Woman Being Denied Citizenship Because Her Morality Doesn’t Come From Religion

[SecularMotion]

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.

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.”

http://dividedundergod.com/2013/06/14/woman-being-denied-citizenship-because-her-morality-doesnt-come-from-religion/

[Benton D Struckcheon]

1. Somewhat misleading.

The idea here is that if required in a draft you serve, unless it goes against your religion: the First Amendment's freedom of religion guarantee supersedes the draft law as it would, for people with a religious belief in pacifism, violate their religious beliefs.
Hence the request for a letter from some church. Obviously this wouldn't apply if you don't actually have a religious belief.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Well, that's what's making the US look regressive, isn't it?

The idea that an eighteenth century decision could be the only basis for deciding if someone is a true conscientious objector is quite undeveloped. I really would have expected the USA to have realised that morals don't have to come from religion. When individuals can't see it, it's not so surprising; but for laws to be that dumb is sad.

On edit: I see MADem has quoted an existing case, in which the SC clearly said the objection to military service doesn't have to be religious. So it's not US law, after all, just a jobsworth who doesn't understand it. My apologies to the US and its law for casting doubt on it.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

41. Yep, my mistake. n/t

[LostOne4Ever]

38. That is also a violation of church and state

As it favors believers over non-believers.

Also, it should be noted that not all religious beliefs are organized or belong to a church/temple/etc. I wonder if she could sign it herself saying that she is the leader of her own religious belief or something to that extent.

[bunnies]

2. An atheist with lifelong religious beliefs?

Thats a new one.

[enlightenment]

5. What she quoted is

a variation of the standard conscientious objector statement. It looks like she tried to modify to identify her lack of faith.

The issue here isn't whether or not she used the word belief - but the idea that the government apparently believes that only individuals with particular religious beliefs can truly be conscientious objectors.

[bunnies]

8. Maybe her mention of religious beliefs qued that response though.

Im just saying that had she not mentioned religion at all, I think it would be more clear.

[enlightenment]

9. Possibly -

though it seems that the authority she was dealing with had a pat response: prove your religious affiliation with a particular sect that has a known history of objection.

That's the part that is wrong; the equation that morality = religious faith.

I think we're agreeing with that bit!

[bunnies]

12. We are definitely agreeing with that bit.

The no morality without religion BS drives me bonkers! Even the fact that our government is even asking about someones religious affiliation really pisses me off. If I had to take that test, I would fail I guess. Its absurd.

[enlightenment]

13. I know I would.

Fail, that is.

[bunnies]

14. We'll hang out after the rapture.

Gonna be a hell of a morals-free party!

[enlightenment]

17. Yeah - I have my eye on a nice house on the other side of town!

[bunnies]

18. lol!

Now that you mention it... there is a nice mansion on the ocean not far from here. Hopefully they're christian. Fingers crossed!

[enlightenment]

19. Be willing to bet that

the local big-time evangelical preacher is living pretty plush . . . try googling "television evangelists homes".

Since they're sure to be vacant that might be the way to go!

[bunnies]

21. Dont I know it.

We have an evangelical pastor of a mega-church in my family. He's not even on TV and you should see his "compound". Cuz you know, thats exactly what Jesus would do with all that money. Needless to say, we dont speak much.

[enlightenment]

24. If you don't laugh

you'd have to cry at the mind-boggling hypocrisy.

[bunnies]

26. I actually saw a documentary...

I wish I could remember the name, but the preacher in the thousand dollar(s) suit was claiming that jesus wanted him to dress nice. That jesus was a super-snazzy dresser. I almost peed myself from laughing so hard!

[enlightenment]

28. Damn. I need to find that one!

I occasionally amuse myself by trying to figure out which ring of Dante's hell those people would best fit - there are so many choices!

[djean111]

6. She said "spiritual/religious" beliefs. One can be spiritual and not religious.

Don't know why she stuck the two words together, maybe because she recognized that religious people often insist that one cannot be moral unless one has been taught to be so by religion.
Which is illustrated here stunningly perfectly.

