Wait...I mean, aside from the general fuckery of this, aren't they just assuming that everyone and anyone would be willing to kill someone if they didn't have a religious objection to it?
I've only recently realized that many people think non-Christians are amoral. It explains why some kids weren't allowed to play with me growing up--I'd thought it was in case I tainted their faith but it was probably because they basically saw me as a sociopath.
So, yeah, if you don't follow their rule book--and, more importantly, the teachings of their fundamentalist sect, you can't tell right from wrong.
Yeah, pretty much. They think if one doesn't have religion holding them back, everyone would be a murdering sociopath. So if you openly proclaim to not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, you are inherently immoral and are capable of anything.
Oh, FFS. The freaking pope recognizes the validity of athiest morality. It's pretty damn sad when a government which isn't allowed to impose religious obligations is more rigidly insistent on religion than the pope.
Okay, the only reason it had to come from a religious place is because the religious are a protected class under the law. This has less to do with state and religion being intertwined and more to do with the 1st amendment and various civil rights acts requiring that religious objections be respected.
What's fucked up here is that that question was a question at all since 1)you should be able to have a moral objection to killing another regardless of circumstances, and 2)this seems like a weird holdover from a draft-like mentality. We got rid of that for a reason.
Common sense tells us that she's benefiting the US more with her work in literacy than if she were on the front lines. It is a concern that some people have with immigrants though. The internment of Japanese-Americans was the fear/assumption they'd support Japan rather than the country where they were raising their children, where they had farms, where they were citizens, etc.
I think this article might be bogus - CO is a status for when we have a draft not citizenship.
Ok I take it back. Should have done more research before commenting. After reading a few other articles I'd say now this looks like gross application of ridiculous standards by that particular USCIS office. I am still sure this is against US law though
Comments 21
Because that's fucked up.
Reply
So, yeah, if you don't follow their rule book--and, more importantly, the teachings of their fundamentalist sect, you can't tell right from wrong.
Reply
Reply
Reply
What a mess this is, you keep surprising me America ..
I think it's brave that she stood by her morals though, she has every right to
Reply
What's fucked up here is that that question was a question at all since
1)you should be able to have a moral objection to killing another regardless of circumstances, and
2)this seems like a weird holdover from a draft-like mentality. We got rid of that for a reason.
Reply
Common sense tells us that she's benefiting the US more with her work in literacy than if she were on the front lines. It is a concern that some people have with immigrants though. The internment of Japanese-Americans was the fear/assumption they'd support Japan rather than the country where they were raising their children, where they had farms, where they were citizens, etc.
Reply
Ok I take it back. Should have done more research before commenting. After reading a few other articles I'd say now this looks like gross application of ridiculous standards by that particular USCIS office. I am still sure this is against US law though
Reply
Leave a comment