Woman denied US citizenship for being Atheist

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

http://american-civil-liberties.com/the ... ation.html

The only hiccup is the case of Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946)...where he objected to bear arms but was willing to take the oath. Seems to me that Doughty is saying the same thing...that she would help but not bear arms.

[Disserbia]

I think the 'issue the OP is ignoring' is that it is the combination of her CO status and her atheism that has caused her citizenship application to be postponed (until/unless she gets the proper signed document), rather than her application being denied solely due to the fact she's atheist.
There would be no problem if she weren't a CO, essentially.

There also would be no problem if she weren't an atheist, essentially.

That does not mean that she was denied solely because she was atheist so the title is still strawman BS. Both of the reasons she was denied were equally reprehensible and to focus on one more than the other is just as asinine and wreaks of personal identity politics while completely missing the bigger picture.

[Battenburgia]

As a British person without the cultural 'bearing arms' stuff, I find this ridiculous on multiple counts. Even the fact that its expected that people are drafted in to the military to defend their country is outmoded to me, in addition to the fact that only being a member of an organised religion can get you out of it.

They actually don't get drafted, they only register into the draft in case of need.

If there is absolutely no possibility of them getting drafted, why do they need to be registered for it?

I think it's extremely backward for a so-called free society to automatically sign up people for a potential future war...bit too authoritarian for my liking

[Danbershan]

They actually don't get drafted, they only register into the draft in case of need.

If there is absolutely no possibility of them getting drafted, why do they need to be registered for it?

I think it's extremely backward for a so-called free society to automatically sign up people for a potential future war...bit too authoritarian for my liking

I second this.

[IshCong]

I think the 'issue the OP is ignoring' is that it is the combination of her CO status and her atheism that has caused her citizenship application to be postponed (until/unless she gets the proper signed document), rather than her application being denied solely due to the fact she's atheist.
There would be no problem if she weren't a CO, essentially.

There also would be no problem if she weren't an atheist, essentially.

Well, yes. It's the combination of the two, is what I'm saying. And the OP focuses on one, but kinda...sorta...neglects the other.

[Kubrath]

Exactly what issue is the OP ignoring? It's stated clearly why she was denied citizenship, she has failed to present a religiously justified reason not to bear arms for the defense of the country, despite her declaration of not believing in God and not following any traditional religious beliefs.
At least, that is what the article is presenting.

I think the 'issue the OP is ignoring' is that it is the combination of her CO status and her atheism that has caused her citizenship application to be postponed (until/unless she gets the proper signed document), rather than her application being denied solely due to the fact she's atheist.
There would be no problem if she weren't a CO, essentially.

I wonder about that, since there is also this and this, and many more such cases. So, I'm not entirely convinced that this is not, in reality, the issue at hand in the guise of unsubstantiated denial of said service.

[Merriwhether]

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

You wouldn't respect the conscientious decision of people who have the right to or to not do so? You can get the fuck out.

[IshCong]

They actually don't get drafted, they only register into the draft in case of need.

If there is absolutely no possibility of them getting drafted, why do they need to be registered for it?

I think it's extremely backward for a so-called free society to automatically sign up people for a potential future war...bit too authoritarian for my liking

In the case of the woman in the OP, she won't register because she's:
A: a woman and therefore exempt
B: not between the ages of 18 and 26 and therefore exempt
and
C: possibly exempt for other reasons anyway.

However, men between the ages of 18 and 26 who don't meet other requirements must register for the draft so that if the draft is ever reactivated it can be put into effect speedily and you don't have to suddenly register millions of people all at once. All the information you need will be ready to be used to bring the draft into activity. Which is right and proper because if you're using a draft in the modern era in a Western nation, it's because the shit's hit the fan and things need to be fixed relatively quickly. Registering millions and organizing all that tends to be the bane of 'quickly'.

As for why have a draft at all, it's a back-up, essentially. I doubt it is intended to be used, but then, history is often very unforgiving of those who acted solely based on what they intended would happen.

