Woman denied US citizenship for being Atheist

[Kubrath]

(Note: I'm thread hopping. And confusing theism with religion briefly.)

Well, that's dumb. Atheistic morality provides principles which are as good and valid and strong as principles derived from theistic morality. You should be able to say "no" on nonreligious grounds as well as on religious grounds, or be able to say "no" on no grounds at all.

There is no "Atheistic morality"

[Yjafjord]

and if that don't work

Or Welsh vs. US Round 2. =T

don't dare insult the world tree! I'll commit ye to firah if you keep talking like that 3:<

[IshCong]

Nope.
Some point. Some more recent than others, but still. At some point we were almost all immigrants.
The fact is, the modern population of the United States is not all immigrants and is similar to pretty much everywhere else in that regard.
So people can get off this silly "nation of immigrants" thing, because it makes no sense.

All the original colonists in America are dead. All the original colonists in England are also dead. Neither country is a nation of immigrants due to their prior colonization.

Yes it does make sense, because the USA has accepted more immigrants than any other country in the world, and it hasn't been called the "Land of Opportunity" for nothing. So, are you telling me that simply because the original colonists are dead, the legacy of acceptance is also dead? What about the immigration booms throughout the 20th century? A lot of those people aren't dead, yet.

Okay, let's go back and look at what you said, originally:
"The people of the United States of America are a nation of immigrants..."
This is the point we've been talking about.
And it is wrong, because America is not a nation of immigrants. It has some immigrants, it may even have many immigrants, but it is not a nation of immigrants.

I've already said she should be permitted citizenship several times throughout the course of this thread.

(Note: I'm thread hopping. And confusing theism with religion briefly.)

Well, that's dumb. Atheistic morality provides principles which are as good and valid and strong as principles derived from theistic morality. You should be able to say "no" on nonreligious grounds as well as on religious grounds, or be able to say "no" on no grounds at all.

There is no "Atheistic morality"

Unless you're objecting to the phrase "atheistic morality" in that it implies some sort of universal atheist moral code, this is horribly wrong.

[Kubrath]

Ability is irrelevant here, because she is obviously to be demanded on the war front, should she have not objected, so placing no requirements on her ability in reality solves nothing.

Again, greed is not demanding she serve on the front lines. Both greed and I have had to point this out now. He's demanding she be willing to serve on the front lines, a fundamentally different thing.

But what is the point if she can't do it? Why should willingness be demanded of her, when she can't do much of anything regarding combat?

[Quarelia]

It didn't happen because she was an atheist, it happened because she said she would not bear arms to protect our nation if the need arose. That is not the same thing at all as being religious based.

As for the whole religion vs moral quandries debate, I'll say this. If it was based off of moral stance, any person could say that, and thus be inelegable for the draft, in the event it was needed. As for those with religions saying otherwise, that number is relatively few, and some of those religions have played a large part in US history i.e. the Quakers.

I believe that this is wrong, but my problem is the fact that religious reasons can be used as an excuse. Most jobs in the military are non-combative in nature. If their religion or moral compass says they shouldn't kill, even in war, then they should still be eligible for the draft, just to be used for those non combat roles. Besides, if they were put on the front lines they would be a danger to themselves and their comrades.

[Ovisterra]

This is fucking stupid. I thought we were past this sort of thing.

No wait, I didn't. I knew this bullshit still goes on every single day. This is just proving me right.

[Tsuntion]

(Note: I'm thread hopping. And confusing theism with religion briefly.)

Well, that's dumb. Atheistic morality provides principles which are as good and valid and strong as principles derived from theistic morality. You should be able to say "no" on nonreligious grounds as well as on religious grounds, or be able to say "no" on no grounds at all.

There is no "Atheistic morality"

Theistic morality: Any moral system which does include a god, e.g. "God defines what you should and shouldn't do/what is right and wrong". Usually organised through religions, but doesn't have to be.

Atheistic morality: Any moral system which does not include a god.

Why do you say that there isn't?

[Kubrath]

Yes it does make sense, because the USA has accepted more immigrants than any other country in the world, and it hasn't been called the "Land of Opportunity" for nothing. So, are you telling me that simply because the original colonists are dead, the legacy of acceptance is also dead? What about the immigration booms throughout the 20th century? A lot of those people aren't dead, yet.

Okay, let's go back and look at what you said, originally:
"The people of the United States of America are a nation of immigrants..."
This is the point we've been talking about.
And it is wrong, because America is not a nation of immigrants. It has some immigrants, it may even have many immigrants, but it is not a nation of immigrants.

