Sep 12, 2003 Existing and Revised Versions of Citizenship Oath The Associated Press The current citizenship 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. The proposed new oath that now will be revised: Solemnly, freely, and without any mental reservation, I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to any foreign state. My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is to the United States of America. I pledge to support, honor and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution and laws. Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God. AP-ES-09-12-03 2120EDT36 responses total.
Personally, I don't see the point. The current version specifically renounces such as religious leaders (mullahs and popes), village leaders, and clan or family leaders. The proposed doesn't. The current spells out clearly a lot more potential requirments including 'bearing arms', the latter is more general and thus more subject to interpretation. I don't see the point and I don't see what it gains the US. Perhaps it was designed by lawyers who seek to litigate what it means? Even that doesn't make sense as it would therefore be 72 pages longer - like a software license which everybody clicks on accept and nobody reads during an install.
(Some people do read those licenses, y'know.) The point is to place loyalty to the "United States" above loyalty to the Constitution: "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" (current oath) vs "My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is to the United States of America. I pledge to support, honor and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution and laws" (proposed oath). NB: 'the same' in the current oath refers to the Constitution, _not_ the United States. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important one. How can I prevent this travesty?
The most obvious needed revision is missed: remove "so help me God", which violates the first amendment to the Constitution that these pledges allege to support.
By what Authority is this change to be made?
Re: #3: Wrong-o. But keep baying at the moon, it will at least demonstrate your consistency.
I think your characterization of it is pretty stupid. I presume you mean that it appears pretty futile suggesting that "so help me God" be removed from oaths in an America where it is unconstitutional. But big changes have small beginnings, and consistent upholding of a good is better than silently submitting to the bad. There are some encouraging signs, such as courts finding "under god" in the pledge unconstitional, and the eviction from a courthouse of a stone religios idol. Some of these successes will, of course, be fought, and things will regress here and there, but I believe that eventually our fundamental constitutional provisions will prevail.
And small minded people like yourself will impose their opinion on the majority.
I believe there's a way to take the citizenship oath by affirming, rather than swearing, so you wouldn't have to say the "God" thing. That's true for court testimony.
Yes, it is. Of course, part of the reason for "I do affirm" (instead of "I do solemnly swear") is Christ's dictum on swearing: "Do not swear; let your word be enough." Sorry, Rane; you can't win for losing.
This response has been erased.
Re #7: I have no objection to the majority - or anyone else - expressing their opinions, but I do object to unconstitutional provisions being forced upon people. This is no more "small minded" that were the ideas of the founders of this country. Small mindedness is exhibited by those trying to force their religious beliefs upon others in pledges and in public ceremonies.
What about a compromise: eliminate the religious citation and make the official version some kind of affirmation, but provide in separate legislatiion for people to substitute their own preferred version of affirmation from whatever their beliefs are. Then religion is not forced upon anyone while at the same time the free practice thereof is not prevented.
The de-emphasis of the Constitution seems to fit with the Ashcroftization of civil rights in the United States. And what's with not asking people to renounce allegiances to religious potentates? If allegiance to Osama bin Laden or even the pope demands that you oppose the principles of this nation, you shouldn't be here.
That's where you're wrong. Opposing the "principles of this nation," as you put it, and acting to destroy the them are two very different things. The former is expressly accepted, and the latter is not. If what you suggest were true, then the definitions could easily be expanded to make your staement mean that anyone who expresses opposition to any law should be expelled.
Not even close, Eric. It's one thing to oppose a law, it's another to oppose the Constitution. If you can't handle the separation between religious and civil authority, a ban on slavery, women's suffrage and the like, you have no business being a citizen of this country.
So you're saying that anyone who supports any amendment to the constitution does not belong here?
I should point out that in the State of Maryland, it is a crime to end an oath with "so help me God," though I highly doubt anyone is ever charged.
Article 6, Sec 3 of the US Constitution reads:
"3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the
several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of
the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or
affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States."
