When Public Servants Refuse to Serve the Public

[mahatmakanejeeves]

When Public Servants Refuse to Serve the Public

Government employees have an obligation to follow the letter of the law despite their religious convictions—or else resign the offices they hold.

Garrett Epps | Aug 16, 2015

Thirty-five years ago, as a reporter for The Washington Post, I spent 13 weeks following young recruits through Marine Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. That February, 226 candidates entered OCS; in April, 117—about half—got their lieutenant’s bars.

One of the candidates wanted to be a Marine aviator. He was fit, fast, and smart—good officer material. But as he neared the halfway mark of the training, he underwent a crisis of conscience. OCS training is demanding and martial. Instructors emphasized the realities of combat day after day. (One went so far as to read the candidates “Dulce et Decorum Est” by English poet Wilfred Owen—a vivid description of a World War I gas attack that left blood “gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs” of dying soldiers.)

At some point, this candidate realized he could not in good conscience engage in warfare. “Can I put a squad of men up against enemy fire?” he asked himself. “Can I permit my men to kill other human beings?” He struggled with his beliefs—even debated them respectfully with the battalion commander—but concluded he could not stay.

It was a painful parting on both sides. He lost a coveted career, the Corps lost a promising candidate. But it had to happen. ... Here’s what didn’t happen: Nobody suggested that dropping him from OCS was a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of “the free exercise” of religion. He did not say, “I think that in recognition of my sincere religious opposition to war, you should let me stay in the Corps and get my pilot’s wings. I will do the job, except for one thing: I won’t drop bombs or shoot guns.”

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Where is the line drawn? Is it OK for a judge or prosecutor...

to refuse to apply the death penalty on moral grounds? Another "too easy" question. As easy as an Alabama sheriff who might have refused to enforce segregation laws back in the 50's.

How about an EPA administrator who goes beyond the letter of the law because we are the custodians of God's creation?

Using one's public position to move the public morally forward has been an ideal since the beginnings of society. It's easy to say that someone who refuses to follow the law should resign, but is that only for laws we like?

[dsc]

2. actually no it isn't OK for a prosecutor to refuse to seek the death penalty on moral grounds

nor would it have been OK for an Alabama sheriff to refuse to enforce the law back in 1950 even if we would have liked the results in both of those cases. In our system of government the laws are made by legislatures and interpreted by judges and if they violate the Constitution then the courts strike them down. What doesn't happen, is that executives in government get to pick and choose which laws they will follow and which ones they won't. And it doesn't matter if the executive is the county clerk of a county in Kentucky, a prosecutor in St. Louis, or the President of the US.