United States V. Seeger Case Analysis

The Supreme Court case United States v. Seeger stemmed from an issue within Section 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1958. In Section 6 (j) an exemption was offered for conscientious objectors from military service. Their belief of a “Supreme Being” had to be parallel to that of a person believing in a god and fulfilling their duties to that god. Daniel Seeger held a sincere belief that war would damage his soul for having to kill other men. Instead of claiming belief in a Supreme Being, Seeger cited philosophers such as Plato, and Aristotle. His statements were honest, sincere, and made in good faith, but because his objection was not a “belief in a relation to a Supreme Being,” his exemption was denied. Seeger refused …show more content…
Instead, religion ought to be based on the beliefs held by the person, not the extraordinary figure they identify with. Another argument may be that Seeger does not hold a religion training and belief, but his views are purely political. In the United States v. Kauten case, there was a quote from Emperor Charles saying, “I neither can nor will recant anything, since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience.” Directly following this quote is another from Menander stating, “Conscience is a God to all mortals.” The opinion, written by Mr. Justice Augustus Hand of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, goes on to say that the conscience has always been thought of as a religious impulse. The argument may also arise as to where the line can be drawn between philosophy and religion. This is problematic because to many, their philosophy is their religion and religion is a philosophy. How can the government draw that line without infringing on the Freedom of Religion Clause in the First Amendment? As previously stated, if there are theologians that can define religion within the terms of Seeger’s beliefs, how can the Court not include that type of religion without infringing on the freedom of