Atheist denied citizenship unless she joins church

[Unkotare]

Now if we had an intelligence test for citizens we could thin this herd considerably...

Where would YOU go?

 

[Pogo]

Now if we had an intelligence test for citizens we could thin this herd considerably...

Where would YOU go?

Probably to the toppermost of the poppermost, Johnny.

 

[Pogo]

Hmm, she tries to play games with US citizenship like she's doing research for her next article in 'Aren't We Precious? Quarterly' so that she can impress her far-left friends, maybe get that next fellowship or phony-baloney 'award, and generally be lauded in academia and at cocktail parties. She belittles the citizenship that literally millions have been waiting for and dreaming of for years, so she can play her little game.

Yeah, not much of a human being there. Maybe she can go shack up with the Queen. I hear she's got a pretty big house.

Hmm, so taking all the steps to become a U.S. citizen is "belittling" citizenship.

Meanwhile, whining about "Aren't we Precious? Quarterly" and "phoney-baloney awards" and "far-left friends" one has no evidence for and "shacking up with the Queen" is not belittling the teaching profession.

I think I get it.

I think you do get it, whether you admit it or not. I think you "get" that I am absolutely belittling this POS who wants to play games with something truly important, ultimately for her own benefit and to flatter her far-left sensibilities (and impress those of similar persuasion). I think you "get" that I in no way belittled the teaching profession itself and that you are just grasping at straws now because you - like her - place your image of yourself as a far-left crusader above all else - above country, common sense, and respect for the sacrifices that others have made AND ARE STILL MAKING AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

Oh wow, all caps. OK, I'm convinced.

I cannot "like" her; I don't even know her and neither do you. But then you're the one making value judgements on someone you don't know just because she may have a higher moral fiber.

Actually you were in three or four ways belittling the teaching profession. It's already posted; a little late to start running away from it.

Finally, I think the Constitution IS above left and right. Pity you don't. In this case the Constitution prevailed. You'll just have to deal with it.

 

[Unkotare]

Now if we had an intelligence test for citizens we could thin this herd considerably...

Where would YOU go?

Probably to the toppermost of the poppermost, Johnny.

Sure, sure, but in what country? I mean after you had your US citizenship revoked?

 

[Unkotare]

Hmm, so taking all the steps to become a U.S. citizen is "belittling" citizenship.

Meanwhile, whining about "Aren't we Precious? Quarterly" and "phoney-baloney awards" and "far-left friends" one has no evidence for and "shacking up with the Queen" is not belittling the teaching profession.

I think I get it.

I think you do get it, whether you admit it or not. I think you "get" that I am absolutely belittling this POS who wants to play games with something truly important, ultimately for her own benefit and to flatter her far-left sensibilities (and impress those of similar persuasion). I think you "get" that I in no way belittled the teaching profession itself and that you are just grasping at straws now because you - like her - place your image of yourself as a far-left crusader above all else - above country, common sense, and respect for the sacrifices that others have made AND ARE STILL MAKING AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

Oh wow, all caps. OK, I'm convinced.

I cannot "like" her; I don't even know her and neither do you. ...

You said something about an "intelligence test"? Read the sentence again, genius.

 

[Unkotare]

Actually you were in three or four ways belittling the teaching profession. It's already posted; a little late to start running away from it...

Those straws aren't going to hold your weight. Better grasp at something stronger.

 

[Pogo]

Bizarre standards.

A doctor donated generously of his time and money, operating on and treating the poor, patching up victims of gun violence in Long Beach California. He was the first to arrive at the scene of an emergency and the last to leave. A man beloved in his community. When asked, he said he was innocent of the crime charged against him. Saying he was innocent wasn't good enough, he had to refute the charges brought against him and failed. Dr. Jeffrey McDonald was convicted of murdering his wife and his two daughters.

Bizarre standards indeed.

The woman should have been required to prove that she was a CO by more than her statements.

-- and that story has what the hell to do with this topic??

-- and how do you prove your philosophy aside from statements? By walking around not-killing people?

We do not reward people by dismissing charges against them because they are nice people. Nor do we take their statements at face value without proof.

The woman refused to take the oath of citizenship. She should not have been given citizenship any more than Dr. McDonald should have been given freedom because he "said" he was innocent.

She got support of a group and on the basis of identity politics and nothing more, was able to get her citizenship without being required to prove that her statement of being a CO was true.

The rule of law no longer applies. We have seen the last of it.

Bullshit.

She got her citizenship on the basis of the United States Constitution, as affirmed half a century ago. Don't like it? Go find a Constitution you can live with.
And btw she didn't "refuse to take the oath"; she clarified one part of it.

So, again, since you didn't answer the first time -- how do you "prove" that you think what you think? If what you think is not to take a human life, then how do you "prove" a negative? For that matter, how would taking the oath straight as worded "prove" that you'd be willing to take up arms? Doesn't work either way.

