Atheist Must Join Church

As I understand the oath it has more to do with military service. Are you willing to serve in the military to defend your country. If that is in deed the case I know I would not agree to that either. The military has very rarely been used to "defend" it has been sent abroad to "defend" our interests what ever they may be. I think the only war in which defense could be argued would be WWII. The rest were all political wars with out justification.

I just looked up the oath and it says nothing about defense of the nation (at least not the one I found. This is the oath.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

It talks about defense of the COTUS but no the nation. It does talk of bearing arms on behalf of the US. Quite a open ended statement.
 
Maybe your right about "open ended statement" but do you believe that if a draft were initiated, that people who were granted citizenship and who refused to make the statement "I will bear arms on behalf of the U.S." should be exempt from the draft, while American born citizens would not be exempt?

And apparently some people are seeking American citizenship simply for the positive things they will gain, while looking for a loophole to bypass any of the negative possibilities !
Think it's called "Having your cake and eating it too !"
 
Maybe your right about "open ended statement" but do you believe that if a draft were initiated, that people who were granted citizenship and who refused to make the statement "I will bear arms on behalf of the U.S." should be exempt from the draft, while American born citizens would not be exempt?

And apparently some people are seeking American citizenship simply for the positive things they will gain, while looking for a loophole to bypass any of the negative possibilities !
Think it's called "Having your cake and eating it too !"

The exemptions are/should be the same for everyone. I do not know how one proves that you are a conscientious objector but membership in some religious institution surely is not the answer. That may be the case. I do not know. I know that there only limited circumstances that I would serve (if I were of age). Were someone to actually invade US soil, I would help defend it. Fighting in Iraq for oil... not so much.
 
2. In KC's quote, he states "take up arms to "FIGHT" for the country , when the oath actually says "pledge to bear arms in "DEFENSE" of the U.S.

Well you conservatard, that oath might have been true....right up to Iraq, where we conducted an OFFENSIVE invasion. THen the wording has to change to "fight for the country"
 
Well you conservatard, that oath might have been true....right up to Iraq, where we conducted an OFFENSIVE invasion. THen the wording has to change to "fight for the country"

I'm sure a lot of people would not have a problem with you renouncing your citizenship, if you don't agree with the wording !
 
I'm sure a lot of people would not have a problem with you renouncing your citizenship, if you don't agree with the wording !
A Swing and a miss. The oath says "defend the country" and you call me a libtard for saying "fight for your country". Perhaps that is a conservatards way of admitting that Iraq WAS an offensive invasion and did NOTHING to defend America.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #37
Well you conservatard, that oath might have been true....right up to Iraq, where we conducted an OFFENSIVE invasion. THen the wording has to change to "fight for the country"

KC Said:
Insults aside and getting back to this woman, with that being the case (they won't take anybody over 35), why would her refusing to "take up arms to fight for the country" be held against her?


LOL
 
KC Said:
Insults aside and getting back to this woman, with that being the case (they won't take anybody over 35), why would her refusing to "take up arms to fight for the country" be held against her?


LOL

If someone insists on using the term libtard, then conservatard is not insulting. It's just leveling the palying field.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #39
If someone insists on using the term libtard, then conservatard is not insulting. It's just leveling the palying field.
You are rationalizing your actions is all.

Besides, I think Liberanus fits like a hemorrhoid.
 
You are rationalizing your actions is all.

Besides, I think Liberanus fits like a hemorrhoid.

Ah...therein lies a difference. Libtard, Conservatard, Liberanus...it's a group. Fair game. THe insults I am referring to were the ones that were personal in nature - none of which ended in "ard".
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #42
Ah...therein lies a difference. Libtard, Conservatard, Liberanus...it's a group. Fair game. THe insults I am referring to were the ones that were personal in nature - none of which ended in "ard".

Where's the outrage when fellow Lib Bear goes off like a rocket?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top