Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can be a conscientious objector without adhering to religious dogma. This was decided by the US Supreme Court in Welsh v. United States. (1970)
The problem in the case before us is a procedural one. Doughty is in effect challenging a law when there is no test case involved. She has not been asked to bear arms, refused, and been prosecuted as a consequence. As such she is not actually challenging the requirement that she bear arms if asked, she is challenging the government's right to ask this of potential citizens. That was not covered by the Welsh decision and will most likely have to be sorted out as a unique case, a different question.
I suspect that if pushed through he courts, Ms. Doughty would prevail, but they would not be deciding the right to be a non religious conscientious objector, they would be deciding the legality of the citizenship form in relation to that right.
"PROVE that you are non-violent! Join a church that worships a God who has promoted or currently promotes violence, murder, and eternal suffering for, well, people like you!"
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 beliefsimpose 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.”
So, in her own words, she claims a spiritual/religious belief and DHS asks her to "...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.” and there is really an issue? Do you people really just sit around all day looking for stupid points to somehow show that you are so biased that everybody else is wrong (oh, wait, you linked to HP, where they are biased and use biased sources)? And yet, with no bias, I show the stupidity behind this topic.
So, in her own words, she claims a spiritual/religious belief .
If you continue to read past the section you highlighted, it becomes obvious that the woman is referencing her choices regarding religious belief and not indicating a subscription to any particular religious belief.
She wrote:
Quote:
my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God
Was it not obvious to you when you read that sentence that this woman was comparing and contrasting herself with those who subscribe to a belief in a god? Did you not read that far before deciding to characterize us as people who sit around " looking for stupid points?"
Those of us who did bother to look for those stupid points discovered that it is indeed a case of a woman who does not believe in a god. Those who did not, well, I suppose they may have reached the same conclusions as you.
If you continue to read past the section you highlighted, it becomes obvious that the woman is referencing her choices regarding religious belief and not indicating a subscription to any particular religious belief.
She wrote:
Was it not obvious to you when you read that sentence that this woman was comparing and contrasting herself with those who subscribe to a belief in a god? Did you not read that far before deciding to characterize us as people who sit around " looking for stupid points?"
Those of us who did bother to look for those stupid points discovered that it is indeed a case of a woman who does not believe in a god. Those who did not, well, I suppose they may have reached the same conclusions as you.
Whether or not she believes in "God" or not has no bearing, she claimed it was her "lifelong spiritual and religious belief imposed" that kept her from "bearing arms".
Your issue is the simple fact that DHS asked for a letter showing her standing in a church and her churches official position on said subject. This alone is not enough to deny her change of status. It was merely an inquiry into her claim.
Your whole premise is the fact that she is an atheist and by what right does the govt have to "deny" her change of status (which wasn't shown or proven to actually be the case). Again, this is a stupid discussion based on premises that haven't been shown to be anything more than an inquiry that some didn't bother to look at and instead changed it to some dog and pony argument about atheism.
Whether or not she believes in "God" or not has no bearing, she claimed it was her "lifelong spiritual and religious belief imposed" that kept her from "bearing arms".
.
Yet in your previous post you claimed that she did and this made the difference.
Before we continue, perhaps you should make up your mind about that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet, with no bias, I show the stupidity behind this topic.
