[From Las Vegas Now]
Dozens of local residents were sworn in Friday as naturalized U.S. citizens, but one of the new Americans insisted on taking a special oath, one that removed all references to God. Thomas Kaenzig says he left his native Switzerland because of religious persecution. He had to file a lawsuit in federal court to get the attention of immigration officials concerning the oath new citizens must take.
The oath asks new citizens to swear to God and a promise to bear arms. Kaenzig is a Raelian and doesn’t believe in God. He’s also a pacifist.
Federal officials agreed to change the oath to accommodate his beliefs. Kaenzig knows his decision will tick off a lot of people but he thinks it shouldn’t.
Read about it here
[From me]
Why do we have to adjust for someone coming to our nation? Don’t we have enough kooks already? Why would we allow someone to become a citizen that believes a Swastika is OK? Who did his “special” oath swear to Spock?
What do you think?
Here’s a bit more info: according to the same PR Newswire press release in Forbs (and all other releases I found of the same article): “The rules say
people can modify the oath, especially the ‘bearing arms’ or ‘so help me God’ parts.”
The full article was very brief so I can’t imagine why Las Vegas Now would leave that paragraph out.
Our legal system makes allowances for individuals to challenge the rules. My understanding is that legal
residents, including non-citizens, enjoy protection under the law.
We certainly do – and I’m betting most of the kooks would not have any problem taking the oath.
Most Hindus are fine people who become US citizens all the time. Why start excluding them now?
I can name a few radicalized Christian groups that think the swastika is OK. I’ve also seen Christian
churches built in the Romanesque and Gothic eras that display swastikas as stylized crosses. I’d venture
that the parishioners would think the symbol is OK (though some my object to baring arms).
If I may unpack your question a bit, it sounds like you are really asking if we should we allow a certain
type of undesirable (in this case, I think you are using the swastika to symbolize right-wing authoritarians
like the Nazis) into the country. Personally, I think we have enough authoritarianism in the country
already, but I’m not sure on what legal or ethical bases we can identify and single out authoritarians to
turn them away.
Live long and prosper, Nanoo Nanoo.
ps… sorry for the weird formatting – had a little trouble…
Kevin,
I have no problem with an atheist not being required to take an oath that invokes the name of God. Our Anabaptist forefathers were pretty adamant in their insistence on religious freedom–extending that even to Muslims (or Turks as they called them at that time). Balthasar Hubmaier, one of the few writing theologians among the group, argued for toleration of atheists on the basis that a faith that is coerced by government is no faith at all. I greatly appreciate our Baptist heritage that insisted on the separation between church and state and feel that many of our current problems as a denomination are the direct by-product of the breakdown between those two entities. As Christians have resorted to political manueverings in recent decades, we’ve lost the ability to speak prophetically to the many crises our nation faces. Like Esau, we’ve sold our birthright far a bowl of stew.
Gary & A3,
I have no problem with recognized religions or atheists changing the oath. But this “religion” is wacky.
a faith that is coerced by government is no faith at all.
AMEN!!
Yes, his religion is wacky, but that’s part of being free – you get to believe whatever you want or feel convicted to believe. I wouldn’t want someone pledging something with reference to God if he didn’t really mean it.
It just doesn’t seem like it makes much sense want to be an American but not be an American. If you can’t take the oath then don’t come to America. There are a number of countries he could have gone to. What other organization could you join and not take the oath.
His belief is irrelevant. The pledge is the pledge if you don’t like it or can’t pledge it go somewhere else.
a faith that is coerced by government is no faith at all.
I would agree with that as well. Obviously you can not coerce faith by asking him to say the phrase doesn’t coerce anything. And no one is coercing anything he says the pledge and meet the other requirements he’s in he doesn’t he is not. If we can change whatever part of the pledge we want then why not just get rid of it because it has lost any sort of value. This is ridiculous.
Sorry about the grammar, that was really bad.
Josh,
You seem to be equating the oath of citizenship with the pledge of allegiance. They are not the same thing. In my earlier comment about the Anabaptist stance of defending religious freedom and not coercing faith, the key idea is that even atheists are granted the freedom to not believe. To require an oath that invokes God, a Being whose existence they deny, is to trample on their rights to not believe. Does that make sense?
If their religious convictions were such that they shouldn’t pay taxes the government would let them opt out of that. I wonder why?
Oops….that should read “the government wouldn’t let them opt out of that.”
