Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Start a petition to change the oath of citizenship so that newly minted citizens do not have to affirm that they will defend and protect the Constitution.
One can do that without killing.
I for one would refuse to kill on behalf of government.
You were born here, which means that as a citizen you are subject to a draft. When someone becomes a citizen they have to take an oath of citizenship one of the provisions is that you would take up arms in service to the government.
If we did not have such an oath, we would have millions of "citizens" who have no interest in defending the Constitution. But, there is an exception for religious teachings.
One can do that without killing.
I for one would refuse to kill on behalf of government.
You were born here, which means that as a citizen you are subject to a draft. When someone becomes a citizen they have to take an oath of citizenship one of the provisions is that you would take up arms in service to the government.
If we did not have such an oath, we would have millions of "citizens" who have no interest in defending the Constitution. But, there is an exception for religious teachings.
I find it funny that a country that espouses freedom of religion must force people to join a religion in order to have their moral beliefs recognized.
And If i were ever drafted I would not kill anyone on orders from some corrupt politicians.
Start a petition to change the oath of citizenship so that newly minted citizens do not have to affirm that they will defend and protect the Constitution.
One can do that without killing.
I for one would refuse to kill on behalf of government.
Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied
Margaret Doughty, an atheist and permanent U.S. resident for more than 30 years, was told by immigration authorities this month that she has until Friday to officially join a church that forbids violence or her application for naturalized citizenship will be rejected.
Doughty received the ultimatum after stating on her application that she objected to the pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation due to her moral opposition to war. According to a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by the American Humanist Association on Doughty's behalf, officials responded by telling her that she needed to prove that her status as a conscientious objector was due to religious beliefs. They reportedly told her she'd need to document that she was "a member in good standing" of a nonviolent religious organization or be denied citizenship at her June 21 hearing. A note on official church stationary [sic]" would suffice, they said.
Her letter is at the link.
What does that have to do with being forced to join a religious cult?
It's a requirement of the oath of naturalization.
For now. And it certainly is somewhat contradictory.
It IS an interesting Catch 22...to make the assumption that one must be religious in order to be non-violent and believe in peace.
Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied
Margaret Doughty, an atheist and permanent U.S. resident for more than 30 years, was told by immigration authorities this month that she has until Friday to officially join a church that forbids violence or her application for naturalized citizenship will be rejected.
Doughty received the ultimatum after stating on her application that she objected to the pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation due to her moral opposition to war. According to a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by the American Humanist Association on Doughty's behalf, officials responded by telling her that she needed to prove that her status as a conscientious objector was due to religious beliefs. They reportedly told her she'd need to document that she was "a member in good standing" of a nonviolent religious organization or be denied citizenship at her June 21 hearing. A note on official church stationary [sic]" would suffice, they said.
Her letter is at the link.
Your fucking president and his fucking administration. So what are you bitching about?
Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied
Margaret Doughty, an atheist and permanent U.S. resident for more than 30 years, was told by immigration authorities this month that she has until Friday to officially join a church that forbids violence or her application for naturalized citizenship will be rejected.
Doughty received the ultimatum after stating on her application that she objected to the pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation due to her moral opposition to war. According to a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by the American Humanist Association on Doughty's behalf, officials responded by telling her that she needed to prove that her status as a conscientious objector was due to religious beliefs. They reportedly told her she'd need to document that she was "a member in good standing" of a nonviolent religious organization or be denied citizenship at her June 21 hearing. A note on official church stationary [sic]" would suffice, they said.
Her letter is at the link.
She is a moron.
If she truly wanted to become a citizen she would just affirm whatever she had to and come here and work towards changing that unreasonable requirement.
We don't need more stupid people in this country.
How old is she? Why does she think she will be forced to take up arms? She clearly doesn't have a clue how this country works.
How old is she? Why does she think she will be forced to take up arms? She clearly doesn't have a clue how this country works.
It's in the oath. There isn't a different oath for people of differing ages. It's the same oath.
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.
If she claims the Constitution, she better be ready to pick up a gun and fight for the Constitution. She says she can't because as a matter of belief, she is a consciencious objector. No go prove it.
What does that have to do with being forced to join a religious cult?
It's a requirement of the oath of naturalization.
For now. And it certainly is somewhat contradictory.
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.
If she claims the Constitution, she better be ready to pick up a gun and fight for the Constitution. She says she can't because as a matter of belief, she is a consciencious objector. No go prove it.
--- by joining an organisation? What the fuck does joining some group have to do with a personal philosophy? You would have to arrive at the personal philosophy before you joined the group. Ergo, joining the group is superfluous.
It's a requirement of the oath of naturalization.
For now. And it certainly is somewhat contradictory.
Directly contradictory to the First Amendment it would seem.
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.
If she claims the Constitution, she better be ready to pick up a gun and fight for the Constitution. She says she can't because as a matter of belief, she is a consciencious objector. No go prove it.
This is all about the naturalization requirements it's not about religion.
Why does one have to belong to a group in order to believe that killing is wrong?
So let's just burn down the whole system of oath-taking for citizenship in order to appeal to people like this woman? She should not even be given the option to reject the oath, for ANY reason, in order to obtain citizenship.
As far as the "killing is wrong" position, that is a supremely immoral and juvenile position. We have a moral obligation, whether or not you realise or accept it, to defend ourselves, our families, and our nations. If people attack you and you family and the only way to practise effective defence is through the use of lethal force, you have a moral obligation to so. To do otherwise is not only cowardly, but supremely immoral and despicable. I suppose you are sympathetic to that immoral approach.
Why does one have to belong to a group in order to believe that killing is wrong?
So let's just burn down the whole system of oath-taking for citizenship in order to appeal to people like this woman? She should not even be given the option to reject the oath, for ANY reason, in order to obtain citizenship.
As far as the "killing is wrong" position, that is a supremely immoral and juvenile position. We have a moral obligation, whether or not you realise or accept it, to defend ourselves, our families, and our nations. If people attack you and you family and the only way to practise effective defence is through the use of lethal force, you have a moral obligation to so. To do otherwise is not only cowardly, but supremely immoral and despicable. I suppose you are sympathetic to that immoral approach.
Utter complete unmitigated horseshit. Rationalizations like yours are what keeps war afloat.
