Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship Told She Must First Join Church Or Be Denied

[Lakhota]

Margaret Doughty, an atheist and permanent U.S. resident for more than 30 years, was told by immigration authorities this month that she has until Friday to officially join a church that forbids violence or her application for naturalized citizenship will be rejected.

Doughty received the ultimatum after stating on her application that she objected to the pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation due to her moral opposition to war. According to a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by the American Humanist Association on Doughty's behalf, officials responded by telling her that she needed to prove that her status as a conscientious objector was due to religious beliefs. They reportedly told her she'd need to document that she was "a member in good standing" of a nonviolent religious organization or be denied citizenship at her June 21 hearing. A note “on official church stationary [sic]" would suffice, they said.

Here's how Doughty explained her refusal to sign the pledge:

“I am sure the law would never require a 64 year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms. Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms ... my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God ... I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.”​

Doughty's reasoning is perfectly valid, atheist groups have argued in response to the rejection threat. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to Citizenship and Immigration Services, calling the government request "illegal and unconstitutional."

More: Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied

As an Atheist, I find this unconscionable on several levels. I wonder what "nonviolent religious organization" would suffice? Would the violence in the Bible and Quran not be a factor? Holy shit...

 

[Kondor3]

No Godless Commies allowed... ;-)

 

[Lakhota]

One would think that America would welcome "intelligent" citizens.

 

[MeBelle]

She says she can't take the oath because
"my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms."

The Gov't says PROVE IT!
If she had not included that line she would not be in this position.

Which brings this issue to the next logical step.

IS Atheism a religion or not?
The woman in this story sure thinks it is.

 

[S.J.]

One would think that America would welcome "intelligent" citizens.

We would.

 

[MeBelle]

I'm a Jehovah's witness and can't take an oath -- can I still become a U.S. citizen? - Nolo.com

There are four phrases of the oath you may be allowed to omit due to your “religious training and beliefs”:
“On oath” (You will instead use “solemnly affirm.&#8221
“So help me God”
“Willing to bear arms on behalf of the U.S.”
“Willing to perform noncombatant services in the Armed Forces of the U.S.”

Please note that your objection to military service must be based on a sincerely held religious training or belief (not a mere personal philosophy), but you do not need to be a member of a religious organization to request a modified oath. You still must provide evidence of your religious beliefs, such as publications and letters you have written that state these religious beliefs or affidavits from family members and friends attesting to your religious beliefs.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There's never been a draft in my lifetime, but my mother took me to Ethical Culture meetings all throughout my childhood so I would qualify for CO status if a draft was instituted.

 

[The Professor]

Margaret Doughty, an atheist and permanent U.S. resident for more than 30 years, was told by immigration authorities this month that she has until Friday to officially join a church that forbids violence or her application for naturalized citizenship will be rejected.

Doughty received the ultimatum after stating on her application that she objected to the pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation due to her moral opposition to war. According to a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by the American Humanist Association on Doughty's behalf, officials responded by telling her that she needed to prove that her status as a conscientious objector was due to religious beliefs. They reportedly told her she'd need to document that she was "a member in good standing" of a nonviolent religious organization or be denied citizenship at her June 21 hearing. A note “on official church stationary [sic]" would suffice, they said.

Here's how Doughty explained her refusal to sign the pledge:

“I am sure the law would never require a 64 year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms. Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms ... my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God ... I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.”​

Doughty's reasoning is perfectly valid, atheist groups have argued in response to the rejection threat. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to Citizenship and Immigration Services, calling the government request "illegal and unconstitutional."

More: Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied

As an Atheist, I find this unconscionable on several levels. I wonder what "nonviolent religious organization" would suffice? Would the violence in the Bible and Quran not be a factor? Holy shit...

Perhaps this will make you feel better:

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, to establish conscientious objector status one had to prove he was a member of a religious organization which was opposed to all wars. However, in the 1970s the SCOTUS removed this requirement and ruled that conscientious objector status could be based on a personal deeply held ethical system or moral principle which had nothing to do with a belief in a Supreme Being. It is clear that an atheist could seek conscientious objector based upon her personal beliefs. The actions of the immigration authorities in this were contrary to well established law. They should have known better. Here are a few links:

“Until the late 20th century, only members of certain religious groups known for their pacifist beliefs, including Quakers and Mennonites, could qualify for conscientious objector status. In 1971, a U.S. Supreme Court decision broadened the criteria to include anyone who "has deeply held beliefs that cause them to oppose participation in war in any form." This definition was carefully crafted to prevent claims of conscientious objector status to avoid service in a particular war, at that time the Vietnam War.”