And again your doctor story is entirely irrelevant here. It doesn't even work as analogy.

 

[Unkotare]

Finally, I think the Constitution IS above left and right. Pity you don't. In this case the Constitution prevailed. You'll just have to deal with it.

Since you've been reduced to attacking straw men of your own making, it's clear you've run out of anything to say for yourself.

 

[Pogo]

Actually you were in three or four ways belittling the teaching profession. It's already posted; a little late to start running away from it...

Those straws aren't going to hold your weight. Better grasp at something stronger.

Look, you're a whiner whining because somebody who's thoughts you don't agree with successfully got her citizenship as the Constitution provides.
Fortunately the Constitution knows better. The Constitution won, and you lost. Get over it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Group identity politics won. Get used to it.

 

[Pogo]

Group identity politics won. Get used to it.

You're drowning in red whine. Read the thread. Start at post 47.

The order of the Houston office was, is, and ever shall be, unconstitutional. The Constitution is quantifiable; your "identity politics" psychobabble isn't.

 

[Unkotare]

Actually you were in three or four ways belittling the teaching profession. It's already posted; a little late to start running away from it...

Those straws aren't going to hold your weight. Better grasp at something stronger.

Look, you're a whiner whining because somebody who's thoughts you don't agree with successfully got her citizenship as the Constitution provides.
Fortunately the Constitution knows better. The Constitution won, and you lost. Get over it.

Is making straw men your hobby?

 

[Jarlaxle]

If she is going to claim conscientious objector status she needs to prove that up.

What does that have to do with being forced to join a religious cult?

We're not forcing her to do anything except stay out of our country and suck on someone else's tit.

You must, then, have evidence that she is not supporting herself. Please post links to said evidence.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Congress didn't establish any religion. The Oath is religion neutral. There is no law that says she has to become a Quaker or a Mennonite. She cannot take the oath of citizenship because she would not bear arms in support of the Constitution. She does not come under any exception to the Oath.

Correct, there is no law requiring her to have a religion. Therefore the requirement the office is leveling at her has no legal basis. It's bullshit. In fact the basis itself been directly contradicted by SCOTUS, decades ago.

Katz doesn't care about any of that bullshit...she is just a straight-out fascist who longs for the day the United States is a totalitarian theocracy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

She claimed to be a conscientious objector. In order to make that claim, you can't just object to war, that won't work. You have to have a basis for your belief. It can't be your personal opinion. In order for her to make a legitimate claim, she has to belong to group that as a matter of belief, objects to war. The naturalization requirements include a pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation. She says she can't because as a matter of her belief she objects to war. She can't take the oath of citizenship. There is an exception for those who belong to a religion that forbids the adherents to be fighters. In order for her to come under that exception, she has to actually belong to one of those religions.

Right. Corporatism in action. Group rights instead of individual rights. If I'm the only one who holds a particular conviction, it doesn't count, eh? Fuck that.

She should claim to have joined the Church of Self-Deification.

Actually, she should claim to be a Buddhist. It is perfectly possible to be an atheistic Buddhist!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Dudley, do you even bother to read this shit from HuffPO? It would seem not.

One of the citizenship requirements is to be willing to be in the armed forces. If you are a conscientious objector for the military, it has to be based upon a religious belief. The statute is at the link below and says, in part:



Who is a Conscientious Objector?

She is correct in saying that at her age she would be unlikely to be drafted particularly since we don't have a draft. But being willing to serve is part of the process and the law says CO status has to be based on religious training.

That's the rule. If she doesn't like it she can check out and go back home.

You should try reading your own link. Later in the same page it notes:

>> Earlier, during World War I, the government would only give CO status to people who were members of "peace churches," such as the Society of Friends (Quakers), Mennonites or Brethren. But, this has changed.

In 1965 and in 1970 the Supreme Court ruled that the words "religious training and belief" must now be interpreted to include moral and ethical beliefs that have the same force in people's lives as traditional religious beliefs.

So, the word "religious" here refers to the nature of a person's training and beliefs. That means that the law considers many sincere beliefs "religious" even if they are not a part of what most people call a "religion."

Now, you don't have to belong to any particular religion to qualify as a CO. In fact, you don't have to belong to any religion at all. <<

Your own link.

-- which is the point already posted with the 1965 SCOTUS case (post 47). The requirement to be based in some organised religion has been struck down as unconstitutional.

Basically what this office is doing is what I call "Texas logic".

You need to go to law school if you want to pretend to know the law.

Here the SCOTUS holding:

App. 10. Welsh elaborated his beliefs in later communications with Selective Service officials. On the basis of these beliefs and the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that he held them "with the strength of more traditional religious convictions," 404 F.2d at 1081, we think Welsh was clearly entitled to a conscientious objector exemption. Section [p344] 6(j) requires no more. That section exempts from military service all those whose consciences, spurred by deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, would give them no rest or peace if they allowed themselves to become a part of an instrument of war.

