When You Oppose War, But Not Religiously

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: Thank you.

0:00:02 Jenessa: Concluded that war from the the practical practical standpoint standpoint is futile and and self self -defeating -defeating and But do you meet the definition of a religion? Is your thing a supreme being? That's a a legal question. A statute interpretation thing.

0:00:07 Thomas: It good for absolutely nothing oh and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1256. I'm Thomas. That over there is Jenessa. How are you doing?

0:00:42 Jenessa: I am doing great. The sun is shining and Viktor Orban is out in Hungary. Hooray.

0:00:48 Thomas: Yeah, we haven't talked about that. That was good news. It's

0:00:51 Jenessa: Excellent democracy news. Um, I think it's been like a week probably. Um. Least as of our recording.

0:00:57 Thomas: That was like a prove Jenessa's paper thing correct moment.

0:01:00 Jenessa: Mm-hmm. Serious Inquiries Only episode 508. We talked about a paper that told us to expect this. Um, I don't know if that incident will exactly match their definition of a U-turn, but in the spirit of authoritarian losing power to internal democratic actors, like, should expect this to happen. Optimism, it's happening.

0:01:23 Thomas: Not? Was it like the time frame or something? Why wouldn't it count?

0:01:26 Jenessa: I have to double check their exact definition of like it had to decrease in that electoral democracy score by a certain percentage and then level off for one to five years like bottom out and then turn around now so they have exactly met that definition I don't know maybe how bad did it get over there pretty bad is my understanding um state control of the media not good news uh yet a landslide for

0:01:54 Thomas: You gotta let power -hungry corporations control your media like the rest of us. That's the only way you can be free yeah

0:02:01 Jenessa: Oh god well know it's it's good sign for what a difficult position the opposition was in and they still pulled it off um a potential dummy mander like a gerrymander where for the elections where things had gone good. But once the public opinion changed, you had made everybody vulnerable instead of any safe seats. So shouldn't say any. They have a couple seats.

0:02:19 Thomas: I love that good

0:02:36 Jenessa: But great news. So exciting and hopeful for American democracy. J.D. Vance probably did not help by campaigning for him.

0:02:33 Thomas: Times right good stuff I know it's not actually causal I don't think but it is funny that he just goes places and ruins whatever's there like kills a pope you talks didn't do anything you know this happens it's great he's got a he's got a touch of shit he's got the shit touch what's the opposite of gold yeah

0:03:06 Jenessa: It It'd be very hard to argue he's effective. So.

0:03:09 Thomas: Yeah to say the least well all right but today we're going to be talking about the fact that we're getting drafted to go fight in the Middle East probably right at least I am I don't think they're letting women in the military anymore so you know you're lucky you can't be a war fighter provider.

0:03:24 Jenessa: Yeah, probably. Yeah, they weren't taking me, trust me. You watch me trip over my own feet on the way in that door. They're not handing me a gun. Yeah, I have no idea what the actual odds are of another draft, but to assume, like, I heard people talking about it. The idea was bandied about. Out but have to imagine that if they did that it would be the beginning of the end of any public support that like the war is already unpopular so forcing people to participate would probably be even more unpopular I would bet uh legally there I don't think there's anything that would stop them from doing

0:03:36 Thomas: Pretty to zero. Yeah. Yeah,

0:04:12 Jenessa: It again I don'T KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT HAS REVOKED IT LIKE sign up. Yeah, exactly. So there. And there is also still a provision for conscientious objectors. So how does that work?

0:04:19 Thomas: What kind of what we're talking about, right? Assuming you're not blessed with being as uncoordinated as Jenessa, there may be another way.

0:04:38 Jenessa: Yes. So my partner looked it up and it was like, you have to be missing multiple toes or your big toe. That'll get you out of it or like there's all these other things or conscientious objectors this I

0:04:50 Thomas: You could have like a club foot, and I don't know what that means. I never will. I think it's an old-timey thing, but somehow it still exists. I don't know. I don' t mean to disparage anyone, but I always hear like, yeah, he's got club foot. What is it? Is it a club foot? Is it club foot ? Is it big foot? I don'' t know what it is. I'm never going to look it up.

0:05:11 Jenessa: Know now that you're saying it I also don't know there are bone spurs, Trump Yeah, allegation I heard is when asked, he didn't know what foot had the bone spurs, so that could be a problem.

0:05:17 Thomas: Bone spurs. Yeah, whoa. Whoa. Which bones is it? Oh, just all, just so many of them.

0:05:31 Jenessa: Bones.

0:05:32 Thomas: All 1,000 bones have it. I just got a big flash, like power surge type flash, and then a massive downpour like we're in a movie. So there may be a rom-com being filmed, you know, like where somebody's got to do the like, you know. Trying to get someone back out in the rain. Or it could be a horror movie. So if I get murdered. Either I'll fall in love or get murdered. You can tell me which movie I'm in, but boy, that was, that was startling to me. Sorry. Anyway, it was really crazy.

0:05:54 Jenessa: I Yeah. I interesting story for you. Turned into my partner, as we were talking about it, going, oh, we need to watch Rambo, which I no idea had any connection to Vietnam or the draft.

0:06:14 Thomas: That's all about. Okay. I'm, I'm not a Rambo expert, but I did watch it and it's all about that. Yeah. The first it's kind of the, the follows the rule of Sylvester Stallone movies where the first one is like kind of good and like, Oh, and that's like a, it's good. Kind of like a normal movie. That's good Rocky, especially as an incredible movie. Rocky one is really good. If anyone is somehow hasn't seen that um then like they get crazy after that so like Rambo the first Rambo is like kind of a real movie also crazy but

0:06:40 Jenessa: Here's the thing. I like, what do you know about it? And I was like I don't know. Sylvester Stallone, headband, guns in the woods. That's all I got. That's only reference. Okay. Not a mindless action movie. It is a deep tragedy. I cried.

0:06:49 Thomas: So far you got it that's it's not oh wow oh you so you did actually watch it okay yeah

0:07:02 Jenessa: In 1980, PTSD was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. And in 1982, they made the the most raw, vulnerable depiction of PTSD that I've ever seen in media. Like, it a rewatch if you haven't seen it recently. I was so wrapped up in this deep commentary on how we treat people with mental illness and veterans and the militarization of our police. And like, he's treated as an outcast and not given support and abused. And then finally, someone just listens and he exposes this trauma he's dealing with and he weeps and he reaches out for the physical comfort of another man's touch. And I'm crying at a monologue from Sylvester Stallone.

