• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied

ericlp

ericlp

Diamond Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/margaret-doughty-atheist-citizenship_n_3469358.html


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.

So what's the deal? Does every new person wanting to become a citizen go through the GOD BS? I thought this country moved on?
 
Oh, wow, Huff Po wrote an absolutely fan-fuckin'-tastic sensational headline.

She filled out her application to become a citizen in a way that would disqualify her for citizenship, and the only exemption is if her objections were based on religious beliefs, hence if she were member of a religion that forbid such things, that is a valid exemption.

And ericlp, do you not read the articles you link to? Seriously? You jump to the conclusion that everyone must be religious to become a U.S. citizen? Go troll somewhere else, please. Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.
 
Last edited:
She is quoted as saying her religious beliefs prevent her from bearing arms In what sense is she an atheist?
 
justoh said:
She is quoted as saying her religious beliefs prevent her from bearing arms In what sense is she an atheist?
Click to expand...

You don't think an atheist can have religious beliefs?

Are you daft? The most probable explanation is that she is a Buddhist which would mean that her religious belifs prevents her from bearing arms while being an atheist.

There is no other sense of atheism than the actual meaning of the word.

Theos -> theist = believing in god
A- = not.

So yeah, you can be as religious as fuck and not beliving in a god which would make you a religious atheist.
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
You don't think an atheist can have religious beliefs?

Are you daft? The most probable explanation is that she is a Buddhist which would mean that her religious belifs prevents her from bearing arms while being an atheist.

There is no other sense of atheism than the actual meaning of the word.

Theos -> theist = believing in god
A- = not.

So yeah, you can be as religious as fuck and not beliving in a god which would make you a religious atheist.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. All good Christians know that atheists don't have any beliefs, ethics, or morals. That's why we're always going around eating babies.
 
In a sense were all atheist in that we all deny the existence of art last one god, but ordinarily speaking, no, atheists can't be religious.
 
Not surprisingly, there is more to the story as one finds out immediately upon clicking it.

I really have no sympathy for her. She seems more a bitch rather than a principled individual asserting rights and here's why: she has an opposition for war and refuses to condone that it could be used morally even in defense of the nation and yet she wants to be a citizen of one of the most warring countries in the planet with a military budget vastly outstripping any other country. It's like applying for a job at a bar when you're morally opposed to alcohol.

The reason the law requires more than simply "I am opposed to that!" is numerous, one example being if you get a letter one day to join the military because we're all off to war you can't just suddenly decide you're an objector. There has to be a history of it, you have to prove it to some extent. There may not be a church for an agnostic to join (which makes the matter tricky), but at the least I would expect to see from her some historical revulsion to the military, otherwise tough shit, go back to your home country.

btw, first comment:
I was all set to start screaming until I saw that it was updated. Her application has been approved.
Click to expand...
 
Saying you're opposed to war is the same as saying you're opposed to war on religious grounds, and requiring one to prove involvement in any particular religion is therefore asinine (you could be the founder and only member of your religion, for argument sake).

I'm a naturalized us citizen and found the process to be easier without needlessly provoking/testing the US govt. She was never going to be required to bear arms anyway. Also, you gain almost nothing with us citizenship instead of a mere perm res, since voting is obviously a joke, though there are certain tax advantages.
 
Last edited:
Honestly the whole idea of rejecting the idea of bearing arms is BS anyway.

Say some foreign power invades your country and starts raping your cows and eating your daughters are you really just going to stand by while that happens?

If so eff your citizenship application.
 
nehalem256 said:
Honestly the whole idea of rejecting the idea of bearing arms is BS anyway.

Say some foreign power invades your country and starts raping your cows and eating your daughters are you really just going to stand by while that happens?

If so eff your citizenship application.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. This really didn't need to even be put on the application. In your example, that could end up being a heat of the moment / situational decision. It's you or them, roll over and die? Probably not.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Pretty much invalidates a draft. "I think war is wrong"

Could be good or bad.
Click to expand...

We have a saying about that in Israel that probably wouldn't apply in either England nor the US but if you're not willing to fight for yourself, someone will fight for you and be given what you have.

And so they rightly should. I'm not talking about elective warfare but rather an attack on mainland.
 
Was following this closely.

