A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism

[chappy]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Remind me, how many elephant ride the turtles, which support a world?

Probably 4, you'd have to ask the scientists from the Kingdom of Krull to know for sure.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chappy

Probably 4, you'd have to ask the scientists from the Kingdom of Krull to know for sure.

A women who has been a permanent resident in the U.S. for 30 years
was told that she would have to join a church before she would be
allowed to become a citizen.

Right wing religious intolerance, stupidity, and bigotry strike again!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3469358.html

[chappy]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Right wing religious intolerance, stupidity, and bigotry strike again!

I'm going to invoke Hanlon's razor here. It certainly isn't religious intolerance, at most it is non-religious intolerance. The point at hand is how to prove conscientious objector status. Despite the NSA's recent revelations the government are not yet mind readers.

The implementation of this standard has a long and rich history of abuse, and this is one of the few places that I completely agree with Dawkins in the God Delusion: that it is incredibly stupid that merely being a member of a religious group can grant CO status, whereas having a PhD. in Philosophy and being published and even renowned for pacifism does not.

The problem, of course, is that given the simple check box "yes, I'm a pacifist" most rational people who didn't want to go to Vietnam, as an example, would check the box instead of running off to Canada.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

A women who has been a permanent resident in the U.S. for 30 years
was told that she would have to join a church before she would be
allowed to become a citizen.

Right wing religious intolerance, stupidity, and bigotry strike again!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3469358.html

This is disgusting and unconstitutional.

Just to call attention, there is a petition at Daily Kos.
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/...action_KEY=442

[firejuggler]

Being part of the FSM church is acceptable, then?

[chappy]

Serious answer: I would guess that officially no it would not. But, depending on the circumstances, such as wording and letterhead the worker bees probably wouldn't notice and it would pass.

Less serious answer: Of course! I'd bet they'd accept even the fake religions like Methodists.

I'd have been a lot happier with a non-sensical "This is completly fair for the following stupid reasons." response from ZetaFlux to respond to. I'd even have settled for the "it is because it is that way" response from Jasong. It sucks to have to argue the middle path when my gut rebels against the fact that this situation still comes up today.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by jasong

One thing this forum has done has helped me improve my tolerance and sense of humor, so thanks for that. :)

Off-topic: I think most "pink elephants" are caused by the brain misinterpreting stimuli, plus the natural debris that exists in and on the surface of the eye. I had a friend who, when he wasn't feeling well, would see sticks coming out of people's heads. You will probably see these sticks yourselves if you look up at a pure blue sky.

I think that most "gods" are caused by the brain making crap up to explain things that science has not yet been able to explain. Over the years, more and more people have jumped off of the "gods" bandwagon as science has been able to explain almost everything beyond a shadow of doubt. We're now down to the origin of the universe and to a lesser extent how humans evolved as about the only things that science doesn't yet have a definitive proof for so religion is being backed into a tighter and tighter corner. I mean, think about it. The pattern is clear. People thought that almost everything was controlled by gods even just 500-1000 years ago.

What I believe will happen over the next few centuries or millinea is that science will ultimately come up with a definitive proof for how mankind evolved -and- how the universe came to be or that it has always been here (I believe the latter; i.e. that there was no actual beginning).

Despite these proofs, there will still be a certain (hopefully) small percentage of people that will hold on to their "god" beliefs because they just cannot let them go. It will be too painful to be proven wrong. It will then be that people who profess a belief in a higher being will be ridiculed or persecuted in a manner similar to the way that people who do not believe now or did not believe in the past.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chappy

I'm going to invoke Hanlon's razor here. It certainly isn't religious intolerance, at most it is non-religious intolerance. .

It is intolerance. It is intolerance on the part of religious people toward those
who do not share their views.

[chappy]

Bob, it isn't worth fighting over since we both agree that it is wrong (see how easy that is Kasekoph?) but you are putting a label of "religious" on people who are enforcing a stupid policy without having any proof of their beliefs.

Ultimately this is a good thing, because it will force a review of a slowly evolving policy that hasn't seen a real improvement since the end of the Vietnam Conflict.

And some of the spirit and language of the current law stems from the brutality with which religious pacifists have been treated in the past.

The US military has a more nuanced statement of CO's including this language:

"Deeply held moral or ethical beliefs should be valued with the strength and devotion of traditional religious conviction. The term "religious training and/or belief" may include solely moral or ethical beliefs even though the applicant may not characterize these beliefs as "'religious" in the traditional sense, or may expressly characterize them as not religious. The term "religious training and/or belief" does not include a belief that rests solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, expediency, or political views. "

[Batalov]

I've fetched my old copy of the N-400 form and found that there are separate statements #37, #38, #39, of which she answered "no" only to #37 and "yes" to #38, #39. These items are later followed by the "Part 14. Oath of allegiance" that summarizes all items together (without exceptions) and ends with emphatic "...so help me God."
But at least that last part you may chose not to say (no paperwork required), everything else has its bureaucratic pathways to modification requests. The clerk was just implementing the policy, which is of course rigid and outdated. The clerk stands to lose his/her job if they don't follow the formal procedure, so it is hard to blame them for the lack of imagination.

This case is going to be of great help for future applicants.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by Batalov

I've fetched my old copy of the N-400 form and found that there are separate statements #37, #38, #39, of which she answered "no" only to #37 and "yes" to #38, #39. These items are later followed by the "Part 14. Oath of allegiance" that summarizes all items together (without exceptions) and ends with emphatic "...so help me God."
But at least that last part you may chose not to say (no paperwork required), everything else has its bureaucratic pathways to modification requests. The clerk was just implementing the policy, which is of course rigid and outdated. The clerk stands to lose his/her job if they don't follow the formal procedure, so it is hard to blame them for the lack of imagination.

This case is going to be of great help for future applicants.

Yeah, what he said! (running and hiding behind Batalov!)