Stewards of the Visual Exposition
Muhammad Ali - The Controversy continues
My initial article about Muhammad Ali prompted a discussion with one of my best friends. He is a non-believer (mildly put) and does not buy the religious conviction argument. It also prompted me to add this additional article which I hope clarifies some of my thoughts. Here is the original article on BCN
">
All are true statements.
To be clear, I did not agree with Ali's position on the Vietnam War, but I did believe he had the right to make his stance known and to act according to his beliefs. I have always tried to make decisions based on facts tempered by emotion rather than pure emotion without factual basis. That is what makes me a Libertarian or right wing conservative hater depending on who is judging.
My counter to the argument is based on my belief in the founding principles. Any system of laws has two tenants. One is the establishment of the requirements or the prohibition of certain actions. The other is the prescribed punishment for not adhering to that law. Both are founded on the idea that people have the individual freedom to make their own choices. It is not a new argument. The degree of punishment proscribed by law shows how important the law is. There is a fundamental understanding that laws will be broken by some. That is why there is a necessity to have a prescribed punishment for doing such.
Avoiding military service was proscribed in law as well. In my joke post about the Beer party that got out of control, I alluded to this fact. There was a long list of possible exemptions for the exclusion from military service (Selective Service Classifications)
Cassius Clay AKA Muhammad Ali applied to his local draft board and they rejected his application for conscientious objector classification. It is my belief that his classification was changed from 1-Y to 1-A to make an example of him because of his opposition to war and the Vietnam War in particular. This was under the Lyndon Johnson administration, so let's not go down the road of political ideologies debate.
His refusal to step forward was a further indication of his religious beliefs. (Clay v Unites States) . The Supreme Court overturned the conviction by an 8-0 vote.
Where does the founding principle come in on this argument? As a layman, I may be in error on the legal principles involved but I have spent some time trying to understand the genesis of our founding principles.
Our founding fathers were for the most part well briefed on the Ancient Greek philosophers. Their emphasis on the individual is the very basis of our country. There was a disagreement on the meaning of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Ali, who obviously was not schooled in the Greek philosophies may have had a greater understanding of our core principles. He had a principled belief, he knew his stance was against the law, he knew the punishment for his actions and he willing chose to disobey the law and take the punishment. He also took the prescribed route to adjudicate his case, which ended in an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court, abdicating his conviction.
None of this will change anybody's mind about this controversial figure, but it may make one think about what is the higher honor. Is it better to submit to a law that you believe in your very soul to be wrong? Or is it better to adhere to your own principles and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. That is why I had some admiration for Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali, both of which may have had a deeper sense of right and wrong than I did at twenty-five years old.
I guess it depends on which judge you put more authority in; God or Man.
Go Back
- Many Muslim served then and now in the military and fought in wars.
- Many men went to Vietnam to fight that objected to the war.
- He could have served in a non-combat capacity
- His final argument is that the Vietcong never did anything to us prior to our trip to Southeast Asia.
All are true statements.
To be clear, I did not agree with Ali's position on the Vietnam War, but I did believe he had the right to make his stance known and to act according to his beliefs. I have always tried to make decisions based on facts tempered by emotion rather than pure emotion without factual basis. That is what makes me a Libertarian or right wing conservative hater depending on who is judging.
My counter to the argument is based on my belief in the founding principles. Any system of laws has two tenants. One is the establishment of the requirements or the prohibition of certain actions. The other is the prescribed punishment for not adhering to that law. Both are founded on the idea that people have the individual freedom to make their own choices. It is not a new argument. The degree of punishment proscribed by law shows how important the law is. There is a fundamental understanding that laws will be broken by some. That is why there is a necessity to have a prescribed punishment for doing such.
Avoiding military service was proscribed in law as well. In my joke post about the Beer party that got out of control, I alluded to this fact. There was a long list of possible exemptions for the exclusion from military service (Selective Service Classifications)
Cassius Clay AKA Muhammad Ali applied to his local draft board and they rejected his application for conscientious objector classification. It is my belief that his classification was changed from 1-Y to 1-A to make an example of him because of his opposition to war and the Vietnam War in particular. This was under the Lyndon Johnson administration, so let's not go down the road of political ideologies debate.
His refusal to step forward was a further indication of his religious beliefs. (Clay v Unites States) . The Supreme Court overturned the conviction by an 8-0 vote.
Where does the founding principle come in on this argument? As a layman, I may be in error on the legal principles involved but I have spent some time trying to understand the genesis of our founding principles.
Jefferson declared himself an Epicurean during his lifetime: this is a philosophical doctrine that teaches the pursuit of happiness and proposes autarchy, which translates as self-rule, self-sufficiency or freedom.WIKI-01
Autarchism (from Greek, "belief in self-rule") is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty, rejects compulsory government, and supports the elimination of government in favor of ruling oneself and no other." (Wiki-02)
Our founding fathers were for the most part well briefed on the Ancient Greek philosophers. Their emphasis on the individual is the very basis of our country. There was a disagreement on the meaning of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate."WIKI-01
Ali, who obviously was not schooled in the Greek philosophies may have had a greater understanding of our core principles. He had a principled belief, he knew his stance was against the law, he knew the punishment for his actions and he willing chose to disobey the law and take the punishment. He also took the prescribed route to adjudicate his case, which ended in an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court, abdicating his conviction.