0:07:53 Thomas: My god dad. I did not see this coming.

0:08:03 Jenessa: A professor who said my reading of the movie E .T. was transgressive. I think he would say the same about this one, that I watch movies weird.

0:08:03 Thomas: Wow. What an endorsement.

0:08:16 Jenessa: So anyway, how we got to the draft.

0:08:15 Thomas: I watch movies weird. Well, is how we got to the draft like historically, or you mean you and I or you?

0:08:25 Jenessa: Me and dan and the podcast and that's that's how we ended up here

0:08:27 Thomas: Well we better get to the episode. So why why don't we take our first break patreon.com/law if you'd like to support the show support um Jenessa watches films weird also the new spin -off show movie uh movie show I would love to do that uh we'll take a break and then we'll get into the draft and conscientious objection and rambo apparently all Right, well, where does our tale begin? Who drew first blood?

0:08:58 Jenessa: God all of us um a little history of the draft um the very very beginning, the first draft in the United States, we have always had an exemption for religious conscientious objectors. They do still have to serve in the military. So I did not know this before I did any of this research. Not like you check the box and you're just done.

0:09:24 Jenessa: They often serve in a non -combat role. So like a medic. There's one guy who has a, I think, a purple heart because of this like famously um yeah it was like a big deal because he was picked up a gun but he was a medic you know helped a lot of people uh in world war ii they introduced the option of civilian public service so there's some people because of their religion are so objecting like even the non -combat role They're like, I don't participate in the military. I do not participate in violence. I would rather go to jail. I'm not going to do it. So they introduced this. And some of that was like, oh, you're going to go build a dam. You're

0:09:33 Thomas: So like a conscientious objector got a purple heart and that's probably like a like noteworthy thing yeah that's huh cool ah

0:10:11 Jenessa: Going to go work in mental health institutions in the 40s. Super fun.

0:10:19 Thomas: I'd be like I almost rather go to war wow

0:10:21 Jenessa: Yeah, it was not great. There was a lot of violence. Link to it in the show notes. There was an amazing report. A ton of the conscientious objectors went to those institutions, saw the violence against patients, documented it, and got systemic change for our mental health institutions. So super cool. Of them were guinea pigs in medical experiments. How we figured out atypical pneumonia, also known as walking pneumonia. They were like, Like, hey, I'm going to put this bacteria in you. I think this might be what causes pneumonia. Not like a fun. It's not like you just check the box and go home or check the box and do the same thing. Go work at the public park like stuff happens. It's a war and they don't make it a fun alternative, but your options are basically war, federal prison, non -combat at war, probably medic type roles, or civilian public service, which is varying degrees of also awful. War sucks. We first started this, this idea of, okay, we have conscientious objectors, we're not going to force everybody to pick up a gun and shoot shoot somebody it initially for the historic peace churches uh language in world war one was well recognized religious sect or organization then organized and existing and whose existing creed or principles forbade its members to participate in war in any form so

0:10:57 Thomas: Fuck non -combat war oh okay oh gotcha yeah so they didn't want people starting a church and like being you know yeah

0:12:05 Jenessa: Yeah was extremely straightforward if you are a quaker you qualify they have such a strong prohibition against violence it's like debatable whether they can even do self -defense catholics you do not qualify catholic church the official position the just war doctrine as we are are all learning about now because Vance is feuding with the Pope.

0:12:29 Thomas: Church that had an inquisition can and pretend to be anti -violence you know

0:12:34 Jenessa: I I grew up Catholic, if you read The Catholic Just War Doctrine, like the abstract, read what they have written down, I think most people would probably agree with it. It's a lowercase c conservative, like you should almost never do it. But the official teaching is some war is just. This requires you have to believe in never ever going to war. So you were Quaker, you can check this box. If you are Catholic, you cannot. It's very easy and almost certainly going to be unconstitutional because, it that that way.

0:13:08 Thomas: Sorry what is oh oh because you're because you're discriminating uh between religions kind of thing uh back yeah interesting

0:13:16 Jenessa: We have said that this would essentially say, if you are a Catholic who opposes all war, you would have made a great Quaker, but you're a bad Catholic, and so you don't get the exemption. Right? The lead up to World War II. There's a big congressional hearing. We need to redo this. We had a bunch of Quakers who so did not want to even be in non -combat roles. They went to jail. So we need to do this civilian public service thing. We also have a lot of people who are not members of historic peace churches, but part of their personal religious belief is in opposition to war. So, we need to personalize this. We cannot say the good Quaker gets out of it, the bad Catholic doesn't. Like, okay, we got to do something. 1940, they amend the language to say, rather than what we quoted before about you're a member of this church, it's based on your religious training and belief. And immediately the courts are split on what what exactly is religious?

0:13:30 Thomas: Yeah ah

0:14:25 Jenessa: Crap. Define religion. I been trying to do this forever, right? So say, okay, we're getting this circuit says this, that circuit says that, we got to fix this. So Congress amends it again, 1948, and they adopt language used by the Ninth Circuit in a decision that had restricted it to more like traditional organized theism kind of beliefs, this is the language that we had in 1948 for World War II, and it's also going to be the language up to the Vietnam draft, the last draft we ever had. This is as far as I'm aware, and the draft where the cases we're going to cover today become relevant. So this is the language of that 1948 statute. Contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. Religious training and Belief in this connection means It means an individual's belief in relation to a supreme being, that has capital S, capital B, involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code.

0:16:01 Thomas: Yeah so it can't if you genuinely believe it because youre a good person or youve you've arrived at it through sound reasoning no go but if an invisible ghost that you think you're pretty sure told you yeah no you don't have to go to war that that's that's just sound science there yeah

0:16:18 Jenessa: Is pretty much the read, right? Capital S, capital B, supreme being. They say capital G, God. Okay, the court's going to make a big deal out of that. They've said not, essentially, political, sociological, philosophical, not a merely personal moral code. Have kept this language of opposition to all war. Obviously, if it was like, I'm opposed to this war specifically, that's the point of of the draft is you make people go to this war who did not sign up um it's opposition to all war they're still restricting it to by reason of religious training and belief and then they're going to define it for us it's got to be in relation to a supreme being it's superior to those arising from human relations so like what I have a duty to my fellow man I have have a duty to my government. But above that, I have a duty to supreme being, religion, whatever. And what does that not mean? Politics, sociology, philosophy, personal moral code. No, of those.

