Sunday, June 16, 2013

64 year old conscientious objector denied US citizenship due to being an Atheist. Say, what?

Courtesy of Divided Under God: 

Margaret Doughty, a 64-year old woman from the UK who has spent the past 30+ years in the U.S., is in the process of applying for United States Citizenship and happens to be an atheist. She is currently a permanent resident running non-profit adult literacy organizations, doing her part to enrich the lives of American citizens. In the process of applying for citizenship, all candidates are asked if they’d be willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America. Ms. Doughty responded, 

“I am sure the law would never require a 64 year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms. Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. 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…my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God…I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.” 

Despite being an atheist, Ms. Doughty was told that any conscientious objection must be based on religious grounds, not simply moral objections. So as someone who was not religious, and didn’t believe in a god, she had no basis for objecting. Her statement has been denied and she has been informed that to move forward in the process she must submit a letter from the elders of her church to prove her conscientious objections are religiously based. 

She has been given until June 21st to show that her objection is religiously-based, or her application will be denied.

So to be clear, according to the United States government, this woman's refusal to kill anybody cannot possibly be considered moral if she is NOT a member of a religion.

As if the ONLY people on the planet who refuse to kill their fellow man, are those that have surrendered their critical thinking skills and embraced belief in one of the pantheon of gods recognized by the good ole US of A as being legitimate. For fuck's sake, she's 64 years old, who do they want her to kill anyway?

Should I tell you now how sick and tired I am to constantly hear that without a religion people cannot be considered moral?  This kind of crap really burns my ass.


31 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:32 AM

    Where does she live?
    She needs to talk with her Representative and Senators.
    Also, with the local media, as well as mainstream papers and blogs.
    Isn't there one Congressman who is an atheist?

    At the very least, she might be able to delay the process until someone with some clout can help her.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:32 AM

    A quick Google search of the term "conscientious objector" brought up the following quotes in Wikipedia:

    "A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection."...

    "Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be.""...

    and

    ..."That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O."

    I am not a lawyer, but assuming the above to be correct, it would appear that refusing her conscientious objector status based solely on religious beliefs would be illegal and therefore not a reason to deny her citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:42 AM

      Start with the ACLU. And her immigration lawyer. sounds like a low-level clerk got it wrong.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous4:33 AM

    On second thought, we IMers could put pressure on our own Congressional delegations
    Can you tell us her name and where she lives?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Leland4:38 AM

    Only one thing to say about this:

    I SMELL A SUPREME COURT DECISION!!!!!!

    (Assuming, of course, that the Immigration Department doesn't come to its sense first. Anybody want to bet?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:43 AM

      Not sure, if she is not a citizen can she have standing to sue before SCOTUS?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:44 AM

      Some states have this problem with their immunization for school exemptions (I don't agree with immunization exemptions unless there are medical or scientific reasons.)

      Delete
  5. Anonymous5:10 AM

    Sad that so many people would respect and admire her more for lying rather than telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wish we could get the ACLU involved on this one. This sounds like bigotry/discrimination by some "one" at the applications office, don'tcha think?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Beldar AARP Conehead, Sr.5:23 AM

    "For fuck's sake, she's 64 years old, who do they want her to kill anyway?"

    Typical librul response...

    Apparently, Gryphen, you are unfamiliar with the Graybeards Militia. This fierce, top-secret, elite volunteer paramilitary group has a MINIMUM age of 70!!! The oldest member is 128 years old and the average age is 91. (The good news is that 90 is the new 40. Unfortunately, 60 is the new 80... But I digress.) They train in the harshest conditions on the planet and are believed to have been deployed to some of the most violent conflicts in recent history.

    So save your condescending remarks about our proud elder-warriors, Mr. Fancy Pants Librul Alaska blogger! Someday, YOU might need their help and you'll be praying to almighty Zeus that you hear their clattering up-armored mobility scooters, their clanking weaponized walkers and their squealing hearing aids coming to your rescue, buddy boy!

    Sure, they arent as fast as young whippersnappers like you, and yeah, maybe they dont see targets as well as they used to, and ok, some are narcoleptics who fall asleep during maneuvers and quite a few need significant amounts of medication, and that's right, yeah, some have their memory issues and...

    Oh shit.... I forgot the point I was trying to make...

    Can I get back to you on this later?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:24 AM

      The oldest living person just died and he was 116 years old. I call BS on the oldest member of the Graybeards Militia.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:49 AM

      he's living in a video game world

      Delete
    3. Beldar strikes again!

