Column: Drafting Women Violates Religious Liberty
Margaret Tarkington, a professor of law at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law, wrote an interesting perspective on the recent developments regarding women in combat and drafting women. In short, she has no problem with women being allowed to be in combat if they want to be. But, she thinks that forcing every other woman to sign up for the draft as a result could violate their religious liberties [emphasis added]:
The conscription of women raises significant religious liberty concerns for women (including many LDS, Islamic, Orthodox Jew and other Christian sects and religious traditions) who devoutly believe that their primary calling in life is to be a mother, raising their children in a safe and loving home. The First Amendment is intended to secure the free exercise of religion. For myself, the most important “free exercise” of my religious convictions is being able to be a mother and to raise my children at home.
While women should have equal opportunities to join and advance in the military if they so choose, it is a different matter to force each woman to leave her family — or opportunities for family — at the government’s beck and call and go to war. The premise of the feminist movement was that women should not be forced to be at home; it would be ironic if women could now be forced to leave home and child-raising.
Perhaps unknowingly, Tarkington is reframing the latest unspoken battle in the culture wars: the “unintended consequences” of the new civil rights era. Those who demand “rights” for themselves are increasingly at odds with those who don’t want those rights — or the inherent responsibilities that come with them.
The homosexual movement is not unlike Tarkington’s view on women and the draft. The vast majority of America (including Christians and other religious faithful) is libertarian when it comes to homosexuality — ‘let them do what they want.’ One of the most frequently exercised rights in America, after all, is the right to be wrong.
But society has yet to come to terms with what happens when someone’s newly found “right” creates a responsibility on someone else — the legal “requirement” to help homosexuals celebrate their “wedding,” for example, even when such an act violates the religious liberty of the person coerced into that role.
It’s interesting how quickly certain segments of society go from complaining about having a worldview “forced” on them to doing that very thing.
ADVERTISEMENT
Oh common JD, women wanted to be equal with men, same job, same pay. I don’t read into this meaning they asked to be drafted, but if that is the interpretation from the powers-that be; I doubt it will happen, but if if it did, then they can file for Conscientious Objection and Alternative Service just like men.
I personally believe “all others” should go first (draft or war). If we get into a crisis where we need one-for-one bullet stoppers then all able-bodied men including those denied regular enlistment for being too fat or skinny, for example, are the top draft picks.
We have lots of men on welfare, in prison, hollywood, and serving public office; more top picks. We don’t need senators and congressmen sitting in their comfy office while all other men are kill’in bad guys. Yes, that healthy 60 year old man can drive a car, golf, play poker with the fellas, so off they go, all before the women. Even a blind man can load a gun with practice.
Adult women and younger girls (say 14-17) can easily work hospital care, food services and other jobs that will still allow for them to care for the young’ins. If they want to shoot bad guys too, more power to them. Go GI Jane!!
I know, I’m just being ridiculous, how dare I suggest a blind man help his country or a perfectly healthy 60 year old; what I suggest would never happen in USA, but we want to draft women…really?
@watchtower
I think you kind of missed the greater point connecting “rights” with “responsibility” — and the fact that these new responsibilities are potentially falling on those who never asked for, nor do they want to support, those new “rights.”
Dear Watchtower,
Have you done any study of the Israel Defense Forces? Everyone once they turn 18 must join the military there, both men and women. Men have to serve at least 3 years unless you are a pilot then it is 5 and women must serve 2 years. Some women there are in in combat units mixed with men and some are all female units. There are women who command tank corps there as well as they are fighter pilots like women in our service. Once your time is up, then you are on reserve status till you are 40, and yes even the 60 year olds there would suit up again if Israel went to war. In Israel you do not go right into college like you do here, you go right into the military!
@BF,
While the world largely admired the resilience of the early Israeli armed forces, they also conscripted women because they faced an existential threat. In the face of annihilation, I know of few who would object to a “to arms” call to everyone who was capable.
That said, the US doesn’t face such a threat. A man who won’t hold a door for a woman is bad enough. A society that will send its women to war, rather than its men, is pathetic.
I didn’t miss your point JD, I supplied an even greater one…why?
Regardless of any religious views, its just not right to force women in the draft. Most women I know would crumble at the thought of having to shoot someone let alone be capable. Those women that can (less than 1% in my book) are the exception. Ok, some men too.
Now I know the Tarkington lady stirred the pot, but the bottomline is we don’t need to invoke religion or homo stuff to justify not doing something; we can do that with just plan old common sense. I also agree we should not force a preacher to marry gay people if the preacher objects, but someone has gotta do it, so let the gay preachers do it or the justice of the peace if so inclined. All they want is to be able to take care of each other, and will their belonging to the ones they love the most (simplistic view, but you get the gist), not to mention the license laws, medical/life insurance etc…
Side note, their is a Military gay married couple living in my neighborhood with 2 girls (adopted) and they seem to be outstanding Americans. If you met them on the street, you’d never know they are gay.
And finally, we’re not in Israel BF and we don’t need to follow their example. We are above all that because we are American’s and have a different way of life; and common sense. Not say’in the ladies couldn’t do a part, but get the fat guy first.
Just wondering – what do y’all think would happen if we needed to invoke a draft (of men) and the selective service 20 year old is 30 pounds over weight, wears coke-bottle lens glasses because he’s blind as a bat. Do we want him to go to war or will he get the stamp “CAT IV” not fit? Put his fat ass in the chow hall to cook dinner! Sorry to curse JD.
@watchtower
Historically, being overweight was not a disqualifier to being drafted. Same with vision, though that might restrict what career field someone was qualified for. No reason to assume that, should the draft be required, the same standards wouldn’t continue.