It's not considered "murder" when you're meting out punishment under the law, and the punishment under God's law for heresy was stoning.

Your blatant Islamophobia would never be accepted in a civilized society.

I will admit I think islam sucks, and I dont feel comfotable around them. Not to say I would string them up for their religion, but people who believe in it are just so anti-western things it makes me nervous to be around them. Call me racist if you want, but thats how I see it. If you dont mind muslims, take some refugees into your house and be "humanitarian".

I dont live in the so called bible belt, as I wouldnt feel very comfortable around bible thumping christians either. Not that I think they will disapprove of me so much as to harm me physically, but I never know what their "god" will tell them to do. Just a little unsettling.

I agree.

Which is why I oppose vilifying all of Islam for the actions of the radicals.

Our Constitution has not always been obeyed (look
at the many years of enforced public school prayer,
not to mention Jim Crow), but that doesn't mean it
condones those injustices.

db, you know your arguments are not only specious, they're outright lies. It isn't written anywhere in either Christian or Jewish literature that attempted murder is acceptable. Their law is very clear: thou shalt not kill (murder). No exceptions (self defense is not murder). Islam justifies all kinds of actions against unbelievers, including death, deceit, and slavery.

Your continued attempts to slander other faiths by equating them to the very real and accepted traditions of Islam would never be accepted in a court of law - you'd be thrown out and be brought before the Bar to see if they should strip from you your license. Why you continue to propagate what you know to be falsehoods in defiance of Reality I can only contribute to your willingness to let your emotions about "religion" cloud your judgement.

Excellent point!
Part of our modern day problem is that factual information is difficult to discover, which is why many folks don't bother to sort out fact from fiction. Overcoming the degree of corruption within government and their fellow travelers the media, and the overwhelming indoctrination by academia, which has been going on for many years, (k thru 12 included) is a task akin to mucking the Agean stables.

"...perform work of national importance under civil-
ian direction when required by the law..."(?) I am
glad that I am a native-born citizen and not bound by such an oath. I remember that when I was in the Naval Reserve (before I was Honor-
ably Discharged for epilepsy) we
were told that the oil companies might be nation-
alized; and I resolved that if I were called out to
enforce such nationalization I would have to re-
fuse, and, if necessary, face court-martial. Be-
cause that would be a violation of the rights of
my fellow citizens.--Fortunately, this situation
never occurred.--As to being conscripted to do
other civilian work, that would of course be a
violation of Amendment #13.--Still, being a
native-born citizen and a civilian (since discharge), I would have
no consciousness of violating an oath if I got
sent to jail for protesting it.--Whether a foreigner
who comes here and asks to be a citizen should be willing to submit to such conscription
is another question. He might very well be wil-
ling to work in defense plants, etc.--but in the
case of such a moral dilemma as I described,
he might think that no, he wouldn't violate the
rights of his fellow citizens, but then he would
be taking the oath with a "moral reservation".

So then you do support the idea that citizens should have the right to refuse to fight who the government tells them to fight, and instead fight who they themselves choose to fight?

Because that's what the oath requires: fighting who the government tells you to fight.

They do think so. At least the folks who are killing doctors and bombing clinics claim to be Christians, and so therefore, all Christians (or the majority of them) must think it's OK. So many of them are completely silent on the topic that it is reasonable to conclude that it's just an accepted thing.

I mean, that's the litmus test being used for Islam, near as I can tell.

You call out the Pope, but - hey - there are imams who disavow the violence and intolerance, but some folks discount those disavowals for ... dunno, "reasons"? It's never quite clear beyond anything that doesn't sound like raging islamophobia.

But you won't see that happen, will you? Perhaps the immigrants who take the new oath won't have to register. Then equality will be in full nude.

The liberators would most likely be the militia! On this, our founding documents is very clear. We, as citizens have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government and start over.

Why should you be allowed to fly a flag from another country in America???

Because, in America, we respect this thing called freedom of expression, and that means that people get to fly whatever goddamned flag they want, whether it offends your particular sensibilities or not.

If you don't like freedom of expression, then you should perhaps go find a country more agreeable to your inner fascist.

But I really doubt the christians believe its OK to kill the doctors or bomb abortion clinics. Some people use the religion to justify it, but I really doubt the pope would condone it, but would rather say its wrong. With muslims, so many are just silent on the subject of intolerance and violence that it is reasonable to conclude that its an accepted thing in their faith.

Nonsense.

Nobody has the authority to compel another to service against their wishes. Literally nobody.

People are free to (and I hope enough would) stand up for the country in time of need, but part of that is a testimony to how worthy of defense the country is at any given time (in other words, if there were tyrannical leaders, as some might argue we have today, and there were liberators taking out the tyrants, would you have a duty to act as a militia against those liberators? I would argue no. You -- seemingly -- would argue yes.)

Using Orlando as a slingshot into removal of this clause from the oath, would it also be pertinent for the president to remove the selective service?

Rand argued that a government draft was unethical:

"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."

It is the main responsibility of our Government to protect the United States against ALL enemies.

The word "militia" in the Constitution pertains to all citizens of the United States. It is the responsibility of all US citizens to defend our way of life.

Because "being willing to die at the whims of your masters" isn't a requirement of citizenship.

Plain and simple.

If they are not willing, then why do we want them as American citizens?

The last time that the requirement to pick up arms to defend the country was in the late 1700's.

That's like giving someone what they need, want, or desire without any sacrifice on their part!!! (More free stuff)

I don't see the problem. Why would we want a bunch of people coming to America to become a citizen that is not willing to defend her? It's not unreasonable. Why should someone get all of the privileges of American citizenship but would not do anything to protect her? If they are not willing to protect her, why do we want them as American citizens?

Why should you be allowed to fly a flag from another country in America??? If you want to fly the other countries flag then you should never have left it!!!!

Some radicalized factions of Islam practice such things.

Just as some radicalized factions of Christianity kill folks who don't agree with them.

And don't kid yourself that Christianity never killed the unbelievers. Maybe you missed the whole Crusades, or the Salem Witch Trials, or any of the myriad other times when Christians slaughtered unbelievers in the name of their deity.

OBJECTIVELY, one can see that no religion has "clean hands" with which it can dismiss other religions as "violent".

Radical Christians kill those who don't believe as they do (abortion clinic bombers, doctor killers, etc.)

No religion has a monopoly on "radicalized violence", and to pretend otherwise is to deny reality.

We cannot and must not hold everyone of a given faith accountable to the actions of the worst folks who self-identify with those faiths.

That this particular practice hasn't been practiced in Jewry for 3000 years is irrelevant to you. That this was never practiced in Christianity is irrelevant to you. Even the context - pretty important for understanding something - is irrelevant. That Islam does practice what is in their 1500-yr-old texts and which is substantially different than either Jewry or Christianity is irrelevant. It's all about twisting things to support your viewpoint. Your antagonism for anything religious is more important than objectivity isn't it?

dbaling,,I practice no formal religion, BUT, I sure as hell would prefer to live under Christianity in the US in 2016 than under islam in iran in 2016...pick your poison but be aware poison kills,

Decided to post before I read the link. Initial reaction: this won't be good...now, to the link...