US : British woman could be denied US citizenship for being an athiest

What happened to the seperation of church and state?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/margaret-doughty-atheist-citizenship_n_3469358.html

That's a weird loophole.  For those of you who don't feel like clicking, the woman in question objects to the US citizenship requirement that she declare herself willing to take up arms to defend the US on the grounds that she's a conscientious objector. 

The CIS says she can't be a conscientious objector because she's an atheist, and in order to object to bearing arms you have to do it on religious grounds.

My gut feeling is this is one of those times when a government drone has applied a rule in a way that is technically correct, but stupid, and somebody higher up (if they're smart) will quickly step in to correct the situation and allow the woman to get her citizenship (assuming she's otherwise qualified).

Your link is broken -- there's an ftp: hanging off the front. But I still went and read it, and the situation irritates me on so many levels.

The fact "taking up arms" is in the oath AT ALL is ridiculous. The deranged obsession with violence, and the bizarre paranoia that someone, somewhere is coming to get you and take away your freedoms aren't just the domains of wing-nuts. And it's utterly ludicrous to have codified a philosophy that asserts morality cannot exist without religion. It shouldn't take the Constitution (or the establishment of precedent via constitutional law) to figure that out in this day and age.

Then again, this is the US we're talking about. I never fail to be exasperated by its great potential -- and, often, equally great failure to be what it aspires to. Sometimes, I wish I held no affection for the US, because apathy would be a lot kinder to my blood pressure.

...

I think that rant's been building for a while. Probably time to cut off the espresso supply for the day.

Your link is broken -- there's an ftp: hanging off the front.

Thanks, fixed now I think

That's a weird loophole.  For those of you who don't feel like clicking, the woman in question objects to the US citizenship requirement that she declare herself willing to take up arms to defend the US on the grounds that she's a conscientious objector. 

I'm a naturalised US citizen and an atheist and I objected very strongly to that as well. When reciting the oath, I just didn't say that part (nobody noticed) and if it had ever come down to it (not likely), I'd have been an objector.

My first thought when I started reading was that it wasn't because she was an athiest but because of her refusal to say she would "take up arms". But then the strange loophole that says people can take that clause out as a conscientious objector but you need to show you are a member of a church that objects! So basically it states you can't make a moral judgement as an athiest, when basically that is what you live your life on as an athiest. I've had a similar argument with my American SIL that morality is not confined to religion.

... it's utterly ludicrous to have codified a philosophy that asserts morality cannot exist without religion.

Yes, yes, yes, a million times yes!  I'm not even a full-on atheist, more of an agnostic, but this attitude still really rankles me.  I would even go so far as to assert that if you need a god to help you tell right from wrong, then you don't actually understand the distinction. 

My dad always says that morality is what you do when you think no one is watching, but adherents of the three major religions believe that someone is always watching, so how do they know they're really moral? 

The paperwork for US citizenship also contains (or contained - since my experience is 25 years old things may have changed) a question asking if you were a Communist. Ridiculous since there is a legal American Communist Party. They don't ask if you're a Democrat or a Republican.

Yes, yes, yes, a million times yes!  I'm not even a full-on atheist, more of an agnostic, but this attitude still really rankles me.  I would even go so far as to assert that if you need a god to help you tell right from wrong, then you don't actually understand the distinction.  

My dad always says that morality is what you do when you think no one is watching, but adherents of the three major religions believe that someone is always watching, so how do they know they're really moral?  

That's an insightful philosophical question about the nature of religion and morality. Because the proof of morality among the religious is then, unavoidably, circular cause and consequence ("I have religion because I have morality"; "I have morality because I have religion"). I think the oath's also not just suggesting absence of morality in the non-religious, but is essentially conflating religion with morality as a constant. Which is clearly fallacious, on the grounds of any number of examples.

For the record, I'm agnostic in the dictionary definition of the term (show me some empirical evidence, I'll consider believing; I don't outright deny the very possibility, however slim, as many of the "new atheists do), as well as a mostly-pacifist (again, recognising there exist rare situations in which violence may be necessary), so it chaps my cheeks that the US wouldn't want me if I hadn't been born there. Nor would it want my husband, if we'd chosen that side of the Atlantic in the end.

Gawd Seahorse....where were you when I was struggling through Freshman Philosophy 101?!     

Gawd Seahorse....where were you when I was struggling through Freshman Philosophy 101?!     

Hah! Probably taking one philosophy class or another, because I've done too many useless bloody degrees!

There's been a rethink. After a Republican Texan congressman intervened her citizenship was granted. A shame that it took that.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/20/after-initially-being-denied-u-s-citizenship-because-of-her-atheism-margaret-doughtys-application-has-been-approved/

Thank goodness for that. Sense prevails.

There's been a rethink.

I feel so smug. 

My gut feeling is this is one of those times when a government drone has applied a rule in a way that is technically correct, but stupid, and somebody higher up (if they're smart) will quickly step in to correct the situation and allow the woman to get her citizenship (assuming she's otherwise qualified).