Woman Denied US Citizenship Because of Atheism

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
unlucky love, those are the rules, adios

Kinda like "Don't ask. Don't tell"? If they do ask "Lie"!

reply to post by windword


She wasn't denied for being an atheist, she was denied from refusing to take the oath. All foreign nationals seeking to be citizens have to take the oath. Even natural born citizens are under that oath, it comes with being born in this country, thats what the draft is for. She could have knuckled under and used a little common sense, and took the oath knowing that a senior citizen is in no way, shape or fashion fit for military duty on or off the battlefield and the problem would have been solved. It was a non issue, she turned into an issue by being beligerent and uncooperative.

I don't believe in using violence, however I will do what i have to do, to protect my family and my people, even if it means i may die for there is no greater love than to give ones life for their friends.

I'll do what i have to do to protect, if she can't say that, then she is not fit for citizenship and they were right to deny her.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Even this American had to go to the Supreme Court to be legitimately considered a conscientious objector.

Elliott Ashton Welsh II was convicted of refusing to submit to induction into the armed forces - he had requested conscientious objector status but did not base his claim on any religious beliefs. He said that he could neither affirm nor deny the existence of a Supreme Being. Instead, he said his anti-war beliefs were based upon "reading in the fields of history and sociology."

Basically, Welsh claimed that his had serious moral opposition to conflicts in which people are being killed. He argued that even though he was not a member of any traditional religious group, the depth of sincerity of his belief should qualify him for exemption from military duty under the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This statute, however, allowed only those people whose opposition to the war was based on religious beliefs to be declared conscientious objectors - and that did not technically include Welsh.

Court Decision

In a 5-3 decision with the majority opinion written by Justice Black, the Supreme Court decided that Welsh could to be declared a conscientious objector even though he declared that his opposition to war was not based on religious convictions.
atheism.about.com...

Her only "crime" was that her morality wasn't affiliated with any religious authority.

The USCIS has told her,

“Please submit a letter on official church stationery, attesting to the fact that you are a member in good standing and the church’s official position on the bearing of arms.”

Had she been a member, in good standing, of any church that had an "official position" on the bearing of arms, she would not have been denied. And, sure, she could have lied. I'll bet there are many liars attending churches every Sunday too.

reply to post by windword


You know what Win this time without the conspiracy angle involved
I've done some thinking on this before I
replyed. You know my stance well and that I don't often sympathize
with atheism. When I do it's for damn good reason.
If we look at our gov. in the light of only wanting those who can be "controlled "
to be allowed citizenship these days. And while I do believe in Christ I
I also believe religion does get used to control people. Then I can see some
damn good reason to side with you on this one. and I don't mind doing so
to tell the truth. Another good post.
SnF

Your stock is rising Winword.

reply to post by randyvs


Thanks Randy!

This thread isn't anti-religion or about bashing Christianity. It's about the way our society alienates non-believers. Your right, it's also about control.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

I don't believe in using violence, however I will do what i have to do, to protect my family and my people, even if it means i may die for there is no greater love than to give ones life for their friends.

I am also with my brother Lonewolf.

So ready to die
for my people
and more so my
family am I.

Honor to you Wolf.

This highly intelligent and ethically righteous woman is more than welcome in Canada.

Hell, I'll even greet her at the border with a big hug, a pound of bacon, and a case of beer.


You go girl !

Well if I based my reply on your title OP, I would of said it was because your President is a Sunni Muslim.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by ganjoa
Not that this has anything to do with immigration BUT
Here in Texas, neither atheist nor poly-theist is eligible to hold political office based on the Texas state constitution one must acknowledge a single supreme being in order to be eligible. Some research reveals that the TX Secretary of State and TX Attorney General's office are in agreement that this provision of the Texas Consitution is unenforceable.

ganjoa

Yep, I am aware of Texas' constitution. Here are some more "unenforcable" regulations on the books:

The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."

Maryland: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”

Mississippi: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

North Carolina: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

South Carolina: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

"Texas: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

An eighth state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.

en.wikipedia.org...

MUHAHAHAA! And the "atheists are forcing their non-believe" onto others.. Yeah right.

You silly US-Americans, you! Man, I have written this statement at least 3 or 4 times the last week and now - it kind of becomes my signature, but what could I do about it? You just so silly!

I wish this statement would not be necessary!...

reply to post by windword


this is pretty cut and clear.

