U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-24-2013, 04:31 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,891 posts, read 8,675,047 times
Reputation: 8434

Advertisements

Part "threat", part "saving grace". There is so much of Christianity that is of value. It's just been "framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order" [John Adams] and is still used as a wrapper around the vestiges of Pauline dogma therein. Combined with the common themes found in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., and it could serve humanity long into the future. But that's got to be the way it is: The value of Christianity (and the rest) serving humanity, not the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-24-2013, 06:26 AM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,245,374 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
Good. I'm not thrilled about another atheist entering our society, but we have freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.
So... no more newborn babies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 06:53 AM
 
39,220 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
So... no more newborn babies?
I had to think about that one for a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 03:48 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,780,067 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
What we're trying to tell you is that verification that she has spiritual/religious convictions that contrast with the bearing of arms and verification that she's a church-goer or someone who is well known by any church are not at all the same thing. Therefore, they were not asking for verification of her claims; they were asking for verification of something they had just assumed to be true.
Um.....NO! They were wanting her to submit a response based on her own admission by a specific date. It had nothing to do with her being forced to join a church as some in here have claimed. It was simply to have her submit something in writing contesting to her beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,245,374 times
Reputation: 2619
Round and round we go!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
What we're trying to tell you is that verification that she has spiritual/religious convictions that contrast with the bearing of arms and verification that she's a church-goer or someone who is well known by any church are not at all the same thing. Therefore, they were not asking for verification of her claims; they were asking for verification of something they had just assumed to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Um.....NO! They were wanting her to submit a response based on her own admission by a specific date. It had nothing to do with her being forced to join a church as some in here have claimed. It was simply to have her submit something in writing contesting to her beliefs.
When you put the last part in bold, were you indicating that this is all you read? I didn't say they were trying to force her to join a church. But I just told you very clearly that since being affiliated in any way with a church and being "spiritual/religious" (which is what she actually claimed) are two entirely different things, they were not asking for verification of any of her claims. They were instead asking for verification that she was a member of a church that was officially against the bearing of arms.

And now that I think on it a bit more, it's somewhat underhanded to ask for such a thing. Would failure to provide verification of this (claim she did not make) constitute reason to deny her citizenship, especially if she did not specifically challenge the requirement? For people in power who rarely have to pay for their mistakes, it might be a worth a shot. What have they got to lose?

Yep, worth a shot. I wasn't aware that there many churches of any faith or lack of it that specifically stood against "the bearing of arms". Even "Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments is debatable as a true commandment of God. Some claim the correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder". So would the church have to profess a belief word for word that bearing arms in and of itself or killing for any reason was a sin? Doubtful that many of them would do this. And the USCIS might have figured as much, so it's possible they chose this standard of "verification" to keep her specifically from obtaining citizenship.

Either way they were way off their mark on this one, if not intentionally prejudice, and I find it strange that you are even denying that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 04:37 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,780,067 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
When you put the last part in bold, were you indicating that this is all you read? I didn't say they were trying to force her to join a church. But I just told you very clearly that since being affiliated in any way with a church and being "spiritual/religious" (which is what she actually claimed) are two entirely different things, they were not asking for verification of any of her claims. They were instead asking for verification that she was a member of a church that was officially against the bearing of arms.

And now that I think on it a bit more, it's somewhat underhanded to ask for such a thing. Would failure to provide verification of this (claim she did not make) constitute reason to deny her citizenship, especially if she did not specifically challenge the requirement? For people in power who rarely have to pay for their mistakes, it might be a worth a shot. What have they got to lose?

Yep, worth a shot. I wasn't aware that there many churches of any faith or lack of it that specifically stood against "the bearing of arms". Even "Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments is debatable as a true commandment of God. Some claim the correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder". So would the church have to profess a belief word for word that bearing arms in and of itself or killing for any reason was a sin? Doubtful that many of them would do this. And the USCIS might have figured as much, so it's possible they chose this standard of "verification" to keep her specifically from obtaining citizenship.

