CHURCH & STATE: Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied

[TerminatorX91]

Where does this biased notion come from that says conscientious objection can only possibly be valid if it is founded on the beliefs of an objector's religion or the objector's religious beliefs include a belief in a god?

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.

[Dwayne Barry]

I've always wondered the same thing. Why can't a person arrive at that conclusion that killing people for the state or killing for political purposes is unethical for reasons other than "God told me"?

[NJBiker72]

Agree fully. The freedom of religion should include the freedom to have no religion.

[Snakebit]

I've always wondered the same thing. Why can't a person arrive at that conclusion that killing people for the state or killing for political purposes is unethical for reasons other than "God told me"?

The morality we have is generally that of the world that we are raised and nurtured in. I wonder where those of you who have opted out of common religious systems think that morality you share, with all it's do's and don'ts, came from. Is it genetically implanted in human beings? If that's the case then why are they so different from one society to another? If it's learned behavior then what is the root?

I don't think one has to be deeply religious to be a moral human being with high standards but I do believe those religious teachings have shaped the world we all live in regardless of what society you may be born into and they have shaped your own perception of morality.

I don't believe this woman will actually have to join a church to become a citizen but I wonder if there isn't more to it than that.

[Let'sRide]

I don't believe this woman will actually have to join a church to become a citizen but I wonder if there isn't more to it than that.

I'm guessing it probably has to do with dated criteria for conscientious objection. An internal matter that can (but not necessarily) be resolved quickly. Or maybe not. It could be that we allow conscientious objection on religious grounds because of the First Amendment... and that conscientious objection without a religious reason is not valid, as far as the authorities are concerned.

[Bill2]

The last thing America needs is more damn atheists, particularly atheists who refuse to defend Our Country. We have enough Sunshine Patriots as it is, who hem and haw about what and how the President and American Fighting Men oughta do, but don't have enough Love of Country themselves to enlist and serve their Country in uniform. I'm with Snakebit here- there's more to this story than meets the eye. Send her back where she came from and let her refuse to defend her own homeland.

[Herbie]

There has to be more to this than what is reported. These are 2 separate issues. There are a number of Supreme Court cases on C.O. status. Those of us old enough to actually have been eligible for the draft during the Vietnam era probably remember. Today without the draft, there is very little substance to the C.O. status.

As for citizenship, there is not requirement that you join a church.

[Dwayne Barry]

The morality we have is generally that of the world that we are raised and nurtured in. I wonder where those of you who have opted out of common religious systems think that morality you share, with all it's do's and don'ts, came from. Is it genetically implanted in human beings? If that's the case then why are they so different from one society to another? If it's learned behavior then what is the root?

I don't think one has to be deeply religious to be a moral human being with high standards but I do believe those religious teachings have shaped the world we all live in regardless of what society you may be born into and they have shaped your own perception of morality.

I don't believe this woman will actually have to join a church to become a citizen but I wonder if there isn't more to it than that.

I think like most any human behavior there is a genetic component (e.g. our capacity to empathize and have compassion for others, etc.) and then culture emerges out of that along with the historical contingencies of one's time and place on earth. That's where morality comes from. There's no doubt in the west Christianity has played a huge, dominant role in establishing much of modern day morality. I think humanism went a long way in improving it though and we are all much better for it.

[jwl325]

Agree fully. The freedom of religion should include the freedom to have no religion.

+2....

[bigbill]

Her comments in the Huffington Post writeup says she would serve in a non-combat role in the military if called upon. So I guess she'd be ok making sure the ammunition was delivered, bombs were accounted for, basically the logistics involved in killing the enemy but not actually pushing the button or pulling a trigger. Kind of like, I'll load your gun and tell you where to shoot, but you're going to pull the trigger cause' I'm a pacifist. Got it.

[serious]

As for citizenship, there is not requirement that you join a church.

The requirement was for having religious grounds to "object to the pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation". In other words, religious people get a free pass while atheists cannot.

And let's think about this: if you believe in god, you can object to killing people for the state, but if you do it on principle, it is not good enough. Oh the irony.