0:17:25 Jenessa: So that's our 1948 statute. I'm bad at dates. I think that's during World War II or the end of World War Two.

0:17:23 Thomas: Anything real yeah no yeah it's after after world war

0:17:34 Jenessa: It's after? Okay, great. So it's after. So, it'll hit the other ones like the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Yeah. Okay. Refresher because going to come up, kind of, freedom of religion. What is going to happen here? We've got in the First Amendment the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Exercise, the classic case would be something like you take a government job, they say no hats, you say I am Jewish. I wear a yarmulke. I am Muslim. I wear a hijab. You accommodate me?

0:17:34 Thomas: Two yeah yeah it'S like the korean war yeah I'm i'ma dodgers fan I wear a dodgers hat nope no go

0:18:12 Jenessa: Is That one's a no. But is it so vital to the job to not wear hats that like literally a yamaka is going to ruin the job? Hypothetically, that could be the finding. Strict scrutiny. If the government has a compelling interest in the no hats rule and it's It's narrowly tailored, like there's no possible way around this. Yeah, you could say no hijabs, no yarmulkes, no nothing. Or the no hats rule was really meant to get rid of the political baseball cap and fine, whatever, wear your yarmuleke. That's not why we had the rule. It's fine. So that's a classic free exercise. It's in the First Amendment. The government cannot interfere with your free exercise of religion. Religion, that kind of thing gets brought up a lot. So what would be the equivalent if the government had never had an exemption of any kind? Now, keep in mind, we always did. Let's say they just had a draft. There were no exceptions for anybody for any reason. And somebody said, like, I am a Quaker. It is completely against my religion to pick up a gun. I need an accommodation. That would be like a classic free exercise clause. Here's the thing that gets weird here. All hats that the secular equivalent? They're like, isn't one, a thing where if I put this hat on, it's going to like something bad's goingto happen. I don't, we don't have that.

0:19:37 Thomas: We don't get that you get all these religious people get all these special rules because you believe a silly thing must be nice well

0:19:44 Jenessa: Don't get it. It's not a thing. There's no secular equivalent. I can recognize it like forcing a Muslim woman to take off a hijab, forcing a Jewish person to eat pork, like it would be cruel. I,

0:19:54 Thomas: I'm not saying I necessarily want to undo that but if someone has a philosophical reason for being anti -war they should that should count pretty silly

0:20:04 Jenessa: This is exactly my point, is those things are like, I don't get it, but I can recognise that if it's extremely important to you, it would would be cruel to force you to do this thing. And it's weird. I think we kind of all have a sense that forcing literally anybody to go to war, to pick up a gun and shoot people, to get shot yourself, like there's kind of an inherent cruelty already there.

0:20:32 Jenessa: So there is a secular equivalent here. And that's going to cause the problem. Like I'll, yeah, I'll give you, there's added added insult to injury for a Quaker. Like, it just feels like, oh man, even them? Kind of messed up for everybody, right? So going to kind of cause our problem here. Classic establishment clause case would be like prayer in school. And I covered this in episode 1196, Engel v. Vitale. This was in 1963, so it's shortly before the cases we're going to cover. And what does the court say? Even a non -denominational, vague kind of prayer, even if you give students the option to stay quiet or leave the room, it's still isolating. It is still othering. It istill pressure to join religion versus non -religion. And we can't be doing that. That that's what the establishment clause says no

0:20:39 Thomas: Gotcha. Oh, wow. That, that, that can't be long for this world though. It's weird that they ruled that, but then they don't rule that same thing when it comes to like prayers to open Congress or whatever, you know, like then they're like, oh, it's just a nice thing we do. Like, okay. Why doesn't the same stuff apply?

0:21:46 Jenessa: To congress literally might be the speech and debate clause thing where they can literally say like nuclear secrets on the floor of congress they

0:21:53 Thomas: Maybe it's not Congress. There was, there is a a ruling where I remember them talking about it

0:21:57 Jenessa: Say that in like the town hall as well you're right so part Part of that is the captive audience of children, school children, public schools get a lot of extra protections.

0:22:01 Thomas: Something like that yeah yeah well that's nice at least yeah

0:22:12 Jenessa: The ruling is there is no possible way for government to allow it, so you just have to stop. Other times you get like, oh, the Ten Commandments monuments, it's an everybody or nobody rule. So okay, go ahead and put that on the public property. You're going to have to allow the satanic temple to put the baphomet statue and the secular humanists to put up there whatever everybody or nobody you can have a rule that's no religious or political anything or you got to let everyone and that's why the satanic temple shows up and they either get the satantic children's club at the school or people go you know what um maybe maybe the nobody rule is what we, we should have done the nobody rule. Always an option. So that's like your classic establishment clause. Would be the equivalent here? Going to dodge this really heavily, but one option would be is supporting religion to give a religious exemption. And so you should give nobody the exemption. An option to ask for. That's going to be not really an option, I spotted this as a standing issue and then found the same argument in a dissent in a case like later on. It's in a descent, but I feel like if I, this is not my area of expertise and I spotted it immediately, I feel it would come up if this ever came up again. If you tried to say as an establishment clause argument. Well, by giving a religious exemption to that guy, have established a religion. And the way to unestablish the religion is to give it to me.

0:23:56 Jenessa: Do you have standing over the fact that the constitution said that guy can't get an exemption and now you can, it's Not gonna work. Like you the harmed Party? And how are you getting on the harmed by it? And then I read that dissent and they gave a really great example of like, if the Constitution said non -citizens can never be given an exemption they must be drafted and then congress god knows why gave them that exemption if I a citizen was like hey it says non -citizens are not supposed to be exempt from the draft so you have to exempt me a citizen from the draft like what that's like the standing rules are gonna get in the way here so really the establishment clause claim would be you're establishing religion by saying religion is so special you get an exemption from the draft you have to force the quaker to go to war with me the atheist and like that just as a matter of practical public opinion I don't see that case going very well. Yikes.

