The First Amendment guarantees the right to practice any “religion” one chooses. However, if that religion advocates the overthrow of our Constitution as the supreme law of the land, said religion becomes a threat to the continued existence of our republic. Islam is much more an imperialist political ideology than it is a “religion.” For example, when a Muslim takes an Oath of Office and swears on the Quran to uphold the Constitution, he/she is literally lying. One cannot be Muslim and swear against “Taqiyya,” a bedrock principle of Sharia (Islamic law). The problem is, the Quran (including Hadiths and Surrahs) deem it a “requirement” to perform “Taqiyya”, i.e. to lie to a “kafir” (a non-Muslim, non-believer, infidel, second class non-person, sub-human). Therefore, we must OUTLAW SHARIA (especially things like public officials swearing on the Quran) to protect our God-given freedoms, our Constitution, the First Amendment and the continuation of our way of life. This policy suggestion is fully in line with the Constitution (1789) for the Republic and not in conflict with the First Amendment. For a good site explaining “Taqiyya” go here: https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-islamic-requirement-to-perform-taqiyya-and-lie-to-non-muslims/#What_Happens_When_Muslims_Do_Not_Practice_Taqiyya
Bob, you are spot on. This needs to be made clear to all American People ASAP, esp. with the large and recent influx of peoples from all over the world. The properly nationalized new citizens should understand that there are “house rules” by which they must abide, when they ‘move in’. Those house rules have been hanging on our collective front door for over two centuries: The United States Constitution. No other laws, no matter how sacred or seemingly-supreme are allowed to override the house rules. If you cannot abide by house rules, then you must leave the house. It is that simple.
They can freely practice their religion but beyond that, they should not be allowed to swear in on anything but the Holy Bible. I did not like Ilhan Omar or the other Muslim members of the squad. To me, they were all treasonists.
I understand where you are coming from Bob and others but for people like myself this is quite difficult to handle. I am a member of the armed forces and A Muslim, born in Alabama. Now what I have trouble with is some suggesting that if I were to take an oath of office I would need to swear in on a Bible which I simply will not do because I am not a Christian. Now that doesnt mean I dont respect the Christian or Jewish Faith as the religion shows us that we are are under the same Lord and that I abide with completely.
But again, I myself having been born here in America and so has my entire family back 4 generations, I do not and simply will not stand by not letting a Muslim run for office. There has to be a better way.
Also- to add on: I also do not very much like Ilhan Omar and the group. I dont like the idea of Non-native Born people holding office- but thats a seperate issue.
As a libertarian patriot I can certainly give suggestions that may pacify both groups…If your faith is Muslim but stand before Christians and Muslims both (including yourself), put your Quran on top of the Bible and place your hand on top of the stack to swear your oath; for Christians who stand before Christains and Muslims both, put your Bible on top of the Quran and swear on the stack of both. For Christians before Christians, no need to put the Quran beneath the Bible, unless you also wish to, for religious, political or personal reasons. For Muslims in front of Muslims, similar in reverse.
Personally, I feel like I only need to give my word that I tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but will put my left and right hands on both the Bible and the Quran at the same time, if that makes my audience feel better about my telling the truth. Remember that the “swearing in” is not for YOUR benefit, it is for everyone ELSES’. To each his own. My two cents on it.
I don’t want you to NOT be a Muslim. However, as you know, Sharia does supersede all other laws, including our Constitution. As a born American and a Muslim, you are in a difficult situation. However, when you took your military Oath to serve and preserve / protect the Constitution, what do you do if you are in combat are are given an order by your commanding officer or someone else in authority that violates Sharia but is a lawful order under the Constitution and the UCMJ (or visa-versa)? One cannot serve two masters.
Susan,
I like the idea of the two hands on either book, that seems pleasing to me.
And Bob,
When I deployed to Afghanistan in 2021 I had to make the conscious understanding that Terrorists are NOT fellow Muslims (or men of Abrahamic faith) and they were dealt with accordingly.
That being said, I understand what you mean. However I havent thought about Taqiyah the entire time I have been a practicing Muslim, I suppose it just hasnt ever crossed my mind. As far as I am concerned I am an American and I Abide by the constitution of the United States.
Yes, they can freely practice… but only up to a point. When their religious law (Sharia) interferes with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution or violates it, then they must follow the Constitution. That’s the difficulty because at that point, if they do follow the Constitution they are violating the Quran. Further, the Quran requires that they must lie if need be when swearing to uphold the Constitution or violate their Oath, if necessary. If they are a true Muslim, and a loyal American, they have no choice but to choose Islam. It’s called, “Taqiyya” as I wrote. So, they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I believe it’s best they don’t put themselves or the country in that potentially compromising situation. Further, they are to consider all of their colleagues to be “kafirs” who, according to the Quran, etc. are inferior in every way…
I’m glad you feel that way. However, it doesn’t eliminate your requirement to perform Taqiyah, does it? Furthermore, terrorists ARE Muslims, just not the kind you respect (which I completely understand). To be honest, Muhammed was a terrorist and pedophile (no disrespect but it’s a well know fact). We see older men marrying children all the time. I’m sure you saw it in Afghanistan. There are approximately 20% of Muslims who believe and follow the terrorist way. If there are 1.3 billion Muslims, that means 260,000,000 Muslims are violent Jihadis who seek to install a worldwide Ummah / Caliphate. That is what you simply cannot and must not ignore. You are an American Muslim with Western morals, but really must come to grips with the original imperialist Islam and Sharia. It still exists and it has nothing to do with being a “religion of peace”. Your “reform” style of Islam is much more attractive, but is not what 260 million dark age Islamists practice and preach.
