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

  1. 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:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    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?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not really.
     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?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

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

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     
  4. 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 GreginMeffa's comment:

    I read ya Skeet.  I am saying that if the only way around that clause is a religious exemption, then congress has made law regarding the establishment of religion.  Thats illegal



    agreed.

     
  5. 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:

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     




    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

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

    I don't know who would want a 64 year old fighting for them anyways... Now, if your talking about her being a good person and reporting someone planting a bomb or something like that, then i think that's a reasonable question. But, i think someone who has even just a tiny bit of moral fiber would do the right thing and say something. 

     

     

     

     

    At the end of your rope                                                                                                     

    Hanging by a thread

    He'd give anything for this to just go away

    This grip is only so strong

     

    I try to hold on tightly

    But it's all slipping through my fingers

    In a fleeting moment 

    Aspirations bled dry

    Eyes that once beamed with hope now only stare in remorse.

     

    -Times of grace

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

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

    Some folks seem awfully confused about the differences between upholding the laws of the constitution and taking up arms against enemies, foreign or domestic.

    A pacifist citizen is still a citizen.  Period.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

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

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     




     

    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.

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

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

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.


    Like a dog that chases its own tail and finally catches it...

    ...and then doesn't know what to do.

     

     

     
  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:

     

     

     

     

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     

     



    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.

     

     

     



    Really? Come on.  You can do better than that.

     

    since when is following the law circular reasoning?

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

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

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

     

     

     

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     

     



    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.

     

     

     



    Really? Come on.  You can do better than that.

     

    since when is following the law circular reasoning?



    Maybe a reading comprehension test for all citizens might be needed. And if they can't pass, we export them.

    Let me ask you one more time...

    Do you really expect a 64 year old woman to honestly say (regardless of her religious affiliation, or lack thereof) that she is capable (let alone willing) to take up arms to defend this country?

    If you say yes, you're an idiot that should be exported.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket'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 jedwardnicky's comment:

     

     

     

     

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     

     



    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.

     

     

     



    Really? Come on.  You can do better than that.

     

    since when is following the law circular reasoning?

     

     



    Maybe a reading comprehension test for all citizens might be needed. And if they can't pass, we export them.

     

     

    Let me ask you one more time...

    Do you really expect a 64 year old woman to honestly say (regardless of her religious affiliation, or lack thereof) that she is capable (let alone willing) to take up arms to defend this country?

    If you say yes, you're an idiot that should be exported.

     




    Hi Jed..but the pledge wasn't suggesting that she say that. If you read it ..it says "where allowed by law". This clearly ( at leas to me ) applies to the idea of the Draft. She would not be eligible for the Draft under the law..so her response and objection to the phrasing were just as silly as Skeeter's circular reasoning. I still say it was much ado about nothing on her part.

     

    However..that being said..Greg made an outstanding point. By allowing any objection to be based in religious beliefs only goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

    I guess where I differ is that to fix this..I don't want to change the law to allow for protests other than religion. I want to change the law to not allow for silly protests in the first place.

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

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

    america needs more atheists and less loony bible thumpers.

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

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

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    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 jedwardnicky's comment:

     

     

     

     

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     

     



    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.

     

     

     



    Really? Come on.  You can do better than that.

     

    since when is following the law circular reasoning?

     

     



    Maybe a reading comprehension test for all citizens might be needed. And if they can't pass, we export them.

     

     

    Let me ask you one more time...

    Do you really expect a 64 year old woman to honestly say (regardless of her religious affiliation, or lack thereof) that she is capable (let alone willing) to take up arms to defend this country?

    If you say yes, you're an idiot that should be exported.

     




    Hi Jed..but the pledge wasn't suggesting that she say that. If you read it ..it says "where allowed by law". This clearly ( at leas to me ) applies to the idea of the Draft. She would not be eligible for the Draft under the law..so her response and objection to the phrasing were just as silly as Skeeter's circular reasoning. I still say it was much ado about nothing on her part.

     

    However..that being said..Greg made an outstanding point. By allowing any objection to be based in religious beliefs only goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

    I guess where I differ is that to fix this..I don't want to change the law to allow for protests other than religion. I want to change the law to not allow for silly protests in the first place.



    Well said. For the most part. To think her citizenship was ever in question....

     

     
  15. 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 WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     



    You're getting all huffed up over the fact that a woman didn't want to swear to do something she would never be asked to do in the first place.

     

     

    Who's being sillier? Her or you?

    [/QUOTE]

    And, the next exemption is what?  Perhaps a Islamic radical that doesn't want to give up his pledge to destroy the great Satan U.S., but wants to be a citizen?  Would that work for you?

    I am amazed at how progressives only center on the weakest points with a complete inability to think it through.

    The rules are the rules, and largely exist for a reason.

     
  16. 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:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

     

     

     

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     

     

     


     

     

     

    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     

     



    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.

     

     

     



    Really? Come on.  You can do better than that.

     

    since when is following the law circular reasoning?

     



    Maybe a reading comprehension test for all citizens might be needed. And if they can't pass, we export them.

     

    Let me ask you one more time...