0:24:57 Thomas: I always

0:25:07 Jenessa: Going to exist in a very weird place here. We don't have a classic free exercise question because Congress has always already given an exemption. So, we don'T know, would the Constitution require that you give this exemption? The question has never really come up it's dicta they've said sometimes some people have said yes some people have said no but it's never been the issue and clause nobody has showed up and tried to say no exemptions you forced that man to go to war with me like has tried that what people have tried is I would also like the exemption so kind of free exercisey it's It's kind of establishment -y. It's somewhere in the middle. Is how we get into Seeger v. United States. Actually three plaintiffs, but Seeger's the interesting one. 1965, his case is decided at the Supreme Court. He gets the congratulations you're being drafted vietnam excuse takes the standard form for a conscientious objector where it says I am by reason of my religious training and belief conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form he crosses out the words training and So

0:26:27 Thomas: Okay

0:26:28 Jenessa: It would just say religious belief, by reason of my religious belief. And then he puts quotes around religion. My religious belief in

0:26:38 Thomas: That like binding he altered it the the form. And now I guess that's what it is.

0:26:45 Jenessa: It's certainly not a contract. Act um so also in order to match the statutory text that congress has put forward there is a question do you believe in a capital s supreme capital b being and instead of checking yes or no he doesn't I I prefer to leave this question open to interpretation what he will ultimately say is that his skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God did not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything whatsoever. A belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sake and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed. He cited such personages as Plato, Aristotle, and Spinoza for support of his ethical belief in intellectual and moral integrity, without belief in God except in the remotest sense.

0:27:40 Thomas: So this is one of us, one of us. This is a yeah, this is a somebody that back then that not quite me because I wouldn't be that eloquent, but, you know, sure.

0:27:47 Jenessa: Right? Like, yeah. He did not disavow any belief in relation to a supreme being. Indeed, he stated that the cosmic order does perhaps suggest a creative intelligence all these people are high it's the 60s he

0:28:10 Thomas: It's him being super diplomatic. He doesn't he doesn't want to lie he's like yeah there could you know you never know could be yeah

0:28:19 Jenessa: These statements are made on the form some of These are made in a hearing and some of Thees are made by his lawyer so like all of These Are trying to piece together his beliefs right? Decried the tremendous spiritual price man must pay for his willingness to destroy human life. The court is going to latch onto that word spiritual. Belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed. Faith in a purely ethical creed what does that mean that's

0:28:29 Thomas: Sure religious faith and appealing yeah does it mean like he's religious about it you know like like I'm not I'm not yeah like I am not religious but like when it comes to being ethical I'm pretty religious about it like I'm ethical religiously

0:28:54 Jenessa: Kind of yeah how I would read it so decision his decision to refuse to enlist arises from what I believe to be considerations of validity from the standpoint of the welfare of humanity and the preservation of the democratic values which we in the united states are struggling to maintain I've concluded that war from the practical standpoint is futile and self -defeating and that from the more important moral standpoint it unethical like yeah it's that's just that that doesn't have any religion in it to me that didn't say a god that didn't stay a spiritual that's the argument a lot of us would make right okay three questions you can ask you cannot question the validity of somebody's beliefs it they can be completely incoherent like only thing that matters is does this religion whatever you believe it to include an opposition to all war that's like oh there's like seven gods and this one's like this and that one's like that the hearing officer does not have to find that reasonable or anything the sincerity do you actually believe it or are you just making stuff up to try to get accommodations or whatever for context there's a hearing officer they assess that if they say you are insincere you can go to an appeals board this is still within the military they can overrule it or agree and the final decision stops there so you do not go to the supreme court and say well you believe me right like no that's where sincerity question is over that's

0:29:24 Thomas: It good for absolutely nothing oh

0:30:38 Jenessa: Like a fact determination but

0:30:41 Thomas: And supreme court probably doesn't want to have to be adjudicating every single person back then's fact determination of whether they believe it okay you

0:30:49 Jenessa: So many people are getting drafted and lot of people are going to try to say this is my religion and I certainly some of them were insincere and just trying to get out of the draft right

0:31:01 Thomas: Know plenty of them well if you have to pretend it's your religion like not that many religions are actually anti -war you know to your point before but I I wonder if there could be like a I wonder if there there could be any just legally this is not probably important but it'd be interesting if they were denying all of those then would you have a legal remedy as like a class or something you know it's kind of interesting

0:31:21 Jenessa: -hmm I of the guys who's not seager but in this case um hearing officer said he's insincere and like also if I did believe him this is just a personal moral code and then the appeals board just said denied appeal and they didn't say why so he gets his overturned because the judges are like well if it was on the sincerity thing if they agreed with the hearing office that you were insincere we couldn't touch it but if it was on the grounds that this is just a personal moral code we actually disagree that guy pretty clearly did believe in a god like it was just it was a weirdo hippie god but it was the god of some kind and they were like without knowing why the appeals board did what they did we have to assume the most generous option and give it to you um

0:31:45 Thomas: Interesting interesting yeah not exactly what I was talking about yeah but if they're if they were just saying everyone was insincere and they never let anyone be sincere I'm curious if there'd be some legal remedy maybe like a glass action or something I I don't know. Or maybe some other kind of thing, but who knows?

0:32:27 Jenessa: I think the the rule in general for this kind of board would be arbitrary and capricious so if you could show like they made no attempts to do any fact finding they didn't even listen to you they

0:32:43 Thomas: You get past that first test. Cause you're not saying, Hey, no, I'm not trying to prove factually that I'm sincere. I'm trying to show this is, they didn't even do it. Like look at it or they didn'T even do. Okay. Yeah. That makes sense.

0:32:55 Jenessa: Essentially Essentially, what they would then do often is not make a fact determination that you're sincere, but send it back to boards and go, do it right, come on, do the thing. That happens very often with regulatory boards of other kinds. So, your belief in a God real? Of course, we don't have judges go, the real religion is Mormons. Like, we do not do that.