Hence all oaths including the phrase "so help me God", or any other
religious stipulation are and have always been unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, they are rampant. I did some web surfing on the question and
the subject phrase is everywhere in oaths. Still, in particular cases,
state courts (e.g., South Carolina) have also declared the requirement
unconstitutional and voided such laws. In fact, the laws specifying
oaths in some states, following the closing "So help me God", add
parenthetically ("The last clause is optional.").
You go for it, rcurl. And while you're at it make sure to get "In God we trust" removed from currency, too.
I'm working on it. The biggest problem will be recalling all the old currency with the phrase. Perhaps we could send all of that to Iraq.
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so God help me.
scg, you could just affirm that you will do that, and leave God out, if you like.
He can, since he lives in California: http://www.cocra.org/ready_ref/oaths.html [' Chapter Law 688 of the Statutes of 2000, effective January 1, 2001, repeals Sections 2095 to 2097 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ' The old law specifies the form of an oath to a witness and variations of the oath to suit the belief of a witness. ' The amended law provides that the oath is to no longer include the word "swear", which is replaced with the word "state". ' The amended law also provides for an alternative form of the oath for a person who desires to affirm, declare or to avoid swearing or using the phrase, "so help you God." '] But many other states require imploring a God in their oaths.
I tend to think that requiring people who may not believe in God to mouth the words cheapens religion.
I agree, gull.
heh-heh .. rcurl had professed many time before that he has no faith. he's never been in a foxhole before either. fat gliding on top of of the nutrients - his, not mine.
Swearing (an oath) and affirming are two different things. Quakers will not swear; they never would use God's name that way. So the laws, from the beginning, were written to allow folks to affirm what they wouldn't swear to.
That's certainly true of the US Constitution (see http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg11.htm) but it isn't true in all states. I ran across at one time a summary of states that specifically require an exhortation to a god in their oaths and those that specifically do not (but can't find it now). Michigan is among the latter. Here is an extract from the Michigan government home pages concerning the oath for a Notary Public: "Oaths and affirmations are pledges sworn to before a notary public attesting to the truth of a given statement. The effect of an oath and an affirmation is the same. Both put the burden of responsibility for the veracity of the statements on the party subscribing to the document. The difference, however is that an oath calls upon God as a witness while an affirmation is made under the penalties of perjury. "Examples are as follows: "Oath: Do you solemnly swear that the statements contained herein are true, so help you God? "Affirmation: Do you solemnly affirm, under the penalties of perjury, that the statements made herein are true?" [I'm uncertain from this if a person that elects to swear an Oath, as defined above, is also subject to penalties of perjury if they break their Oath, or if it is only the said God that is then subject to penalties of perjury.]
Though generally I agree that fewer mentions of "God" in government would be good, this particular one doesn't bother me. The point is to make the statement in a form that is meaningful to the person taking the oath. For a person who is strongly religious, mentioning "God" might be a good way to clarify how seriously they take the oath. As long as some flexibility is given in how the oath is taken then it is clearly a reference to and acceptance of the oath taker's faith, not and endorsement of that faith. The key point is that the person saying it is saying it for themselves, not for the government, and that the person saying it is not required by the government to say it in that form.
Note this is different from "In God We Trust" on coins, where the "we" clearly represents the whole nation. It is also different from the "One nation under God" bit, because that asserts that God rules over the nation, not just that the speaker believes in God. So I'd be fine with having "God" in the pledge of allegence if you moved him to an "so help me God" at the end, and allowed non-believers to substitute or omit that bit if they don't believe in God.
This response has been erased.
I think it's despicable to renounce any other religion than the here intended christian faith. It discriminates gainst agnosts, muslims, hindus, buddhists, pagans etc. IOW: the majority of this planet.
This response has been erased.
re#32: Uh, the muslims worship the same god as the jews and christians even by the most fanatical interpretation of the quran and as others have pointed out since its founding the US has had means for minded such to dispense entirely with the mention of deity while partaking of the benefits. You one of them there foreign types that doesn't know any better?
No, ,I am not. Most christians don't know any better. I was merely stooping to your level.
Ah, but obviously I know better as I would suspect do most christians.
You have several choices: