In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
In response to skeeter20's comment:
In response to andiejen's comment:
I am a natural citizen. Born and raised here. Being a woman , I would have had to fight to be put in a combat position in the Armed Services...and lost at 18... when I started college.
I can still participate in defending our country without being in combat. So can others, including men, whose skill sets would better serve the country in other positions.
Why take a software engineer and make him an officer in the Armed Services commanding an unit when his/her skills would be better utilized using all of the massive technology that is necessary to run a defense?
Why take a lawyer and do the same rather then place them in the JAG?
Why take a doctor and do the same rather then place them in field hospitals?
Those are just 3 examples of skill sets our country would need if attacked. Yes you need combat people but everyone cannot go into combat to protect our country. Some people will NEED to do other things...not just want.
Those people in combat are going to get injured. Who is going to treat them if there are no doctors, nurses, medics, etc. ? They will just die horrible deaths.
Nobody can just suddenly become a software engineer because we are at war and need them. You cannot run a war without a lot of computer expertise. Who is going to do it if you stick a gun into every software engineer's hands?
We already have the religious exception. What the USCIS did wrong here is try and apply it to an athesist.
All the above people would be part of the Armed Services. They would be working to defend our country,
As for nothing in the Bible says you cannot defend yourself. This woman is an Atheist. The Bible, your religion's Holy Book, is a book to her. You have the freedom to practice your religion. She has the freedom not to practice any religion. Your freedom stops when it treads on hers.
I think you are missing my points. Sound like we agree on some things, but you are assuming I mean something else. Let me try again:
* Religious exemptions are BS. They should not exist.
* They are not founded in good theology, but personal choices.
* One's personal choice to become "baggage" to a community by both insisting on membership AND refusing to defend it is sound progressive logic. For the rest of us, it is disturbing.
* Plenty of non-fighting positions in the military, but if the barbarians are storming the legal building, I expect the lawyers to put down their books and pick up their guns.
* You don't get to choose whether or not you will defend what you are part of, or wash dishes. It is what the community needs at that moment that is important. Putting your life on the line, the unltimate sacrifice, if needed, needs to be understood as part of the social contract upon joining that community. If not, don't join.
Is not what I say simply common sense?
I'm not sure if you've heard this before, but the US has the strongest military in the world! Yup, it's true! We spend the most, have the most advanced weaponry, we have the most bases scattered across the globe. We dominate the air, and space. We have the strongest naval presence on the surface, and under, the seas. And with all this military might we have, it might be interesting to note that all of our military forces are on a volunteer basis.
That said, don't you think it's really silly that a 60 yr old woman might have been denied citizenship because she was not willing to serve in a combatant role?
It's not about that, and you know it.
Here's the point you don't seem to get. It is about rule of law. The law is, you need to state that particular oath is you want to join our ranks as a citizen. If she doesn't want to state the oath, don't join. I'm sure plenty of people don't.
It is not up the The U.S. government to bend to comply to her personal viewpoint. It is up to the U.S. to monitor and limit citizenship to that which is of value to us as a country. The line has been drawn on a "protect and defend" line.
That's the rule. Go through the process to change the rule if you like, but exceptions are a dangerous thing in these matters.