Atheist Seeking US Citizenship Told Join Church or be Denied

[Ralar]

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. [more . . .] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/margaret-doughty-atheist-citizenship_n_3469358.html

 

I guess separation of church and state really is a myth.

[lizziesmom]

Unbelievable but typical in this climate.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I read the link, since what I read in the OP made no sense.

Basic summary: she refuses to take the part of the citizenship oath that talks about taking up arms to defend the country, citizenship official then demands proof of conscientious objector status.

Does anyone know what the legal requirements are in this case? Does the law allow conscientious objectors to opt out of the oath, or is it only in cases where the oath would violate freedom of religion?

[debrand]

I read the link, since what I read in the OP made no sense.

Basic summary: she refuses to take the part of the citizenship oath that talks about taking up arms to defend the country, citizenship official then demands proof of conscientious objector status.

Does anyone know what the legal requirements are in this case? Does the law allow conscientious objectors to opt out of the oath, or is it only in cases where the oath would violate freedom of religion?

Is there a secular pacifist organization that she could join?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I found this link to US government interpretation of the rules for the citizenship oath:

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/ ... 49904.html

I'd have to see the cases for this to make sense to me.

[Ralar]

Is there a secular pacifist organization that she could join?

I don't believe she was given that oprion.

". . . . officials responded by telling her that she needed to prove that her status as a conscientious objector was due to religious beliefs. They reportedly told her she'd need to document that she was 'a member in good standing' of a nonviolent religious organization or be denied citizenship at her June 21 hearing."

[Anxious Girl]

Don't disagree with Christians! It's persecution!

Persecution of Christians is going on in 'Murica!

Don't disagree with us in public about how Christians treat non-Christians, because this country was founded on Christianity, the Christian God and the 10 Commanedments!

Every single Christian in America obeys ALL of them, otherwise, society would crumble because we wouldn't know that murdering others causes despair, depression and pain to their loved 1s! + it makes people ded!

Without Christianity, people wouldn't have feelings!

Since Russia was once ruled by communism which made people committ genocide, Christians have to keep atheists and communists in check because we don't want that to happen here!

It doesn't matter which sect of Christianity's the most popular here in 'Murica, because Christians have freedom!

Abortion, atheists, communists and non-Christians are bad, but killing in the name of a Rapture and owning guns is a-ok!

The 2nd Ammendment of the American Constitution doesn't contradict with any of the 10 Commandments whatsoever!

Non-Christians and BGLT want special not equal rights!

If they don't like hearing Christian music/seeing Christian advertisements or commercials, they should just ignore them!

No pagan places of worship are allowed, because they once persecuted Christians.

No Mosques either, because of 9/11.

All terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists.

Bombing an abortion center/clinic isn't terrorism, it's saving lives!

Jesus was a white man with blonde/brown hair and brown/blue eyes!

Why do black people have to make Jesus black?

Jews are taking away Christians' money by owning companies!

... Wait, Rupert Moch and the Koch brothers are Christians and own some of the most popular companies?

So, what?

Christians aren't known for being hypocritical.

Allowing no laws in the free market won't cause monopolies, you socialist pigs!

Saying no to Christian missionaries is persecution!

I don't mind gay people, I just don't wish they wouldn't be gay in public.

Who cares if straight people make out in public?

They're exhibiting their natural rights to reproduce.

Why do you take the Bible out of context?

Who cares about Leviticus?

I'll pray for you.

I never said that atheists couldn't marry in civil law because they weren't part of a religion.

Whew, that was long. Did I miss anything? :lol:

[Hane]

This is reprehensible--along the same lines as what happened to several of my married, female ESL students. They were told that, if they wished to become citizens, they had to take their husbands' last name.

If this poor woman has no other options, we of the UU would embrace her enthusiastically.

[NurseNell]

Religion or belonging to a church never came up when my sons became citizens, or when my daughter-in-law recently was naturalized.

[NurseNell]

This is reprehensible--along the same lines as what happened to several of my married, female ESL students. They were told that, if they wished to become citizens, they had to take their husbands' last name.

If this poor woman has no other options, we of the UU would embrace her enthusiastically.

Hmong women do not take their husbands' names. It has never prevented them from becoming naturalized.

The UU would be a good option for the woman mentioned although honestly she shouldn't have to join any church.

[HereticHick]

I'm a UU (Unitarian Universalist). Our denomination doesn't have an official stance on pacifism (or most other things). I have mixed feelings about this. Naturalization is a privilege, not a right.

Here is the US citizenship oath:

Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[PurpleSheepleEater]

Gah, why does she have to be religious to be against violence? I'm so tired of morality and religion being equated.

[church_of_dog]

Here at the Church of Dog we are against violence and would welcome a conscientious objector.