Welsh v. United States

You have to be able to prove your moral, ethical, ore religious beliefs. Atheism does not nothing to prove that. Serious, they are trying to help this woman and she is too stupid to see that. She is almost my age. All she had to do was to say she would serve. She herself said she doubts that would ever happen.

No doubt this piece of crap will be paid out of the taxpayer's pockets along with every other stupid liberal leaning.

Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how you would prove your religious beliefs. Be specific.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That would include a great number already citizens.

As has been pointed out, the applicant is a 64-year-old woman, and obviously has little chance of being inducted and placed in a foxhole in the near future, so clearly we can agree her objection is on principle...

... which means all these wags declaring "agree to take up arms or stay out" are in effect basing citizenship solely on a test of approved thought.

Ponderable.

shes been here 30 years..... she waited until any possibility of her being drafted was out of the questions...


pronderable.

She was NEVER in ANY danger of being drafted! God and goddess, THINK!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Scumbags 1. US citizens 0.

As I noted for the "not much of a human" poster-- a woman who's dedicated her time to adult literacy (for Americans), who was honoured by Queen Elizabeth for her educational work, who carries a moral code that forbids taking another person's life....

...carry the one, times three...

-- yup, that's the definition of a "scumbag".

Or else you have bizarre standards.

Bizarre standards.

A doctor donated generously of his time and money, operating on and treating the poor, patching up victims of gun violence in Long Beach California. He was the first to arrive at the scene of an emergency and the last to leave. A man beloved in his community. When asked, he said he was innocent of the crime charged against him. Saying he was innocent wasn't good enough, he had to refute the charges brought against him and failed. Dr. Jeffrey McDonald was convicted of murdering his wife and his two daughters.

Bizarre standards indeed.

The woman should have been required to prove that she was a CO by more than her statements.

Explain, in detail, exactly how one proves what one's core beliefs are. Be specific.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You should try reading your own link. Later in the same page it notes:

>> Earlier, during World War I, the government would only give CO status to people who were members of "peace churches," such as the Society of Friends (Quakers), Mennonites or Brethren. But, this has changed.

In 1965 and in 1970 the Supreme Court ruled that the words "religious training and belief" must now be interpreted to include moral and ethical beliefs that have the same force in people's lives as traditional religious beliefs.

So, the word "religious" here refers to the nature of a person's training and beliefs. That means that the law considers many sincere beliefs "religious" even if they are not a part of what most people call a "religion."

Now, you don't have to belong to any particular religion to qualify as a CO. In fact, you don't have to belong to any religion at all. <<

Your own link.

-- which is the point already posted with the 1965 SCOTUS case (post 47). The requirement to be based in some organised religion has been struck down as unconstitutional.

Basically what this office is doing is what I call "Texas logic".

You need to go to law school if you want to pretend to know the law.

Here the SCOTUS holding:

App. 10. Welsh elaborated his beliefs in later communications with Selective Service officials. On the basis of these beliefs and the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that he held them "with the strength of more traditional religious convictions," 404 F.2d at 1081, we think Welsh was clearly entitled to a conscientious objector exemption. Section [p344] 6(j) requires no more. That section exempts from military service all those whose consciences, spurred by deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, would give them no rest or peace if they allowed themselves to become a part of an instrument of war.

Welsh v. United States

You have to be able to prove your moral, ethical, ore religious beliefs. Atheism does not nothing to prove that. Serious, they are trying to help this woman and she is too stupid to see that. She is almost my age. All she had to do was to say she would serve. She herself said she doubts that would ever happen.

No doubt this piece of crap will be paid out of the taxpayer's pockets along with every other stupid liberal leaning.

Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how you would prove your religious beliefs. Be specific.

He has not obligation to prove jack shit to you.

Why is it that Christians have to answer your questions, but you secularists never bother to answer ours?

 

[JimBowie1958]

As I noted for the "not much of a human" poster-- a woman who's dedicated her time to adult literacy (for Americans), who was honoured by Queen Elizabeth for her educational work, who carries a moral code that forbids taking another person's life....

...carry the one, times three...

-- yup, that's the definition of a "scumbag".

Or else you have bizarre standards.

Bizarre standards.

A doctor donated generously of his time and money, operating on and treating the poor, patching up victims of gun violence in Long Beach California. He was the first to arrive at the scene of an emergency and the last to leave. A man beloved in his community. When asked, he said he was innocent of the crime charged against him. Saying he was innocent wasn't good enough, he had to refute the charges brought against him and failed. Dr. Jeffrey McDonald was convicted of murdering his wife and his two daughters.

Bizarre standards indeed.

The woman should have been required to prove that she was a CO by more than her statements.

Explain, in detail, exactly how one proves what one's core beliefs are. Be specific.

Who the fuck do you think you are to assign people tasks that you wont submit to yourself?

A persons core beliefs cannot be proven, but only demonstrated for what they really are.

Put that in a test tube and suck it.