Conscientious Objection Facts . NOW | PBS

“After the “Supreme Being” clause was deleted, a plurality in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), construed the religion requirement as inclusive of moral, ethical, or religious grounds.”

Conscientious Objection :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

“The postwar Selective Service Act, passed in 1948 and amended in 1951, required that conscientious objection be based on religious belief and training that included belief in a Supreme Being. In 1970 the Supreme Court removed the religious requirement and allowed objection based on a deeply held and coherent ethical system with no reference to a Supreme Being.”

conscientious objector | Infoplease.com

 

[Avatar4321]

One would think that America would welcome "intelligent" citizens.

What? And get rid of you? What would we do with our free time?

 

[Avatar4321]

Margaret Doughty, an atheist and permanent U.S. resident for more than 30 years, was told by immigration authorities this month that she has until Friday to officially join a church that forbids violence or her application for naturalized citizenship will be rejected.

Doughty received the ultimatum after stating on her application that she objected to the pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation due to her moral opposition to war. According to a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by the American Humanist Association on Doughty's behalf, officials responded by telling her that she needed to prove that her status as a conscientious objector was due to religious beliefs. They reportedly told her she'd need to document that she was "a member in good standing" of a nonviolent religious organization or be denied citizenship at her June 21 hearing. A note “on official church stationary [sic]" would suffice, they said.

Here's how Doughty explained her refusal to sign the pledge:

“I am sure the law would never require a 64 year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms. Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms ... my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God ... I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.”​

Doughty's reasoning is perfectly valid, atheist groups have argued in response to the rejection threat. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to Citizenship and Immigration Services, calling the government request "illegal and unconstitutional."

More: Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied

As an Atheist, I find this unconscionable on several levels. I wonder what "nonviolent religious organization" would suffice? Would the violence in the Bible and Quran not be a factor? Holy shit...

Perhaps this will make you feel better:

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, to establish conscientious objector status one had to prove he was a member of a religious organization which was opposed to all wars. However, in the 1970s the SCOTUS removed this requirement and ruled that conscientious objector status could be based on a personal deeply held ethical system or moral principle which had nothing to do with a belief in a Supreme Being. It is clear that an atheist could seek conscientious objector based upon her personal beliefs. The actions of the immigration authorities in this were contrary to well established law. They should have known better. Here are a few links:

“Until the late 20th century, only members of certain religious groups known for their pacifist beliefs, including Quakers and Mennonites, could qualify for conscientious objector status. In 1971, a U.S. Supreme Court decision broadened the criteria to include anyone who "has deeply held beliefs that cause them to oppose participation in war in any form." This definition was carefully crafted to prevent claims of conscientious objector status to avoid service in a particular war, at that time the Vietnam War.”

Conscientious Objection Facts . NOW | PBS

“After the “Supreme Being” clause was deleted, a plurality in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), construed the religion requirement as inclusive of moral, ethical, or religious grounds.”

Conscientious Objection :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

“The postwar Selective Service Act, passed in 1948 and amended in 1951, required that conscientious objection be based on religious belief and training that included belief in a Supreme Being. In 1970 the Supreme Court removed the religious requirement and allowed objection based on a deeply held and coherent ethical system with no reference to a Supreme Being.”

conscientious objector | Infoplease.com

Doesn't change the fact that the law requires you to write an affidavit affirming this.

I can't help but notice they aren't actually quoting the language of what is required of her. They are just summarizing it in their own words. I'd like to know what they actually said was required of her.

I am a bit curious though. She said her spiritual/religious beliefs made her a CO. What spiritual/religious beliefs does atheism espouse other than there is no God? Im always told by atheists that their philosophy isn't a religion at all. It's just interesting to see one claiming it is.

 

[auditor0007]

No Godless Commies allowed... ;-)

Wow! Organized religion at its best. You represent it well. It's no wonder church membership continues to fall for so many churches.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

More: Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied

As an Atheist, I find this unconscionable on several levels. I wonder what "nonviolent religious organization" would suffice? Would the violence in the Bible and Quran not be a factor? Holy shit...

