This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I strongly doubt that the Supreme Court rejected theism. On the face of it they rejected only the notion that theism was the only basis for conscientious objection. --Trovatore01:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Would someone please fix this? I don't know enough law to do it myself. I tried taking a look at the decision but some of the language seemed to suggest that the court thought the objectors' reasons were theistic, even if not in the sense of any existing religious organization. Maybe I was just reading it wrong. Anyway the court clearly did not reject theism; I hope someone can give a clear account of just what it did do. --Trovatore20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