[Fireform]

On the one hand, there is a long history of requiring religious justification for CO status--my brother was a CO to the Vietnam war based in part on his membership in the 7th Day Adventist church (which he still maintains). This was put in place in part to make it harder for kids who were drafted to opt out of unpopular wars. In this situation, there is no chance whatsoever that a woman in her 60's would be required to serve in the military, no matter what her personal beliefs might be. To use this as leverage in a citizenship case is silly.

On the other hand, as a prior post has made even clearer, this is a classic example of the bigotry of the religious toward the nonreligious--the supposition on their part that religion is the only possible source of morality. Was there no morality before the time of Christ? The idea is laughable. The golden rule appears recognizably in cultures all over the globe and predates the Christian church by millennia. Christians fall short of their own moral code as often and as spectacularly as anyone else. There is no way in the world that a religious test should be imposed on citizenship, and I hope she fights this out.

[Blue CheeseHead]

There is a DUTY to country that comes with citizenship. We saw during Vietnam the willingness of many to not fulfill that duty. Few want to kill but sometimes we must, hence the all the PTSD we see from vets from all wars.

Freedom is not free as the saying goes.

[Fireform]

There is a DUTY to country that comes with citizenship. We saw during Vietnam the willingness of many to not fulfill that duty. Few want to kill but sometimes we must, hence the all the PTSD we see from vets from all wars.

Freedom is not free as the saying goes.

I don't know if you missed the memo or what, but military service has been voluntary in the US for quite a while now.

[SwiftSolo]

Gotta disagree with you on this snake.

Survival of our species requires certain conditions of interaction with one another that are well outside of religion. I agree that religion has done a pretty good job of identifying and booking most of those survival principles. I also agree that they were among the first to do so.

The place where this lady has "gone south" is in her failure to understand that war is often about one sub-set of the human species attempting to cause the extinction of another sub-set. Killing of infidels comes to mind.

It is not possible to turn the other cheek on those actively engaged in the killing of infidels when and if their numbers and weapons are sufficient and one is herself an "infidel". Survival of this sub-set of infidels may demand action.

The morality we have is generally that of the world that we are raised and nurtured in. I wonder where those of you who have opted out of common religious systems think that morality you share, with all it's do's and don'ts, came from. Is it genetically implanted in human beings? If that's the case then why are they so different from one society to another? If it's learned behavior then what is the root?

I don't think one has to be deeply religious to be a moral human being with high standards but I do believe those religious teachings have shaped the world we all live in regardless of what society you may be born into and they have shaped your own perception of morality.

I don't believe this woman will actually have to join a church to become a citizen but I wonder if there isn't more to it than that.

[Snakebit]

Her comments in the Huffington Post writeup says she would serve in a non-combat role in the military if called upon. So I guess she'd be ok making sure the ammunition was delivered, bombs were accounted for, basically the logistics involved in killing the enemy but not actually pushing the button or pulling a trigger. Kind of like, I'll load your gun and tell you where to shoot, but you're going to pull the trigger cause' I'm a pacifist. Got it.

Sounds presidential.

[bahueh]

There is a DUTY to country that comes with citizenship.

actually, no there is not. sorry.

[TerminatorX91]

The morality we have is generally that of the world that we are raised and nurtured in. I wonder where those of you who have opted out of common religious systems think that morality you share, with all it's do's and don'ts, came from. Is it genetically implanted in human beings? If that's the case then why are they so different from one society to another? If it's learned behavior then what is the root?

I don't think one has to be deeply religious to be a moral human being with high standards but I do believe those religious teachings have shaped the world we all live in regardless of what society you may be born into and they have shaped your own perception of morality.

Religious teachings, ideas about morality and values all came from human beings.

I don't believe this woman will actually have to join a church to become a citizen but I wonder if there isn't more to it than that.

You mean a reason other than that she is a 64 year old woman who has been a legal resident of the U.S. for more than 30 years, does not believe in God, does not believe in killing people for the state or killing for political purposes and will not pledge to do so to become a naturalized U.S. citizen?