I've already said she should be permitted citizenship several times throughout the course of this thread.

I meant an entirely different thing by saying "nation of immigrants" and tried to clarify it several times, but whatever, this is resolved.

[IshCong]

Or Welsh vs. US Round 2. =T

don't dare insult the world tree! I'll commit ye to firah if you keep talking like that 3:<

I...wait...what?

Nevermind, I get it now. Lol.

[Slafstopia]

She wouldn't defend the nation she wishes to call home? She can get the fuck out.

Exactly. If to want to be a part of the nation, you must be willing to serve it in the way that that nation demands. No exceptions.

...She's an elderly charity worker. From the UK no less, where people aren't allowed or required to have a gun.

Bloody hell America, straighten your s*** out. I thought it was bad to be an Atheist in England (an officially Christian country!) but the fact that this lady's going to be denied citizenship because she has no structured-religion-based objection to fighting in a war has mandatory praying and hymn-singing in about 90% of schools beat. I mean, she's 64. By the time America is in a war that requires everyone to bear arms she'll be dead.

[Yjafjord]

don't dare insult the world tree! I'll commit ye to firah if you keep talking like that 3:<

I...wait...what?

I WARNED YE! I WARNED YE!
*starts throwing sticks at a bucket of water while chanting in Latin*
what? freedom of belief protect me.

[IshCong]

Again, greed is not demanding she serve on the front lines. Both greed and I have had to point this out now. He's demanding she be willing to serve on the front lines, a fundamentally different thing.

But what is the point if she can't do it? Why should willingness be demanded of her, when she can't do much of anything regarding combat?

No idea.
I'm just pointing out that greed doesn't demand that she serve or that she be able to, only that she is willing to. I imagine it has to do with some sort of idea that there should be a 'required attitude/loyalty' to become a citizen.

[IshCong]

It didn't happen because she was an atheist, it happened because she said she would not bear arms to protect our nation if the need arose. That is not the same thing at all as being religious based.

As for the whole religion vs moral quandries debate, I'll say this. If it was based off of moral stance, any person could say that, and thus be inelegable for the draft, in the event it was needed. As for those with religions saying otherwise, that number is relatively few, and some of those religions have played a large part in US history i.e. the Quakers.

I believe that this is wrong, but my problem is the fact that religious reasons can be used as an excuse. Most jobs in the military are non-combative in nature. If their religion or moral compass says they shouldn't kill, even in war, then they should still be eligible for the draft, just to be used for those non combat roles. Besides, if they were put on the front lines they would be a danger to themselves and their comrades.

Conscientious objectors can still be drafted. They can either serve in a non-combat capacity, or as part of the Alternative Service Program on the civilian end of things.

[SENGRIAL]

Again, greed is not demanding she serve on the front lines. Both greed and I have had to point this out now. He's demanding she be willing to serve on the front lines, a fundamentally different thing.

But what is the point if she can't do it? Why should willingness be demanded of her, when she can't do much of anything regarding combat?

Exactly i couldn't agree more here, theres just no point...this country says its all high and might with acceptance and being progressive but it denies an old woman citizenship because she doesn't believe in God? because she refused-at 64-to serve in war even from a theoretical standpoint? Im sorry but there is nothing more closed minded than saying "My god or no god at all" what the hell happened to freedom of religion and all that good stuff? It was written in that one old document, by those dead dudes along time ago...what was it?

Thats right!

THE CONSTITUTION...

[Quarelia]

Exactly. If to want to be a part of the nation, you must be willing to serve it in the way that that nation demands. No exceptions.

...She's an elderly charity worker. From the UK no less, where people aren't allowed or required to have a gun.

Bloody hell America, straighten your s*** out. I thought it was bad to be an Atheist in England (an officially Christian country!) but the fact that this lady's going to be denied citizenship because she has no structured-religion-based objection to fighting in a war has mandatory praying and hymn-singing in about 90% of schools beat. I mean, she's 64. By the time America is in a war that requires everyone to bear arms she'll be dead.

There cannot be exceptions. You can't have a double standard. That is by far worse than requiring an elderly lady to be called to military duty in the event she is absolutely needed. In all likelyhood, that case will never occur. But it still could happen. If she can't serve in combat, she can still pack parachutes, cook, nurse, any of those things.

[Kubrath]

There is no "Atheistic morality"

Theistic morality: Any moral system which does include a god, e.g. "God defines what you should and shouldn't do/what is right and wrong". Usually organised through religions, but doesn't have to be.

Atheistic morality: Any moral system which does not include a god.