0:33:19 Thomas: Yeah plus people in glass houses, you know, I think they they all decided like uh we'll just uh if you say god big guy in the sky I got a beard roughly yeah okay that's close enough we're not gonna yeah we're Not gonna not us not criticize each other's stupid beliefs in a god with a beard in the Sky all that I'm

0:33:29 Jenessa: Not touching that one. Leave it alone. Yeah, validity, leave it alone, it just has to include opposition to all war. Sincerity, fact determination stays within that military process. But do you meet the definition of a religion? Is your thing a supreme being? That's a legal question. That's a statute interpretation thing. So he's going to say, when he gets to the trial court, his lawyer will say, okay, he doesn't literally believe in a supreme being, but his beliefs meet more modern definitions of religion. This law was written in 48. It is 1960s. We have have since, in the courts, adopted definitions of religion that understand, like, there are non -theistic religions now that would get, you know, Buddhists could totally get First Amendment free exercise protections. He fits those. So kind of like a classic free exercise claim, I need accommodations. You're trying to make me do something that violates my religion. Religion hey you you want to know what's the best reasonable accommodation the one you're already given other people give it to me

0:34:52 Thomas: Surprised they're not like okay here counteroffer if you're about to kill somebody in the battlefield we'll have somebody else who doesn't care about killing people they'll swap in you know like you do the first part of it it and then they do the kill it's

0:35:06 Jenessa: You just just like lightly stabbing people gentle perfect so the trial court says no you don't it says supreme being and you don'T believe in a supreme being AND I am a trial court and that is a jury and we don't do figuring that out the second circuit reverses the conviction on appeal and they say this kind of classification on the basis of religion is arbitrary and it is unconstitutional you cannot do that this is illegal you go up to the supreme court and you would think that makes sense we're going to have to answer a constitutional question and they are going to say actually he does believe in a supreme beings so we don't have to touch the constitutional issue and a level of mental gymnastics I have not seen in a long time um is 9 -0 uh is one concurrence just one person on it nobody joined but

0:35:09 Thomas: Just the combinations yeah you gotta yeah you point they shoot kavanaugh no I'm just kidding classic kavana oh

0:36:12 Jenessa: It's written by a uh justice douglas who matt referred to in our discussions about this as my man so are going to start quoting texts and buddhist texts and a whole bunch of theologians they quote this uh dr david Seville Muzzy a leader in the ethical culture movement states in his book everybody except the avowed atheists and they are comparatively few believes in some kind of God and the proper question to ask therefore is not the futile one do you believe in God but rather what kind of god do you believe in I yeah

0:36:56 Thomas: Good old expert in atheists. Like, well, in the wild, they say there's atheists, but there's actually not. Like you can't just talk to them. Like I love the, I love kind of the arrogance of that, like kind of Christian writing or whatever.

0:37:11 Jenessa: That like we just don't exist

0:37:13 Thomas: Yeah. There's not really any atheists so really the question is which God do you believe in? Okay. Well, actually none, but yeah, Yeah, sure.

0:37:19 Jenessa: The eminent protestant theologian dr paul tillich whose views the government concedes would come within the statute god not as a projection out there or beyond the skies but as the ground of our very being yeah

0:37:37 Thomas: Friends you made along the way. I want to make sure I understand this thing. The thing you said, and maybe you're explaining it now, I don't know. Make sure you let me know conceptually where we are. But you said like, instead of touching the constitution, they just, are you saying they just like went to a kind of more factual analysis and just said like actually he, and I'm not sure I understood the distinction. So maybe try me again on that one, if you don't mind oh

0:38:03 Jenessa: Going to say thank god none of these three men in this case are atheists so we don't have to answer this question they're all religious they all believe in a supreme being we

0:38:16 Thomas: Wink wink they're just like guys can you just just go with us so we don't have to write about it and figure that out all right we don'T want to figure that just pretend they actually we examine them they are all religious okay so that kind of thing

0:38:30 Jenessa: Is very much the vibe like at first I was reading it and I was like do these people, they are just so far up their own ass. They believe this. And then the more I read it, the more it was like, I think, I thank something's going on here. The concurrence, nobody joined is like, Hey, so we're stretching it a bit. Uh, and, and maybe we stretched it a little too far, but you know, we've done that before. We have, have we stretched definitions definitions to save a statute for congress so you know we're doing people favors um the majority opinion is like nope they're religious they party claims to be an atheist or attacks the statute on this ground the question is not therefore one between theistic and atheistic beliefs we do not deal with or intimate any decision on that situation in these cases, nor do the parties claim the monotheistic belief that there is but one God. What they claim, with the possible exception of Seeger, who bases his position here, not on factual but on purely constitutional grounds, is that they adhere to theism, which is the belief in the existence of a god or gods,

0:39:03 Thomas: Theo oh okay

0:39:42 Jenessa: In superhuman powers or spiritual spiritual agencies in one or many gods as opposed to atheism since when are superhuman powers a god a theist

0:39:54 Thomas: Yeah if he's really into the x -men we'll let him not go to the war yeah

0:39:59 Jenessa: Like I think that's a great example if I believed in the x -men am I a theists like doesn't sound right our

0:40:05 Thomas: And then he's like wait a minute wait a minute he said he believes in batman that he doesn't technically he's just rich he doesn't have powers tend him to war you can't you can'T just believe in batmen there's got to be powers

0:40:14 Jenessa: That feels like the just I don't difficult our question therefore is a narrow one does the term supreme being as used in section 6j mean the orthodox god or the broader concept of a power or being or a faith to

0:40:36 Thomas: Like a crunchwrap supreme for example I can get out of war with this one weird trick of of a Crunchwrap Supreme, everybody. That's what we get out of this.

0:40:41 Jenessa: Like like power or being or faith it says being with a capital b doesn't it have to be a power and being I

0:40:53 Thomas: Well, the Crunchwraps is a divine being, so I don't know what you're arguing about here. I think I hear it loud and clear.

0:41:02 Jenessa: This is sometimes portrayed as like and then this said that secular beliefs get protection and like it super didn't uh

0:41:09 Thomas: Kind of more said that their beliefs just aren't secular.

0:41:11 Jenessa: That they're very much a religion you you are a single member of this church the church of you yeah

0:41:20 Thomas: Yeah, we all get a a church. You get a church and you get a church. Okay. Guess that's the one way to go.

0:41:25 Jenessa: To avoid all of this they come up mit this the ultimate test is a sincere sincere, and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the god of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption. Know the Quaker qualifies. Their belief and the level of importance to them and the role it plays in their life, if I have a belief that is parallel to that, it has the same importance and the same role in in my life, that'll count. There you go.

0:41:59 Thomas: Even if you don't have any oats, like just like an oatless.

0:42:04 Jenessa: You checked my knowledge on some of this by going to like an FAQ for the Quakers. And one of the things on their like, big FAQ page was like, what's with the oats guy?