Either way they were way off their mark on this one, if not intentionally prejudice, and I find it strange that you are even denying that.
Well, when you wrote "; they were asking for verification of something they had just assumed to be true", they were asking simply for verification of her beliefs. They assumed it would be coming from a church. All she then needed to do is submit a letter stating her beliefs.

Why would it be underhanded to ask for clarification of her own admission? DHS has the authority to deny change of status based on any reason they deem just. If she couldn't clarify her admission, then who's fault was it really?

What "standard" is there? The standard is simply to verify all claims as made by the person applying for change of status.

I think DHS was right on their mark, there was no prejudice at all. Why are you surprised that I am denying your opinion of claims made which aren't in line with the actual facts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 05:39 PM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,245,374 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Well, when you wrote "; they were asking for verification of something they had just assumed to be true", they were asking simply for verification of her beliefs. They assumed it would be coming from a church. All she then needed to do is submit a letter stating her beliefs.
Why would they bother asking for a letter from a church if a letter stating her beliefs would have sufficed? Sorry, their request was either stupid or shady. There is no other way to label it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Why would it be underhanded to ask for clarification of her own admission?
Well, they didn't ask for clarification, for one thing. They went right into asking her to present a letter from a church saying she was a member in good standing of a church that had an official view on the bearing of arms. I'm saying it could've been underhanded on their part, for the simple facts that this was asking her to verify something she didn't even claim and they probably knew the verification they requested would be nigh impossible to find. So if she hadn't have challenged it, she could've been denied and the justification would've been, "Well, we asked her to verify that she was a member of a church that was against guns and she failed to do it", nevermind the fact that this was no part of her reason as to why she would refuse to bear arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
DHS has the authority to deny change of status based on any reason they deem just.
Even if this is true, and there is no system of checks and balances regarding their authority, it doesn't make it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
If she couldn't clarify her admission, then who's fault was it really?
Seeing as how this was not a test for her to clarify her admission of "spiritual/religious beliefs", but an immediate request for her to verify a claim she never made, I find your question highly irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
I think DHS was right on their mark, there was no prejudice at all. Why are you surprised that I am denying your opinion of claims made which aren't in line with the actual facts?
Because if the DHS was right on their mark (so appropriate for us to use these words at this point) by asking someone who gave no mention of church membership to prove they were a member of a church, it seems the only logical explanation would be that they were trying to set her up. Why else would they intentionally ask for proof of a claim she neither made nor had much chance of verifying (a church that has an official view against bearing arms, c'mon), if they weren't being underhanded?

Seriously, L.R. They were either being stupid or shady. Pick one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 07:27 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 39,811,608 times
Reputation: 16147
I don't really care what religion or lack or religion someone has. I'm bothered that someone wants to become a citizen and is not willing to defend the country if need be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2013, 03:08 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,891 posts, read 8,675,047 times
Reputation: 8434
Then you didn't read the article very well. She was very much willing to help in the defense of the country, just in a capacity where she wasn't expected to take a life. If you think that defense of the country is just about "shooting people", then you don't really understand the nature of war. And "shooting people" - regular infantry - isn't even the most dangerous job in war. Explosive ordinance disposal, para-rescue, combat medic, and even supply truck drivers (jobs that religious pacifists assuredly perform) are considered far more dangerous than regular infantry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2013, 05:56 AM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 39,811,608 times
Reputation: 16147
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Then you didn't read the article very well. She was very much willing to help in the defense of the country, just in a capacity where she wasn't expected to take a life. If you think that defense of the country is just about "shooting people", then you don't really understand the nature of war. And "shooting people" - regular infantry - isn't even the most dangerous job in war. Explosive ordinance disposal, para-rescue, combat medic, and even supply truck drivers (jobs that religious pacifists assuredly perform) are considered far more dangerous than regular infantry.
So then what exactly is her issue? Is she worried they are going to put her on the front lines?

Although I still think she should be willing to take a life n defense of this country. As I think all citizens should.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top