Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    jed,

    Do you think EVERYONE read her response? 

    I mean, good grief, as cricket would say. A 64 year old woman said she is willing to perform work of national importance...or perform noncombatent service in the Armed Forces...

     

    How many posters here have served in any capacity in the Armed Forces? A minority when they were under 64.

    Women have fought for YEARS to be able to serve in the Armed Forces in COMBAT. Will not even list all the reasons they were barred from combat positions.

    This woman is an atheist. I thought that was still alright to be and say that is what I am. This is still America last time I looked. She HAS no religious organization to provide her with the letter. See atheist in your dictionary, WIKI, smart phone, etc.

    Why did those Pilgrims come here? Escape religious persecution. Bedrock principle of that document we call our constitution, Sep of church and state. Basic civics when we were kids.

    How is this even an issue. In her life or on the boards.

     

    Sister posted photo of George Carlin. On the photo it quoted him:

       "People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point."

    That is this right here. It has to be. It cannot be serious. Just the govt trying to take our attention away for a bit from the snowballing "scandals". Inside politics 101.

    Okay. We WERE distracted.  Very funny. Now give her her citizenship while she is still alive.

                                                                 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     



    SB,

     

     

     

    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.

     



    You are missing the point by a country mile.  We are under no obligation to set our citizen standards to her requirements. Period.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    jed,

    Do you think EVERYONE read her response? 

    I mean, good grief, as cricket would say. A 64 year old woman said she is willing to perform work of national importance...or perform noncombatent service in the Armed Forces...

     

    How many posters here have served in any capacity in the Armed Forces? A minority when they were under 64.

    Women have fought for YEARS to be able to serve in the Armed Forces in COMBAT. Will not even list all the reasons they were barred from combat positions.

    This woman is an atheist. I thought that was still alright to be and say that is what I am. This is still America last time I looked. She HAS no religious organization to provide her with the letter. See atheist in your dictionary, WIKI, smart phone, etc.

    Why did those Pilgrims come here? Escape religious persecution. Bedrock principle of that document we call our constitution, Sep of church and state. Basic civics when we were kids.

    How is this even an issue. In her life or on the boards.

     

    Sister posted photo of George Carlin. On the photo it quoted him:

       "People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point."

    That is this right here. It has to be. It cannot be serious. Just the govt trying to take our attention away for a bit from the snowballing "scandals". Inside politics 101.

    Okay. We WERE distracted.  Very funny. Now give her her citizenship while she is still alive.

                                                                 



    I don't care if she has been here a hundred years, if she is not willing to defend the country, then why does she want to be a citizen anyways?  Is our country a garden club, or something?

    look there are requirements for citizenship/inbound.  If you don't like 'em, don't apply.

    yes, it really is that simple.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    Wel..the latest that I've heard is that she has indeed been granted citizenship.

    I think this was much ado about nothing..mostly on her part. Whoever the poster was that stated she was just looking for attention is spot on.

    I think that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability would understand that the language contained in the  pledge is largely symbolic. That she chose to make an issue out of her very literal interpretation of the wording is ironic considering that it is her mission to improve literacy.

    Perhaps they should change the language...but I am inclined to say leave it how it is for the sake of tradition.

    What irritates me the most about this story is the Huffington Post Headline.."Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking US Citizenship told to join a church or be denied". This is a remarkable mischaracterization of the entire situation...and incredibly irresponsible on their part. It is the kind of headline I would expect from a tabloid ..not from an organization that calls themselves journalists.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Wel..the latest that I've heard is that she has indeed been granted citizenship.

    I think this was much ado about nothing..mostly on her part. Whoever the poster was that stated she was just looking for attention is spot on.

    I think that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability would understand that the language contained in the  pledge is largely symbolic. That she chose to make an issue out of her very literal interpretation of the wording is ironic considering that it is her mission to improve literacy.

    Perhaps they should change the language...but I am inclined to say leave it how it is for the sake of tradition.

    What irritates me the most about this story is the Huffington Post Headline.."Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking US Citizenship told to join a church or be denied". This is a remarkable mischaracterization of the entire situation...and incredibly irresponsible on their part. It is the kind of headline I would expect from a tabloid ..not from an organization that calls themselves journalists.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron



    cricket,

    I believe I have at least an ounce of critical thinking. 

    Freedom to believe in and practice their religion is very important to some. But, freedom not to believe in any religion and not practice any religion is just as important to others.

    People are free NOT to believe in a higher deity in this country. 

    People are now free to NOT end the Pledge of All. with "so help me God". Or even to say it at all.

    People when they swear to tell the truth in court no longer have to say, "so help me GOD".

