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

[legaleagle_45]

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...

Quaker would work, as would Menonite and probably Amish who are an offshoot of the Mennonites.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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...

Quaker would work, as would Menonite and probably Amish who are an offshoot of the Mennonites.

Buddhism too. There are many religions that abhor violence and war entirely. As well as any number of Humanist organizations, like Ethical Culture.

 

[daveman]

I hope you're right.

Given the hostility of this Admin towards organized religion, do you REALLY think a bureaucrat is going to tell somebody to join a church?

Not gonna happen.

you do not know the proceedings in naturalization. If one does not want to sign the pledge to defend the country and Constitution, one has to provide a legitimate reason for his/her pacifism.

I'm familiar with the process. Doesn't change my point that a flunky under this Admin would NEVER tell anyone to join a church.

 

[dblack]

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...

Quaker would work, as would Menonite and probably Amish who are an offshoot of the Mennonites.

Buddhism too. There are many religions that abhor violence and war entirely. As well as any number of Humanist organizations, like Ethical Culture.

The main thing is that you belong to an organized group. Because under corporatism, that's the only way to secure your rights. Individuals are fucked.

 

[bodecea]

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

Nevermind. I got confused...

Seems to me that those who will not let her become a citizen are the ones with the agenda.....they are making the rules, not her.

the rules are made long time ago. Obtaining a citizenship is a privilege, not a right. If she does not want to defend the country and Constitution ( on a paper) she must provide a legal reason for that

I agree....but that legal reason should not include having to be of a religion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Given the hostility of this Admin towards organized religion, do you REALLY think a bureaucrat is going to tell somebody to join a church?

Not gonna happen.

you do not know the proceedings in naturalization. If one does not want to sign the pledge to defend the country and Constitution, one has to provide a legitimate reason for his/her pacifism.

I'm familiar with the process. Doesn't change my point that a flunky under this Admin would NEVER tell anyone to join a church.

It's always funny to watch people deny reality when it contradicts their rhetoric.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I remember Carl Wilson (beach boy) actually got ordained when he went CO over vietnam. But the lady is correct. The Supreme Court found that moral objection to war doesn't have to based upon religion. In WWII many of the CO's worked in non combat jobs, like cooks and orderlies, while others worked in mental illness facilities. I never understood why Vietnam COs didn't have to do the same. Maybe too many of them. (-:

No JOKING. PEOPLE WHO DON'T TAKE EVERYTHIGN SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY ANNOY ME.

Not quite correct, Bendog, but the confusion is quite understandable. SCOTUS has held that the belief must be religious, but then defined religous as follows:

a registrant's conscientious objection to all war to be "religious" within the meaning of § 6(j) is that this opposition to war stem from the registrant's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and that these beliefs be held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.

Mere moral code or philosophy is insufficient... however if that moral code or philosophy is such a central tenent of a persons life to be equivalent to religious belief, then it is "religious" and qualifies:

If an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source and content, but that nevertheless impose upon him a duty of conscience to refrain from participating in any war at any time, those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that individual "a place parallel to that filled by . . . God" in traditionally religious persons. Because his beliefs function as a religion in his life, such an individual is as much entitled to a "religious" conscientious objector exemption under § 6(j) as is someone who derives his conscientious opposition to war from traditional religious convictions.

Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)

Welsh v. United States

So basically you are right but for the wrong reasons, because SCOTUS basically held that an atheist can obtain CO status based strong "religous" views of pacificism.

 

[daveman]

you do not know the proceedings in naturalization. If one does not want to sign the pledge to defend the country and Constitution, one has to provide a legitimate reason for his/her pacifism.

I'm familiar with the process. Doesn't change my point that a flunky under this Admin would NEVER tell anyone to join a church.

It's always funny to watch people deny reality when it contradicts their rhetoric.

Oh, you mean like all the lefty 'tards in the "Republicans have better sex" thread?

You have one statement from one person with an ax to grind. This is credible to you?

Sucker!!

 

[Vox]

Seems to me that those who will not let her become a citizen are the ones with the agenda.....they are making the rules, not her.

the rules are made long time ago. Obtaining a citizenship is a privilege, not a right. If she does not want to defend the country and Constitution ( on a paper) she must provide a legal reason for that

I agree....but that legal reason should not include having to be of a religion.

It is not to be in religion - it is to prove why her claim that she can not sign a pledge that she will defend this country and Constitution is based on her pacifism. usually religious affiliation of certain type is the most common.
Normally everybody just signs the pledge - it is obvious that a 64 yo woman will not be called to war. But the bitch just wanted to make a stink

 

[Lakhota]

Margaret Doughty Approved For Citizenship As USCIS Backs Down In Flap Over Atheist Opposition To War

 

[Kondor3]

Case closed.

Thread closed.

 

[bodecea]

I'm familiar with the process. Doesn't change my point that a flunky under this Admin would NEVER tell anyone to join a church.

It's always funny to watch people deny reality when it contradicts their rhetoric.

Oh, you mean like all the lefty 'tards in the "Republicans have better sex" thread?

You have one statement from one person with an ax to grind. This is credible to you?

Sucker!!

Who started that silly thread anyways......

 

[bodecea]

Margaret Doughty Approved For Citizenship As USCIS Backs Down In Flap Over Atheist Opposition To War

Good.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Good for her! I turned down an invitation to join the Elks because I was required to swear an oath that I believed in God. They have a right to require that of their members in their private self rightous club, and I have an ethical obligation to avoid thier fraternal order. Even the Unitarians don't require that to join their church.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Update -

Margaret Doughty Approved For Citizenship As USCIS Backs Down In Flap Over Atheist Opposition To War

Shameful that being opposed to war would be a deal breaker.

Aren't all civilized human beings opposed to war?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's always funny to watch people deny reality when it contradicts their rhetoric.

Oh, you mean like all the lefty 'tards in the "Republicans have better sex" thread?

You have one statement from one person with an ax to grind. This is credible to you?

Sucker!!

Who started that silly thread anyways......

A very desperate right wing voter.

I mean, ya gotta wonder about people who would actually have voted for SickRick Santorum.

Just thinking about him makes my skin crawl.

 

[daveman]

It's always funny to watch people deny reality when it contradicts their rhetoric.

Oh, you mean like all the lefty 'tards in the "Republicans have better sex" thread?

You have one statement from one person with an ax to grind. This is credible to you?

Sucker!!

Who started that silly thread anyways......

A guy who was amused that yet another lefty meme turned out to be horseshit.

 

[daveman]

Oh, you mean like all the lefty 'tards in the "Republicans have better sex" thread?

You have one statement from one person with an ax to grind. This is credible to you?

Sucker!!

Who started that silly thread anyways......

A very desperate right wing voter.

I mean, ya gotta wonder about people who would actually have voted for SickRick Santorum.

Just thinking about him makes my skin crawl.

I disgust an Obamabot?

Good.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I disgust an Obamabot? Good.

Are you pickin' on ObamaBots again? Wassamaddayou? You know how sensitive they can be! Shame on you!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

Same thing I said about this in the other thread applies here. Whoever told her this, if she was actually told this, was wrong.