She was supposedly denied citizenship unless/until she became the member of a recognized conscientious objector church because she doesn't condone war/violence.

However, there are two separate SCOTUS cases which establish a bright line concerning this very issue. They decided plainly that membership in a church or organization is in no way required, a person must merely demonstrate they have a 'deeply held belief'. They are central in all cases concerning religious exemptions, as requiring membership in a church WOULD violate the establishment clause.

In other words, the immigration agent was acting unconstitutionally on an already decided matter. Which is why immigration officially reversed its position today, and is granting (and expediting) her citizenship.
 
Last edited:
PrinceofWands said:
Was following this closely.

She was supposedly denied citizenship unless/until she became the member of a recognized conscientious objector church because she doesn't condone war/violence.

However, there are two separate SCOTUS cases which establish a bright line concerning this very issue. They decided plainly that membership in a church or organization is in no way required, a person must merely demonstrate they have a 'deeply held belief'. They are central in all cases concerning religious exemptions, as requiring membership in a church WOULD violate the establishment clause.

In other words, the immigration agent was acting unconstitutionally on an already decided matter. Which is why immigration officially reversed its position today, and is granting (and expediting) her citizenship.
Click to expand...
I guess I must have intuitively known the SCOTUS view; her objection only makes sense if she is truly vested in it.

I still think it's a load of horse shit to even be in the US if you don't believe in armed defense of your life.
 
justoh said:
She is quoted as saying her religious beliefs prevent her from bearing arms In what sense is she an atheist?
Click to expand...

Moral beliefs don't equal religious beliefs. I am an atheist and most certainly have moral beliefs. She used the words spiritual/religious because its easier to describe than than saying my own moral compass based on my atheist beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Doppel said:
I guess I must have intuitively known the SCOTUS view; her objection only makes sense if she is truly vested in it.

I still think it's a load of horse shit to even be in the US if you don't believe in armed defense of your life.
Click to expand...

I can see that view, being something of a fighter myself, but I don't think I have the right to tell others to be that way, nor deny them citizenship over it.

"The conscientious objector is a revolutionary. On deciding to disobey the law he sacrifices his personal interests to the most important cause of working for the betterment of society." ~Albert Einstein

What's more, it's an idea at least as long running as the country itself, given the number of Quakers represented in our founding fathers.
 
ericlp said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/margaret-doughty-atheist-citizenship_n_3469358.html


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.

So what's the deal? Does every new person wanting to become a citizen go through the GOD BS? I thought this country moved on?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a dumb question for the government to ask; but that doesn't mean you should respond in a dumb way. It's a boilerplate yes/no question in a bureaucrat drone's checklist, not an essay question in your college Philosophy 101 class. When you do that, all you're doing is flustering the $32k/year civil servant who is trying to process his quota of 600 applications a day. And if you do decide to make your stand on this theoretical point, don't be too surprised if your long-winded explanation about this shit doesn't seem to match one of the examples given in his barely remembered training from 38 years ago and he kicks it into the "rework" pile.
 
PrinceofWands said:
I can see that view, being something of a fighter myself, but I don't think I have the right to tell others to be that way, nor deny them citizenship over it.

"The conscientious objector is a revolutionary. On deciding to disobey the law he sacrifices his personal interests to the most important cause of working for the betterment of society." ~Albert Einstein

What's more, it's an idea at least as long running as the country itself, given the number of Quakers represented in our founding fathers.
Click to expand...
I see it more like communism, with the oft repeated idea that it only works in theory. I suspect no country in the history of mankind has or ever will exist if it insists it is entirely pacifist and doesn't have a tough big brother looking out for it. It flies in the face of human nature. Quakers get to hold those beliefs because, in spite of them, they will still be defended by arms owned by others on their behalf.
 
Doppel said:
I see it more like communism, with the oft repeated idea that it only works in theory. I suspect no country in the history of mankind has or ever will exist if it insists it is entirely pacifist and doesn't have a tough big brother looking out for it. It flies in the face of human nature. Quakers get to hold those beliefs because, in spite of them, they will still be defended by arms owned by others on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't alter the core question:

Do you want a nation of inbred, ignorant willing fighters, or a nation with a few of those, and some Einsteins and founding fathers who object as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top