In point of fact, she's being denied citizenship because she isn't willing to take up arms (military service), rather than because she is atheistic.
I agree with the actual point of the article, which is that conscientious objection shouldn't be tied to religious affiliation. So it's important to not make this seem like she's simply being denied citizenship because she's an atheist.
The article also went on to point out that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of another person who was a conscientious objector/not religious who was against joining the armed forces.
"A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief
but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.
Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector 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.
" Current Selective Service law requires and allows only registration. It does not allow for making claims of CO. The SS has stopped returning the registrants cards that hand write it on but they are simply registered in the system without note. In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States.
In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 andWelsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O." from Wikipedis
Why is that a question anyway since our armed forces are all volunteer?
Plus - this person would not qualify to register for selective service because she is a woman and even if we started requiring women to register she is too old. This whole thing is just asinine.