None of this will change anybody's mind about this controversial figure, but it may make one think about what is the higher honor. Is it better to submit to a law that you believe in your very soul to be wrong? Or is it better to adhere to your own principles and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. That is why I had some admiration for Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali, both of which may have had a deeper sense of right and wrong than I did at twenty-five years old.
Comments
|
The only purpose of the Ali 03 would be to document the discussion in a post instead of a comment so that it can be searched on Stan's outstanding site. Comments get lost in the weeds eventually. My dad had a saying about throwing rocks in the house. He said it was a bit different from throwing stones in a glass house. The rocks would bounce back and knock you on your a$$ so you should be careful how big and how fast the rocks were.
Stan, I agree the honorable thing to do is follow your core beliefs and I completely understand why there can be a difference of opinion on that. I am not submitting Muhammad Ali for Sainthood; I do not believe that exist on this planet with the exception of my Mother and Jesus. I am just trying to make the point that personal convictions are just important as manmade laws. It is not a matter of playing the odds. If it were, it still would not make sense. Your bet stake is just being wrong versus eternity. Here is Ali on the subject: Feel free to disagree with him. That is the point! beaufortcountynow.com Somebody get the Hook, Bobby Tony is off on a tangent roll. |
|
BT: Another article but not Ali-03. About those who avoided the draft. WW2 was the last war we won. Soldiers are not inspired by political conflicts.
|
|
I will always counter that in a time of choices that you vets made the honorable choice. That's character at its very best.
|
|
|
Stan, I revised and extended my comment below with what would have been Ali-03. Perhaps I should work up one final post on that for the record. I don't consider anyone who did not serve with any disdain nor do I elevate those who did. It was just a matter of choices when confronted with fork in the road.
|
|
|
Bush served in the National Guard when the National Guard stayed stateside, not so much now. The National Guard gets plenty of action in the rear guard of the frontline against Radical Islam.
I have mixed feelings about Ali not serving when called to. I had a good draft number(s?) the one year (or was it two years?), I was eligible for conscription, while Vietnam was still a pretty big battleground; so my opinion really does not matter here. What matters is how the Vietnam War era vets feel on this one. I completely defer to you guys for your opinion because of your patriotic service. |
|
|
All legally as best as I know, except Bush who served in the National Guard, which is just as honorable as any other service.
Our discussion continued for quite some time and I left out many of our mutual points, but I might as well let it fly in the comment section. My not too subtle point was that anyone who had a student deferment or chose to join a different service to avoid being drafted used the established legal system to their advantage. I see no difference with any of that. Standing on your principals requires you to understand the consequences and be prepared to live with them. I may be in a small minority who does not feel that doing our duty when called is not necessarily a heroic choice but just a matter of principal. I have often thought how I would feel today, if I had not flunked out of college and was never drafted due to some fluke of luck or timing. It is not important what I think I "WOULD" do, it is only important on what I "DID" do. The rest is just talk. My friend Clay joined the National Guard and he had no political connections but happen to hit it lucky when he applied because of an open slot. Two other friends joined the Army and one went to Panama in the infantry and never made it to Nam. The other went to Germany and had a ball traveling all over Europe. I hold their choices in high esteem. Going to Canada or going underground is a different matter. To my knowledge, no one was forcibly drafted and sent to Vietnam under shackles. There was always a choice to be made. At some point in the process regardless of which service or which method chosen, you had to personally affirm by stepping forward that you were submitting to the legal requirement. Failure to do so like Ali, had it's consequences which he was prepared to take. Yogi said when you come to a fork in the road, take it. My problem is with those who chose to exercise a non-legal method to avoid or refused to stand up and pay the price for their stance. There is a whole generation of baby boomers who did not serve but also never took any proactive action to avoid. I think I would call that the luck of the "'DRAFT." Having made a choice however there is a sweetness in surviving: “You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who have fought for it, life has a flavor the protected shall never know.” ― Guy de Maupassant A quote from John McCain and Mark Slater’s book “Hard Calls”, sums up the soldiers duty better than any I have ever read. It expresses what I suspect help sustain him during his stay at the Hanoi Hilton. “In the immediacy, chaos, destruction, and shock of war, soldiers are bound by duty and military discipline to endure and overcome. Their strongest loyalty, the bond that cannot break, is to the cause that is theirs alone, the cause for which they all fight: one another. It is through their loyalty to comrades in arms, their exclusive privilege, that they serve the national ideal that begat their personal transformation. When war is over, they might have the largest but not exclusive claim on the success of their nation's cause. But their claim is shorn of all romance, all nostalgia for the crucible in which it was won. From that crucible they have but one prize, one honor, one glory: that they had withstood the savagery and losses of war and were found worthy by the men who stood with them.” Being found worth by your comrades is enough thanks. |
|
|
Bernie, Trump, and Clintons avoided service. Also, Bush.
|
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
Her explanation of Islam adds some depth and perspective to current events outside of the Ali conversion and subsequent actions. Humans have always demonstrated that religion can be subverted to secular purposes.
"I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but this is what I think. I never liked Muhammad Ali because he converted to a religion of slavery and he took a slave masters name."
beaufortcountynow.com