Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Is this elderly woman's citizenship in jeopardy because she a.) committed a violent crime, b.) is a renowned drug dealer or c.) doesn't believe in God?   (opposingviews.com ) divider line 199
    More: Stupid, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S., Freedom From Religion Foundation, USCIS, naturalizations  
•       •       •

12870 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 3:15 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-19 01:32:00 PM  
FTFWebster (the Dictionary, not the midget)


conscientious objectornoun: a person who refuses to serve in the armed forces or bear arms on moral or religious grounds

You don't need a man in the sky to tell you to have morals. In fact, belief in the sky wizard usually leads to abandoning morals to follow his book of fairy tales.
 
2013-06-19 01:33:42 PM  
Tricky issue on both "sides."
 
2013-06-19 01:37:26 PM  
FTFAI deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person's life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms."

She told them she was religious, why is anyone shocked that they would ask her for a letter from her church?
 
2013-06-19 01:46:39 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA:  I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person's life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms."

She told them she was religious, why is anyone shocked that they would ask her for a letter from her church?


Why does she have to belong to a church? I know plenty of religious people that don't go to church because they either don't believe in what the church's teachings are, or just plain don't feel like going.

 img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 01:51:53 PM  
It's gonna get all ugly up in here.
 
2013-06-19 01:56:04 PM  

Diogenes: Tricky issue on both "sides."


No kidding, because they don't want people to randomly be able to assign themselves the label "conscientious objector" as it suits their whim.  But in absence of an organized body with established doctrine, how would a sincere CO validate his or her claim?
 
2013-06-19 01:58:27 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA:  I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person's life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms."

She told them she was religious, why is anyone shocked that they would ask her for a letter from her church?


This statement makes it seem like it was a check-of box on the form (which I haven't seen, so I don't know for sure).

Even if it wasn't, you can still have spiritual beliefs without being religious.

Also, nowhere in the article does it actually say this woman is an Atheist.  It only says Atheist groups came to her aid.  It's entirely possible she's a druid or something.
 
2013-06-19 02:01:05 PM  

factoryconnection: Diogenes: Tricky issue on both "sides."

No kidding, because they don't want people to randomly be able to assign themselves the label "conscientious objector" as it suits their whim.  But in absence of an organized body with established doctrine, how would a sincere CO validate his or her claim?


Precisely.  I wanted to say something smart and witty and I came up empty.  It's tough no matter how you slice it.
 
2013-06-19 02:06:07 PM  

factoryconnection: Diogenes: Tricky issue on both "sides."

No kidding, because they don't want people to randomly be able to assign themselves the label "conscientious objector" as it suits their whim.  But in absence of an organized body with established doctrine, how would a sincere CO validate his or her claim?


It shouldn't be.  Should 65 year old women really be asked to commit to "taking up arms"?

I'm not sure why that should be a requirement from anyone if people born in the US are under no such obligation.
 
2013-06-19 02:15:32 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: factoryconnection: Diogenes: Tricky issue on both "sides."

No kidding, because they don't want people to randomly be able to assign themselves the label "conscientious objector" as it suits their whim.  But in absence of an organized body with established doctrine, how would a sincere CO validate his or her claim?

It shouldn't be.  Should 65 year old women really be asked to commit to "taking up arms"?

I'm not sure why that should be a requirement from anyone if people born in the US are under no such obligation.


Some people are/could be (Selective Service).  Obviously not applicable to 65-year-old women though.
 
2013-06-19 02:19:52 PM  
The Supreme Court ruled on CO status as related to religion back in the Vietnam era. The law defines a conscientious objector as a person "who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." The SCOTUS ruling said that the words "religious training and belief" must be interpreted to include moral and ethical beliefs that have the same force in people's lives as traditional religious beliefs.
 
Pud
2013-06-19 02:31:11 PM  

Sybarite: The Supreme Court ruled on CO status as related to religion back in the Vietnam era. The law defines a conscientious objector as a person "who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." The SCOTUS ruling said that the words "religious training and belief" must be interpreted to include moral and ethical beliefs that have the same force in people's lives as traditional religious beliefs.


That may be true, but I'm pretty sure a 65yr. old woman would not make it through basic training anyway. So why not just rubber stamp the CO exemption and move on. This is nothing more than government drones following the bureaucratic rules their told to follow without any practical thought to the situation at hand. Why put all parties concerned through this when the outcome is so obvious?
 
2013-06-19 02:49:23 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: She told them she was religious, why is anyone shocked that they would ask her for a letter from her church?


Why would anyone who is truly religious go to a church?  Churches are completely unnecessary.  You practice your religion 24x7, not an hour a week.
 
2013-06-19 03:16:39 PM  
I thought old people ( and inmates) always believed in god..
 
2013-06-19 03:17:22 PM  
I'm guessing the adjudicator had a canned letter that was sent to this woman.  Most likely if she showed up to her interview and showed a history of being morally opposed to war, she'd probably be fine.
 