0:42:15 Thomas: Yeah. That's our king.

0:42:17 Jenessa: I didn't click on that one. So I still don't know.

0:42:18 Thomas: You didn't click. How would you not click on what is the oats guy? What's with the, we are different people. Yeah that is the the distraction. Why would you... Tell

0:42:22 Jenessa: I got distracted. I was so busy learning about because I went there to be like, What are their thoughts it's on self -defense which was itself a distraction well I'll link it to you you can tell us all about the oats okay this is 1965 and they say that me in the eye you're religious you believe in a supreme being don't blink okay you're not going to war congratulations uh in 65 in In 1967, Congress is going to amend that law to take out the word supreme being. It has not been amended since. It still says religious training and belief. And it still says the thing about what is religious training and belief, not that philosophical, sociological, merely personal moral code. But it doesn't say it's in relation to a supreme being so

0:42:34 Thomas: Me about the oats, Jenessa. Okay. Exactly. Yeah. Interesting.

0:43:21 Jenessa: They took that out because of this case. Because this made everything confusing and weird in meanwhile in 1966 before they took that out this guy welsh also submits his conscientious objector application he crosses out religious seeker put it in quotes like cute welsh crosses it out I'm not religious my belief it's as a result of my belief I cannot do this thing not my religious training and belief uh it out just like seger leaves open this do I believe in a supreme being or not he doesn't check yes or no he's just I don't know why asking weirdo um beliefs he states in his write-up in his hearing insists it is not a religious belief I'm not saying that I believe taking someone's life is a religious wrong he believes the taking of life anyone's life to be morally wrong I believe that human life is valuable in and of itself in its living therefore I will not injure or kill another human being this belief and the corresponding duty to abstain from violence towards another person is not superior to those arising from any human relation on the contrary it is essential to every human relation I

0:44:50 Jenessa: Very eloquent um he's addressing the statutory requirement is superior to those arriving from any human relation he quotes it and says no

0:44:59 Thomas: Like that. Love this. This is another us. This is another US atheist making a point. Hey, it's not actually superior to... I love that. That's really pretty. That's, that's really beautiful. Actually. It's these people are just, they've overdosed on Christianity at all times, whoever's writing this. And so they're, they're writing this book. They're trying like, okay, it can't just be Christians. Um, it, okay. It's gotta still be really like gaudy though. It's got to be like, got like really important. It's Gotta be like a bigger than humans. It's Got to be whatever. And then this, this saint, uh, ironically enough is like, Hey, I just think you shouldn't kill people. And I also don't think that's like bigger than humans. I think that like is what humans should be. We shouldn't killed people. Uh, you know, that's where my belief comes from. And, uh, it was a troublemakers. I like, I like these folks cause they could just not go to war, but very clearly they're trying to also prove a point. I don't know if these were like the kind of, sometimes the, the test case type thing where they're, yeah, I don' know if that was that, but like, or they're just a troublemakers or are they, who, who knows? They could be uh just uh to lie in order to get out of war for one reason or the other but

0:46:05 Thomas: I like them that that was well put yeah

0:46:04 Jenessa: So, three people in Seeger and this guy get convicted in a federal trial court and go to federal prison while they're waiting this stuff out. Like, they meant it.

0:46:16 Thomas: They're put yeah wow incredible

0:46:19 Jenessa: Yeah. Yeah, because if you don't get that conscientious objector status, you go to war or you go to federal prison. You do not get to go home while you goof around like it's a big deal. You be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court says this man is also religious?

0:46:39 Thomas: You're not getting it supreme court uh

0:46:41 Jenessa: Yeah, he literally is like, I'm not religious. I crossed out the word religion.

0:46:47 Thomas: No I think I think he's religious I heard religious in there oh

0:46:52 Jenessa: This one does split up. We on the majority. We get a concurrence from Justice Harlan that I am going to spend a lot of time on. Got a dissent with three people. And And then we have one person who did not participate because he was in the middle of confirmation hearings while this was all going on. So end

0:47:09 Thomas: Okay there's like religious objecture to this whole thing I can't even participate in this case.

0:47:16 Jenessa: Up with the people is a majority because it's four, one, three, not, yeah.

0:47:20 Thomas: So funny. I've never thought of this. It would be interesting trivia question to be like, what's the smallest quote unquote majority ever in a Supreme court decision? I mean, four is pretty small, but I could imagine that. I guess if there's one that has a million separate whatevers, you know, sometimes it's, it could be like two, one, one, one. Well, you Know, like I guess that happens sometimes. Right. Maybe I'm wrong wrong about that oh so is this different than that though

0:47:42 Jenessa: If it is a plurality, it is not a control, it's a majority, but it is not a controlling opinion. So, like, you want a majority. So this is four out of eight, eight, but then the split, you get one concurrence. So they agree with your overall decision and it's four out of eight and there's not four dissenting. There's only three dissenting I don't

0:48:02 Thomas: These rules are complicated oh wow okay well sorry I didn't realize I opened up a whole can of worms but I'm curious about that I'll have to look back at that sometime yeah

0:48:14 Jenessa: Yeah. It's five out of a agree that he should get the conscientious objector status four are going to write a majority and say this man is religious harlan is going to write a concurrence and say you're all out of your mind uh he should get the exemption and three are going gonna write a dissent the dissent is basically uh to adopt the government's position in oral arguments that is like the establishment clause just doesn't apply here free exercise just leave everything alone whatever they're They're going to say he shouldn't get it. He's not religious. And also there's nothing wrong with giving this to religious people and not secular people. Get out of here. That's the dissent. Oral argument, they ask like no questions, an hour of just monologues from the government and from Welsh's lawyer. But like the questions are, hey, wait a minute. You said that's in the brief. I can't find it. No, it's in The Supplement. What's The Suppplement? The supplement is the binder to your left okay thanks like there's almost no questions it it's painful um majority is like oh most of the great religions of today and of the past have embodied the idea of a supreme being or a supreme reality a god who communicates to man in some way a consciousness of what is right and should be done of what is wrong and therefore should be shunned and right like no he said no he does say at one point like I said on the form I said I'm not religious when I said that I didn't know how broadly you guys define the word religion so yeah I guess in the sense that seager meant it I guess I also mean that uh I don't want to go to war so

0:49:16 Thomas: Riveting stuff yeah

0:50:05 Jenessa: At most in the sense in which seager said it that is the sense in w hich I am religious and they say just because you say your belief isn't religious does not mean it isn't we said when seager says his belief is religious that should get a lot of weight because it tells us how important your belief is to you But when you say your belief isn't religious, well, you don't know how we've defined religions. That doesn't mean anything. Don't worry about it.