     

    People are even free to have no set of spiritual beliefs in this country.

    The right to practice your choice of religion is no stronger then the right of the next person's to practice no religion whatsoever. 

     

    She may have got her citizenship but it may have been without doing what she said she would not do. 

    Neither of us have had to go through this. We also have not had to pick up a gun and shoot with the intention of taking a human life....esp. someone who has done us no harm.

     

    What if there was a war and nobody showed up. 

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    Margaret Doughty will get her citizenship because the USCIS backed down. She also did it and at the same time stayed with her principles as well as drew a lot of attention to this issue.

     

     

    Margaret Doughty Approved For Citizenship As USCIS Backs Down In Flap Over Atheist Opposition To War

    The Huffington Post  |  By Nick Wing Posted: 06/20/2013 8:30 pm EDT

    Share on Google+   Margaret Doughty approved citizenship 700 66 9 788 GET POLITICS ALERTS: SIGN UP FOLLOW: AtheismAtheismVideoConscientious ObjectorMargaret DoughtyMargaret Doughty AtheistMargaret Doughty ChurchMargaret Doughty CitizenshipMargaret Doughty Conscientious ObjectorMargaret Doughty ImmigrationMargaret Doughty NaturalizationUs Citizenship Politics News    

    Margaret Doughty, an atheist and legal resident whose application for U.S. citizenshipwas nearly rejected this month over her non-religious opposition to war, will become a naturalized citizen next week, the blog Divided Under God first reported on Thursday.

    According to Divided Under God, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decided to retract a demand that Doughty show proof "on official church stationery" that her stated conscientious objector status was a function of her being a "member in good standing" of a pacifist religious group. Here's the text of a letter she received from her congressional Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who intervened in the matter:

    “This Service hereby withdraws the request for evidence (RFE) issued on June 7, 2013. This Service accepts your detailed statement in satisfaction of the information requested by the RFE. Your application for naturalization has been approved.”

    Doughty, who has lived in the U.S. for more than 30 years, is set to be officially naturalized on June 26.

    Earlier this month, the 64-year-old Doughty opted to reject the citizenship application's pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation, citing her "sincere objection to participation in war." She admitted that she didn't "possess traditional religious beliefs," but stated that she was "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."

    The subsequent demand from officials at Doughty's home USCIS office in Houston drew the ire of atheist groups. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Humanist Association sent letters to USCIS on her behalf noting that such a religious test had been found unconstitutional by numerous Supreme Court cases, includingWelsh v. United States, which found that a conscientious objector's beliefs didn't need to be based in religion.

    Both groups later trumpeted the news that Doughty's application had been approved, saying they hoped it would ensure future fair treatment for non-religious people seeking citizenship.

     

    Now it is the end of the story...for a bit for her. But there is also now a precedent for non-religious people seeking citizenship to receive fair treatment.

                                                                 

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?


    Andiejen..I was not suggesting that you don't have an ounce of critical thinking skills...I was suggesting that Margaret Daughty either lacks critical thinking skills or she just wanted attention. Here is the oath of allegiance that candidates take before they are sworn in as citizens:

     

    "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God"

     


    She can protest and claim her moral objection to war all she wants..but if someone breaks into her home in the middle of the night and tries to do her harm..you can bet that this "peaceful objector" is going to do whatever it takes to defend herself..including bearing arms..whether said arms is a baseball bat..a golf club..a lamp..etc.  She is certainly not going to lie passively by and allow herself for be raped, murdered or whatever.

    All the pledge means is that she would have this same protective spirit on behalf of country..not just self.  On top of that..there is no law in the books that requires a 64 year old woman to "bear arms"...so her objection is nonsense.

    I only suggest that the subject of religion or lack of needed to not even come into play in this situation. What I am suggesting is that the objection should never have been made.

    I will go one step further and say that in this country we have a separation of church and  state. For this reason, I do not believe that one should be able to object to the oath of allegiance on religious grounds in the first place unless it is to the phrase "so help me God". However it is my understanding that if you are an atheist seeking citizenship you are not required to state those 4 words.

    If a person has a moral or religious objection to swearing an oath of allegiance to the US..then perhaps they should reconsider their decision to seek citizenship.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     

     

     



    SB,

     

     

     

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    You are missing the point by a country mile.  We are under no obligation to set our citizen standards to her requirements. Period.

     

     

     

     



    Yet, by our current requirements, it's possible to claim a religious belief in an invisible unprovable deity and therefore waive said requirement. But you seem to have a problem with an athiest (the lack of a God is far more proveable as there is no evidence that he/she/it exists) who answered a query honestly.

