Atheist denied citizenship unless she joins church

[asterism]

She states, " 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…"

It's not too much to ask that she provide evidence of those "spiritual/religious beliefs." If, as she claims, she has no religious beliefs then she should not have used religion as a means to designate herself as a conscientious objector.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

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.

Her letter is at the link.

Your fucking president and his fucking administration. So what are you bitching about?

I honestly did not know that President Obama had made this a condition of citizenship. Perhaps you would like to post a link to PROVE your allegation.

But, probably not.

Why do some people believe that saying something (an outright lie) will magically make it true?

Oh, that's right - that's the way right R's operate and the way fux reports it to fools who will believe anything.

 

[Caroljo]

They didn't tell her what religious organization to join, just that it had to be non-violent.

 

[Pogo]

Start a petition to change the oath of citizenship so that newly minted citizens do not have to affirm that they will defend and protect the Constitution.

One can do that without killing.

I for one would refuse to kill on behalf of government.

- and there is plenty of precedent.

The Hutterites have been pacifists by definition for their entire existence since the 16th century. They've also had a history of having to leave their land when the government of that land insisted they take up arms. That's how they got here in the 1870s when Russia insisted they serve in the military. They got along fine until World War I when the USG did the same thing, insisting they be available to the military. When they as always refused, the USG imprisoned and tortured some of them (and killed a couple) at Leavenworth.

Once again, they exiled themselves, leaving the Dakotas for the Canadian prairie provinces. After the passage of the conscientious objector laws some returned and live today in the Dakotas and Montana, and they continue to have no relationship with the US military.

 

[Katzndogz]

As we prepare to make citizens of up to 50 million illegal aliens the requirement of supporting the Constitution by force of arms just might take on a whole new meaning.

 

[freedombecki]

If she is going to claim conscientious objector status she needs to prove that up.

What does that have to do with being forced to join a religious cult?

We're not forcing her to do anything except stay out of our country and suck on someone else's tit.

 

[Pogo]

They didn't tell her what religious organization to join, just that it had to be non-violent.

Actually what they're telling her is that she has to join one. That's the issue.

That idea has already been dismissed long ago:

>> United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965),[1] ... ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could not be reserved only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being, but also for those whose views on war derived from a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those" who had routinely gotten the exemption. << (religious grounds) (Wiki)

>> The case resolved, on diverse but related grounds, three cases, each involving conviction for failure to accept induction into the armed forces on the part of someone who sought conscientious objector status without "belong[ing] to an orthodox religious sect" ("being a joiner" grounds) (ibid)

This insistence on being a joiner clearly has no legal basis whatsoever.

 

[freedombecki]

As we prepare to make citizens of up to 50 million illegal aliens the requirement of supporting the Constitution by force of arms just might take on a whole new meaning.

I like it.

 

[Pogo]

She states, " 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…"

It's not too much to ask that she provide evidence of those "spiritual/religious beliefs." If, as she claims, she has no religious beliefs then she should not have used religion as a means to designate herself as a conscientious objector.

She doesn't need religion as a basis. See the SCOTUS case, post 47.

 

[Pogo]

For now. And it certainly is somewhat contradictory.

Directly contradictory to the First Amendment it would seem.

The requirement to swear an oath to obtain citizenship in no way violates the First Amendment. You are free not to take the oath and not obtain citizenship.

Amazing how often some need the reminder:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 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."

 

[krych3k]

Directly contradictory to the First Amendment it would seem.

The requirement to swear an oath to obtain citizenship in no way violates the First Amendment. You are free not to take the oath and not obtain citizenship.

Amazing how often some need the reminder:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 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."

If your point is that no exemptions should be provided to anyone for any reason, then I agree with you. But that isn't your point, is it? You want anybody to be able to avoid responsibility because they "feel like it".

 

[Katzndogz]

Congress didn't establish any religion. The Oath is religion neutral. There is no law that says she has to become a Quaker or a Mennonite. She cannot take the oath of citizenship because she would not bear arms in support of the Constitution. She does not come under any exception to the Oath.

 

[Unkotare]

Plenty of good people in line behind her. Tell her to come back when she decides that being a citizen is more important to her than being a little fucking pain in the ass.

 

[Pogo]

Where's the proof that she was told she has to join a church?