That whole "conscientious objector" thing needs to be re-evaluated, to get rid of the intrusion of religion into government.

[bunnies]

7. Sure. But why even put that in there?

I can say that I object to killing people without claiming religious beliefs. My point is, I wonder what the response would have been if she had just left all the religious stuff out of it. I think that by stating she had religious beliefs she muddied the waters a bit.

[ZombieHorde]

27. Tell that to Zen Buddhists. nt

[bunnies]

39. Ive never considered buddhists to be religious.

Its possible that I have the definition wrong.

[ZombieHorde]

49. They have temples, life after death, clergy,

vows which are impossible to keep without the supernatural, and they either consider themselves religious, or they lied when they got their religious tax exemption.

[DrewFlorida]

30. Definition of Religion/Religious.

As Miriam Webster defines Religion, an Atheist certainly can have lifelong religious beliefs. It's ridiculous to think that a person's religion is only validated by a belief in God. Quite obviously we can see that one who has a personal set of beliefs and practices, has a valid religion, the same as those who believe the earth and heavens were created in 6 days approximately 9 thousand years ago, by a super being in the likeness of man, who on the 7th day rested. Ironically that would be the "new one" as it is only 9 thousand years old.


1 A: the state of a Religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion

B (1): the service or worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to a religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices

3 archaic: scrupulous conformity

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[PotatoChip]

50. Good point.

As Miriam Webster defines Religion, an Atheist certainly can have lifelong religious beliefs. It's ridiculous to think that a person's religion is only validated by a belief in God.

I would only add that it has been my experience that some of them right here on DU are every bit as 'in-your-face' about it as fundamentalist christians I've run into IRL.

[DrewFlorida]

51. Like button checked!

[LostOne4Ever]

37. There are godless religions (nt)

[MADem]

3. This is just ... STUPID.

She's got some precedent on her side, fortunately--I think she will be able to resolve this.

This is not the first time a non-religious person has raised a conscientious objection to joining the armed forces. In fact, related issues have gone to the Supreme Court and have been ruled in favor of the non-religious objector. In Welsh v. United States, Elliott Ashton Welsh refused to take up arms on a moral objection rather than a religious one. However, under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, one could only object to joining the armed forces based on a religious conviction involving a Supreme Being. The Court agreed that Welsh could be considered a conscientious objector based on his personal moral grounds, and that the exemption being purely religious was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

http://dividedundergod.com/2013/06/14/woman-being-denied-citizenship-because-her-morality-doesnt-come-from-religion/

[PotatoChip]

20. I agree. Unless I am reading it wrong, it appears that in this case,

the USCIS is choosing to disregard (what appears to me) to be a valid exemption based on the Welsh v US ruling.

Here is some info from the USCIS' own site:

Both Seeger and Welsh , supra , stress that exemption is not dependent upon membership in or adherence to the teachings of a particular religion or organized church that is opposed to war or killing as a matter of doctrine, but is personal to the claimant. 19p/ But mere membership in a religious group teaching conscientious objection is not an automatic basis for such status; 19q/ and membership in a religious group which does not require conscientious objection as a tenet of the faith is not automatically a basis for refusing recognition as a conscientious objector, 19r/ Nor need any religious sect with which he is affiliated require conscientious objection as a tenet of the faith. 19s/



The fact that a claimant, whose religious beliefs have been established, also especially opposes a particular war does not disqualify him for the exemption on religious grounds; 19t/ nor does the fact that the claimant has also developed political and sociological convictions respecting war preclude the possibility that he also holds moral, ethical, or religious beliefs which qualify him for the exemption on religious grounds; 19u/ nor does the fact that the claimant is motivated, in part, by a personal moral code disqualify him for the exemption when he is also substantially motivated by views derived from religious training and belief. 19v/


A claimant who considers himself to an atheist does not thereby disqualify himself for conscientious objector classification, since that belief can in part be a product of faith and occupy the same place in life as normal religion occupies in the life of a religious person. 19w/



