In principle, it isnt. All of them are based on" just believe me because I say so".
But, some are more tolerant than others, and less into straight up violence. Islam takes the cake on that one- especially in terms of what they seem to act on NOW.
Mormons arent very tolerant either, but they dont kill you (maybe exceptions could be made if you are gay, however)

It doesn't seem any less rational than any other religion.

the terminology in the oath is basically that you have to agree to do anythiing the government tells you to do whether you wanted to or not. At least thats the way I read it.

absolutely. I do not want to be a slave.

it seems the denouncing is
VERY limited. Maybe because the media doesnt want to promote it, but it could also mean the vast majority dont want to DO violence, but are OK with others in the religion doing it to "protect" the religion.

Why the great attraction to islam? I have no idea. It seems one of the more irrational religions to me, at least.

Accepting that you can be required by law to do anything against your will is -- effectively -- accepting your own slavery to the State.

Fair nuff.

I agree. I didn't say it was moral. I prefaced my sentence with "If". I was merely objecting to Rifts' statement that "I am not required...etc."

It's no better or worse than using 1500 year old writings in the Koran to condemn Islam.

If Islam is going to be held accountable for their holy texts' writing from 1500 years ago, then there's nothing untowards about holding Judaism and Christianity accountable for the writing in their similarly-ancient holy texts.

There's nothing moral about Selective Service. Conscription is antithetical to freedom.

Wow. So you're going to use a 4000-yr-old proclamation which applied to a specific people at a specific time and hasn't been practiced even by Jews for thousands of years as the mandate not only for Jews, but for Christians? Let's have a little reality check here.

What were the people of those times doing that such a commandment was given? One big no-no was the ritual sacrifice of their own children. Others were steeped in homosexuality. It's all fine and nice to cherry pick, but the context tells a much broader story.

The Oath of Allegiance has quite a few things in it that are unconstitutional to begin with, such as "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law". However, It is not a step in the right direction for Obama to allow exceptions. The proper step would have been to remove the unconstitutional sections altogether.

Slave? Please explain how affirming one's allegiance to one's nation and being willing to fight in one's own self defense qualifies as slavery?

And adherents to Islam have denounced the intolerance of others.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/1...

As an atheist, I'm certainly "with you" in wishing people weren't duping themselves into subjugation to religious "leaders" but that's their choice, and I'm not going to interfere with it.

So, one has to ask: Why this fixation with Islam? It's not better or worse, from a track-record perspective, than any other religion.

If young people can be required to sign up for "selective service", then they can be required, once in the service to arm themselves or provice non-combat service.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance should not even have the "under god" part - it's unconctitutional!

WELL, I dont really like any religions because they specify what one should "believe". That said, some of them are in fact more tolerant than others. Islam seems to be quite intolerant today. Its not just ISIS that is violent. That whole sharia (sp) law is pretty intolerant and violent.

I do think that all religions today should denounce intolerance of others. I do think that the pope, for example, would say that catholics should not kill non believers at least, so I am not so concerned with them at least.

Because maybe "Islam" isn't what ISIS makes it out to be any more than "Christianity" is what the KKK makes it out to be.

"Tolerance of non-believers in their writings" you set as the litmus test?

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

So, since Deuteronomy 13:6-10 is very clear on Judeo-Christian "tolerance of non-believers" I hope you'll be just as adamant that adherents to Christianity should renounce their subscription to Christianity and its doctrines.

Then why do they subscribe to islam and its doctrines. I say that religion should clean up its act and enter the 21st century by not advocating killing off infidels and gay people. Tolerance of non believers is the minimum that should be in their writings

There's quite a few devout Muslims, in the US military, who would quite handily disagree with you on that topic.

With this, Obama has stepped from evil to downright depravity. There are no depths of disgrace that this man will not lower himself to.

Correct!

No surprise in (hopefully) the last year of our radical ruler's rancid reign of terror. Four days before he began his regime, the candidate who would be king promised "fundamental change" and "We The People" have receiving the shaft ever since.
The only surprise for old dino in the interim was the fully extravagant revelation of the RINO in all of its cynical say anything to get elected and then wimp out professional politician glory.
In plainer words, I knew some GOP tinhorns were out there but~aw come on!
My eyes had been opened even wider when I presented that post to the Gulch about Rush Limbaugh saying the worst RINOs would vote Clintonista to protect their fiefdoms.
Rome is burning.

I see it as a litmus test that they are truly willing to leave their old ways behind.

This is more on Obama fundamentally changing America. Now a new citizen can war against America, but not take arms for America. They can enjoy citizenship but not owe allegiance to America. Add that to the thousands of military age so called "refugees" which have nothing to do with humanitarian reasons.

But you cant be muslim, subscribe to the islam religion, and support (let alone defend) our way of life.