Man, only in America would you see something like this. It’s almost like we have to apologize for the principles we hold near and dear. Maybe I’m wrong, but there just does not seem to be an abundance of other countries doing this sort of thing.
The reason the guy doesn’t want to say it simple>>>
“because after 2000 years God is still intimidating people.Why? Because anytime a religious figure says ‘I am the way’ people don’t want to hear it”
“And newsflash for this guy…christianity happens to be the religious heritage of this country whether he likes it or not!” So if he doesn’t want to swear under God…then that’s his issue not Americas.
M,
Hasn’t God been around a lot longer than 2,000 years?
What is the beef here, the man clearly operated within the law, as the law permits him to do so.
There are exemptions in all sorts of laws to allow people to follow their own beliefs or non-beliefs.
the beef comes from removing God from our country. I think as a culture it is a common Political Correct move, (and not a good one at that)
A belief in God is not a prerequisite for being an American citizen.
its not a prerequisite, its a foundation upon which are country was created
M,
When the Framers wrote the Constitution, the only oath in there was the Presidential one, it remains as it was then: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
No mention of God, and the ability to chose two ways of taking the oath.
Doesn’t seem to be all that big a deal to do as the Framers suggested and NOT have a religious test for anyone holding office under our Constitution
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..
And not to put too fine a point on the matter, but what element of our form of self government came from the Scriptures? Voting? Representation of people? Powers of the governed inherent in the population, rather than a divinely appointed ruler? Our system of government has more of the Enlightenment than Revelation about it.
try on the ten commandments…which are on all the walls everywhere in justice system.
M
Which set? The ones listed in Exodus 20, or 34?
Or the ones compiled and used by Jews, the ones used by the historic Churches (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran), or the set used by Protestants?
Lets look at the Protestant one and compare it to US Law and foundational documents.
1 “no other gods before Me.” – Nope, we don’t have blasphemy laws, and permit various forms of worship and non worship (from the beginning).
2.”no graven images” – Nope, I no of no law ever in the USA that prevents depiction of the Divine Being.
3.”not taking the name of the Lord in vain” – Nope, no laws against that, since the foundation of our Current Constitution. (some of the early Puritans did, but they were repealed and overturned with the current system of freedom of religion)
4.”Remember the Sabbath day” Sundays were special for a long time, however Wal Mart eradicated the vast majority of the so called Blue laws, so this one does count for being part of our system from the beginning and is mentioned as special in the Constitution.
5.”Honor thy father and thy mother” Nice sentiment, but don’t know of any laws requiring it..
6.”Thou shalt not kill” Now this is a big one, and yes our laws have been very concerned with this. That being said, it seems all cultures have bans on murder, and I dare say our secular friends do as well.
7.”Thou shalt not commit adultery” Prior to no-fault divorce, this was one of the big ways to GET a divorce, and it has been here from the beginning of the country as well. But again, same as #6, this is a universal prohibition.
8.”Thou shalt not steal” same as #6 & 7
9 “Thou shalt not bear false witness” Actually this is the main reason why I am doing this comment. To bear witness to the truth or facts of the matter, and not let falsehood stand. This commandment is similar to the reasons of #6, 6 & 8 however I do believe it gets the best treatment from the Hebrew and Roman traditions.
10.”Thou shalt not covet” Nope, practically our whole society is based on greed these days, but I still know of no laws against “coveting” in our constitutional system.
So, what does that leave us with? 5 or so that are part of our legal system, and those are parts of about every legal or philosophical system on the planet?
All I am saying is that, honestly, this country’s freedoms may have been put in place by people of Christian heritage but it had far more to do with Enlightenment “rights of Man” than Christian Doctrine. These Founders knew exactly what “divine right” in Government was, AND each one broke an Oath they took in the sacred Name of Jesus Christ to rebel against their lawful ruler. How Christian is that?
just sayin…
No, the Ten Commandments are not “on the walls everywhere in justice system.”
There is a famous 1931 case in which a Canadian minister insisted he could not swear to support the U.S. if the U.S. were attacked, unless it was a just war. The Supreme Court said the immigration authorities could refuse to grant citizenship, and that is still the law. The question is not what sort of oath one takes, but will one support the nation?
If the oath required a swearing to God, it would be illegal under the First Amendment (see Torcaso v. Watkins).
The oath of citizenship is not prescribed in the Constitution.