0:50:26 Thomas: What do you know about your own beliefs beliefs

0:50:31 Jenessa: So now the rule is, after Welsh in the 70s, 1970 exactly, that exempts from military service all those whose consciences spurred by deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs would give them no rest or peace. If they allowed themselves to become part of an instrument of war so now it's moral ethical or religious okay you what um we're not going to war so not mad about it right okay is going to write a concurrence that opens with this requires me to say I joined the court's opinion in seager only with the gravest misgivings as to whether it was a legitimate exercise in in statutory construction, and convinces me that in doing so, I made a mistake, which I should now acknowledge.

0:51:26 Jenessa: Yeah, he's gonna rip this apart and just say, listen, okay, normal thing to do. If the law could be interpreted to mean A or B, A is unconstitutional, B is perfectly fine, of course, we should assume you meant B. thing to Do. Some circumstance comes up, It is obvious Congress never contemplated that. Yeah, we're going to find a way to figure out how to handle that circumstance that you weren't thinking about it when you wrote the law. You know what? If you wrote this in 1920 and you weren't Thinking about Buddhists and Buddhists are like much not theist, but they're religious, right? We'll find a Way to fit the Buddhists in. It's fine. They meant this to exclude non -theists. They used capital S, Supreme, capital B, being you look back at the history and they sided with and used the language of a Ninth Circuit decision that was doing that. That the law to add Supreme being because the courts were split on what the heck religion meant. It's not ambiguous. It's non -contemplated. They meant to do something unconstitutional. Constitutional so we gotta name it and we gotta do something about it you will love the way he handles this um he's very much a believer in the like living constitution idea he will say um this was just interpreting the word speech or religion in the constitution we have freedom to say this has to be updated like we didn't have a bunch of buddhists living here when the founders wrote it. We do now. We have to think differently about what these words mean. This is a statute written by Congress not that long ago. Our job is to give the intent Congress meant not living constitution here. So we have a problem. And he will just say openly what we know they're all thinking. Option would be to say, absolutely, it would violate the Establishment Clause to give this to one religion and not the other, or to give it to religion but not non -religion. You can't do that. This is not acceptable. On the other hand, do I want to say this violates the Establishment Clause and force Quakers to go to war? No, I do not. We are in the middle of the Vietnam War, like the least popular war. What do we do? If we resort to legislative intent, their intent was to give this to theistic religious believers and not to non -theists and not to nonreligious people, and that is unconstitutional. So need something else. What would be their intent if they knew this was going to happen? A couple options here. What would best evoke their intent? Almost a meta intent. I could get rid of the whole thing and force the Quaker to go to war, which is not their intent. Or I could add atheists to this, which also not their intention. Which one would they rather I do? Congress. Probably add the atheists, right? If they had to pick between the two when they were so busy going, okay, so we're not going to do the historic peace church thing. We are going to personalize it. Let's add this word supreme being. They put themselves in this position. What is your intent for me? How can I best enact your intent? It's probably not by getting rid of the entire thing. They did put a severability clause in the act. Severability clauses, pretty common thing in a lot of statutes. Hey, if any one part of this is found illegal, unconstitutional, whatever, keep the rest as best as possible. I'm going to interpret that to say, I, Harlan, we extend this to non -theists and to secular believers. How are we going to do that? What is the real distinction? The common denominator, It's the sincerity thing and the intensity thing. We can recognize religious and non -religious people who are deep, faithful adherence to their beliefs and religious and not religious people who are kind of selective and maybe don't really, you know.

0:51:24 Thomas: Wow who don't kill people on easter and christmas

0:55:50 Jenessa: I was literally about to say the Easter and Christmas Catholics like, we know about that. Right that's a distinction you can make the sincerity thing that is real we all can recognize that the validity of beliefs we all know we cannot judge that so let's just do that that's not arbitrary that does not violate the establishment clause and that would best preserve congress's intent knowing I cannot preserve their exact intent so rather than this majority thing where we're going to pretend Welsh is a religious man, the man who crossed out

0:56:06 Thomas: You can't yep hmm yeah huh

0:56:27 Jenessa: The word religious. Have to admit this is an establishment clause violation, guys, and just not do this. And then the Vietnam War ended and we have not had a draft since. So would happen today? I cannot tell you. I concurrence would probably, I mean, I find his his argument compelling. So,

0:56:48 Thomas: Just to remind everybody you weren't reading us the decision you were reading us a concurrence which doesn't really mean much does it

0:56:56 Jenessa: Decision is like two pages. The concurrence is like seven pages of,

0:57:01 Thomas: That That was a lot that you took us through. And it's really interesting.

0:57:04 Jenessa: He spends a lot of time on why are we lying? We have to stop this. Not unusual for concurrences and dissents from, from very popular judges like him to get a lot of citation I wonder definitely if a draft ever happened again I guarantee you you would have openly atheist secular people who would fight to the death I am not religious do not do that thing to me and we would have to answer this question and I think harlan's concurrence would probably get us there or we just stick to this thing that we're gonna keep pretending that strong morals are capital our religion I lawyer for welsh has apparently represented many conscientious objectors and uh one of us because he spends the first 10 minutes of his argument rambling about other cases he has done to the point that the justices interrupt him and say you're going to want to get to the point because you have not even talked about your client yet and you are about to run out of time um tell us uh the most charming of accents uh a story about one of his clients

0:57:49 Thomas: Yeah. Wow. That's interesting. Whoops.

