In response to skeeter20's comment:
In response to andiejen's comment:
In response to StalkingButler's comment:
[QUOTE]Thats a ridiculous standard and absurd to boot, but the woman is making her life more difficult. Just answer "yes" and be done with it. No one is going to ask a 64 year old to defend the US.
She's being honest and you have to respect that. On the other hand, unless she's willing to walk meekly to the execution line when they come to take her for her beliefs (or lack thereof) then she's being a hypocrite as Mr. Hansori pointed out.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Below is her direct resonse to the issue at hand.
“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 beliefs impose 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.”
I believe she is showing great courage is sticking to her personal moral code. She knows she could simply say yes and be done with it.
If you look at her exact words she says she is willing to perform "noncombatant service in the Armed Services of the United States".
That is hardly opting out of defending our country. And where would a woman of her age and her skill sets better serve then in exactly that type of position.
Nobody has any basis to accuse her of seeking attention. If they do they should have at least some source besides pure speculation.
She is also not objecting on religious grounds but on moral grounds. This is also a violation of her 1st Amendment rights. There are other cases very similar where the system sided with the objector.
Yes, it would be the pragmatic, easy thing to do to say what they want, get her well deserved citizenship and move on with her life. A lot of people would do jusr that. But she does not believe in taking another person's life. And many would have her throw her strongly held beliefs out the window.
I see her as a brave, ethical woman of great character who has been doing something besides piling up money for over 30 years. How many people can now read and write all over the globe because of her? That is a legacy.
And now, she is another example of not caving. Yet another legacy. No matter how this ultimate ends up for her. It is a lot harder to do what you believe in when the cost may be so dear. And a lot more courageous IMO.
She is objecting to a bedrock principle of citizenship, defending it.
No sympathy here on "moral" grounds. Go to a country where that's the requirement, like Canada.
Yeah, let's send all our blind people to Canada too. Just because they're blind they think they shouldn't have to bear arms to defend this country? While we're at it, what about amputees? Just because they might not have arms is no reason they might refuse to bear arms.