Obama ‘Modifies’ U.S. Oath of Allegiance According to Islamic Law

[Steve_McGarrett]

The responsibility to defend the country is fundamental to citizenship.
Anyone that doesn’t believe this half breed is a muslim is a moron.


Obama Modifies U.S. Oath of Allegiance According to Islamic Law Raymond Ibrahim

 

[Derideo_Te]

As usual the racist OP failed to do his homework.

Obama Changes Oath of Allegiance snopes.com

Use of the words “may” and “based upon” fundamentally contradicted the rumor’s claim the oath was being “changed” across the board for all applicants. Additional information published to the USCIS web site (on a page titled “Oath of Allegiance Modifications and Waivers”) explained that the standard of proof required for an applicant to obtain a waiver to the oath based upon religious or conscientious objection was already high. The waiver applied to portions of the oath promising to “bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law” and “[t]o perform noncombatant service in the U.S. armed forces when required by the law,” but no waiver was available for additional conscription:

In order to modify the oath, the applicant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she is unwilling or unable to affirm to these sections of the oath based on his or her religious training and belief, which may include a deeply held moral or ethical code.

There is no exemption from the clause “to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.”

The guidance indicated applicants are required to pass a “three-part test” during which time they would have to explicitly establish the basis of their religious or conscientious objection. Moreover, no such objection is applicable in scenarios involving objection to a specific war or conflict (merely a broader belief held against the concept of war or bearing arms):

In order for an applicant to qualify for a modification based on his or her “religious training and belief,” the applicant must satisfy a three-part test. An applicant must establish that:

• He or she is opposed to bearing arms in the armed forces or opposed to any type of Service in the armed forces;

• The objection is grounded in his or her religious principles, to include other belief systems similar to traditional religion or a deeply held moral or ethical code; and

• His or her beliefs are sincere, meaningful, and deeply held.

The applicant is not eligible for a modified oath when he or she is opposed to a specific war. Religious training or belief does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. An applicant whose objection to war is based upon opinions or beliefs about public policy and the practicality or desirability of combat, or whose beliefs are not deeply held, does not qualify for the modification of the oath.


Read more at Obama Changes Oath of Allegiance snopes.com

The clause Jindal and many social media users found so important was not one that dated to the American Revolution or any far-flung point in history. In fact, it wasn’t a part of the oath until 1950 (followed by a final update in 1952 pertaining to civilian conscription):

The Immigration Act of September 23, 1950, added text to the oath of allegiance about bearing arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; and performing noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law. Prior to 1946, the Supreme Court had ruled that the language in the oath about supporting and defending the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies implied a promise to bear arms. This was challenged in the court case of Girouard v. U.S. (328 U.S. 61). The Court ruled that the oath of allegiance did not imply a promise to bear arms. A refusal to bear arms was justified on the basis of religious training and beliefs. Under current law, an applicant opposed to bearing arms or performing noncombatant service because of his or her religious training and beliefs is exempt from taking the full oath of allegiance.

So while the USCIS clarified (and expanded) circumstances under which naturalization applicants may apply for a waiver to portions of the oath of allegiance pertaining to swearing to engage in armed defense of the United States, those who wish to obtain such a waiver are required to provide extensive proof of religious or conscientious objection to war (and objection to a specific conflict does not qualify for such a waiver). More important, the oath of allegiance for naturalization was not changed by default and will remain the same for most newly naturalized individuals. The 21 July 2015 policy update issued by USCIS simply clarified extant circumstances under which applicants could apply for a waiver to portions of the oath.


Read more at Obama Changes Oath of Allegiance snopes.com

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Obama is a fuckin communist and I wish the left would just accept that instead of denying it constantly. The only reason the change was made so that people wouldn't feel,obligated to defend their country when needed. Obama is an ass!

Btw, the oath is set by law not by presidential dictates. How is that dictatorship working out for you.

 

[Katzndogz]

We already know muslims won't defend the country. They should promise not to fight against the country.