Woman Denied US Citizenship Because of Atheism

She should be let in. We all have the same God given natural rights to be here on this great earth. Just because man has decided to be his own god and dismiss the true almighty doesn't make one man the authority over another.

Everyone knows deep within them selves that there is a greater force at play other than us. Some choose to believe that a Big Bang is our beginning others say we came from the sea and grew legs to become a flipping monkey, ate all the low fruit so had to start standing to reach the higher fruit.

What ever you believe, yesterday is gone and you are one more day closer to your death. That is the day you'll discover the truth.

I personally have nothing to lose, if I am wrong I have no consequent s BUT if I am not, many others are in all sorts.

reply to post by fireyaguns


I doubt it. Your God gave those atheists those beautiful brains they have. Brains that tell them there is no evidence of the God that gave it to them. It isn't their fault God hasn't shown himself, so why should they be punished?

Also, if the biblical justice system is an eye for an eye justice, why are people damn for eternity for living as criminals for the 60 or 70 years they are here? The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

reply to post by JayinAR


The sun, the moon and stars, the water, the earth, the life on earth. God has shown himself, man just chooses to ignore.

Eye for an eye? Old covenant. By faith we receive grace from God.

reply to post by fireyaguns


Those thing may prove the existence of a god to you, but not to everyone, and it certainly doesn't prove the biblical god is the deity, that created them.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
reply to post by JayinAR

 

The sun, the moon and stars, the water, the earth, the life on earth. God has shown himself, man just chooses to ignore.

For me this is the most ridiculous argument that there is a god.

That and, go visit the local maternity ward.

Just sayin' -- and really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

If someone claims conscientious objector -- they do have to prove it. They have to have witnesses verifying they have actually lived this philosophy for many years.

However, making a religious belief the only proof is not OK.

Wind word, Anne, the woman has been denied entry. What makes the land and water in one place more deserving for one and not another. Man takes what was already here before us and claim it as own. Did we create any of it, No.

From the ground you are formed and the ground you'll return, flesh that is. You take nothing with you.

reply to post by fireyaguns


She has been denied citizenship..not entry, she has been living in the US for over 30 years and loves the country so much she wants to be a citizen, she has been denied this because she is an atheist, this is wrong your country was not founded on religion and your government is supposed to be kept separate.
Her citizen should not be about her religion or lack of it.
She will appeal I hope and get citizenship.

reply to post by fireyaguns


Nothing to lose? depends If you picked the right club doesn't it....

Originally posted by fireyaguns
Wind word, Anne, the woman has been denied entry. What makes the land and water in one place more deserving for one and not another. Man takes what was already here before us and claim it as own. Did we create any of it, No.

From the ground you are formed and the ground you'll return, flesh that is. You take nothing with you.

I really don't care what your beliefs are.

They are not relevant to the subject of the thread.

reply to post by boymonkey74


She was denied because she refused the oath to protect the constitution. Her religious leanings have nothing to do with it.

reply to post by JayinAR


From the OP's link.


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.


Looks like to me the guys deciding it are saying that she can not be a conscientious objector because she has no religious based morals....the core of this thread is that she is being told If you are not religious you can not have morals.

reply to post by boymonkey74


No.
The entire reason she tried to claim conscientious objection in the first place is because she refused the oath. THAT is the issue.
The conscientious objection is a legal issue and is unrelated to the reason why she was denied citizenship.
Legally, conscientious objection is a claim that has, forever been, linked to refusal of service due to religious reasons. That is just how it is.

As pointed out, however, earlier in the thread, precedent has been set allowing someone to conscientiously object without claiming religion. That case went to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for her, she is not a citizen, and since she is not, she may not be able to call upon this precedence to appeal the decision. Although she may. She needs to be doing her research. She is protected by the constitution. Does the constitution cover the citizenship process? I don't think it does. I think it just defines a citizen.

She is protected by our constitution, but many of our other rights and stuff may not be afforded to her. It is a weird situation for sure. But the way the laws are now, conacientious objection is reserved for religious objection. This is how Muhammad Ali dodged the draft, and I say more power to him.

Long live the champ!

reply to post by fireyaguns


what makes you think your god is the one responsible for all these things biblical mythology is much younger then many others

Originally posted by JayinAR

No.
The entire reason she tried to claim conscientious objection in the first place is because she refused the oath. THAT is the issue.

How do you know when she became a conscientious objector?

Does the article actually state as you are claiming?

reply to post by Annee


It just follows.
She refused to take up arms (selective service) in order to defend the homeland. Her reasoning was conscentious objection.
The issue is not atheism, it is the refusal to take an oath required by all government officials and would be citizens.


As has been maintained by numerous people throughout this thread, the title is very misleading.

In fact, at a simple glance, I would venture the author is a pissed off atheist making a mountain out of a mole hill. That is what I thought initially, and my interactions with said author quickly confirmed this in this very thread. Page 3 I think.

reply to post by Annee


who said i was the one who had to have all the solutions i just point out the problems

WHEN she became an objector is totally irrelevant.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Annee

 

It just follows.
She refused to take up arms (selective service) in order to defend the homeland. Her reasoning was conscentious objection.
The issue is not atheism, it is the refusal to take an oath required by all government officials and would be citizens.

As has been maintained by numerous people throughout this thread, the title is very misleading.

In fact, at a simple glance, I would venture the author is a pissed off atheist making a mountain out of a mole hill. That is what I thought initially, and my interactions with said author quickly confirmed this in this very thread. Page 3 I think.

You sure read a lot into what is not there.

The issue is she was told she had to be religious to claim conscientious objector by a secular government.

FACT: our government recognizes conscientious objector.

If our government didn't recognize conscientious objector, then it could be claimed she was rejected for not taking an oath to defend by military means. But, that is not the issue.

reply to post by JayinAR


Can you explain why religious conscientious objectors are not denied citizenship?


I had assumed you already knew that being a conscientious objector to taking up arms has not excluded others from becoming citizens.

I hope you realize the difference between taking office and applying for citizenship. It seems like you are a bit confused on the issue.

Originally posted by JayinAR
WHEN she became an objector is totally irrelevant.

Wrong. It is very relevant. She needs to prove it.

Which means she needs to get written testimonies from qualified persons who have known her as a conscientious objector for several years. (I do not know an exact timeline).