Muhammad Ali alias Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., an American Professional Boxer - Essay Example

Muhammad Ali Draft Resistance Case: An Analysis Muhammad Ali alias Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. was an American professional boxer and is considered one of the greatest heavyweight champions ever. His wins in the ring are remarkable and so are his victories in the 20th century American society which was segmented along racial, religious and economic lines. Admittedly, the most important victory was in the case related to willful refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces. Clay made his boxing debut in 1960 by winning a gold medal in Rome Olympic Games. After four years, he became heavyweight champion by defeating Sony Liston. Being an African American, he openly spoke against racism. By this time, he was attracted to Islamism and he embraced Islamism and declared his affiliation with the Nation of Islam by changing his name to Muhammad Ali. In 1964, Ali appeared in the US armed force qualifying test but could not qualify because of his poor writing and spelling skills. However, there was a change in selection criteria in 1966 when the Vietnam War was going on. The army reconsidered Ali and found him eligible under the changed selection criteria (Owens 23). However, Ali declared publicly that “I got nothing against the Vietcong” and refused to serve in the army. Rejecting the induction into the armed forces, Ali said, “no Vietcong ever called me nigger” (Friedman, par. 5). These two events; his joining the Nation of Islam and refusing induction into the armed forces proved costly for him. Ali was stripped of his title by the WBA and states refused to host his fights. Ali forwarded an application for classification as a conscientious objector but was turned down by the local draft board. It was followed by an administrative appeal by Ali and the State Appeal Board classified him eligible for military service. The file was then forwarded to the Department of Justice for recommendation. It was followed by an inquiry by the FBI and hearing by a hearing officer appointed by the Department of Justice. Based on the hearing and FBI report, the hearing officer reported that the claim to be conscientious objector on religious grounds be sustained. Despite this report, the Department of Justice directed the Appeal Board to reject Ali’s claim. Thus, the claim was denied without a statement of reasons. As Ali refused to obey, he was convicted for willful refusal to submit to induction, and the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit (Friedman, par. 7). Admittedly, the conviction raised considerable amount of controversy. Firstly, Muhammad Ali was into a sport which is often criticized for brutality. Therefore, Ali’s claim that he could not take part in war because of religious reasons did not appear appealing. For this, Ali’s claim was that boxing is a sport in which there is a referee who intervenes when there is brutality and it has well defined rules. In addition, boxing does not use sophisticated weapons as war does. Secondly, he had declared his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, and his decision not to fight against Vietnam was considered as a rebellion to the Christian-majority U.S. Thirdly, when many Islam nations are in war, the claim by Ali that he would not serve in war because of religious reasons seemed ironic (Streissguth 55-57). It seems to me that the conviction is a stark violation of the freedom allowed under the First Amendment though it was a right decision under the provisions of the Selective Service and Training Act. In fact, the Selective Service System works well within the limits of the First Amendment. To illustrate, it offers the chance to be a conscientious objector by satisfying three basic tests. Firstly, the person should show that that they are conscientiously opposed to war in any form. Secondly, the person has to prove that that the opposition is based on religious training and belief. In addition, the person must show that the objection is sincere. Admittedly, a look into the Islamic teachings makes it clear that Islamism is not totally opposed to war. It only provides certain guidelines on how to fight a war and for what purposes a war can be fought (“Islam and War”). Therefore, Ali cannot meet the first criteria that the religion should be against war “in any form”. The position of the Government that Islamism is not totally against war seems correct at this juncture. However, the Supreme Court overcame this claim by showing the decision in United States v. Kauten. In this case, the court held that a general scruple against participation in war in any form is sufficient to support an exemption under the Act (Streissguth 67). Thus, the court made it clear that conscientiousness is about an individual’s interpretation of religious teachings and not about the general dogma associated with that religion. Yet another important allegation, based on Campbell v. United States is that Ali had not shown overt manifestations sufficient to establish his subjective belief until military service became imminent (Streissguth 71). However, the mere fact is that the Government was heavily relying on circumstances and timing of the claim. In fact, there was a contradiction that took place in the analysis of the conditions to be fulfilled to be declared as conscientious objector. Muhammad Ali was a person who failed the three army pre-induction tests. In an interview about the honesty of the failure, Ali said, “It was the army’s decision that they didn’t want me to go into the service. They’re the boss. I don’t want to say no whole lot about it” (Walter, par. 12). It is evident at this point that Ali was willing to join the forces. Therefore, if “conscientiousness” is taken as an individual’s general belief, at this point, Ali is not against armed forces and war. On the other hand, if conscientiousness is to be understood as what a religion teaches, one can see that Islamism is not fully against war and it does support some forms of war, especially for the purpose of religion. Though there are strict guidelines on how and when to resort to war, it is not restricted in Islamism. Thus, it is not clear as to what aspect of the religion made Ali suitable for the title of a conscientious objector. In fact, when he publicly stated “I got nothing against them Vietcong” and “no Vietcong ever called me nigger”, he was speaking along racial lines, not along religious lines. Therefore, his conviction by the courts seems right under the provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. However, problem arises when one takes into consideration the freedom offered under the First Amendment. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (U.S Const. amend. I). From this, it is clear that the government has no right to make any law affecting the free exercise of any religion. It is at this point that one gains the insight that the Muhammad Ali could fight his induction into the armed forces using the First Amendment. In fact, the problem arose here because of the friction between Section 5(g) of the Selective Training and Service Act and the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 5(g) of the Act states that “nothing contained in this Act shall be constructed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service…by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.” In fact, the Supreme Court has made it clear in Texas v. Johnson that even burning the national flag can be a form of “symbolic expression” and can be protected under the First Amendment. In a nation where individual freedom of expression is so much valued, the act of decision of Muhammad Ali can be better treated as a symbolic expression of his dislike for the war. Moreover, it can also be interpreted as his practice of religion which is affected by the Selective Training and Service Act. From this point, it is clear that the conviction of Ali is a right decision when the Selective Training and Service Act is taken into account. However, the conviction and Section 5(g) of the Act are a violation of the rights offered under the First Amendment. Therefore, what the court had to do was to deal with the issue under the First Amendment and allow Ali to stay away from war on the grounds of freedom of religious practice. In addition, it is necessary to amend Section 5(g) of the Act to replace “by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form” with a broader definition in accordance with the scope of the First Amendment. The scope of “conscientious objector” should be widened accordingly, including personal, religious, political, and all other rational views into consideration. In addition, “war in any form” should be repealed. To sum up, the conviction was a right decision under Section 5(g) of the Selective Training and Service Act but was a violation of the First Amendment Rights. Works Cited Friedman, Ian C. Words Matter. Ian C. Friedman, 17 Jan. 2010. Web. 27 April 2014. “Islam and War.” BBC. BBC, 13 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 April 2014. Owens, Thomas S. Muhammad Ali: Boxing Champ & Role Model. Minnesota: ABDO, 2011. Print. Streissguth, Thomas. How Muhammad Ali Fought the Draft. New York: Enslow Publishers, 2006. Print. Walter, John C. “Muhammad Ali: The Quintessential American.” American Studies Today Online. Liverpool John Moores Uty. Jan. 2000. Web. 27 April 2014. Read More