      Delete
    4. Leland7:15 AM

      Who 6:49? Conehead or the militia member?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7:32 AM

      Well, it is a top secret paramilitary organization after all. How do you know they aren't holding their oldest more experienced fighters in a bunker. Who really knows if the oldest is 128 years old He could actually be 145?

      Geesh.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous11:44 AM

      7:32 -
      I believe the mandatory retirement age in that particular group is 137 years and 8 months of age.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous6:09 AM

    In addition to contacting her Congressional representatives (both Houses) she should contact her local ACLU. This is simply absurd and, obviously, the work of someone who has no idea what they are doing.
    Beaglemom

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:15 AM

    I too had to answer that question, my response was much different but none the less cause a kerfuffle. I pointed out to the immigration officer that I tried to volunteer for the army but being a women I was not allowed to join ofor the same job I had and served honorably for 18 years in Canada as the Artillery was not open to women. The immigration officer looked at me when shock when I pointed out the hypocrisy in now asking me to say I will when I am not allowed. She walked put and another officer came in and asked me if my answer is yes or no. I stated again i would but you wouldn't let me volunteer before what has changed. It is almost like a slap in the face i can[t join in the position i want but in order to gain my citizenship I have to say that I will do what you won't let me do. They let me go after a conversation in the hall and I went on to do my written and verbal English test. We'll just overlook that we ahve been speaking to each other in English for an hour as the box must be checked on the sheet. I passed ( you're all shocked i know)

    She needs to get an attorney and go back with them. She just got some power tripping Immigration Official ( you should hear some of the horror stories people have).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous6:48 AM

    Hmmm or she could become a Unitarian. Pastor of a current Unitarian Church nearby is agnostic, his father was the previous pastor and he was an atheist. That outta blow the Migra's brain circuits.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since our wars are started by religious people, I think that only atheists should be allowed to be conscientious objectors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland7:22 AM

      EF? You might want to check on the history of the Quakers - who, by the way, are still around and quietly doing what they have for a long time!

      They call themselves Friends and a cousin of mine is one. She is the ONLY member of my family willing to talk to me about religion (aside from my young nieces and nephews, which really ticks off their mothers and fathers!). The other family members get too aggravated when I keep successfully contradicting them with facts.

      Delete
  12. A. J. Billings7:54 AM

    Besides the usual talking points of the Christian Taliban in the USA, they LOVE to pontificate on how only the 'rill' Christians can be truly moral.

    Outside their cults and churches, anyone else, no matter what religion, or how outwardly and obviously wonderful or accomplished or virtuous is nothing more than a thoroughly corrupt sinner.

    The true extremists like Pat Robertson, Charles Dobson, Tony Perkins, and especially Bryan Fischer actually believe and teach that the Constitution was only written to and for Christians, and only their cult members should be allowed to serve in government.

    They would utterly dismiss people like Nelson Mandela, Oprah, Bill Gates, or Alfred Nobel in spite of their immense contributions to the health, education, and welfare of millions of people around the world.

    I despise the hypocrisy of the Dominionists, and it is truly maddening that their cult of misogynists, racist, and ignorant Christian Taliban are getting elected to high office.

    They are committing legislate rape on all the rest of us by forcing through laws based on their mythology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly think we should carve out a state and give it to the Dominionists and other conservatives who want to secede. I predict that in a few years they would all start turning on each other.

      Every conservative deep down thinks that they are the only "true conservative".

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7:48 PM

      I volunteer Texas.

      Delete
  13. hedgewytch9:09 AM

    This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom AND freedom from religion. A fact many like to ignore.

    There is no valid reason to deny anyone's U.S. citizenship because they are an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous11:10 AM

    There is a similar thing in dietary choices. If someone makes a dietary choice because of religious reasons (not eating pork, fasting during lent, etc.) then most people respect that choice and honor it. But if someone chooses to not eat meat because of concern for animal welfare, then that choice is ridiculed and many people try to sneak meat into food just to see if they can put one over on the abstainer. It is as if blind religious reasons are valid but sincerely thought-out personal choices are not valid.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous11:46 AM

    To me,this is far more scandalous than the IRS fiasco......just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous3:07 PM

    Little old ladies, Uncle Sam wants you.

    America, this is you.



    ReplyDelete
  17. She can go to a local Unitarian church, Buddhist temple or other institution, explain why she needs the letter and I'll bet they'll give her one whether she's a member or not. They are most likely to understand the mindset of the U.S government and willingly aid and abet her in her endrun around the red tape.

    You'd think the fact that this is a 64 year old woman would be taken into consideration but hey, we all know about bureaucracy, right?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous4:19 PM

    She should get a letter from the Richard Dawkins foundation.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.