Scribd
Upload
106 views2 pages

Supreme Being Definition in Seeger Case

The Supreme Court held that the term "Supreme Being" in the Universal Military Training and Service Act should not be restricted to the orthodox God, but rather broadly includes equivalent religious beliefs that occupy a place parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God in traditional religious persons. The Court examined the legislative intent and history of the Act, as well as religious scholarship, and determined that a broad range of religious beliefs could satisfy the Act as long as the belief holds a place of similar importance in the objector's life as belief in God holds for more traditionally religious people. The Court established a test of whether the claimed belief occupies this same important place in the objector's life.

Uploaded by

Yrra Limchoc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
106 views2 pages

Supreme Being Definition in Seeger Case

The Supreme Court held that the term "Supreme Being" in the Universal Military Training and Service Act should not be restricted to the orthodox God, but rather broadly includes equivalent religious beliefs that occupy a place parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God in traditional religious persons. The Court examined the legislative intent and history of the Act, as well as religious scholarship, and determined that a broad range of religious beliefs could satisfy the Act as long as the belief holds a place of similar importance in the objector's life as belief in God holds for more traditionally religious people. The Court established a test of whether the claimed belief occupies this same important place in the objector's life.

Uploaded by

Yrra Limchoc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

UNITED STATES v.

SEEGER
8 March 1965 | Justice Clark

Facts
• Section 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act exempts from
combatant training and service in the armed forces of the US those persons who by
reason of their religious training and belief are conscientiously opposed to participation
in war in any form. The said Act defined “religious training and belief” as “an
individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those
arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or
philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.”
• Defendants Seeger, Jakobson, and Forest Britt Peter attack the constitutionality of the
definition in two grounds: (1) the section does not exempt nonreligious conscientious
objectors; and (2) it discriminates between different forms of religious expression in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
o Seeger stated that he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme
Being open rather than answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Rather, his was a belief in and
devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a
purely ethical creed. His application for exemption was denied solely because his
belief was not based upon a “belief in a Supreme Being” as required by the Act.
o Jakobson stated that his "most important religious law" was that "no man ought
ever to willfully sacrifice another man's life as a means to any other end…" The
hearing officer found that the claim was based upon a personal moral code and
that he was not sincere in his claim.
o Forest Britt Peter was not a member of a religious sect or organization, but he felt
it a violation of his moral code to take human life and that he considered this
belief superior to his obligation to the state.

Issue/ Held
WoN the term “Supreme Being” as used in the Act narrowly means the orthodox God- NO.

Rationale
• Legislative intent: In drafting the bill, Congress adopted the words of Chief Justice
Hughes: "The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior
to those arising from any human relation." They deliberately broadened these words
when they used “Supreme Being” instead of the appellation “God”. Moreover, they did
not elaborate on the form or nature of this higher authority, which it chose to designate as
“Supreme Being”. In doing so, they recognized that even the word “God” had myriad of
meanings for men of faith.
• In addition, the Senate Report on the bill specifically states that Section 6 (j) was
intended to re-enact “substantially the same provisions as were found” in the 1940 Act.
Under the 1940 Act, it was necessary only to have a conviction based upon religious
training and belief. Within that phrase would come all sincere religious beliefs, which are
based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon
which all else us ultimately dependent.
• The history of the Act belied the notion that it was to be restrictive in application and
available only to those believing in a traditional God. The Court cited several religious
scholars and leaders, showing that there is a broad spectrum of religious beliefs in
society. They demonstrate very clearly the diverse manners in which beliefs, equally
paramount in the lives of their possessors, may be articulated.
• TEST: Does the claimed belief occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an
orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption?
• Each of the defendants claimed in his application that his objection was based on a
religious belief. The Court has construed the statutory definition broadly and it follows
that any exception to it must be interpreted narrowly. If the claimed religious beliefs of
the respective registrants in these cases meet the test that we lay down, then their
objections cannot be based on a "merely personal" moral code.

You might also like