0:58:26 Clip: Years later, though, the Army had to consider another matter, and that's when Corrigan came in the office. These are reported appellate decisions, of course, and Corrigan says, I'm in the stockade at Fort Ord, and I'm here because they're trying to make a good soldier out of me. When I asked him, how's it coming, if you're in the stockade, you're here. He testified, we were seated in a theater-like arrangement. I was in the back row. When we jumped up, as the sergeant told us to do when the officer came in, the officer said, and now, when I call the name of each of you, you'll take one step forward, and that step is in the Army of the United States. He said, the men were so crowded that no one except in the front row could do anything but shuffle his feet. They shuffled. I didn't shuffle. I did not make a move. The trial judge decided it in another way. He asked him, when did you make up your mind that you were a conscientious objector? He said well I was standing there. The judge said it was too late and I could not do anything about it. It is never too late

0:59:36 Clip: To face civil penalties rather than go into the military service. Now, the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed on the basis that there was no evidence that he had moved his feet forward, and I think that one thing that helped him to reach that opinion was an affidavit that I filed with the closing brief in which I said, I've gone down to the induction station, and I see that they've seen the light. They now have a different procedure. They have a row of chairs around three sides facing the podium, as everybody can see the podium. And they have a white line painted four feet from the wall so the man can see when they cross the Rubicon or any other expression you might want. So

0:59:36 Thomas: Love this. Things should be like this again somehow. I don't know how. Is where my family would say, he's got hair right down to his goddamn shoulders. This is Beetlejuice for anyone else. That became like, you know, if you're one of those families, and my family is one of those families where there's these quotes, I guess we're doing memes before memes, where it's like, this is just the movie quote that applies in the thing. But it's just in Beetlejuice, he runs, it's beginning, it'S so funny. He runs into like the shop that he, well, I think he owns it because he goes, there's the guy outside and he just starts talking, this old guy just starts telling him, he's talking about nothing. And he's, and Al Baldwin, meanwhile, isn't even there. He's already gone in. And then like the guy starts a story and he comes out of the story. He's in a rush, you know, I'll see you later. And the guy goes, Hey, he's got hair right down to his goddamn shoulders. You know, he was just mid story.

1:01:06 Thomas: It's that guy, but on the court and I miss it. We need that. It doesn't exist anymore.

1:01:04 Jenessa: Yeah yeah yeah I delightful. I highly recommend pulling this up listening to everything he says, skip the government lawyer. It is so painfully boring. He just drones. But this guy, this guy knows how to tell a story.

1:01:17 Thomas: I will. Yeah.

1:01:28 Jenessa: Can I figure out the relevance of it to this case? Barely. But it's, Oh, it's so good. And he just, I love these little details where he's like, like oh come you're in the stockade just

1:01:28 Thomas: It's so funny. It coming? You're in the stockade. Well, he said, no. Yeah. It sounds coming. Cause he's like, how has come you're here or whatever. Cause if you're in this stockade,

1:01:46 Jenessa: He said I'm in the stockade at fort ord and I'm here because I'm trying to make a good soldier out of me when I asked him how's coming if you're in the stockade you're here

1:02:01 Thomas: Okay. Then you're here. Yeah, exactly. I love it. So good. Oh, it's so Coen brothers, you know? It's just like like two weeks from everywhere uh

1:02:11 Jenessa: Does that have a anything anything to do with the legal outcome come. No. Did I need it? Yes. Every ounce of this. I want this man to tell me stories the rest of my life. It's incredible. There is something useful in here. He's saying what actually happened in this case is they said, how are you swearing an oath to go? I have joined the army. I consent is step forward. And the room is so crowded. People can only shuffle. I didn't do it. Nobody nobody can tell I didn't do it.

1:02:16 Thomas: So good right yeah I know I love it it's

1:02:44 Jenessa: Incredible. And he says, hey, listen, before this case could even get resolved, the military recognized that procedure sucked and put my client in a terrible position. So they have changed the procedure. He will, 20 minutes from now, say, all they got to do is change two words in the statute and my client will qualify. So fix this. Supreme being's already gone take out religious training and my client is good to go he's getting there he's getting there in the weirdest way possible but he's gotten there so highly recommend giving this a listen this guy is fantastic the government lawyer sucks oh

1:02:44 Thomas: So good it and it's just so sad you know the passage of time like people there's got to be like gen z you never experienced world war ii grandpa you know like they're they're almost all gone now right there's like barely any of them uh but back back in the 90s it was like that guy wasn't even that old you there might have been 70 or something or 70 or 80 and it'S like you'd hear the way they talk like it's just so distinct the way they talk and I just I miss it that was so nostalgic yeah

1:03:47 Jenessa: That said accent, but accent's not the right word. It's

1:03:51 Thomas: It's not really that yeah no it's the choice of words and the cadence and everything yeah ah ah I miss IT I mean there's There's a lot of bad stuff, obviously, that goes with that era. But I miss that particular charm, you know?

1:03:55 Jenessa: Patterns, the cadence. Right, right. They're yeah.

1:04:05 Thomas: So nice. And this guy, you know, he's on the right side of things, at least for this.

1:04:09 Jenessa: Seems like.

1:04:09 Thomas: Good times. Well, that was fun. Anyway, I'll be joining the Army soon. Because who knows? We don't have time to talk about it. We're over time. But if we had a draft and if this had to go back through the Supreme Court, the amount of religious that they are and the amount of not caring about the first amendment you none of those same concerns I wouldn't be surprised if they just said no you gotta specifically be this religion in this way and that's the only way you could be a conscientious objector given how the jurisprudence you know of the uh freedom of religion and uh establishment clause, all that stuff, given how much that's disintegrated, like I don't even think any of that applies anymore.

1:04:28 Jenessa: So, Mm Mm-hmm. Dissent and the government's argument in Welsh very much resemble what we are hearing this court say about the establishment clause, that what the establishment cause really means is just not having an official church and like privileges to religion does not violate the establishment laws. And like, this is fine. It really reads like we went through a period where the court said, well, that's can't be right. And we're returning to that ugly understanding so knows I think nobody would get rid of the exemption entirely um they keep including vague amorphous hippie beliefs I don't know

1:05:38 Thomas: Yeah, who knows? I hope I don't think it's going to come up again, but if it did, I'm sure they would ruin it in a uniquely terrible way. All right, well, Jenessa, that was a lot of fun. Really interesting. I want to go listen to Old Timey Guy now. I wish I had time. I've just listened to that guy forever. So funny.

1:05:53 Jenessa: Please check it out let me know

1:05:56 Thomas: Good times thanks so much thanks so much for listening everyone and you know stay stay objecting out there would let us all be conscientious objectors

1:05:56 Jenessa: What you think

1:06:10 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon .com slash law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments at gmail .com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.

1:06:42 Jenessa: Know. Sylvester Stallone, headband, guns in the woods. That's

1:06:47 Thomas: About the oats, Jenessa. Is william douglass yeah