She is an atheist...obviously she has no morals, because no God is scaring her into being moral , therefore she can not morally object. /end sarc

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

to protect my family and my people

Your family is pretty well protected...back home. I don't know where your home is, but I'm guessing it's somewhere on mainland US. Probably nowhere near Baghdad...

That's absurd. Nothing wrong with killing aliens/ demons.

I assure you they will do the same to those who refuse the dark side of the force.

I've never seen anything like this before.. "Well.. if you're not religious.. and you don't believe in a god.. Why don't you kill? What's wrong with you??"

The heck? Killing is supposed to be okay for atheists because they aren't bound to 'the word' of law? If this is the kind of world we live in.. Then religion should never be exposed as false and the world should be controlled just as it is.

Surely everybody doesn't think like this though. I have a bit more faith in humanity than that. But I do wonder... How many people have NOT done something wrong because they think of god first and didn't proceed with their actions because of that. The idea of religion in that regard is somewhat genius then..

She should have done what the other 9% of athiests in the US do...and lie, when taking an oath...cos lying and killing is OK...both sides are implicated in shades of thought that are disingenuous...

Å99

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by windword

Being a natural born US citizen, I never had to pass a test to become a citizen, nor did I have to swear that I would "take up arms" to defend my country. But If I was asked the same question as this woman, Margaret Doughty, my answer would have been much the same as hers.

Mine, too.

Great find, wind, S/F!!

This seems to be the new "argument" now - that religion is required for morality. Preposterous!
Next thing you know, before they'll send Social Security benefits or provide food stamps they'll want a "pastor's notarized letter" that you are a "member in good standing of an approved religion."

I wonder when some schmoe freshman House member will suggest a bill STRIPPING atheists of the natural-born CITIZENSHIP altogether!!!
Ridiculous.

Turn me into a frog, take away my birthday, and put a 'NO DESSERT' stamp on my ID card.
:shk:

I had jury duty last year, and during the selection process (it was a first degree murder trial), three or four of the potential jurors said they could not participate in a death-penalty trial on moral grounds. If I recall, they named their religion as the source of that objection. They were dismissed.

reply to post by DarthMuerte

Talk about irony. Atheists insist that we were not founded as a Christian nation and then present a huge piece of evidence showing that to be a lie.

Acutally your found fathers are the ones who insited that the Us was not a Christian, or any other religious, country, they founded it to escape persecution and to allow freedom to practice ANY religion, none favored by the government.

Besides, your huge list of "evidence" is from Texas, arguably not even part of the US, and also all of it unenforceable under the constitution

reply to post by wildtimes

This seems to be the new "argument" now - that religion is required for morality.

New? It's not new at all. I've been told that, but for the 10 commandments plastered on all government buildings, we'd all be eating each others brain goo.

I have yet to rape or murder anyone. I don't steal, I try to avoid lying, I'm a helpful person and try to be kind to everyone around me. All of that time, not believing in a god, or gods as defined by any religion.

guess that's just a fluke.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

New? It's not new at all. I've been told that, but for the 10 commandments plastered on all government buildings, we'd all be eating each others brain goo.

I have yet to rape or murder anyone. I don't steal, I try to avoid lying, I'm a helpful person and try to be kind to everyone around me. All of that time, not believing in a god, or gods as defined by any religion.

guess that's just a fluke.

Well, I guess it's "news to me" - I didn't pay much attention to what was said about atheists and their "lack of morals" until recently. It seems to me to be patently absurd.

I agree with you. Morality does NOT COME FROM RELIGION.

This is absolute proof that they have written this up in a way that allows them to accept or deny anyone they want.

To become a U.S. citizen, you will still have to attend an oath ceremony and make a pledge of allegiance to the United States. However, permanent residents who are “conscientious objectors” to military service and those whose religion has instructed them not to use the word “oath,” can request a modified oath from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Please see “What to Expect at the Naturalization Oath Ceremony” to learn more this final step of the U.S. citizenship process.

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.”)
“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.”

In this particular case, it was a Jehovah's Witness asking what they needed to do...

You must attach information to your N-400 application stating that you are a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in good standing (an active participant in congregational events) along with a letter on official letterhead that Jehovah’s Witnesses are opposed to bearing arms, military service, and using the words “on oath.” In your case, a letter from your congregation’s elder is considered adequate evidence.

Yet, at the same time it says this...

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.

So, you have to provide a letter stating that you're an active participant and a member in good standing in your religion, but you don't need to be a member of a religious organization in order to request a modified oath? Which is it?

www.nolo.com...