The "personal moral code" that excludes eligibility for the exemption relates to a moral code which is not only personal but which is the sole basis for the claimant's belief and is in no way related to a Supreme Being. If the claimed religious beliefs meet the test of Seeger and Welsh , those beliefs cannot be said to be based on a merely personal moral code. 19x/ Before a conscientious objector claim may be rejected, on the ground that it is based on a merely personal moral code, or in any other exclusionary rule, that or those factors must be the sole basis of the claim. 19y/
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-49904.html

[DrewFlorida]

31. I take exception to your misuse of the term "non-religious".

This person is obviously just as religious, if not more so than those who assign themselves as believers of God. You may see this as a subjective unimportant detail, however, it suggests that Atheists have no moral basis.

[struggle4progress]

35. US v Seeger 380 U.S. 163 (1965)

UNITED STATES v. SEEGER.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 50.
Argued November 16-17, 1964.
Decided March 8, 1965. *

MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court ...

... The parties raise the basic question of the constitutionality of the section which defines the term "religious training and belief," as used in the Act, as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but <not including> essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code." The constitutional attack is launched under the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and is twofold: (1) The section does not exempt nonreligious conscientious objectors; and (2) it discriminates between different forms of religious expression in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ...

We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme Being" rather than the designation "God," was merely clarifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. We believe that under this construction, the test of belief <380 U.S. 163, 166> "in a relation to a Supreme Being" is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme Being" and the other is not ...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=380&invol=163

[MADem]

43. Put away your wooden spoon and stop trying to stir up trouble--that wasn't MY USE of the term.

That was a quote from the OP article, so take it up with the author of the piece. Follow the link and give them a piece of your mind, then!

What I "see" is someone who was so eager to play gotcha that they certainly didn't click on the OP's link, otherwise they would have realized--even without noticing the "shaded box" and the provided link, that the citation was not MY work.

And you go on and have a fine day, too, while you're at it. I won't hold my breath for a "Sorry I snarked at you..."

[DrewFlorida]

45. You're snarkiness precludes any possibility of an apology!

[MADem]

47. You falsely accused me of saying something I didn't say. I wasn't snarking, I was telling it

like it is, straight up. You didn't read the OP's link--otherwise you would have known where that paragraph came from--even if you didn't bother to click the very SAME link I provided in my post.

Telling the truth isn't snarking. Making smart remarks about comments you think people said--when they didn't say them--is snarking.

[cbayer]

4. This is about our laws regarding conscientious objection.

She is not being denied because she is an atheist. She is being denied because our laws say that conscientious objection must be based on religious beliefs.

IMHO, that should be changed. A moral objection is a moral objection.

[2ndAmForComputers]

40. So, indirectly, what you say isn't, is.

[cbayer]

42. Huh?

[snappyturtle]

10. Let's see if I got this straight:

Provide proof ---->Belief in God=letter from the church Margaret doesn't belong to=passage to citizenship

[DrewFlorida]

32. Like button checked.

[rug]

11. That's not even required for conscientious objection to the draft.

Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

http://www.sss.gov/fsconsobj.htm

[enlightenment]

15. Your post raises another interesting

aspect of this.

Conscientious objector status has - in the past - always applied to military service. The issue here is citizenship, wherein - apparently - the individual is being asked to promise a level of loyalty to the nation that natural-born citizens are not required to prove unless or until they are subject to military or government service.

Given that this woman would not be subject to Selective Service registration in any case, and is not applying for a job with a state or national government office, why should she have to pledge to bear arms in the first place? I wonder if other countries require a promise to bear arms in their citizenship tests . . .

