Woman Being Denied Citizenship Because Her Morality Doesn’t Come From Religion

Woman Being Denied Citizenship Because Her Morality Doesn’t Come From Religion

Margaret Doughty, a 64-year old woman from the UK who has spent the past 30+ years in the U.S., is in the process of applying for United States Citizenship and happens to be an atheist. She is currently a permanent resident running non-profit adult literacy organizations, doing her part to enrich the lives of American citizens. In the process of applying for citizenship, all candidates are asked if they’d be willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America. Ms. Doughty responded,

“I am sure the law would never require a 64 year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms. Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. 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…my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God…I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.”

Despite being an atheist, Ms. Doughty was told that any conscientious objection must be based on religious grounds, not simply moral objections. So as someone who was not religious, and didn’t believe in a god, she had no basis for objecting. Her statement has been denied and she has been informed that to move forward in the process she must submit a letter from the elders of her church to prove her conscientious objections are religiously based.

The INS has told her,

“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.”

More:
http://dividedundergod.com/2013/06/14/woman-being-denied-citizenship-because-her-morality-doesnt-come-from-religion/

FWIW, my personal understanding is that in order to be a Conscientious Objector under the rules of Selective Service, your objection does NOT have to be religiously-based. Apparently, INS has a different standard?

Watch Sam Seder Stomp Silly Libertarian!

Watch Sam Seder Stomp Silly Libertarian!

I don’t want to ruin this video by explaining too much about it–you just have to hear how deranged and delusional this libertarian caller is for yourself. These people truly live in some sort of fantasy land!

Watch:

If they'd impeached Bush like we wanted them to, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Here's another one...

The twelve scariest words in the English language are...

"I'm from the government and I'm here to save you from tornadoes."

Ermagerd... SOCIALISM!

"Here, this is the new way I sign my name...

There's also a couple audio-only apps

Want To Secretly Record A Run-In With The Cops? The ACLU Has an App for That
http://www.geekosystem.com/aclu-police-recording-app/

Policing the Police: The Apps That Let You Spy on the Cops
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/policing-the-police-the-apps-that-let-you-spy-on-the-cops/240916/

Anti-Gay Cake Shop Owners not so Religious After All

The Cake Wars
Who among us is righteous enough to eat of the sacred buttercream Bible-beating Oregon bakers have denied gays?

...

The first incident, in February, involved Gresham’s Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whose owner told a lesbian couple that “we don’t do same-sex marriages.” Earlier this month, Pam Regentin, who operates Fleur Cakes out of her home in the Hood River area, also refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding.

Both bakeries cited their religious beliefs as the reason they would not make the cakes. Both describe themselves as Christian.

...

We wondered what other requests these cakemakers would decline to honor. So last week five WW reporters called these two bakeries anonymously to get price quotes for other occasions frowned upon by some Christians. Surprisingly, the people who answered the phone at each bakery were quite willing to provide baked goods for celebrations of divorces, unmarried parents, stem-cell research, non-kosher barbecues and pagan solstice parties.

...

Sweet Cakes owners Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we “would even try to entrap a business” and contacted conservative talk-show host Lars Larson.


SWEET TASTE OF WICKEDNESS: This cake purchased from Gresham’s Sweet Cakes by Melissa bears an important message*. - IMAGE: ronitphoto.com

More:
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html


*Mark 12:31 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/12.html

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

Charlie Veitch was once one of Britain’s leading conspiracy theorists, a friend of David Icke and Alex Jones and a 9/11 'truther'. But when he had a change of heart, the threats began. He talks to Will Storr.


'The poster boy for a mad movement': Charlie Veitch Photo: Will Storr


On a June afternoon in the middle of New York’s Times Square, Charlie Veitch took out his phone, turned on the camera and began recording a statement about the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.

“I was a real firm believer in the conspiracy that it was a controlled demolition,” he started. “That it was not in any way as the official story explained. But, this universe is truly one of smoke screens, illusions and wrong paths. If you are presented with new evidence, take it on, even if it contradicts what you or your group want to believe. You have to give the truth the greatest respect, and I do.”

To most people, it doesn’t sound like a particularly outrageous statement to make. In fact, the rest of the video was almost banal in its observations; that the destruction of the towers may actually have been caused by the two 767 passenger jets that flew into them. But to those who subscribed to Veitch’s YouTube channel, a channel he set up to promulgate conspiracy theories like the one he was now rejecting, it was tantamount to heresy.

“You sell out piece of s---. Rot in hell, Veitch,” ran one comment beneath the video. “This man is a pawn,” said another. “Your [sic] a f---ing pathetic slave,” shrilled a third. “What got ya? Money?” So runs what passes for debate on the internet. Veitch had expected a few spiteful comments from the so-called “Truth Movement”. What he had not expected was the size or the sheer force of the attack.

More:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html

It's not about not refusing to hold lesbians equally responsible.

The question is whether or not the girl is being selectively prosecuted because she is gay.

We need to find out if the local prosecutors have refused to bring charges against male/female relationships in similar circumstances (which they are allowed due to prosecutorial discretion) but for some reason have chosen to make an example of this girl.

The question is whether there is selective prosecution, singling her out for harsher treatment. It's not one of letting her off the hook because she's gay or female.

If the prosecutors can find even one fairly recent case of a male/female relationship in that jurisdiction, in which they have filed similar charges, under similar circumstances, then all of this is probably fair.

Edited to add:

If these kids were surrounded by dozens of Senior/Freshman male/female dating relationships, and nobody in their school had ever been prosecuted for it, why should they feel like they were doing something wrong?

If the school allowed seniors to take freshmen as dates to the prom, why should these two girls feel like they were doing something wrong?

Under those circumstances, the "law" would probably seem quaint, like those old "blue laws" that forbid women in some states to wear patent leather shoes.