• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Obama: New Citizens may decline to pledge allegiance!

righteousdude2

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Once again, our POTUS shows why he should be (but won't be) impeached for crimes against the nation by making it no longer part of the swearing in ceremony for new citizens to swear to defend this nation in time of war.

IMHO, this plays directly into the mindset of Muslims, who would object to fighting other Muslims in a war against a radical Islamic nation or group.

Tell me ... just what is this country becoming? Do you think our founding fathers would have stood for such nonsense?
 
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
righteousdude2 said:
Once again, our POTUS shows why he should be (but won't be) impeached for crimes against the nation by making it no longer part of the swearing in ceremony for new citizens to swear to defend this nation in time of war.
Click to expand...
Actually it still is, despite what a bunch of right-wing blogs claim.

The current oath has been in place since 1950 and there has always been a religious exemption for those who a pacifists and they must provide evidence that they belong to a religious group that advocates pacifism.

IMHO, this plays directly into the mindset of Muslims, who would object to fighting other Muslims in a war against a radical Islamic nation or group.
Click to expand...
Unless prospective citizens were a documented member of a pacifist group - not just a group that would disagree with going to war against only a certain possible enemy - they would be required to take the oath.

Tell me ... just what is this country becoming?
Click to expand...
A nation that is sent into a panic by people who believe anything written by a blogger on the internet without first checking it out for themselves?

Do you think our founding fathers would have stood for such nonsense?
Click to expand...
They would have supported religious liberty. They would have been opposed to an uninformed citizen spreading falsehoods.
 
righteousdude2

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer said:
Actually it still is, despite what a bunch of right-wing blogs claim.

The current oath has been in place since 1950 and there has always been a religious exemption for those who a pacifists and they must provide evidence that they belong to a religious group that advocates pacifism.


Unless prospective citizens were a documented member of a pacifist group - not just a group that would disagree with going to war against only a certain possible enemy - they would be required to take the oath.


A nation that is sent into a panic by people who believe anything written by a blogger on the internet without first checking it out for themselves?


They would have supported religious litberty. They would have been opposed to an uninformed citizen spreading falsehoods.
Click to expand...

This info came from the Washington Examiner, as well as FOX News, not a blog. I don't read blogs, but you must, or you'd never known about his spreading falsehoods, huh? And religion no longer has to be proved or even the reason. They can decline based on moral or personal ethical code.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...e-up-arms-and-defend-the-u.s./article/2568704

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-united-states-from-citizenship-oath-n2028889

I guess you need to check your sources brother!??? :smilewinkgrin: Have a good day! :flower:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
righteousdude2 said:
This info came from the Washington Examiner, as well as FOX News, not a blog.
Click to expand...
Okay. You gave NO source for your accusation in the OP, so I had to rely on Google search. I did not find anything but right-wing blogs commenting on it. Moreover, a check of official U.S. government sites (which have not yet been updated) did not verify your unsupported claim.

I don't read blogs, but you must, or you'd never known about his spreading falsehoods, huh?
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't, except to do fact-checking when one of my friends gets all riled up about something.

And religion no longer has to be proved or even the reason. They can decline based on moral or personal ethical code.
Click to expand...
Which is a better standard than the religious test option that was a holdover from the 1950s. Since Baptists believe in the separation of church and state, the government should not require someone to have religious faith in order to have personal convictions regarding morality.

For those reading along, the updated policy can be found here. The Washington Examiner link previously provided does not work.

This change is the real news here. It is a positive story, not a negative story... at least for Baptists.

I guess you need to check your sources brother!???
Click to expand...
If you had actually provided a source, I could have skipped 10 minutes of searches and research.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
"It should be noted the Islamic terrorist Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, who killed four Marines and a Navy sailor in Chattanooga last week, was a naturalized citizen."

I disagree with changing the oath, but it would not make a difference (and the article us using the incident in Chattanooga for its own agenda...I'm sure Abdulazeez, having already been naturalized, took the old pledge).
 
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
"It should be noted the Islamic terrorist Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, who killed four Marines and a Navy sailor in Chattanooga last week, was a naturalized citizen."
Click to expand...

What?! A mass killer didn't keep his oath? Unbelievable.
 
Baptist Believer

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Revmitchell said:
Oaths are important even if some do not keep them.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they are not. However, we cannot expect an oath to bind a person who is willing to murder others.

The oath does not provide safety, but rather, it provides expectations and inspiration for people of good character.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The reason I brought it up was the article linked the pledge with the terrorist (it is implied, but there is no other reason to mention Chattanooga but to emotionalize the action). The article was flawed - it should have stayed on topic.

I absolutely agree with you, Rev, that the pledge to defend the US in times of war (directly or in supportive positions) should remain as it should be implied as a responsibility of every citizen. I do not know why we view others as having some sort of a right to become citizens.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
The reason I brought it up was the article linked the pledge with the terrorist (it is implied, but there is no other reason to mention Chattanooga but to emotionalize the action). The article was flawed - it should have stayed on topic.

I absolutely agree with you, Rev, that the pledge to defend the US in times of war (directly or in supportive positions) should remain as it should be implied as a responsibility of every citizen. I do not know why we view others as having some sort of a right to become citizens.
Click to expand...

Refusal to say it means we should not let them be citizens.
 
righteousdude2

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Believer said:
Okay. You gave NO source for your accusation in the OP, so I had to rely on Google search. I did not find anything but right-wing blogs commenting on it. Moreover, a check of official U.S. government sites (which have not yet been updated) did not verify your unsupported claim.


Actually, I don't, except to do fact-checking when one of my friends gets all riled up about something.


Which is a better standard than the religious test option that was a holdover from the 1950s. Since Baptists believe in the separation of church and state, the government should not require someone to have religious faith in order to have personal convictions regarding morality.

For those reading along, the updated policy can be found here. The Washington Examiner link previously provided does not work.

This change is the real news here. It is a positive story, not a negative story... at least for Baptists.


If you had actually provided a source, I could have skipped 10 minutes of searches and research.
Click to expand...

That is my bad. Sorry!

Not an excuse, but I still didn't know how to copy and paste from the Nook I use. However, after your comments, I went to Nook and learned how it was done, and it was easier than I expected, so I will no longer just post, but I can now copy my source and paste it too!

Again sorry, It was my bad! :BangHead:
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm gone for two days yet the inaccurate posts continue.

1. The new citizens do not "pledge allegiance to the flag". So they do not "decline to pledge allegiance" as the title of the OP states.

2. They still have to say the Oath of Allegiance, but they may omit one clause regarding being willing to go to war or serving in the Armed Forces, citing religious reasons.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...citizens-swear-a-different-Oath-of-Allegiance

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Updates/20150721-OathModifications.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top