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.