Yes, I suppose my way is “reformed” in a matter of speaking.
And you may have that opinion of the Prophet (I have debated it way too much and wish not too in this post please) But Also our Prophet claimed that extremism in his time (much like in our time) were no better than dogs on the street and were not to be trusted. I take that as a “approach comfortably but cautiously” sort of approach.
I tend to read and interpret it all my own way. Just like anyone else raised right. Dont blindly follow the masses. Feel your own way, do the right thing ya know. Much text both on the Christian and Muslim side are up for interpretation.
It is also very helpful that (in my experience) when we were deployed I had leadership that treated me no differently than the man to my left and right and that allowed me to be left alone long enough to come to my own conclusions. But I can say WOTH A CERTAINTY ; the things some of those Jihadists do over there are NOT of an Islamic origin but are just downright evil. Definitely not what I viewed as “Good” anyway.
Thank you for your comments. You may be edified by this site: Dr. Bill Warner’s politicalislam.com Shalom
Shouldnt have to swear on a bible, or the quran. Secularism.
The bible also says some messed up stuff about heretics and non-believers. Like how they need to be put to death.
Both forms of organized religion are incompatible with our Constitutional Republic.
You fanatics are simply rehashing the crusades. Abrahamic religions, and doctrines have no place in the land of the free. This nation was founded on the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, a group of Deists.
The ‘good morals’ that are a part of our culture and creed are the basic morals found in almost every major religion.
Both religious organizations should be held accountable for millennia of strife and death.
“…no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his two religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.” - James Madison
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.” - James Madison
I hate to break it to you but Secularism has NO place here and it never will.
If you want secularism; move to France.
Atheist ideology will destroy this country WAY faster than an organized community of religious groups. By the way we are not “fanatics” as you put it, that is quite rude.
Clearly someone has never read the first amendment or any writings from the Age of Enlightenment, or our founding fathers.
You are Constitutional incorrect. Your support for a seperate organization and creed over the US Constitution is exactly what this proposal is against. Putting religious institutions above the Law of the Land; the Constitution.
Religious freedom was and is, one of the main founding principles of our Nation.
Secularism is the only way forward.
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
“…no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his two religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.” - James Madison
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.” - James Madison
@AustinCagle Atheism is not secularism. Pick up a dictionary.
Its fanaticism to suggest banning any religion. It’s fanaticism to suggest secularism is not a foundin principle of our nation. It’s fanaticism to suggest one of sects of Abrahamism is superior to another. It’s fanaticism to suggest thay we should have to swear on a bible, and nothing but a bible.
State atheism is usually only found in Communist nations.
Did you even read the conversation before you decided to comment this?
Go back and read it. Swearing in to an oath of office is not the same as passing a law.
I responded, but it is pending approval. @moderators need to remove the censorship from this forum.
Here’s a copy: @AustinCagle
The legal definition of ‘oath’ has been skewed by the US code Ch. 1 Title 1 Rules of Construction.
Yes, I read it. Nor did I think i made any distinction about legislature or Oaths. I stuck to the present topic. You cannot outlaw any form of religious institution, or estsblish the representation of a religion in government. A requirement for placing your hand on a bible for an Oath is Unconstitutional per the 1st Amendment. So making a restriction of an Islamic version of this is further idiocracy.
Requirements of a hand placement on a religious of text of any type is Unconstitutional. If an individual does so, it should be by choice. An Oath of Office should be created and preformed in a manner that displays trust and patriotism in a uniform manner to all creeds, races, genders, and classes.
The same can be said for any form of Abrahamism. All three sects support the death of heretics and infidels, functioning as subversive organizations that do not adhere to the constitution.
Secularism, the seperation of church and state → the foundational functionality of the 1st Amendment, is the only Constitutional solve to fanaticism.
Are we going to start barring Buddhists or Taoists from Office or taking an Oath because swearing on a bible means nothing to them? That’s a violation of our innate rights.
The proposal has no place here, nor does any form of religious fanaticism.
My Oath would be to the nation and our Rule of Law. Not to a mistranslated construction of writtings made by corrupt kings and sultans. It makes no sense to have requirements or restrictions on the religious aspects of an ‘Oath’ when said definition has been changed multiple times.
If anything, your hand should be on a copy of the Constitution.
Im getting out the popcorn for this one.
P.s.a. for everyone else, the founders were inspired by the enlightenment over a religion.
I lived in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia and got to experience Muslims in Muslim countries. I was in Turkey just 3 years after 9/11. When the subject came up I met no one who approved of it. As one of my young friends put it “I don’t know who their Prophet is, but he’s not my Prophet.”
Just like the Christian religion (and every other one I know about) each has a wide range of sects. Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other in the name of Jesus for centuries as have the Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the name of Muhammad. None are inherently good or evil. People have always used religion to justify their actions whatever they were. It’s not what they say or what they put their hand on while saying it that matters; it’s what’s in their heart that does.
The young man that served his country
deserves respect for being the person that he IS and what he DID. Let each person’s oath be sworn on what he has chosen to believe. Personally, I would think swearing on ones honor would be sufficient. It is, after all, a person’s own sense of integrity and honesty that backs up the oath.
Thanks for your service young man. May the Great Spirit, by whatever name you call Him, continue to guide you.
To say that the framers had a single source or collection of inspirations is ignorant of the extent to which society was studied and discussed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.