     

     



    Yep, that's the standard, and I don't agree with that part.  But, it is the standard.

     

    look, unless you are born here, citizenship is not an entitlement.  You do what you need to do to attain it.  If you don't like the rules, don't try.  After all, anyone can float around this country irregardless of status.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    Margaret Doughty will get her citizenship because the USCIS backed down. She also did it and at the same time stayed with her principles as well as drew a lot of attention to this issue.

     

     

    Margaret Doughty Approved For Citizenship As USCIS Backs Down In Flap Over Atheist Opposition To War

    The Huffington Post  |  By Nick Wing Posted: 06/20/2013 8:30 pm EDT

    Share on Google+   Margaret Doughty approved citizenship 700 66 9 788 GET POLITICS ALERTS: SIGN UP FOLLOW: AtheismAtheismVideoConscientious ObjectorMargaret DoughtyMargaret Doughty AtheistMargaret Doughty ChurchMargaret Doughty CitizenshipMargaret Doughty Conscientious ObjectorMargaret Doughty ImmigrationMargaret Doughty NaturalizationUs Citizenship Politics News   

    Margaret Doughty, an atheist and legal resident whose application for U.S. citizenshipwas nearly rejected this month over her non-religious opposition to war, will become a naturalized citizen next week, the blog Divided Under God first reported on Thursday.

    According to Divided Under God, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decided to retract a demand that Doughty show proof "on official church stationery" that her stated conscientious objector status was a function of her being a "member in good standing" of a pacifist religious group. Here's the text of a letter she received from her congressional Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who intervened in the matter:

    “This Service hereby withdraws the request for evidence (RFE) issued on June 7, 2013. This Service accepts your detailed statement in satisfaction of the information requested by the RFE. Your application for naturalization has been approved.”

    Doughty, who has lived in the U.S. for more than 30 years, is set to be officially naturalized on June 26.

    Earlier this month, the 64-year-old Doughty opted to reject the citizenship application's pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation, citing her "sincere objection to participation in war." She admitted that she didn't "possess traditional religious beliefs," but stated that she was "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."

    The subsequent demand from officials at Doughty's home USCIS office in Houston drew the ire of atheist groups. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Humanist Association sent letters to USCIS on her behalf noting that such a religious test had been found unconstitutional by numerous Supreme Court cases, includingWelsh v. United States, which found that a conscientious objector's beliefs didn't need to be based in religion.

    Both groups later trumpeted the news that Doughty's application had been approved, saying they hoped it would ensure future fair treatment for non-religious people seeking citizenship.

     

    Now it is the end of the story...for a bit for her. But there is also now a precedent for non-religious people seeking citizenship to receive fair treatment.

                                                                 



    Bad precident built on a poor standard.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    Bad law implemented by mindless government functionaries incapable (and not allowed) of exercising a common sense interpretation of the rules or any sort of compassion for the petitioner. Seems like this might be a metaphor or something.

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    Cricket,

    You are just about the last poster in the forums I want to come off as being adversiarial with or as beating a dead horse on this subject.

    Part of the problem is we both have to speculate on certain things concertaining her and then there are immutable facts we can agree on.

    Facts like she has been a legal resident of the US for 30 years. She says she decided she wanted to become a naturalized citizen at this point. THe USCIC gave her to Friday to sign the application as is or they would deny her application for citizenship. They have now backed down and on June 26th she will be sworn in as a US citizen.

    Also the attention this case drew was the reason they backed down...not because she had some high priced lawyer to represent her. True, a lot of groups took note and thru social media drew the public's attention to this case.

    The USCIS did demand that this well documented atheist provide them with a letter from a religious organization. Talk about a Catch-22. 

    That should be something we can agree on. They no longer should be allowed to make the demand. Because of this case, now a lot of people know it. Perhaps from the top they will be ordered to stand down on these demands with non-religous applicants. Standards change only when people challenge them. She challenged that part of the process...an unfair requirement...and that requirement may now be rescinded.

    She is also morally opposed to taking human life. But she is not opposed at all to serving this country in a noncombat position to defend it. So that language or standard is now under a microscope. The fact it is so unlikely a 64 year old woman would be called into combat is not the point. So the oath ought to be a choice...for everyone...in how they would defend our country when they go thru this process. 

    As for what she would personally do if attacked herself, it is pure speculation if she would defend herself...esp. with lethal force. Her belief system may be that strong.

    Not a matter of not liking the rules. This 30 year legal resident trying to work with the sytem without dishonoring her well formed personal belief system. 

