Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shake · 09-17-2002, 11:06 AM

From <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ff%3D/c/a/2002/09/14/MN194306.DTL" target="_blank">this article on the II newswire</a> we have the following:

Quote:

A belief in a supreme being is not required; the Supreme Court has granted conscientious objector status to atheists who said their moral and spiritual opposition to killing was equivalent to a religion. Courts have also given religious recognition to a wide range of beliefs, like that of a minister who said his Christian faith included white supremacy.

But the appellate court said veganism does not meet the test, even though Friedman says it shapes his entire way of life and view of the world.

Damnit! Atheism is NOT a religion!

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> How many times do we have to go over this. Atheism is a lack of belief, there are no ceremonies, no one sacred book (some may beg to differ, but really there isn't). It's not a religion. Period.

BigJim · 09-17-2002, 12:01 PM

It doesn't say atheism is a religion, it says certain people (who happen to be atheists) have a moral and spiritual opposition to killing which is equivalent to a religion.

Deep breaths.

Jamie_L · 09-17-2002, 12:16 PM

What is interesting, though, is that the court gives a nod to atheist conscientious objectors - who basically have an objection based on nothing else. It's just a strong objection to going to killing. However, a vegan with strong objections to killing is not given the nod? By granting the status to an atheist, the court is basically saying you don't have to have any underlying beliefs to get this status. Put another way, the underlying belief doesn't matter. You just have to have a strong objection to killing.

Well, by that standard, the vegan should pass. They have a strong objection to killing. The underlying belief is irrelevant.

Jamie

BigJim · 09-17-2002, 12:34 PM

Um, no.

We're comparing apples and rhubarb here.

Athiest asks for conscientious objector status because he doesn't want to kill people. Approved.

Vegan sues for religious discrimination because he refused to get a mumps shot. Denied.

The Vegan didn't apply for C.O. status, and the athiest didn't sue for religious discrimination.

"A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles." <a href="http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm</a>

[edited cause I didn't proofread worth a shit before I posted]

[edited again to add:]
WHO QUALIFIES?
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims. <a href="http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm</a>

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: BigJim ]</p>

sighhswolf · 09-17-2002, 01:34 PM

A belief in a supreme being is not required; the Supreme Court has granted conscientious objector status to atheists who said their moral and spiritual opposition to killing was equivalent to a religion.

My question is could the same CO use religion as the basis for the objection?
If our president has labeled an action as a moral battle against the godless terrorists of radical Islam or forces determined to undermine our "christian" country, it would point to a religious motivation for the action of the military.
Why couldnt an atheist object to service based on his status as a non-believer, being "forced" to fight in a presidential " crusade"?

Duhh...Wolf

BigJim · 09-17-2002, 02:22 PM

I'm guessing not. Once you sign up, you don't get to decide who to kill, just whether or not you're willing to kill when called to do so. "a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. "

Jamie_L · 09-18-2002, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BigJim:
Um, no.

My bad. That's what I get for not following link and reading the actual story.

Jamie

fando · 09-18-2002, 05:00 AM

Spiritual? The heck?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-17-2002, 12:01 PM	#2
BigJim Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Stepford, CT Posts: 4,296	It doesn't say atheism is a religion, it says certain people (who happen to be atheists) have a moral and spiritual opposition to killing which is equivalent to a religion. Deep breaths.

09-17-2002, 12:16 PM	#3
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	What is interesting, though, is that the court gives a nod to atheist conscientious objectors - who basically have an objection based on nothing else. It's just a strong objection to going to killing. However, a vegan with strong objections to killing is not given the nod? By granting the status to an atheist, the court is basically saying you don't have to have any underlying beliefs to get this status. Put another way, the underlying belief doesn't matter. You just have to have a strong objection to killing. Well, by that standard, the vegan should pass. They have a strong objection to killing. The underlying belief is irrelevant. Jamie

09-17-2002, 12:34 PM	#4
BigJim Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Stepford, CT Posts: 4,296	Um, no. We're comparing apples and rhubarb here. Athiest asks for conscientious objector status because he doesn't want to kill people. Approved. Vegan sues for religious discrimination because he refused to get a mumps shot. Denied. The Vegan didn't apply for C.O. status, and the athiest didn't sue for religious discrimination. "A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles." <a href="http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm</a> [edited cause I didn't proofread worth a shit before I posted] [edited again to add:] WHO QUALIFIES? Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims. <a href="http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm</a> [ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: BigJim ]</p>

09-17-2002, 01:34 PM	#5
sighhswolf Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Charlotte,NC USA Posts: 379	A belief in a supreme being is not required; the Supreme Court has granted conscientious objector status to atheists who said their moral and spiritual opposition to killing was equivalent to a religion. My question is could the same CO use religion as the basis for the objection? If our president has labeled an action as a moral battle against the godless terrorists of radical Islam or forces determined to undermine our "christian" country, it would point to a religious motivation for the action of the military. Why couldnt an atheist object to service based on his status as a non-believer, being "forced" to fight in a presidential " crusade"? Duhh...Wolf

09-17-2002, 02:22 PM	#6
BigJim Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Stepford, CT Posts: 4,296	I'm guessing not. Once you sign up, you don't get to decide who to kill, just whether or not you're willing to kill when called to do so. "a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. "

09-18-2002, 05:00 AM	#8
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	Spiritual? The heck?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.