[IshCong]

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

You wouldn't respect the conscientious decision of people who have the right to or to not do so? You can get the fuck out.

Conscientious objectors do not...really...have the 'right' to not defend the nation. They can be drafted just like anyone else and can either serve in a non-combat role or in the civilian Alternative Service Program.

[The Blaatschapen]

There also would be no problem if she weren't an atheist, essentially.

That does not mean that she was denied solely because she was atheist so the title is still strawman BS. Both of the reasons she was denied were equally reprehensible and to focus on one more than the other is just as asinine and wreaks of personal identity politics while completely missing the bigger picture.

Well, the thing is, while the USA claims to be secular, the atheism really ought not to matter. The USA on the other hand, does not claim to be pacifist(or whatever the correct term is here), and hence can state whatever it wants with regards to CO. But apparently the atheism matters when it comes to pacifistic morals. Which IMO, is quite silly.

[Agritum]

...Ms. Doughty was told that any conscientious objection must be based on religious grounds, not simply moral objections. ...the INS 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.”

WTF?

What the hell kind of bullshit is this? Absolutely disgusting. This kind of crap is what I mean when I talk about religious privilege.
EDIT: I want it known that as of yet I have not found any secondary sources for this story, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt.

If confirmed, this tells us that the US government have indeed established a State religion: Non-irreligion.

Religious Secularism *nods*

[IshCong]

That does not mean that she was denied solely because she was atheist so the title is still strawman BS. Both of the reasons she was denied were equally reprehensible and to focus on one more than the other is just as asinine and wreaks of personal identity politics while completely missing the bigger picture.

Well, the thing is, while the USA claims to be secular, the atheism really ought not to matter. The USA on the other hand, does not claim to be pacifist(or whatever the correct term is here), and hence can state whatever it wants with regards to CO. But apparently the atheism matters when it comes to pacifistic morals. Which IMO, is quite silly.

Between Welsh vs. USand Girouard vs. US, I'd be very surprised if this isn't promptly overturned.

EDIT: Now with links.

[The Blaatschapen]

Well, the thing is, while the USA claims to be secular, the atheism really ought not to matter. The USA on the other hand, does not claim to be pacifist(or whatever the correct term is here), and hence can state whatever it wants with regards to CO. But apparently the atheism matters when it comes to pacifistic morals. Which IMO, is quite silly.

Between Welsh vs. US and Girouard vs. US, I'd be very surprised if this isn't promptly overturned.

As it should be

[Kubrath]

There also would be no problem if she weren't an atheist, essentially.

Well, yes. It's the combination of the two, is what I'm saying. And the OP focuses on one, but kinda...sorta...neglects the other.

It all stemmed from the fact that she did not present a religious document to prove that her morality may excuse her from bearing arms on the front line. You can't get such a document if you're not from an organized religion and being Atheist makes it even harder. Her OC status shouldn't even be counted as part of the problem, because it should be a standard procedure.

[IshCong]

Between Welsh vs. US and Girouard vs. US, I'd be very surprised if this isn't promptly overturned.

As it should be

Whee!
Let's all take a ride on the Bureaucratic Inertia! The roller coaster that never goes anywhere until someone gets out and gives it a good solid kick!

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

You wouldn't respect the conscientious decision of people who have the right to or to not do so? You can get the fuck out.

Conscientious objectors do not...really...have the 'right' to not defend the nation. They can be drafted just like anyone else and can either serve in a non-combat role or in the civilian Alternative Service Program.

And in this case Doughty in fact say that she would be willing to do so, as long as she did not have to bear arms or kill.

No...this is about her atheism. Mainly because the INS are requiring documentation from her Church which will not only state that she is in good standing (!) but also the stance the Church takes on killing/war/military service.

Now...she is an atheist...which does rather make being a member of a Church rather difficult. Which means she cannot fulfill that requirement. So even though she actually does meet the requirements (because she is willing to serve), she cannot fulfill the administrative need of this Church documentation.