    I do not believe she was wrong. I believe some of the rules of the process are wrong. Very wrong. But that is what we should celebrate here. For those of us who believe people are being treated unfairly, those rules may change because she did not take the rasy route snd just say yes to the USCIC.

    A lot of posters and people in general are worked up about the abuses of the IRS and NSA, Well, this is also the federal government trying to wield its power and being forced to back down.

    Hope we are good, cricket, Or at this closer on this issue.

    andie

                                                                 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Bad law implemented by mindless government functionaries incapable (and not allowed) of exercising a common sense interpretation of the rules or any sort of compassion for the petitioner. Seems like this might be a metaphor or something.

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     



    SB,

     

    Excellent summary in just 2 sentences of what happened here.

    Backfired big in this case. Call it what you will, say karma. It can be a real rhymes with witch.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    Wel..the latest that I've heard is that she has indeed been granted citizenship.

    I think this was much ado about nothing..mostly on her part. Whoever the poster was that stated she was just looking for attention is spot on.

    I think that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability would understand that the language contained in the  pledge is largely symbolic. That she chose to make an issue out of her very literal interpretation of the wording is ironic considering that it is her mission to improve literacy.

    Perhaps they should change the language...but I am inclined to say leave it how it is for the sake of tradition.

    What irritates me the most about this story is the Huffington Post Headline.."Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking US Citizenship told to join a church or be denied". This is a remarkable mischaracterization of the entire situation...and incredibly irresponsible on their part. It is the kind of headline I would expect from a tabloid ..not from an organization that calls themselves journalists.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     



    cricket,

     

    I believe I have at least an ounce of critical thinking. 

    Freedom to believe in and practice their religion is very important to some. But, freedom not to believe in any religion and not practice any religion is just as important to others.

    People are free NOT to believe in a higher deity in this country. 

    People are now free to NOT end the Pledge of All. with "so help me God". Or even to say it at all.

    People when they swear to tell the truth in court no longer have to say, "so help me GOD".

     

    People are even free to have no set of spiritual beliefs in this country.

    The right to practice your choice of religion is no stronger then the right of the next person's to practice no religion whatsoever. 

     

    She may have got her citizenship but it may have been without doing what she said she would not do. 

    Neither of us have had to go through this. We also have not had to pick up a gun and shoot with the intention of taking a human life....esp. someone who has done us no harm.

     

    What if there was a war and nobody showed up. 

     

     



    What if there was a war an no one showed up? There would be no war of course. Actually that is happening right now outside my house. Al-Qaeda has not showed up and niether have the Marines. Unfortunately we do not live in a fictional world of andiejen's making. There are some bad people out there. 

    What if there were a war and only one side showed up? That is what you are really asking for? Why don't we just surrender ahead of time and get it all over with? Obama could issue an executive order that the US hereby surrenders from all future wars. We could get rid of the military altogether.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    fictional world of andiejen's making. 

     

    Suppose gave too much credit that all posters would at least vaguely note the reference to the famous poet's Carl Sandberg's quote from his book long ode to America. (Sandburg died in 1967.)

    Huge difference, not parsing, from if only ONE side showed up and NOBODY showed up. 

    Is that reading comprehension or reading what you want to read or posting and hoping nobody notices the difference or etc....?

    Just saying.

     

     

            http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2011/12/suppose-they-gave-war-and-nobody-came.html                                                     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     

    Wel..the latest that I've heard is that she has indeed been granted citizenship.

    I think this was much ado about nothing..mostly on her part. Whoever the poster was that stated she was just looking for attention is spot on.

    I think that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability would understand that the language contained in the  pledge is largely symbolic. That she chose to make an issue out of her very literal interpretation of the wording is ironic considering that it is her mission to improve literacy.

    Perhaps they should change the language...but I am inclined to say leave it how it is for the sake of tradition.

    What irritates me the most about this story is the Huffington Post Headline.."Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking US Citizenship told to join a church or be denied". This is a remarkable mischaracterization of the entire situation...and incredibly irresponsible on their part. It is the kind of headline I would expect from a tabloid ..not from an organization that calls themselves journalists.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     

     



    cricket,

     

     

    I believe I have at least an ounce of critical thinking. 

    Freedom to believe in and practice their religion is very important to some. But, freedom not to believe in any religion and not practice any religion is just as important to others.

    People are free NOT to believe in a higher deity in this country. 

    People are now free to NOT end the Pledge of All. with "so help me God". Or even to say it at all.

    People when they swear to tell the truth in court no longer have to say, "so help me GOD".

     

    People are even free to have no set of spiritual beliefs in this country.

    The right to practice your choice of religion is no stronger then the right of the next person's to practice no religion whatsoever. 

