- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,172
- Reaction score
- 3,179
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
A woman applying to become a naturalized citizen had an interesting church-state imbroglio with the USCIS (the customs and immigration service).
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-991030
She said that she could not take up arms on behalf of the US because she was a conscientious objector. The USCIS said that such status could only be granted to a member of a church with an official policy against taking up arms.
This seems to have raised sufficient stink that the USCIS has withdrawn its objection.
http://dividedundergod.com/2013/06/20/margaret-doughty-awarded-citizenship/
It seems to me that there are two intertwined problems running through this.
1. Anti-atheist discrimination.
2. The idea that religious conviction belongs to official church policy, not to individual conscience. So if a member of a church interprets the ideas of that church differently from the standard interpretation, that person's views are not deemed to be religious conviction.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-991030
She said that she could not take up arms on behalf of the US because she was a conscientious objector. The USCIS said that such status could only be granted to a member of a church with an official policy against taking up arms.
This seems to have raised sufficient stink that the USCIS has withdrawn its objection.
http://dividedundergod.com/2013/06/20/margaret-doughty-awarded-citizenship/
It seems to me that there are two intertwined problems running through this.
1. Anti-atheist discrimination.
2. The idea that religious conviction belongs to official church policy, not to individual conscience. So if a member of a church interprets the ideas of that church differently from the standard interpretation, that person's views are not deemed to be religious conviction.
