The new Draft Law has attempted to narrow the definition of conscientious objection by striking a key pharse--the "Supreme Being"--from the statute.

The section now reads:

"Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combantant training and severice 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."

The old law said this, but added that "religious training in this section means an individual's beliefs in relation to a Supreme Being involving duties supe- rior to those arising from any human relations." It is this additional interpretive clause that the new law does not include.

In the landmark case Seeger decision of 1964, the Supreme Court broadened its definition of conscientious objection by including those who could demonstrate "a 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. . ."

There are some lawyers--including a representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union--who believe the elimination of the "Supreme Being" clause will not restrict the definition of conscientious objection. A new court case almost certainly has to resolve the issue.

In the meantime, the Selective Service has adopted the limited interpretation by instructing local boards that a more narrow definition is intended.

The new bill also makes a major change in conscientious objection proceedings by eliminating the right to have a Justice Department hearing after an adverse decision by a local board. The Department, under the old law, made its recommendations to the appeal board. However, th