Perhaps this will make you feel better:

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, to establish conscientious objector status one had to prove he was a member of a religious organization which was opposed to all wars. However, in the 1970s the SCOTUS removed this requirement and ruled that conscientious objector status could be based on a personal deeply held ethical system or moral principle which had nothing to do with a belief in a Supreme Being. It is clear that an atheist could seek conscientious objector based upon her personal beliefs. The actions of the immigration authorities in this were contrary to well established law. They should have known better. Here are a few links:

“Until the late 20th century, only members of certain religious groups known for their pacifist beliefs, including Quakers and Mennonites, could qualify for conscientious objector status. In 1971, a U.S. Supreme Court decision broadened the criteria to include anyone who "has deeply held beliefs that cause them to oppose participation in war in any form." This definition was carefully crafted to prevent claims of conscientious objector status to avoid service in a particular war, at that time the Vietnam War.”

Conscientious Objection Facts . NOW | PBS

“After the “Supreme Being” clause was deleted, a plurality in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), construed the religion requirement as inclusive of moral, ethical, or religious grounds.”

Conscientious Objection :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

“The postwar Selective Service Act, passed in 1948 and amended in 1951, required that conscientious objection be based on religious belief and training that included belief in a Supreme Being. In 1970 the Supreme Court removed the religious requirement and allowed objection based on a deeply held and coherent ethical system with no reference to a Supreme Being.”

conscientious objector | Infoplease.com

Doesn't change the fact that the law requires you to write an affidavit affirming this.

I can't help but notice they aren't actually quoting the language of what is required of her. They are just summarizing it in their own words. I'd like to know what they actually said was required of her.

I am a bit curious though. She said her spiritual/religious beliefs made her a CO. What spiritual/religious beliefs does atheism espouse other than there is no God? Im always told by atheists that their philosophy isn't a religion at all. It's just interesting to see one claiming it is.

One can be an atheist, and still qualify, but they still have to prove it. The wording of the article and her quote are a little weird though.

They're both agenda-driven, both the article and her.

 

[Avatar4321]

One can be an atheist, and still qualify, but they still have to prove it. The wording of the article and her quote are a little weird though.

They're both agenda-driven, both the article and her.

I see nothing wrong with proving the view points. And I am skeptical she is relaying their requirements the way they would. They are probably just asking her to verify her beliefs according to the law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

One can be an atheist, and still qualify, but they still have to prove it. The wording of the article and her quote are a little weird though.

They're both agenda-driven, both the article and her.

I see nothing wrong with proving the view points. And I am skeptical she is relaying their requirements the way they would. They are probably just asking her to verify her beliefs according to the law.

I agree. She's got an agenda, she's trying to make political hay of it.

Nevermind. I got confused...

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont know if she has an agenda. She could have just completely misread the request, though I think it wouldn't be a gamble to bet that she did. Otherwise, no one would know about it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Of she wouldn't BEAR ARMS to defend the Constitution of the United States, she conscientiously objects to its very foundation, that each of us were endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Of she wouldn't BEAR ARMS to defend the Constitution of the United States, she conscientiously objects to its very foundation, that each of us were endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights.

Huh?

Are you trying to claim that atheists don't believe in Rights?

 

[aaronleland]

Of she wouldn't BEAR ARMS to defend the Constitution of the United States, she conscientiously objects to its very foundation, that each of us were endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights.

Huh?

Are you trying to claim that atheists don't believe in Rights?

What he is saying is the if you don't agree with bearing arms to support your government you are... big government? Nevermind. I don't think he knows what he is saying.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Of she wouldn't BEAR ARMS to defend the Constitution of the United States, she conscientiously objects to its very foundation, that each of us were endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights.

Huh?

Are you trying to claim that atheists don't believe in Rights?

What he is saying is the if you don't agree with bearing arms to support your government you are... big government? Nevermind. I don't think he knows what he is saying.

Only a big bad government would ever dream of invading the United States in order to conquer us. So not to fight it, would be to support an even worse form of big government. At least we still have local and state control of what remains of our reserved powers.

 

[Sallow]

No Godless Commies allowed... ;-)

Wow! Organized religion at its best. You represent it well. It's no wonder church membership continues to fall for so many churches.

I'm reasonably sure that was a joke.