Best
193 Comments
Post
  • #7
    !
    The issue was that she must swear to take up arms to defend the US, and she refused to swear. The only way to get out of it is due to the religious belief protection of the first amendment. She should not have been granted citizenship with out swearing or providing proof of it conflicting with her religious beliefs.
  • #15
    !
    @Yank No, the issue was she must give a religious validation for being a conscientious objector as if it's implied that an atheist is unable to make a decision themselves on what they do or do not find morally reprehensible. It's implied that atheists are immoral and unable to be a conscientious objector.
  • #17
    !
    @Yank Yes, Politix again tried to slight the story and question into an anti-religion rant. It was a "I won't perform my duties" objection, and they wanted a document of religion showing that belief. It's like someone refusing to eat their vegetables and then blaming it on their religious belief.
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    !
    The issue isn't that she should have had a religion, the issue is that she needs to take an oath to take up arms to defend the US and she refused. The only way to refuse is by way of the religious freedom exemption under the first amendment. She used that with out having a religion, so she should not have been granted citizenship.
  • #18
    !
    Technically, Yank is correct. The precedent being those seeking exemption from military service. It was like that during WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Various religions served in combat but not in a combatant role (ie-Medics, ie-Quakers) seeking Conscientious Objector classification. This method was used to identify those with convictions against killing another human being via religion. It was that or anybody who wanted to avoid serving (Cassius Clay).
    Although I did notice political convictions and wealth did play a major role in avoidance.
  • #56
    !
    @Rocker But the entire BS of the government was moot then and now since at no time has this nation drafted women. The government asked the woman to swear to doing something women citizens were not required to do.
  • #62
    !
    @jessejaymes - Didn't say whether it was right or wrong, Jess, just noting what the historical procedure was. I'm not 'up' on it so it may have changed military wise.
  • R Load more replies

  • #49
    !
    @TheLoneRanger They have science on their side, I know a completely foreign concept to a Republican, and yet science has allowed you to be on the "internets", as Bush the village idiot said.
  • #58
    !
    @TheLoneRanger Darwin was a Christian until the latter part of his life, AFTER he developed the theory of evolution.

    Susan B. Anthony was an atheist, by the way. So was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. And Helen Keller. And Andrew Carnegie. Lots of very important and influential Americans were/are atheists.

    But hey, thanks for the bias. I appreciate you showing how ugly bigotry can be.
  • #90
    !
    @JohnVicky

    There is nothing scientific about the delusion of evolution nor it's companion, atheism.

    "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."

    Charles Darwin
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    Her stand of not believing in GOD is not a reason to deny her, HOWEVER, when she said she wouldn't show support to protect this country, THAT should have been reason to tell her to go away!! If she wants this nations protection, she should show support and desire for it to survive.
  • #16
    !
    @WMCOL She said she didn't believe in the use of arms and killing the enemy. If we had not have fought wars and killed the enemy to deter aggression, the USA would not have existed. We would not have been here for her to migrate too. Now, tell me that she supports this nation. I suppose she supports this nation as long as someone else is getting killed for her and she can shut her eyes to that fact. I wish the world was a different place but ITS NOT!
  • #24
    !
    @Kellso
    Given that we are still a nation under rule-of-law. If we are not a nation under rule-of-law all the fighting and killing of enemies is meaningless and what the law prescribes is not relevant.

    "In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 andWelsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O."

    And remember we no longer have Conscription, and volunteering obviously cannot consider CO. But a person does have to register with Selective Service no matter their beliefs.

    This woman violated no laws, didn't ask that any be violated, but that the laws be upheld. They were. We are all, as a nation, better off for it.
  • #30
    !
    Not bearing arms is allowed, you may be a "Conscientious Objector" and do alternate duty. BUT as a woman who is not required by law to sign up for selective service in America, this whole thing was wrong from the get go.
  • #33
    !
    @WMCOL Friend, don't try to explain what a conscientious objector is to me. I was fortunate enough to have lived thru the Viet Nam War Lottery drawings for draft. I and many of my friends all sit in front of the TV to see if or when our 'bingo ball' was going to roll out. I use to say that if I saw mine I was headed to Canada! I did not want to go die. But you know what,,,,,,,,,, I DIDNT RUN. Sure there were a lot of people that did and there were wayyyyyyyy too many Americans that died in that rat hole jungle country but it was something our country said to do. If this lady wouldn't do the same thing as I did then she doesn't need or belong here. Or anyone else that is here for a free ride! As the saying goes ' Freedome isn't free!!'
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Since she claims to be an atheist, she has more to worry about than becoming a citizen.

    Plus, since we have a path to being a citizen, why the immigration crap from the senate wanting to legalize all those illegals. Why not allow them to use the path already established?
  • #26
    !
    "Why not allow them to use the path already established?"

    Yuo really need to find the answer to that for yourself.
    Learn a little something about how the immigration and citizenship process really works.
    Then you may understand why people are willing to become illegal aliens.
  • #38
    !
    @harold_lloyd I agree with you, I have no idea how the system works. But I do know that it does as I am here. My Grandparents both immigrated here and became American citizens. So I know there is a way. It may be hard, but it is still a way. We should never just give our citizenship away. Thats why they haves test.......
  • #80
    !
    @harold_lloyd my wife did it and she is helpless with paperwork, its a lot of work just like mosr things worthwhile, if you are not willing to spend the effort and money to do it legally, stay the hell home! We have enough immigrants already, a dog can only feed so many ticks
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more replies

  • #60
    !
    Doesn't matter if she has a religious belief or not , but she wants to be a U.S. citizen she has to agree to defend thus country. If she doesn't then send her back to where she came from. Just remember you heard it first here. The PC police will now be wanting to change the citizenship pledge. Because it is not fair to everybody.
  • #117
    !
    Of course we should change it.