It is not the fault of the INS...it is however due to previous rulings handed down from the SCOTUS.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Need to seperate church and state a bit more.

Still old women do make the best soldiers.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Well, the thing is, while the USA claims to be secular, the atheism really ought not to matter. The USA on the other hand, does not claim to be pacifist(or whatever the correct term is here), and hence can state whatever it wants with regards to CO. But apparently the atheism matters when it comes to pacifistic morals. Which IMO, is quite silly.

Between Welsh vs. USand Girouard vs. US, I'd be very surprised if this isn't promptly overturned.

EDIT: Now with links.

Oh...you mean the case I posted at the top of this page?

However Girouard was a Ohio court rulin gin defiance of previous SCOTUS rulings. The ACLU link I posted has a pretty decent run down on the issue.

[Kubrath]

Need to seperate church and state a bit more.

Still old women do make the best soldiers.

You'd be surprised

[IshCong]

Conscientious objectors do not...really...have the 'right' to not defend the nation. They can be drafted just like anyone else and can either serve in a non-combat role or in the civilian Alternative Service Program.

And in this case Doughty in fact say that she would be willing to do so, as long as she did not have to bear arms or kill.

No...this is about her atheism. Mainly because the INS are requiring documentation from her Church which will not only state that she is in good standing (!) but also the stance the Church takes on killing/war/military service.

Now...she is an atheist...which does rather make being a member of a Church rather difficult. Which means she cannot fulfill that requirement. So even though she actually does meet the requirements (because she is willing to serve), she cannot fulfill the administrative need of this Church documentation.

It is not the fault of the INS...it is however due to previous rulings handed down from the SCOTUS.

I...know...?
In the post you quoted I'm just addressing the claim that COs have a right not to defend the nation. They are presently eligible for and required to register for the draft, regardless of whether or not that right should or should not exist.

[IshCong]

Between Welsh vs. USand Girouard vs. US, I'd be very surprised if this isn't promptly overturned.

EDIT: Now with links.

Oh...you mean the case I posted at the top of this page?

However Girouard was a Ohio court ruling in defiance of previous SCOTUS rulings. The ACLU link I posted has a pretty decent run down on the issue.

Yes, the case you posted at the top of the page.

[The Blaatschapen]

As it should be

Whee!
Let's all take a ride on the Bureaucratic Inertia! The roller coaster that never goes anywhere until someone gets out and gives it a good solid kick!

It's not my bureaucracy, so I can't be bothered

[IshCong]

Whee!
Let's all take a ride on the Bureaucratic Inertia! The roller coaster that never goes anywhere until someone gets out and gives it a good solid kick!

It's not my bureaucracy, so I can't be bothered

The Dutch don't have to over-come bureaucratic inertia?
Well, I'm jealous.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

And in this case Doughty in fact say that she would be willing to do so, as long as she did not have to bear arms or kill.

No...this is about her atheism. Mainly because the INS are requiring documentation from her Church which will not only state that she is in good standing (!) but also the stance the Church takes on killing/war/military service.

Now...she is an atheist...which does rather make being a member of a Church rather difficult. Which means she cannot fulfill that requirement. So even though she actually does meet the requirements (because she is willing to serve), she cannot fulfill the administrative need of this Church documentation.

It is not the fault of the INS...it is however due to previous rulings handed down from the SCOTUS.

I...know...?
In the post you quoted I'm just addressing the claim that COs have a right not to defend the nation. They are presently eligible for and required to register for the draft, regardless of whether or not that right should or should not exist.

Which in this case is utterly moot as she is exempt from registering under the Selective Service system. Also whether or not you are a CO is of no importance as SS registration does not give an option for CO. That only happens if conscription is enacted.

So any issue of CO is pretty much moot with regards to the current legalities.

[The Blaatschapen]

It's not my bureaucracy, so I can't be bothered

The Dutch don't have to over-come bureaucratic inertia?
Well, I'm jealous.

I didn't state that.

But I'm quite sure that the American INS(or SCOTUS) is not a part of the Dutch bureaucracy