Why do you say that there isn't?

Because Atheism (and Theism) does not regard the question of morality, it only regards the question of the existence of God(s). Anything else is entirely separate. You have religious morality, you have secular morality but Theistic/Atheistic morality is as vague as you can get, because there is no, and can never be, consensus on it, should it actually exist.

You can't say, "As an Atheist, I believe such and such", because there is no focal point to stand on. Each Atheist bases their morality on different principles. It could be true that most Atheists have similar moral codes, but their Atheism has nothing to do with it. The same goes for Theists.

[Yjafjord]

...She's an elderly charity worker. From the UK no less, where people aren't allowed or required to have a gun.

Bloody hell America, straighten your s*** out. I thought it was bad to be an Atheist in England (an officially Christian country!) but the fact that this lady's going to be denied citizenship because she has no structured-religion-based objection to fighting in a war has mandatory praying and hymn-singing in about 90% of schools beat. I mean, she's 64. By the time America is in a war that requires everyone to bear arms she'll be dead.

There cannot be exceptions. You can't have a double standard. That is by far worse than requiring an elderly lady to be called to military duty in the event she is absolutely needed. In all likelyhood, that case will never occur. But it still could happen. If she can't serve in combat, she can still pack parachutes, cook, nurse, any of those things.

at 64?
erm, ok then...
my sticks and bucket of water finds this strange...

[Kubrath]

But what is the point if she can't do it? Why should willingness be demanded of her, when she can't do much of anything regarding combat?

No idea.
I'm just pointing out that greed doesn't demand that she serve or that she be able to, only that she is willing to. I imagine it has to do with some sort of idea that there should be a 'required attitude/loyalty' to become a citizen.

Probably.

[IshCong]

...She's an elderly charity worker. From the UK no less, where people aren't allowed or required to have a gun.

Bloody hell America, straighten your s*** out. I thought it was bad to be an Atheist in England (an officially Christian country!) but the fact that this lady's going to be denied citizenship because she has no structured-religion-based objection to fighting in a war has mandatory praying and hymn-singing in about 90% of schools beat. I mean, she's 64. By the time America is in a war that requires everyone to bear arms she'll be dead.

There cannot be exceptions. You can't have a double standard. That is by far worse than requiring an elderly lady to be called to military duty in the event she is absolutely needed. In all likelyhood, that case will never occur. But it still could happen. If she can't serve in combat, she can still pack parachutes, cook, nurse, any of those things.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell, women aren't eligible for the draft. Period. So, yeah. Double-standards. Exceptions. Etc.
...
Which is more than slightly silly, but that's a talk for another day.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Now that ain't right. She seems like a nice lady who's contributing to enriching the lives of US citizens.

But if I was her, I would have just said "yeah, I'll take up arms." I mean, come on, she's 64 years old in the 21st Century. She'd never, ever be conscripted, and even if there is a conscriptable war involving the United States in the next few years, I reckon she'd be long gone before then.

[Akirii]

Would be understandable if she'd be a muslim
But a atheist?
That's weird.

[Quarelia]

But what is the point if she can't do it? Why should willingness be demanded of her, when she can't do much of anything regarding combat?

Exactly i couldn't agree more here, theres just no point...this country says its all high and might with acceptance and being progressive but it denies an old woman citizenship because she doesn't believe in God? because she refused-at 64-to serve in war even from a theoretical standpoint? Im sorry but there is nothing more closed minded than saying "My god or no god at all" what the hell happened to freedom of religion and all that good stuff? It was written in that one old document, by those dead dudes along time ago...what was it?

Thats right!

THE CONSTITUTION...

Just saying, you're inviting a punch to the face.

But however she is not denied her citizenship because she is not religious. It was because she refused to serve in the event she is direly needed.

[Kaamnaayein]

I feel like someone ought to point out that it is possible to be religious and atheist at the same time.

[Volnotova]

She wouldn't defend the nation she wishes to call home? She can get the fuck out.

Re-read the OP?

She was willing to do non-combatant work and work of national importance.

She was willing to defend her country, just not through violent means.

[IshCong]

There cannot be exceptions. You can't have a double standard. That is by far worse than requiring an elderly lady to be called to military duty in the event she is absolutely needed. In all likelyhood, that case will never occur. But it still could happen. If she can't serve in combat, she can still pack parachutes, cook, nurse, any of those things.

at 64?
erm, ok then...
my sticks and bucket of water finds this strange...

Desk jobs too. =T Very important. Not really physically taxing.
There's plenty of positions that drafted COs can fill.