    Either A. We get rid of the pledge altogether; or more preferably, B. We get rid of the religious exception that allows people to avoid the pledge based on their religion. My problem isn't that they denied her, but that they wouldn't have denied her if she was religious. The exception needs to be removed.
  • #121
    !
    @Saving_USA it was not just religion it was also she would not take the pledge because of swearing to fight for this country
  • #123
    !
    @scotta

    Yes, and if she had a religion, she wouldn't have been required to. I agree that she shouldn't have been given citizenship if she was unwilling to fight. However, there shouldn't be an exemption for religious people either. If you come to this country, be willing to defend it.
  • #124
    !
    @Saving_USA that was the part I was upset about. The religion is a personal chose. I could.care less, unless you are coming to blow us up. But why come to a country to apply for citizenship and not want to defend it. My suggestion is pack up your troubles and return to the country of your origin. Good buy so long thanks for playing our.game, you are out of here.
  • #40
    !
    She should have been granted citizenship ESPECIALLY since she stated she is an Atheist and a pacifist. More wars have been fought, more people killed, in the name of religion than for atheism.
  • #36
    !
    I don't think she should be made to list a religion, but what Ibdo have a problem with is the fact she did sign the agreement to "bear arms" I am not talking about th military more along the lines of a possible war breaking out right here on American soil. I know that's far fetched, but we were to have a situation arise such as this she should be required to defend our country just like the majority of us would. Does anyone else agree?
  • #67
    !
    Yes, I agree with you, but I'm a naturalized citizen and they give you 'options'. You have to swear to either bear arms WHEN REQUIRED BY LAW and at her age, not a chance in hell of that; OR you can perform non-combatant service in lieu of bearing arms WHEN REQUIRED BY LAW, and at her age, not a chance in hell of that; OR perform some sort of civic duty in the cause of national defense (e.g. air raid warden, etc.) WHEN REQUIRED BY LAW, and again, at her age, not a chance in hell of that. I think she just wanted 15 minutes of fame. She's going to make some lucky ambulance chaser a bundle of money in the future in frivolous lawsuits and claims, etc. lol
  • #5
    !
    I'm against all immigration, legal or illegal, so this woman's faith is irrelevant. She just needs to go back to wherever she came from.
  • #42
    !
    You should look up all the great things she has done in the 30+ years she's been in America. Why would you want to deny someone citizenship who's making a difference in the world and whos going about it the proper way?
  • R Load more replies

  • #140
    !
    Green Card Renewal
    While Permanent Resident status itself does not expire, Green Cards (the official documentation of Permanent Resident status) must be renewed every 10 years. Neglecting to renew your Green Card may make it difficult to travel internationally or to prove your eligibility for employment in the U.S.

    Permanent Residents renew their Green Cards every 10 years by using the Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card. Form I-90 can also be used to replace a non-expired Green Card.
  • #89
    !
    Contrary to the lies told by the religious, an atheist *can* be ethical and *can* be a conscientious objector. An atheist who objects to war crimes does so because crimes are wrong, not because some religious leader says so (and just as easily, religious leaders excuse war crimes).

    More often than not, it's the religious who lack conscience - just look at the hate directed at atheists, gays, Latinos, women and others, all in the name of religion.
  • #66
    !
    Wow I can't believe this happened, I guess I should not be surprised given the massive drive to make this country a Christian theocracy.
  • #54
    !
    The people who tried to force her to adopt a religion should be fired for cause and probably tried for the probable criminal act of extortion. I doubt if there is any law requiring a citizen to be part of a religious organization because that would not fly in the face of the first amendment.
  • #51
    !
    What a bunch of crap! Since when has religion been a bona fide requirement for US citizenship? I'm a naturalized citizen and it never came up in my case, not even in casual conversation! Is this some kind of 'new requirement'?
  • #61
    !
    While the Constitution explicitly forbid religious tests for public office that hasn't stopped several states, Tennessee for example, from passing laws that prevent atheists from holding elected office.

    It's no surprise, then, that mere bureaucracy isn't immune to this sort of religious discrimination against the non-religious.
  • #69
    !
    @DARSB Wow! Thanks for the heads up. What a tremendous drag. I would hope those kinds of laws get challenged and struck down some day!
  • #47
    !
    When she first filled out her paperwork she should have written athiest on that question. If she had, there would have been no problem. She obviously wrote something else, most likely something about being against organized religion. That would put her in the crosshairs. She got letters from those two organization and that was good enough, so they gave her citizenship. Her becoming a citizen was not a right, it is a privilege. If you want to become a citizen, don't write anything that could be controversial on your application. Answer in simple short terms and in the case of that question, one word; atheist! I think she wanted to raise a stink on purpose. Immigrants have always been asked their religious orientation. Just writing atheist would have done just fine. The country is trying to keep track of the religious views of all immigrants applying for citizenship.
  • #27
    !
    That's a no brainer, I think the original point being made was that in America you may be a "Conscientious Objector" to serving in the military if you are a Quaker or of some other religion that objects to war under any circumstances. That this was applied to a woman, who in America are NOT required to sign up for selective service, was incorrect to start with. This being the case, the point was moot. Someone was overzealous in the operation of their duty here. Retraining may be in order.
  • R Load more comments...
Post