Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
Amazing how often some need the reminder:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
If your point is that no exemptions should be provided to anyone for any reason, then I agree with you. But that isn't your point, is it? You want anybody to be able to avoid responsibility because they "feel like it".
Neither the post nor the Amendment have anything to do with "responsibility". They have to do with establishment of religion.
Your posts here seem to be largely based on "feelings" and emotions. That ain't gonna get you far on legal issues or on persuasive arguments.
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?
As mentioned in the other thread, she needs an affidavit affirming that it is her beliefs. She doesnt need to belong to a group because the Supreme Court invalidated that years ago.
No one was going to ever ask her to go to war. She didn't even need to address CO
If your point is that no exemptions should be provided to anyone for any reason, then I agree with you. But that isn't your point, is it? You want anybody to be able to avoid responsibility because they "feel like it".
Neither the post nor the Amendment have anything to do with "responsibility". They have to do with establishment of religion.
Your posts here seem to be largely based on "feelings" and emotions. That ain't gonna get you far on legal issues or on persuasive arguments.
Providing an exemption to individuals for serving in the military in a combat capacity, or in this case from swearing to a part of the oath based on religious convictions isn't a law "establishing a religion". You don't understand the First Amendment.
Why does one have to belong to a group in order to believe that killing is wrong?
As mentioned in the other thread, she needs an affidavit affirming that it is her beliefs. She doesnt need to belong to a group because the Supreme Court invalidated that years ago.
No one was going to ever ask her to go to war. She didn't even need to address CO
An affidavit is signed under penalty of perjury. Maybe she doesn't want to attest to her objector status under penalty of perjury.
Neither the post nor the Amendment have anything to do with "responsibility". They have to do with establishment of religion.
Your posts here seem to be largely based on "feelings" and emotions. That ain't gonna get you far on legal issues or on persuasive arguments.
Providing an exemption to individuals for serving in the military in a combat capacity, or in this case from swearing to a part of the oath based on religious convictions isn't a law "establishing a religion". You don't understand the First Amendment.
You don't understand the issue (or as the rest of us call it, "Thursday"). The office is requiring her (requiring) to prove that she belongs to a church, which means requiring her to join a church and then bring documentation. That's clearly a contradiction to both the First Amendment (as the Seidel letter to the USCIS also notes) but directly contradicts long-established court decisions exactly on this question.
"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion'. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs" -- Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961)
Providing an exemption to individuals for serving in the military in a combat capacity, or in this case from swearing to a part of the oath based on religious convictions isn't a law "establishing a religion". You don't understand the First Amendment.
You don't understand the issue (or as the rest of us call it, "Thursday"). The office is requiring her (requiring) to prove that she belongs to a church, which means requiring her to join a church and then bring documentation. That's clearly a contradiction to both the First Amendment (as the Seidel letter to the USCIS also notes) but directly contradicts long-established court decisions exactly on this question.
"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion'. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs" -- Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961)
The request for her to substantiate her religious affiliation in order be eligible for an exemption from part of the oath for citizenship does nothing of the sort. So you have no point.
You're quoting from a decision prohibiting the use of a religious test for citizens to hold political office. This isn't the same thing as providing an exemption to those wishing to become citizens from a part of the oath on the grounds of religious convictions. I disagree with this policy, personally, but do it is not contradictory to the First Amendment as you are alleging.
Pogo probably thinks the Constitution's reference to God is contrary to the First Amendment
You're quoting from a decision prohibiting the use of a religious test for citizens to hold political office. This isn't the same thing as providing an exemption to those wishing to become citizens from a part of the oath on the grounds of religious convictions. I disagree with this policy, personally, but do it is not contradictory to the First Amendment as you are alleging.
Irrelevant. The statement, "neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion'. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs" -- doesn't limit any law to whether a Notary Public may have a commission in Maryland. "Neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally" means what it says, not what you want it to mean here but don't want it to mean there. That's why FFRF quoted it. And when it says no government "can constitutionally force", the First Amendment is exactly what it's referring to.
Besides, SCOTUS has already ruled that even the law as specifically applied to conscientious objection CANNOT require the CO to be a member of some organization, nor even have a religious basis, nor even a belief in God. See post 47, it's not going away.
Pogo probably thinks the Constitution's reference to God is contrary to the First Amendment
What reference to god in the Constitution would that be?
Pogo probably thinks the Constitution's reference to God is contrary to the First Amendment
What reference to god in the Constitution would that be?
You're quoting from a decision prohibiting the use of a religious test for citizens to hold political office. This isn't the same thing as providing an exemption to those wishing to become citizens from a part of the oath on the grounds of religious convictions. I disagree with this policy, personally, but do it is not contradictory to the First Amendment as you are alleging.
Irrelevant. The statement, "neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion'. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs" -- doesn't limit any law to whether a Notary Public may have a commission in Maryland. "Neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally" means what it says, not what you want it to mean here but don't want it to mean there. That's why FFRF quoted it. And when it says no government "can constitutionally force", the First Amendment is exactly what it's referring to.
Besides, SCOTUS has already ruled that even the law as specifically applied to conscientious objection CANNOT require the CO to be a member of some organization, nor even have a religious basis, nor even a belief in God. See post 47, it's not going away.
Yeah, this is pointless. According to your anti-God position, the DoI's recognition of God is anti-Constitutional. Why do you hate God so much? It's not his fault you became what you became...
Pogo probably thinks the Constitution's reference to God is contrary to the First Amendment
What reference to god in the Constitution would that be?
I meant to type the DoI.
If your not willing to fight for this country then get the fuck out. Why should she enjoy freedoms others before her fought and died for?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.
Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied
Her letter is at the link.
Your fucking president and his fucking administration. So what are you bitching about?
I honestly did not know that President Obama had made this a condition of citizenship. Perhaps you would like to post a link to PROVE your allegation.
But, probably not.
Why do some people believe that saying something (an outright lie) will magically make it true?
Oh, that's right - that's the way right R's operate and the way fux reports it to fools who will believe anything.
If your not willing to fight for this country then get the fuck out. Why should she enjoy freedoms others before her fought and died for?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 reference to god in the Constitution would that be?
I meant to type the DoI.
A country's laws aren't based on its DofI.