    Do you really expect a 64 year old woman to honestly say (regardless of her religious affiliation, or lack thereof) that she is capable (let alone willing) to take up arms to defend this country?

    If you say yes, you're an idiot that should be exported.

    [/QUOTE]

    That you make such an issue out of it shows your lack of reasoning.  Just take the pledge and move on.  That this woman makes such a stink out of it says all you need to know. 

    But, you probably think the military drives trucks around inner cities and nursing homes, dragooning cannon fodder into the military.

    Hey, I got an idea that ought to fit your progressive thinking:

    Let's let people make up their own rules for being a citizen.  It is what ever rule sthey want to follow.

     

    Hey, wait a minute...I think I just described the immigration bill.

     
  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 MattyScornD's comment:

    Some folks seem awfully confused about the differences between upholding the laws of the constitution and taking up arms against enemies, foreign or domestic.

    A pacifist citizen is still a citizen.  Period.

     

     




    Correct.  however, we are under no obligation to absorb pacifists from other countries.

     
  18. 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 miscricket's comment:

    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 jedwardnicky's comment:

     

     

     

     

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     

     



    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.

     

     

     



    Really? Come on.  You can do better than that.

     

    since when is following the law circular reasoning?

     

     



    Maybe a reading comprehension test for all citizens might be needed. And if they can't pass, we export them.

     

     

    Let me ask you one more time...

    Do you really expect a 64 year old woman to honestly say (regardless of her religious affiliation, or lack thereof) that she is capable (let alone willing) to take up arms to defend this country?

    If you say yes, you're an idiot that should be exported.

     




    Hi Jed..but the pledge wasn't suggesting that she say that. If you read it ..it says "where allowed by law". This clearly ( at leas to me ) applies to the idea of the Draft. She would not be eligible for the Draft under the law..so her response and objection to the phrasing were just as silly as Skeeter's circular reasoning. I still say it was much ado about nothing on her part.

     

    However..that being said..Greg made an outstanding point. By allowing any objection to be based in religious beliefs only goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

    I guess where I differ is that to fix this..I don't want to change the law to allow for protests other than religion. I want to change the law to not allow for silly protests in the first place.




    How is obeying the pledge/law circular reasoning?  Please tell me.

     

    On the rest, I think I agree.  no exemptions, religious or otherwise.

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

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

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    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 jedwardnicky's comment:

     

     

     

     

     


    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.

     _____________________________________________________

    Again, let me make this clear. You think people who are "naturally" born citizens are exempt from taking an oath to defend this country. Mind you, there is no longer any draft. However, you expect a 60+ year old woman, who has spent 30 years in this country, to lie in taking an oath that nobody (except you and others) thinks she can actually live up to.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    That is the law.

    Whether I think it is fair or not is largely irrelevant.

    But, I find it funny that progressives think defending this country is simply not a entry requirement worth caring about.  Explains a lot.

     

     



    Your circular reasoning is spiraling out of control.

     

     

     



    Really? Come on.  You can do better than that.

     

    since when is following the law circular reasoning?

     

     



    Maybe a reading comprehension test for all citizens might be needed. And if they can't pass, we export them.

     

     

    Let me ask you one more time...

    Do you really expect a 64 year old woman to honestly say (regardless of her religious affiliation, or lack thereof) that she is capable (let alone willing) to take up arms to defend this country?

    If you say yes, you're an idiot that should be exported.

     




    Hi Jed..but the pledge wasn't suggesting that she say that. If you read it ..it says "where allowed by law". This clearly ( at leas to me ) applies to the idea of the Draft. She would not be eligible for the Draft under the law..so her response and objection to the phrasing were just as silly as Skeeter's circular reasoning. I still say it was much ado about nothing on her part.

     

    However..that being said..Greg made an outstanding point. By allowing any objection to be based in religious beliefs only goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

    I guess where I differ is that to fix this..I don't want to change the law to allow for protests other than religion. I want to change the law to not allow for silly protests in the first place.

     




    How is obeying the pledge/law circular reasoning?  Please tell me.

     

     

    On the rest, I think I agree.  no exemptions, religious or otherwise.

    [/QUOTE]

     Good Lord, I wish there was some sort of  "I'm speaking slowly for you" font. 

    Ultimately, it comes down to a 64 year old woman who declined to take up arms (totally reasonable considering her age) but was willing to serve in other ways to defend this country (totally commendable considering her age).

     And I've seen how others have said that she should have simply said "yes", and taken the oath. Don't you find it odd that an athiest was not willing to lie?

     How many people have taken the oath knowing it really means nothing? Evidently, if you lie, welcome to America!

     But to you, she's an athiest, and shouldn't be a citizen.


     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

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

    I never took an oath to defend my country. Never agreed to the "social contract" either, whatever that is.





    "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
    - Thomas Jefferson

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

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

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    I never took an oath to defend my country. Never agreed to the "social contract" either, whatever that is.





    "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
    - Thomas Jefferson


    Thanks DD! Some of us, who are older, were issued a draft card. But now, the draft is over. Skeeter, however, expects a 64 year old woman to take up arms to defend him, because he's a coward.

     

Share