The text is given, for one place, in one of the sublinks:
>> &#8220;Please submit a letter on official church stationery, attesting to the fact that you are a member in good standing and the church&#8217;s official position on the bearing of arms.&#8221; <<

That page goes on to note:
>> This is not the first time a non-religious person has raised a conscientious objection to joining the armed forces. In fact, related issues have gone to the Supreme Court and have been ruled in favor of the non-religious objector. In Welsh v. United States, Elliott Ashton Welsh refused to take up arms on a moral objection rather than a religious one. However, under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, one could only object to joining the armed forces based on a religious conviction involving a Supreme Being. The Court agreed that Welsh could be considered a conscientious objector based on his personal moral grounds, and that the exemption being purely religious was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. <<

 

[freedombecki]

They didn't tell her what religious organization to join, just that it had to be non-violent.

Actually what they're telling her is that she has to join one. That's the issue.

That idea has already been dismissed long ago:

>> United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965),[1] ... ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could not be reserved only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being, but also for those whose views on war derived from a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those" who had routinely gotten the exemption. << (religious grounds) (Wiki)

>> The case resolved, on diverse but related grounds, three cases, each involving conviction for failure to accept induction into the armed forces on the part of someone who sought conscientious objector status without "belong[ing] to an orthodox religious sect" ("being a joiner" grounds) (ibid)

This insistence on being a joiner clearly has no legal basis whatsoever.

That's irrelevant because Seeger was a citizen.

She wants something from us. She doesn't agree to anything.

It's a no deal all the way around.

 

[Pogo]

Congress didn't establish any religion. The Oath is religion neutral. There is no law that says she has to become a Quaker or a Mennonite. She cannot take the oath of citizenship because she would not bear arms in support of the Constitution. She does not come under any exception to the Oath.

Correct, there is no law requiring her to have a religion. Therefore the requirement the office is leveling at her has no legal basis. It's bullshit. In fact the basis itself been directly contradicted by SCOTUS, decades ago.

 

[Pogo]

They didn't tell her what religious organization to join, just that it had to be non-violent.

Actually what they're telling her is that she has to join one. That's the issue.

That idea has already been dismissed long ago:

>> United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965),[1] ... ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could not be reserved only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being, but also for those whose views on war derived from a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those" who had routinely gotten the exemption. << (religious grounds) (Wiki)

>> The case resolved, on diverse but related grounds, three cases, each involving conviction for failure to accept induction into the armed forces on the part of someone who sought conscientious objector status without "belong[ing] to an orthodox religious sect" ("being a joiner" grounds) (ibid)

This insistence on being a joiner clearly has no legal basis whatsoever.

That's irrelevant because Seeger was a citizen.

She wants something from us. She doesn't agree to anything.

It's a no deal all the way around.

It's irrelevant that Seeger was a citizen; the decision was on how the law works, not on who was a citizen.

 

[Unkotare]

Start a petition to change the oath of citizenship so that newly minted citizens do not have to affirm that they will defend and protect the Constitution.

One can do that without killing.

I for one would refuse to kill on behalf of government.

I don't imagine the likes of you would do anything for his country or for anyone else but himself, and I think it has nothing to do with political philosophy and everything to do with your own lack of character (among other things).

 

[Pogo]

The requirement to swear an oath to obtain citizenship in no way violates the First Amendment. You are free not to take the oath and not obtain citizenship.

Amazing how often some need the reminder:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 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."

If your point is that no exemptions should be provided to anyone for any reason, then I agree with you. But that isn't your point, is it? You want anybody to be able to avoid responsibility because they "feel like it".

Neither the post nor the Amendment have anything to do with "responsibility". They have to do with establishment of religion.

Your posts here seem to be largely based on "feelings" and emotions. That ain't gonna get you far on legal issues or on persuasive arguments.

 

[flacaltenn]

If she is going to claim conscientious objector status she needs to prove that up.

HUH???

What in the world would that have to do with anything? She's not refusing to go to war, you know.

How about she just "claims" the US Constitution.

As usual -- you don't understand your own thread.. She attempted to MODIFY her citizenship application by stipulating she be RECOGNIZED as a conscientious objector. That means roughly --- she will not serve.

Now -- she needs to prove it. This isn't about "denying citizenship". This is a challenge to back up her C.O. status assertion.. As soon as that is resolved, we can get back to reconsidering her MODIFIED application..

Can ATHEISTS be C.Objectors?? Seems like it. But then again the incompetence of the BIG BUREAUCRACY YOU WORSHIP, might have to actually spent 12 man-years reading regs and court decisions..

YOU LIKE Big Bloated Govt?? Then don't act so shocked and irate when this shit happens..

R U that dense?