Woman Denied US Citizenship Because of Atheism

page: 12
30
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I am not reading anything into it.
In fact, if you re read my posts, I have said exactly the same thing you just said throughout this thread.


The problem is, obviously, that the grounds for objection have always been, until recently, that objection was based on religious reasons.

And again, for like the 50th time in this thread, precedent has been set recognizing the right to object without religious reasoning, but she may, of MAY NOT, be able to call upon that precedence.

Is this really that hard to understand?




posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 





precedent has been set recognizing the right to object without religious reasoning,


There you have it. You said it right there. Because she is not religious (an atheist) she is not recognized as a conscientious objector.

Wow you do get it you just will not admit it outright.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


First of all the oath is the same. From Maria Guitierez from Chihuahua to Tom Finklestein, newly appointed senator. No, there is NO DIFFERENCE.

Secondly, hell, I dunno. For all I know she very well could be the VERY FIRST citizen applicant claiming objector status.

Either way it was a dumb move. She shoulda just taken the damn oath. She is in her 60s. She ain't getting drafted.
But leave it to an atheist to act uppity and try and flaunt her "intellectualism".

That, afterall, is what this actually boils down to.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I take it you are new to the thread.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 





In fact, at a simple glance, I would venture the author is a pissed off atheist making a mountain out of a mole hill. That is what I thought initially, and my interactions with said author quickly confirmed this in this very thread. Page 3 I think.


I've re-read page 3, I fail to see where you get the idea that I'm pissed off, or that I'm an atheist.



Either way it was a dumb move. She shoulda just taken the damn oath. She is in her 60s. She ain't getting drafted. But leave it to an atheist to act uppity and try and flaunt her "intellectualism".


And here we are again, back to your argument on page three. "She should have just taken the high road and LIED."

Uppity atheist, flaunting her false sense of morality!





edit on 19-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR

The problem is, obviously, that the grounds for objection have always been, until recently, that objection was based on religious reasons.

And again, for like the 50th time in this thread, precedent has been set recognizing the right to object without religious reasoning, but she may, of MAY NOT, be able to call upon that precedence.



With the modern Information Age of full disclosure, Christian politicians can no longer pressure behind closed door deals forcing religious rules in to our secular government.

We are a secular government. American Atheists by legal means is undoing the damage from the past that has allowed religious rule in this country.

Religion can not be the only criteria for conscientious objector --- just because its been that way in the past.

I suspect (personal opinion) she did this on purpose, with intent.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


But more to the point...no, you still don't understand.
Religion does not equate to spiritualism.
For instance, I am anti religious, but I am also a theist.

Furthermore, it misses the point all together.
For instance, I could fill out an application saying, "I refuse to take the oath because eff you."

Then the Gov sends back a reply saying "You are denied because "eff you" is not a valid reason".

Get it now?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Citizenship is a deep rabbit hole. Giving allegiance to the state, basically you have a master. How many masters can one have?

It's all very tricky tricky tricky.
Luke 11:52
King James Version (KJV)
52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Q what happens to a citizenship once the citizen becomes a member of the BAR?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I get it you just think she should have kept her head down and fell in line. God forbid (excuse the expression) she actually stand up for what she believes especially if she is an atheist.

When an atheist stands up for what they believe they are being uppity when the religious do it has to be morals.

Only the religious have morals according to many of the religious.

I have been following the thread it is that I had finally seen something so ignorant posted that I felt the need to correct it.

BTW if you had paid attention to the thread you would know she isn’t the first person to claim objector status hence where I said others were not denied who were religious. Of course you could have actually looked that up and known before posting but it seems that didn’t cross your mind.


Edit to add

If it was as you claimed then the government would except proof of her conviction other than religious organizations. As it stands they only except letters from religious organizations which is clearly biased.
edit on 19-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


No need to look it up. It is irrelevant to this case. If it can be shown, she can appeal and she will be granted cktizenship.

And in fact, if this is the case, this entire discussion is pointless.
In other words, I highly suspect you are mistaken.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
As I said initially, I hate to sound contrary, because I don't agree with it either, but this is obviously a legal chess match.
Under law the Government is right to deny.

It is up to her to assert her "rights" as a non citizen.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Or put another way...

...the constitution protects all those on American soil. Maria Gutierez from Chihuahua. She is here illegally. She is still afforded the right to bear arms...the freedom from illegal search and seizure... But is she entitled to the earned income tax credit? Hell no.

If you are a non citizen, you are only protected by the constitution.

Yes, if you stand your ground as an atheist, you can claim conscientious objector status, but as a non citizen, you MAY NOT be able to claim this as grounds to reject your oath to defend the nation you are trying to become part of.

And this is all aside from the fact that, by God, if you don't intend to defend this place as your home, go some place else, ya damn coward.

We are talking about a draft situation as a 60 year old.
If situations get THAT DESPERATE *everyone* better be grabbing a damn rifle.

Period



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 





No need to look it up. It is irrelevant to this case.


Wow if you think it is irrelevant..... that blows my mind. You couldn't be more wrong.




If it can be shown, she can appeal and she will be granted citizenship.

Did you not read or comprehend where it has been stated several times they only accept letters for verifying her being a conscientious objector from religious institutions? In other words atheists are excluded. That is kind of the point of the thread.