(Except, of course, when another dog approaches our yard and threatens our territory -- then, teeth get bared. :lol:

But generally our motto is "wag more, bark less"... :wink-kitty: )

[2xx1xy1JD]

Found a brief explanation of the cases here:

http://www.cpti.ws/resources/mfranz/con ... l#girouard

Look at Girourd, Seeger and Welsh.

The court initially decided Girourd on the basis of religious tolerance and liberty, in Girourd.

Then, it decided that you could have a religious belief without belief in a Supreme Being in Seeger, although the opposition to bearing arms still needed to be religious as opposed to merely political or personal.

Finally, in Welsh, ethical or moral beliefs which occupied a place "parallel to that filled by God" were also recognized as allowing conscientious objector status.

So....it looks that some proof of the depth of the conscientious objector status is required, it needs to be similar to a religious belief, but it doesn't actually need to be a true religious belief in the traditional sense with a deity.

* Not intended to provide legal advise, just a discussion.

[gustava]

Found a brief explanation of the cases here:

http://www.cpti.ws/resources/mfranz/con ... l#girouard

Look at Girourd, Seeger and Welsh.

The court initially decided Girourd on the basis of religious tolerance and liberty, in Girourd.

Then, it decided that you could have a religious belief without belief in a Supreme Being in Seeger, although the opposition to bearing arms still needed to be religious as opposed to merely political or personal.

Finally, in Welsh, ethical or moral beliefs which occupied a place "parallel to that filled by God" were also recognized as allowing conscientious objector status.

So....it looks that some proof of the depth of the conscientious objector status is required, it needs to be similar to a religious belief, but it doesn't actually need to be a true religious belief in the traditional sense with a deity.

* Not intended to provide legal advise, just a discussion.

Thanks.

[Hane]

Hmong women do not take their husbands' names. It has never prevented them from becoming naturalized.

The UU would be a good option for the woman mentioned although honestly she shouldn't have to join any church.

I'm talking about the experiences of a few Italian and Vietnamese women here in Connecticut--they were told they HAD to change to their husbands' surnames upon naturalization. I wish I knew who the heck told them that nonsense.

[JesusFightClub]

She has got a letter from the Humanist Society so I think that's just not accepted as proof of conscientious objector status. It's less "join a church" and more "we don't think you're meeting our standards of proof for why you get to disagree with part of our oath. Where would we be if everybody tried that? Eh? EH?"

(Whether that should be part of the oath is another issue...)

[Peas n carrots]

She has got a letter from the Humanist Society so I think that's just not accepted as proof of conscientious objector status. It's less "join a church" and more "we don't think you're meeting our standards of proof for why you get to disagree with part of our oath. Where would we be if everybody tried that? Eh? EH?"

(Whether that should be part of the oath is another issue...)

Sort of kind of related, I went to school with a lot of Mennonite kids. When the military came to do recruiting or when the draft card came in the mail to be filled out, the male Mennonites had to do something to prove they were a member of the Mennonite church, which is recognized by the US government as conscientious objectors. Unfortunately I think pretty much all of the organizations recognized as conscientious objectors are churches.

[Palimpsest]

Found a brief explanation of the cases here:

http://www.cpti.ws/resources/mfranz/con ... l#girouard

Look at Girourd, Seeger and Welsh.

The court initially decided Girourd on the basis of religious tolerance and liberty, in Girourd.

Then, it decided that you could have a religious belief without belief in a Supreme Being in Seeger, although the opposition to bearing arms still needed to be religious as opposed to merely political or personal.

Finally, in Welsh, ethical or moral beliefs which occupied a place "parallel to that filled by God" were also recognized as allowing conscientious objector status.

So....it looks that some proof of the depth of the conscientious objector status is required, it needs to be similar to a religious belief, but it doesn't actually need to be a true religious belief in the traditional sense with a deity.* Not intended to provide legal advise, just a discussion.

Thanks for that link. It looks as though at least one Texas immigration office is uninformed of the exemption. This also smells like an atheist activist generated test case. I could be wrong, but a 64 year old Caucasion woman, getting in your face and writing out such a good objection . . . ?

From the HuffPuff article.

"It is shocking that USCIS officers would not be aware that a nonreligious yet deeply held belief would be sufficient to attain this exemption," Andrew L. Seidel, a staff attorney at Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote after laying out a list of Supreme Court tests that suggest a rejection would be unusual and improper. "This is a longstanding part of our law and every USCIS officer should receive training on this exemption ... Either the officers in Houston are inept, or they are deliberately discriminating against nonreligious applicants for naturalization."

The American Humanist Association later followed suit, urging the agency to back down or face litigation.

Yes to the deliberate discrimination. It will be interesting to see whether the USCIS will back down, or to watch this as it unfolds.

Anyone else remember Mohammed Ali's draft resistance in the 1960s? Powerful stuff. His conviction was overturned in the end.