2013-06-19 03:19:02 PM  

Pud: Sybarite: The Supreme Court ruled on CO status as related to religion back in the Vietnam era. The law defines a conscientious objector as a person "who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." The SCOTUS ruling said that the words "religious training and belief" must be interpreted to include moral and ethical beliefs that have the same force in people's lives as traditional religious beliefs.

That may be true, but I'm pretty sure a 65yr. old woman would not make it through basic training anyway. So why not just rubber stamp the CO exemption and move on. This is nothing more than government drones following the bureaucratic rules their told to follow without any practical thought to the situation at hand. Why put all parties concerned through this when the outcome is so obvious?


Why are you discriminating based on age? You think she should get special treatment because she's old and crotchety?
 
2013-06-19 03:19:26 PM  
When 65-year-old Margaret Doughty made that claim, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Houston told her she has until Friday to give them a letter proving she is "a member in good standing" of a church that opposes the right to bear arms. The letter must be on "official church stationery."

She's 65.  She's farking SIXTY-FIVE.  If our national is so farked we need 65 year old British women to take up arms, fark IT, WHO THE fark CARES ANY MORE.  We're farked anyways, you farking farkers.
 
2013-06-19 03:19:40 PM  

factoryconnection: Diogenes: Tricky issue on both "sides."

No kidding, because they don't want people to randomly be able to assign themselves the label "conscientious objector" as it suits their whim.  But in absence of an organized body with established doctrine, how would a sincere CO validate his or her claim?


He could ask the sky wizard!
 
2013-06-19 03:20:21 PM  
"Doughty's life's work has been to put an end to illiteracy. She founded a nonprofit call Literary Powerline. In 2000, Queen Elizabeth II recognized her outstanding work."

Exactly the kind of vile scum our immigration laws were designed to exclude.
 
2013-06-19 03:20:32 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: I thought old people ( and inmates) always believed in god..


Old British people usually believe in gin instead.
 
2013-06-19 03:21:51 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Arthur Jumbles: FTFA:  I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person's life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms."

She told them she was religious, why is anyone shocked that they would ask her for a letter from her church?

Why does she have to belong to a church? I know plenty of religious people that don't go to church because they either don't believe in what the church's teachings are, or just plain don't feel like going.

 [img.fark.net image 320x240]


Or they want to support child rapists.  Or have their money spent on palaces.
 
2013-06-19 03:22:14 PM  
Oh like we really need granny to be willing to take up arms in defense of the US.

Christ, you'd think there would also be an opt out based on age alone.
 
2013-06-19 03:22:34 PM  
She couldn't have just lied about taking up arms? It's not like she'll ever, ever be asked to.

Also, the Fark headline is even more misleading than the article's.
 
2013-06-19 03:23:41 PM  
The decision to not talk to invisible people is a sign of sanity, not insanity.
 
2013-06-19 03:24:16 PM  
Odd. When I checked into C.O. status back in the day the official instructions said that while religious objections were most common, the moral testimony of others, properly prepared beforehand, was effective as testimony too. This would have been during the late 1980s.
 
2013-06-19 03:24:21 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: factoryconnection: Diogenes: Tricky issue on both "sides."

No kidding, because they don't want people to randomly be able to assign themselves the label "conscientious objector" as it suits their whim.  But in absence of an organized body with established doctrine, how would a sincere CO validate his or her claim?

It shouldn't be.  Should 65 year old women really be asked to commit to "taking up arms"?

I'm not sure why that should be a requirement from anyone if people born in the US are under no such obligation.


When the King of England comes over here and tries to push us around, what is she going to do then?
 
2013-06-19 03:24:56 PM  
...or you could just do what everyone else does and lie and say you would take up arms.
As if some old woman is going to be drafted into the marines.
 
2013-06-19 03:25:10 PM  
Leave the violence to people who actually enjoy it.
 
2013-06-19 03:25:37 PM  
People that aren't willing to take up arms for their country shouldn't be allowed to stay here. How do our borders remain protected? Oh, with harsh words and the like, that's right. War is hell, but it will be necessary for as long as humans are around. Someone will always want to seize power over others.
 
2013-06-19 03:26:06 PM  
You people are barking up the wrong tree.

The real question here is why this woman, after living here for 30 years, should suddenly decide to become a naturalized citizen. This is obviously a ploy to reap the whirlwind of benefits from Social Security and Medicare. The issue of religion is a red herring.
 
2013-06-19 03:26:42 PM  
those of you who never have to deal with US immigration dont understand how farked up that department is.
 
2013-06-19 03:27:30 PM  

factoryconnection: But in absence of an organized body with established doctrine, how would a sincere CO validate his or her claim?


Traditionally, people applying for CO status have to do so in the absence of an active conflict, get notarized testimony from reliable witnesses and/or officials (justice of the peace, religious officials) and have that testimony sealed (like mailing it to yourself). Then when it comes up you have a packet (with a personal essay too) ready to go. Having a packet established beforehand if evidence that you're not just chickening out of a particular conflict.
 
Ant
2013-06-19 03:27:49 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: You don't need a man in the sky to tell you to have morals. In fact, belief in the sky wizard usually leads to abandoning morals to follow his book of fairy tales.


Thought experiment:

Is there anything your God could command of you that you would consider to be morally wrong? Killing innocent men, women, and children? Sacrificing your child to Yahweh?