[struggle4progress]

29. 8 USC 1448 - Oath of renunciation and allegiance

A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be .. admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony .. an oath
(1) to support the Constitution of the United States;
(2) to renounce and abjure .. allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty ..;
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
(4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
(5)
(A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or
(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or
(C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. Any such person shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) to (5) .. except that a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence .. that he is opposed to the bearing of arms in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) to (4) and clauses (5)(B) and (5)(C) of this subsection, and a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to any type of service in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of said clauses (1) to (4) and clause (5)(C). The term “religious training and belief” as used in this section shall mean an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1448

[cbayer]

16. Good to know. So why have they required her to submit a letter from a church.

I do remember that during the Viet Nam era many had trouble getting CO status. The only people I knew who were successful were Quakers.

[rug]

44. I can't tell what's going on here from the article.

I remember the day I turned 18 I went to the draft board in Rimes Square and asked for the co application. It was 46 questions asking for detailed answers regarding religious belief. They were sued around that time and the resulting application had only six questions but the first one still concerned religious or spiritual belief.

[struggle4progress]

23. Conscientious Objector Will Take Alternative US Citizenship Oath (2005)

Monday, August 15, 2005, 12:00 am

LOUISVILLE – Conscientious objector Tanja Medic has been granted the right to take an alternative oath so she will not have to swear to bear arms when she becomes a United States citizen on September 3, 2005.

Religious people who prove that they are conscientious objectors are permitted to take the alternative oath. But, unlike many conscientious objectors, Ms. Medic is not a religious person ...

http://aclu-ky.org/content/view/26/

[struggle4progress]

25. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I suspect here a non-lawyer or novice lawyer has misunderstood

the current state of the law, though the statute may still reference religious belief

It is my understanding that a sincere conscientious objector, who qualifies in other respects for citizenship, may request an alternative naturalization oath, which does not require a promise of combat service -- even if the conscientious objection is based simply upon deep and firm ethical or moral conviction, rather than being based on the formal religious doctrine of some particular church

[HockeyMom]

33. As a natural born citizen.

whose ancestors came to the US in the 1840's and 1890's, I also would not take up arms for this country. I am also a 64 year old female and would not have done so as a 24 year old either. It has nothing to do with my religion either, of which I have none. War, guns, and violence solves nothing and I want no part of it. US citizens don't have the right to not be armed and kill other human beings?

I more than "served" educating special needs children, and taking care of developmentally disabled adults. Use that as my service to the country. Fight and take up arms? No way.

Yes, this law definitely needs to be changed.

[struggle4progress]

34. ... Congress followed United States v. Seeger (Sup.Ct.1965), a later Supreme Court decision

on conscientious objection to military service, in defining the phrase "religious training and belief" as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code...." INA § 337(a). The Supreme Court has construed this language in Seeger to apply to persons who, while not believing in a personalized God, possess a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of the believer a place "parallel" to that filled by the God of persons who clearly qualify for the exemption. Hence, the applicant need not found a claim of conscientious objector status upon the precepts of an organized religion or a belief in a Supreme Being ...

CHAPTER 12: CITIZENSHIP
2004 © David Weissbrodt and Laura Danielson
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter12.html

[LostOne4Ever]

36. That is wrong on so many levels

I hope she sues.

[struggle4progress]

46. I doubt she'll need to sue: she may nearly need to consult a competent lawyer

who can advise her how to phrase a request to take an alternative naturalization oath, so that it becomes clear that her objection to military service is based on deep and sincere beliefs that are as central to her life and as important to her as they would be if they were based on a conventionally-recognizably religious conviction

[LostOne4Ever]

48. Thanks!

I hope she does that and its good to know she has some recourse to take.

[okasha]

52. Looks like there's settled law

that supports this lady's position. Her options seem to be an attorney--and she could probably find a good civil rights lawyer to take her case pro bono--or a letter from her local UU.

[cbayer]

53. Update: Immigration flap over conscientious objection resolved peacefully

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/06/21/immigration-flap-over-conscientious-objection-resolved-peacefully/

(RNS) A woman who has lived legally in this country for more than 30 years was granted her request to become a naturalized United States citizen Thursday (June 20) after initially being refused conscientious objector status because she is not religious.