And in fact, if this is the case, this entire discussion is pointless.

In fact this is why you should look up things you know nothing about so you can gain a better understanding.





In other words, I highly suspect you are mistaken.


I would be banned if I posted what I suspect. I will just suggest you reread the thread without bias and hope you comprehend it better.

Arguing with you on this any further would be pointless IMO. I would say most of the people that have read the thread understand and can see this for what it is however it seems to have gone over your head. There is fountain of knowledge to be had but the old saying about leading a horse to water …… well it seems to fit here.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Did you not read, or comprehend, where an atheist HAS been granted objector status?

I suspect you are either being deliberately obtuse or you are daft. No offense.

This is a purely legal issue.

And as I said pages back, the Government DOES NOT WANT people being able to object whenever the hell they please with no grounds.
Hence the requirement of documentation, and red tape.

Good day, sir.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
And here is the problem...

If you are such a coward that you refuse to protect your own home, you should be required to live life with your wrists taped to your ankles. Because despite your ideology, there ARE bad people in this world. If you will just give your belongings, your life, to would be invaders, you are a rape case waiting to happen.

Hell, natural born citizens either sign up for selective service or face a 250,000 dollar fine.

Tell me how to get out of that one, smartasses. Cuz I sure as hell don't wanna even be called into court to verbally refuse jury duty.

This woman doesn't get a free pass.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Here's an update on Ms. Doughty case:


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's reasoning is perfectly valid, atheist groups have argued in response to the rejection threat. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to Citizenship and Immigration Services, calling the government request "illegal and unconstitutional."

"It is shocking that USCIS officers would not be aware that a nonreligious yet deeply held belief would be sufficient to attain this exemption," Andrew L. Seidel, a staff attorney at Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote after laying out a list of Supreme Court tests that suggest a rejection would be unusual and improper. "This is a longstanding part of our law and every USCIS officer should receive training on this exemption ... Either the officers in Houston are inept, or they are deliberately discriminating against nonreligious applicants for naturalization."

The American Humanist Association later followed suit, urging the agency to back down or face litigation.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

So, she has till Friday to "join a church"?


Looks like a lawsuit is brewing.


edit on 20-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Maybe her best bet is the Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Or Buddhism (if they'll count that).



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


She sure should look into it, in my opinion. She's already aligned with The American Humanist Association, The Freedom From Religion Foundation and The American Atheists.

Atheists don't need to get churchy, but they DO need to organize and should be able to congregate, petition the government and lobby.

At least we know that she's not alone in her battle!


edit on 20-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Hey, wind...
did you see the thread about TWA flight 800? There's a video documentary covering the 'cover-up' that reveals what some of the witnesses of the event had to say....and how the govt agencies twisted the story to suit their purposes.

One lady was on the "nationalization" short list. She'd been living in the US for 30 years or so - and was pursuing citizenship.

When she told the "investigating" FBI agents what she had seen with her own eyes (they visited her home), they said to her, "We understand you're seeking citizenship."
She replied, "yes, I am."

They replied, "If you want your citizenship to go through, we suggest that you NEVER TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAW."

So she didn't. Until now. This thing is going to blow big-time. The government is on the hot-seat. FINALLY.

edit on 20-6-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Nothing new there!


Consider the case of Charlie Chaplin.


In 1952 Charlie Chaplin's re-entry visa to his home of over 40 years was denied. At that time, with no ability to return to California, he settled in Vevey, Switzerland (a small town in Switzerland residing on the north side of Geneva Lake) and applied for citizenship - with the overshadowing events such as the denial of the re-entry visa to the United States,


Because of the speech from his movie "The Great Dictator, Charlie Chaplin was sentenced by his own art community and exiled from his home of 40 years, in Los Angeles, California. His crime? He "violated the Artist Code & departed from his mission of comedy," Therefore, denied re-entry into the USA, based on that crime!

Free speech? Not on your life!



That's not funny Charlie!

His speech was considered political, and he had to be silenced. He was accused of being a member of the Communist party, and was subsequently "blacklisted" by the film industry, during the McCarthy Era. He was denied a return visa, disallowing him to re-enter the USA, in 1952.


Counterpoint #1 Moral Point - Not Political Point I contend Chaplin was not making a political statement, his statement was a plea for basic morals - a plea for equality of all men. He meant for his statement to cross all boundaries - he never intended to support one type of government over another. He wanted to denounce ANY government that destroyed equality.



Counterpoint #3 History Must Be Remembered Who was it who stated we must remember the holocaust with photos because we would never believe it. Forgetting history is a critical error because then we are more likely to make the same mistakes again. Likewise, with the exile and misunderstanding of Chaplin, we must remember. We must forgive harsh words, harsh critics, We must ourselves soften our voices, clamp our anger and remember Charlie's voice of peace and unity - to all be equal.

Counterpoint #4 Verbal Condemnation - Exile From His Home The genocide that has occurred throughout the ages is grossly tragic. The verbal condemnation of others is another tragedy albeit not gross but almost as equally as harmful to those we attack and to ourselves.

Hate separates us from God.
Hate is the one sin God cannot forgive.
Our own hate will condemn us in the sight of God.
celebrateusa.hubpages.com...





new topics
top topics
 
30
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join