2 -

of men with a choice of either violating their consciences or
going to jail.

As the law now stands, for a man to qualify as a conscientious
objector he must state a belief in God.

Could anything be more ethically absurd? Have humanists no
conscience? Why, - and I say this with contrition - some of the
most outstanding humanists I know would think they were slipping
from their high ideals were they to take steps towards conversion.
As a Christian I am convinced It is a gross misfortune not to
believe in God, but not automatically an ethical default.

Then despite numerous appeals by numerous religious bodies,
Congress last spring chose to provide alternative service only
for the absolute pacifist. This too is absurd, for the rights of
a man whose conscience forbids him to participate in a particular
war are as deserving of respect as the rights of a man whose con-
science forbids him to participate in any war at all. This is the
ancient Jewish and Christian tradition we honor. Yet the tradition
we honor the government steadfastly refuses to honor.

So both the war and the draft are issues of conscience. And
we are here because an issue of conscience is one a man may not
seek but hardly one he can properly avoid.

We admire the way these young men who could safely have hidden
behind exemptions and deferments have elected instead to take a
stand on these two issues of conscience. We admire them and believe
theirs is the true voice of America, the vision that will prevail
beyond the distortions of the moment.

We cannot shield them. We can only expose ourselves as they
have done. The law of the land is clear. Section 12 of the National
Selective Service Act declares that anyone "who knowingly counsels,
aids, or abetts another to refuse or evade registration or service
in the armed forces...shall be liable to emprisonment for not
more than five years or a fine of ten thousand dollars or both."
We hereby publically counsel these young men to continue in their
refusal to serve in the armed forces as long as the war in Vietnam
continues, and we pledge ourselves to aid and abett them in all
the ways we can. This means that if they are now arrested for
failing to comply with the law that violates their consciences,
we too must be arrested, for in the sight of that law we are now
as guilty as they. To arrest any one of them and not to arrest us
would be to make yet a further mockery of American justice.

To stand in this fashion against the law and before our fellow
Americans is a difficult and even fearful thing. But, in the face
of the inhuman we cannot fall silent nor servile. Nor can we
educate young men to be conscientious only to desert them in their
hour of conscience. So we are resolved, as they are resolved, to
speak out clearly and to pay up personally.

Statement before the Justice Department. Rev. William Sloane

Coffin, Jr.

October 20, 1967

What we are here to do is not a natural, easy thing for any of us. We are writers, professors, clergy, and this is not our "thing." But it must have been with precisely such people as we in mind that the poet Peguy wrote: "The worst of particularities is to withhold oneself, the worst ignorance is not to act, the worst lie is to steal away."

So we have come here to be with conscientious men in their hour of conscience; and because like them we cannot stand around with dry feet while wisdom and decency go under for the third time in Vietnam.

This week once again high government officials described protesters against the war as "naive," "wild-eyed idealists." But in our view it is not wild-eyed idealism but clear-eyed revulsion that brings us here. For as one of our number put it: "If what the United States is doing in Vietnam is right, what is there left to be called wrong?"

Many of us are veterans, and all of us have the highest sympathy for our boys in Vietnam. They know what a dirty, bloody war it is. But they have been told that the ends justify the means, and that the cleansing water of victory will wash clean their hands of all the blood and dirt. No wonder they hate us who say "There must be no cleansing water." But what they must strive to understand, hard as it is, is that there can be no cleansing water if military victory spells moral defeat.

We have the highest sympathy also for those who back the war because their sons or lovers or husbands are fighting of have died in Vietnam. But they too must understand a very basic thing--that sacrifice in and of itself confers no sanctity. Even if half a million of our boys were to die in Vietnam that would not make the cause one whit more sacred. Yet we realize how hard that knowledge is to appropriate when one's husband is numbered among the sacrificed.

Like this mother we do not dispute the good intentions, the good works of endless good Americans in Vietnam. But we do insist that no amount of good intentions nor good works, nor

2.

certainly government rhetoric to the contrary, can offset the fact
that American policy in Vietnam, a policy devised by high-minded per-
haps, but ideologically rigid and unimaginative men--this policy has
run amok. The war is not only unwise but unjust, and if that is true
then it is not we who are demoralizing our boys in Vietnam, but the
government, which asks them to do immoral things.

As the war to us is immoral, so also is the draft. For the National
Selective Service Act not only places the major burden of the war on
the backs of the poor; it also confronts thousands of men with a choice
of either violating their consciences or going to jail.

As the law now stands, for a man to qualify as a conscientious ob-
jector he must believe in God. Could anything be more ethically absurd?
Have humanists no conscience? Why,--and as a Christian I say this
with contrition--some of the most outstanding humanists I know would
think they were slipping from their high ideals were they to take steps
towards conversion. As a Christian I am convinced it is a gross mis-
fortune not to believe in God, but it is not automatically an ethical
default.

Then despite numerous appeals by numerous religious bodies, Congress
last spring chose to provide alternative service only for the absolute
pacifist. This too is absurd, for the rights of a man whose conscience
forbids him to participate in a particular war are as deserving of
respect as the rights of a man whose conscience forbids him to partici-
pate in any war at all. This is the ancient Jewish and Christian tra-
dition we honor. Yet the tradition we honor the government steadfastly
refuses to honor.

So both the war and the draft are issues of conscience. And an
issue of conscience is one a man may not seek but hardly one he can
avoid.

We admire the way these young men who could safely have hidden
behind exemptions and deferments have elected instead to risk something
big for something good. We admire them and believe theirs is the true
voice of America, the vision that will prevail beyond the distortions
of the moment.

We cannot shield them. We can only expose ourselves as they have
done. The law of the land is clear. Section 12 of the National Se-
lective Service Act declares that anyone "who knowingly counsels, aids,
or abets another to refuse or evade registration or service in the
armed forces...shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five
years or a fine of ten thousand dollars or both."

3.

We hereby publicly counsel these young men to continue in their
refusal to serve in the armed forces as long as the war in Vietnam
continues, and we pledge ourselves to aid and abet them in all they
ways we can. This means that if they are now arrested for failing to
comply with a law that violates their consciences, we too must be
arrested, for in the sight of that law we are now as guilty as they.

It is a longstanding tradition, sanctioned by American democracy,
that the dictates of government must be tested on the anvil of indivi-
dual conscience. This is what we now undertake to do--not as a first
but as a last resort. And in accepting the legal punishment we are,
in fact, supporting, not subverting, the legal order.

Still, to stand in this fashion against the law and before our
fellow Americans is a difficult and even fearful thing. But in the
face of what to us is insane and inhuman we can fall neither silent
nor servile. Nor can we educate young men to be conscientious only
to desert them in their hour of conscience. So we are resolved, as
they are resolved, to speak out clearly and to pay up personally.