380 U.S. 163 (1965)
Daniel Andrew Seeger was originally classified 1-A in 1953 by his local board.1 This classification changed in 1955 to 2-S student status, which continued until reclassification as 1-A in 1958.2
In 1957 Seeger filed a conscientious-objector claim.3 He declared conscientious opposition to war in any form by reason of religious belief.4 He left open the question of belief in a Supreme Being.5 He described a belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes as a religious faith in a purely ethical creed.6 He cited Plato, Aristotle, and Spinoza.7 The local board denied the claim solely because it was not based upon a belief in a relation to a Supreme Being as required by § 6(j).8
Arlo Jakobson was originally classified 1-A in 1953 and held intermittent student classifications until 1956.9 In April 1958 he claimed noncombatant classification as a conscientious objector.10 He stated belief in a Supreme Being as Creator of Man ultimately responsible for the existence of man and as the Supreme Reality.11 In December 1958 he requested full 1-O classification.12 The Appeal Board classified him 1-A without indicating whether the decision rested on insincerity or on a finding that his belief was only a personal moral code.13
Forest Britt Peter was classified 1-A in 1959.14 He attached a statement that he felt it a violation of his moral code to take human life.15 He quoted Reverend John Haynes Holmes's definition of religion as the consciousness of some power manifest in nature which helps man in the ordering of his life.16 He noted that his convictions derived from reading and meditation in American democratic culture.17 He stated that one could call his belief a belief in the Supreme Being or God.18 Each registrant refused induction and was convicted in federal district court.19 Seeger and Jakobson were convicted in the Southern District of New York.20 Peter was convicted in the Northern District of California.21 The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions of Seeger and Jakobson but affirmed Peter's conviction.22 The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the cases' importance in the administration of the Act.23
Whether § 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act violates the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses by failing to exempt nonreligious conscientious objectors?24
Congress intended the exemption to apply to all sincere religious beliefs that occupy a place parallel to the belief in God, thereby avoiding any establishment or free exercise violation by not discriminating among religious views.25
No. The beliefs of Seeger, who cited Plato and Spinoza for his ethical creed without traditional belief in God, Jakobson, who described a Supreme Reality as the ultimate cause, and Peter, who accepted a power manifest in nature, all meet the parallel position test as applied to the facts in their Selective Service forms and court records.26 This construction ensures the statute does not exclude nonreligious objectors in a way that would violate the First Amendment.27
The provision does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.28
Related opinions on this issue
If the statute were read differently from the Court, those embracing one religious faith rather than another would be subject to penalties.29 That kind of discrimination would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as held in Sherbert v. Verner.30 It would also result in a denial of equal protection by preferring some religions over others, running afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment under Bolling v. Sharpe.31
The legislative history leaves much in the dark, yet construing Supreme Being to include the cosmos avoids constitutional demise.32 The words have no narrow technical meaning in religion, as shown by Hindu and Buddhist traditions that embrace fluid concepts of the Supreme Being.33 Congress spoke in vague general terms and should be attributed tolerance commensurate with the religious complexion of American communities.34
Any person opposed to war on the basis of a sincere belief that fills the same place in life as belief in God is entitled to exemption.35
Whether the statutory definition of religious training and belief discriminates between different forms of religious expression in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?36
The definition is to be interpreted to include all beliefs that are sincere and meaningful and occupy a parallel place in the life of the possessor, preventing discrimination among forms of religious expression.37
No. By construing the definition to cover the varied expressions of Seeger, Jakobson, and Peter as described in their forms, the statute treats different forms equally and does not discriminate in violation of due process.38 Seeger's ethical creed, Jakobson's Supreme Reality, and Peter's power manifest in nature each receive equal consideration under the parallel-place test without favoring any particular articulation of religious belief.
The definition does not discriminate in violation of the Due Process Clause.39
Whether the beliefs expressed by Seeger, Jakobson, and Peter satisfy the statutory requirement of belief in a relation to a Supreme Being?40
A sincere and meaningful belief occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those who clearly qualify for the exemption. Such a belief satisfies the requirement of belief in a relation to a Supreme Being.41
Yes. Seeger's devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, derived from his Roman Catholic home and Quaker studies, occupies such a place as found by the Court of Appeals.42 Jakobson's belief in Godness as the Ultimate Cause and Supreme Reality, with vertical and horizontal relationships, meets the standard.43 Peter's acceptance of a power manifest in nature that helps order life, which he equated with a Supreme Being, likewise qualifies under the test applied to the facts of their claims.44
The beliefs of Seeger, Jakobson, and Peter satisfy the statutory requirement.45