     

    She may have got her citizenship but it may have been without doing what she said she would not do. 

    Neither of us have had to go through this. We also have not had to pick up a gun and shoot with the intention of taking a human life....esp. someone who has done us no harm.

     

    What if there was a war and nobody showed up. 

     

     

     



    What if there was a war an no one showed up? There would be no war of course. Actually that is happening right now outside my house. Al-Qaeda has not showed up and niether have the Marines. Unfortunately we do not live in a fictional world of andiejen's making. There are some bad people out there. 

     

    What if there were a war and only one side showed up? That is what you are really asking for? Why don't we just surrender ahead of time and get it all over with? Obama could issue an executive order that the US hereby surrenders from all future wars. We could get rid of the military altogether.



    This might pass for critical thinking in Cabridge of institutes of higher learning, but out here in the real world, we know that there are plently of bad people out to kill us.  If we are not willing to fight for our freedom, then someday, we are going to wake up speaking "Taliban".

    People who don't want to fight for freedom are useless to me.  And a religeous exemption is BS.  nothing in the bible prevents you from defending yourself.  Bad theology.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    I don't think the question of religion should have come into this situation after the fact..and no doubt the idea that you can object to the oath of allegiance only on religious grounds should probably change. I just feel that is should change in a way that does not allow for an objection at all. If you object to an oath of allegiance to a country...again..you should probably re-think your decision to become a citizen.  If anything..I would think Ms. Daughty..an Atheist..would have had an issue with "so help me god".

     

    Also..I will say again..it is ludicrous to suggest that even the most peaceful person willl lay down and let themselves be harmed or murdered..rather than fight back if at all possible. I am a very peaceful person..and literally would not hurt a fly. Unless something is attacking me..then all bets are off.

    I simply think she is being dishonest and intentionally being too literal in order to bring attention.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    skeeter,

    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. 

                                                                 

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:


    Simply put, and I want to be absolutely clear here, if you've been randomly born in America to natural citizens, you've no obligation to serve in the military. For you, it's an option. However, if you've lived in this country for 30 years, and are now hoping to become a citizen, as a female of 60 years of age, your application to do so might be in question simply because you can't pledge to take up arms to defend this country, because you're not willing to use the escape clause of believing in an imaginary being, and you don't personally believe in violence..... and it might be really stupid to expect a 60 year old to do so to begin with?

     Jesus! What sort of convoluted logic could anyone use to suggest that she shouldn't become a citizen?

    Seriously, Skeeter et al. You all look really stupid. I'd take 100 of her to one of you.



    jed,

    So would I, So would I. 

    at hand involves an admitted athiest. Really, there's nothing more to it than that.

    You are probably right, jed. Again. 

    The irony is I keep trying to make the points involved though it well may be foolish to continue in this instance but it is a Catch 22. I am inspired by her real life integrity, moral courage, principles over pragmatism.

    What do I have to lose? Some time and energy. Not being denied citizenship in the country I have been a legal resident of for over 30 years. 

    I know all 4 of my grandparents came here, followed all the rules and became naturalized citizens. Certainly was not easy for them but they were so proud to become citizens of this country.

    But for that, my parents would not have been born here nor myself and been born Americans. Maybe the closer you are to the process the more it may mean to you.

    There is all kinds of bigotry including against religions. Here as you said, maybe there is a deep bigotry against out of the closet atheists. Just as wrong as bigotry against any religion one can name.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    skeeter,

    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?

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should Atheists Be Blocked From Becoming U.S. Citizens?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:


    Simply put, and I want to be absolutely clear here, if you've been randomly born in America to natural citizens, you've no obligation to serve in the military. For you, it's an option. However, if you've lived in this country for 30 years, and are now hoping to become a citizen, as a female of 60 years of age, your application to do so might be in question simply because you can't pledge to take up arms to defend this country, because you're not willing to use the escape clause of believing in an imaginary being, and you don't personally believe in violence..... and it might be really stupid to expect a 60 year old to do so to begin with?

     Jesus! What sort of convoluted logic could anyone use to suggest that she shouldn't become a citizen?

    Seriously, Skeeter et al. You all look really stupid. I'd take 100 of her to one of you.



    Seriously, Jed, you are the one looking really stupid.  My points are merely common sense, something that I find evades progressives like you at every turn.

    As I mentioned, the religious exemption is BS, but not willing to fight and wanting membership in the community is also BS.

    If you don't like the rules, if you don't want to become part of the social contract, don't.  We don't owe this peacenik anything.  Drive her up to Canada if you are so concerned.  They like people like her up there.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share