Atheist denied citizenship unless she joins church

[syrenn]

Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied



Her letter is at the link.

i guess islam is out.

however, the way i see it, if she wont bother to defend this country, she does not deserve to be a citizen.

Fortunately our conscientious objection laws have looked into it more deeply than that.

There's a difference between defending one's country, and accepting the premise that war is the way to do it.

and that is just fine.... for citizens. This woman is not.

this woman wants all the perks of being a citizen..... and not wanting to defend it that which she wants to join

so to hell with her. She can go home and be just what she wants to be.

 

[syrenn]

Margaret Doughty, Atheist Seeking U.S. Citizenship, Told To Join Church Or Be Denied



Her letter is at the link.

i guess islam is out.

however, the way i see it, if she wont bother to defend this country, she does not deserve to be a citizen.

That would include a great number already citizens.

bingo... citizens

she is not.

 

[Pogo]

i guess islam is out.

however, the way i see it, if she wont bother to defend this country, she does not deserve to be a citizen.

Fortunately our conscientious objection laws have looked into it more deeply than that.

There's a difference between defending one's country, and accepting the premise that war is the way to do it.

and that is just fine.... for citizens. This woman is not.

this woman wants all the perks of being a citizen..... and not wanting to defend it that which she wants to join

so to hell with her. She can go home and be just what she wants to be.

umm... as citizens already, we get to make that decision, as you noted.

-- so a citizen-applicant can't? And then what, she gets her citizenship based on an artificially more limited definition than what present citizens enjoy, only to then officially change her mind to what she believed in the first place?

This test has already been ruled unconstitutional, so the whole question is moot.

 

[syrenn]

i guess islam is out.

however, the way i see it, if she wont bother to defend this country, she does not deserve to be a citizen.

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.

 

[Sunshine]

i guess islam is out.

however, the way i see it, if she wont bother to defend this country, she does not deserve to be a citizen.

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.

She is not a citizen.

 

[syrenn]

Fortunately our conscientious objection laws have looked into it more deeply than that.

There's a difference between defending one's country, and accepting the premise that war is the way to do it.

and that is just fine.... for citizens. This woman is not.

this woman wants all the perks of being a citizen..... and not wanting to defend it that which she wants to join

so to hell with her. She can go home and be just what she wants to be.

umm... as citizens already, we get to make that decision, as you noted.

-- so a citizen-applicant can't? And then what, gets her citizenship and then officially changes her mind to what she believed in the first place?

This test has already been ruled unconstitutional, so the whole question is moot.

moot or not.....


she should be denied in my opinion.

 

[Pogo]

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.

And your evidence that that was her rationale?

 

[Sunshine]

Fortunately our conscientious objection laws have looked into it more deeply than that.

There's a difference between defending one's country, and accepting the premise that war is the way to do it.

and that is just fine.... for citizens. This woman is not.

this woman wants all the perks of being a citizen..... and not wanting to defend it that which she wants to join

so to hell with her. She can go home and be just what she wants to be.

umm... as citizens already, we get to make that decision, as you noted.

-- so a citizen-applicant can't? And then what, she gets her citizenship based on an artificially more limited definition than what present citizens enjoy, only to then officially change her mind to what she believed in the first place?

This test has already been ruled unconstitutional, so the whole question is moot.

Having to prove your CO status has not been ruled unconstitutional. I'm sure the ICE agent knew the quickest and easiest way to prove it was to join a church, so he gave her that advice, and like the fornicating pig she is ran with it, and will probably end up getting him fired. There is no place for that stupid bitch here.

 

[Pogo]

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.

She is not a citizen.

Irrelevant to this point, because this point isn't about her, it's about you and yours who want to deny her on this basis.

Your basis is not her participation in the military (since that's not a real possibility anyway) but her thoughts about it. So let's call it what it is.

 

[syrenn]

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...


ponderable.

And your evidence that that was her rationale?

none, but it is..... ponderable.

 

[dblack]

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


ponderable.

And your evidence that that was her rationale?

none, but it is..... ponderable.

If she's willing to be dishonest in that regard, why would she have any qualms about faking religious affiliation?

 

[Pogo]

and that is just fine.... for citizens. This woman is not.

this woman wants all the perks of being a citizen..... and not wanting to defend it that which she wants to join

so to hell with her. She can go home and be just what she wants to be.

umm... as citizens already, we get to make that decision, as you noted.

-- so a citizen-applicant can't? And then what, she gets her citizenship based on an artificially more limited definition than what present citizens enjoy, only to then officially change her mind to what she believed in the first place?

This test has already been ruled unconstitutional, so the whole question is moot.

Having to prove your CO status has not been ruled unconstitutional. I'm sure the ICE agent knew the quickest and easiest way to prove it was to join a church, so he gave her that advice, and like the fornicating pig she is ran with it, and will probably end up getting him fired. There is no place for that stupid bitch here.

It wasn't "advice" -- it was applied as a requirement. That's the unconstitutional part.

And your evidence for her 'fornicating' is -- where again?

 

[Pogo]

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


ponderable.

And your evidence that that was her rationale?

none, but it is..... ponderable.