[TerminatorX91]

I'm guessing it probably has to do with dated criteria for conscientious objection. An internal matter that can (but not necessarily) be resolved quickly. Or maybe not. It could be that we allow conscientious objection on religious grounds because of the First Amendment... and that conscientious objection without a religious reason is not valid, as far as the authorities are concerned.

Is that religious opinion valid under the Constitution read correctly?

[Snakebit]

Religious teachings, ideas about morality and values all came from human beings.



You mean a reason other than that she is a 64 year old woman who has been a legal resident of the U.S. for more than 30 years, does not believe in God, does not believe in killing people for the state or killing for political purposes and will not pledge to do so to become a naturalized U.S. citizen?

No ****?

I don't know what I said that you think you're arguing with, I have no idea what mitigating circumstances would change her status any more than you do. On the face of it I don't believ3e belonging to a church should be a requirement or would be legal if it were.

[TerminatorX91]

On the one hand, there is a long history of requiring religious justification for CO status--my brother was a CO to the Vietnam war based in part on his membership in the 7th Day Adventist church (which he still maintains). This was put in place in part to make it harder for kids who were drafted to opt out of unpopular wars. In this situation, there is no chance whatsoever that a woman in her 60's would be required to serve in the military, no matter what her personal beliefs might be. To use this as leverage in a citizenship case is silly.

On the other hand, as a prior post has made even clearer, this is a classic example of the bigotry of the religious toward the nonreligious--the supposition on their part that religion is the only possible source of morality. Was there no morality before the time of Christ? The idea is laughable. The golden rule appears recognizably in cultures all over the globe and predates the Christian church by millennia. Christians fall short of their own moral code as often and as spectacularly as anyone else. There is no way in the world that a religious test should be imposed on citizenship, and I hope she fights this out.

Maybe the real problem was the war, not the kids.

[TerminatorX91]

There is a DUTY to country that comes with citizenship. We saw during Vietnam the willingness of many to not fulfill that duty. Few want to kill but sometimes we must, hence the all the PTSD we see from vets from all wars.

Freedom is not free as the saying goes.

What did Vietnam really have to do with American freedom? Zilch.

[Let'sRide]

Is that religious opinion valid under the Constitution read correctly?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

[SauronHimself]

The morality we have is generally that of the world that we are raised and nurtured in. I wonder where those of you who have opted out of common religious systems think that morality you share, with all it's do's and don'ts, came from. Is it genetically implanted in human beings? If that's the case then why are they so different from one society to another? If it's learned behavior then what is the root?

I don't think one has to be deeply religious to be a moral human being with high standards but I do believe those religious teachings have shaped the world we all live in regardless of what society you may be born into and they have shaped your own perception of morality.

I don't believe this woman will actually have to join a church to become a citizen but I wonder if there isn't more to it than that.

Our morality is innately within us from years of genetic variation and natural selection. If any species did not have at least a base sense of right and wrong, it would not survive. Our innate sense for solidarity is what has allowed homosapiens to survive for the last 100 000 years (could be as high as 250k, but 100k is the bare minimum demonstrated by genetics and paleontology). Major religion came onto the social scene roughly 5000 years ago, and I hardly think that people such as the Jews thought murder, theft, and perjury were okay and suddenly got the surprise of their lives when they arrived at Mt. Sinai. Religious morality centers around the Golden Rule, which is probably the closest approximation to a moral absolute as we can come. I call it an approximation because it's only as good as the person using it. Obviously, people like Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer have a different view of what they would find repulsive. The New Testament, by the way, incorrectly phrased this rule as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". The original use of the Golden Rule was "Don't do to others what you would find repulsive to you.". To answer why moral values can vary between cultures, it's exactly what evolution predicts as a result of genetic variation and natural selection. A species that is moral enough to survive would have a general sense of goodness and fairness, but due to environment and genetic variation there would obviously be slight differences between cultures.

[TerminatorX91]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Under the U.S. Constitution is the policy position held by government authorities which dictates that government allows conscientious objection only on religious grounds constitutionally valid? In other words, does government under the Constitution have the authority to provide preferential treatment or favor in how it views or treats people based on religion in general or religious affiliation of a specific type?