If so, then you have a moral system that is not God-given. You are making a judgement based on morals outside of God's own.
If not, then you are basically saying God 100% moral, therefore anything he commands is 100% morally correct. In other words, that might makes right.
 
2013-06-19 03:28:11 PM  
Remove the "conscientious objector" language. You will swear the oath to take up arms in defense of this country, or else you will not become a naturalized citizen, period.

Problem solved.

I don't believe that we should create two classes of people distinguished by their beliefs, especially if it allows one group to have all the same advantages, but WITHOUT the same duty, all based on a simple claim of something.

Even the playing field, and get rid of the objector language.

/[attempting_to_care.jpg]
//30 years? Please.
 
2013-06-19 03:29:09 PM  

kortex: People that aren't willing to take up arms for their country shouldn't be allowed to stay here. How do our borders remain protected? Oh, with harsh words and the like, that's right. War is hell, but it will be necessary for as long as humans are around. Someone will always want to seize power over others.


Screw those people who dare to dream of breaking the vicious cycle, right?
 
2013-06-19 03:29:38 PM  

wxboy: Also, nowhere in the article does it actually say this woman is an Atheist.


The article they link to says she is. But yeah, it would have been nice had they actually bothered to repeat that detail explicitly.
 
2013-06-19 03:30:55 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: The real question here is why this woman, after living here for 30 years, should suddenly decide to become a naturalized citizen


My mom was born in Costa Rica in the 1930's. She married my father and had my older sister in Kansas in the early 1960's. She had me in the 70's--by that time she already had her Ph.D. and was teaching at universities. She got her naturalization in the early-mid 80's. Worked damn hard to teach hundreds of students each year. Why would that be odd?
 
2013-06-19 03:31:45 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: anyone if people born in the US are under no such obligation.


The draft is slumbering, not illegal.
 
2013-06-19 03:33:23 PM  
She's religious but not a member of a church. How is it possible to stay religious without a weekly booster of brainwashing?
 
Ant
2013-06-19 03:33:49 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: She's 65.  She's farking SIXTY-FIVE.  If our national is so farked we need 65 year old British women to take up arms, fark IT, WHO THE fark CARES ANY MORE.  We're farked anyways, you farking farkers.


That's bureaucracy for you. It doesn't have to make sense in reality.
 
2013-06-19 03:34:17 PM  

SevenizGud: I don't believe that we should create two classes of people distinguished by their beliefs, especially if it allows one group to have all the same advantages, but WITHOUT the same duty, all based on a simple claim of something. Even the playing field, and get rid of the objector language.



img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 03:34:41 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I'm not sure why that should be a requirement from anyone if people born in the US are under no such obligation.


Actually, male people born in the US are under such an obligation, if they are still in the US when they turn 18.  And they also have a hard time claiming conscientious objector status without membership in a church.
 
2013-06-19 03:35:06 PM  
She should start her own church.  The Church of Beer.

Meetings every Saturday night if you like hockey, Sundays if football is your fancy (we don't discriminate in the CoB).

You must pay tithes to the CoB on the order of 1 case/box (depending where you're from and what you call it) of beer, and it must NOT be from the Coors Brewing Company.  That would be evil.

Our gathering places consist of people's basements and as such are tax exempt.

And oh yeah, we have stationary to scribble out any screed required by our members to become naturalized citizens.
 
2013-06-19 03:36:48 PM  

wxboy


It's entirely possible she's a druid or something.


Funny - she doesn't look druish.
 
Ant
2013-06-19 03:37:45 PM  

Fireproof: She couldn't have just lied about taking up arms? It's not like she'll ever, ever be asked to.

Also, the Fark headline is even more misleading than the article's.


Maybe she has moral objections to lying.
 
2013-06-19 03:38:12 PM  
I don't shoot people because I don't want to be shot.  Treat people how you want to be treated, leave jeebus out of it.  On the other hand any Farkettes need a spanking?
 
2013-06-19 03:38:18 PM  

Ant: Thought experiment:

Is there anything your God could command of you that you would consider to be morally wrong? Killing innocent men, women, and children? Sacrificing your child to Yahweh?

If so, then you have a moral system that is not God-given. You are making a judgement based on morals outside of God's own.
If not, then you are basically saying God 100% moral, therefore anything he commands is 100% morally correct. In other words, that might makes right.


A christian I once dated thought that the Song of Songs should not be in the Bible, because it was too dirty.  So, she had a standard higher than the Bible, by which the Bible itself could be judged and found sinful.
 
GBB
2013-06-19 03:38:20 PM  
Being a pacifist does not excuse you from a military obligation.  If you are part of a religious structure that believes in non-violence, then you are excused.  Since there is no "Church of Atheism" that fits the general structure of an established religion, then you must be available to be called upon to defend this country.
 
2013-06-19 03:38:50 PM  
People that can't imagine having a conscience or knowing right from wrong without a religion obliging them to, scare the hell out of me.
 
2013-06-19 03:39:17 PM  
Isn't selective service registration only required if you are male? Was that changed recently?
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report