Touché.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

She is not a citizen.

Irrelevant to this point, because this point isn't about her, it's about you and yours who want to deny her on this basis.

Your basis is not her participation in the military (since that's not a real possibility anyway) but her thoughts about it. So let's call it what it is.

You're not thinking clearly here Pogo one.. If her being drafted into the military isn't possible why would she even DEMAND a C.O. status as part of her Naturalization?

It must be important to her. MORE IMPORTANT than her US Citizenship to ask for that exemption.. Do you get the "MORE IMPORTANT" part? Not just her thoughts about it...

I bet you expect to get the right answer from the IRS ---- dontcha?? And NOT TO BE HASSLED by the IRS for your "thoughts".. Welcome to the uncontrollable, incompetence of Big Govt..

You found ANYONE here who would FORCE her to "join a church"?? Just one drooling "Con-tard" that would REQUIRE IT?

Or are you just imagining stuff here for your own entertainment?

 

[Pogo]

She is not a citizen.

Irrelevant to this point, because this point isn't about her, it's about you and yours who want to deny her on this basis.

Your basis is not her participation in the military (since that's not a real possibility anyway) but her thoughts about it. So let's call it what it is.

You're not thinking clearly here Pogo one.. If her being drafted into the military isn't possible why would she even DEMAND a C.O. status as part of her Naturalization?

It must be important to her. MORE IMPORTANT than her US Citizenship to ask for that exemption.. Do you get the "MORE IMPORTANT" part? Not just her thoughts about it...

That's what I just said above-- it's a matter of principle, not probability. Therefore the unconstitutional requirement on the part of this office (and the posters here who excuse it) is based solely on what she thinks. That's the point.

I bet you expect to get the right answer from the IRS ---- dontcha?? And NOT TO BE HASSLED by the IRS for your "thoughts".. Welcome to the uncontrollable, incompetence of Big Govt..

ah... nnnnnno, I don't expect an "answer from the IRS". They're not involved here.

You found ANYONE here who would FORCE her to "join a church"?? Just one drooling "Con-tard" that would REQUIRE IT?

Or are you just imagining stuff here for your own entertainment?

Not one -- several. I'm not going back to count them but suffice to say if no one was taking the side of the Texas Logic office, there would be no one to make the point to.

And just to review, here's that office's order again:
“Please submit a letter on official church stationery, attesting to the fact that you are a member in good standing and the church’s official position on the bearing of arms.”

Anything else?

 

[Sunshine]

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.

She is not a citizen.

Irrelevant to this point, because this point isn't about her, it's about you and yours who want to deny her on this basis.

Your basis is not her participation in the military (since that's not a real possibility anyway) but her thoughts about it. So let's call it what it is.

Well she should have sat down and thought long and hard about how to answer the question so she would get what she wanted. Having to prove CO status is not unconstitutional.

 

[Pogo]

She is not a citizen.

Irrelevant to this point, because this point isn't about her, it's about you and yours who want to deny her on this basis.

Your basis is not her participation in the military (since that's not a real possibility anyway) but her thoughts about it. So let's call it what it is.

Well she should have sat down and thought long and hard about how to answer the question so she would get what she wanted. Having to prove CO status is not unconstitutional.

But being required to join a church, is.

 

[flacaltenn]

Pogo:

You just have expectations of EXCELLENCE, COMPETENCE, and RESPONSIVENESS from your govt.
That's why you LOVE bigger govt right?

And why you couldn't see the relevence of my questions about the IRS..

Because you in your leftist mindset cannot even CONCEIVE of the possibility that the GOVT would handle citizens in a sloppy, unprofessional, and uninformed manner. That's if you're lucky and not on their current shit list..

 

[Sunshine]

umm... as citizens already, we get to make that decision, as you noted.

-- so a citizen-applicant can't? And then what, she gets her citizenship based on an artificially more limited definition than what present citizens enjoy, only to then officially change her mind to what she believed in the first place?

This test has already been ruled unconstitutional, so the whole question is moot.

Having to prove your CO status has not been ruled unconstitutional. I'm sure the ICE agent knew the quickest and easiest way to prove it was to join a church, so he gave her that advice, and like the fornicating pig she is ran with it, and will probably end up getting him fired. There is no place for that stupid bitch here.

It wasn't "advice" -- it was applied as a requirement. That's the unconstitutional part.

And your evidence for her 'fornicating' is -- where again?

We're making progress. You didn't argue with the part about her being a pig.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo:

You just have expectations of EXCELLENCE, COMPETENCE, and RESPONSIVENESS from your govt.
That's why you LOVE bigger govt right?

And why you couldn't see the relevence of my questions about the IRS..

Because you in your leftist mindset cannot even CONCEIVE of the possibility that the GOVT would handle citizens in a sloppy, unprofessional, and uninformed manner. That's if you're lucky and not on their current shit list..

I haven't said a damn word about "bigger government", or the IRS, or "left" or "right" anything, let alone "excellence", "competence" or "responsiveness" even without shouting.
Your red herrings are not my concern, so hold your fish at least until Friday.

(/offtopic)