[Carry_Okie]

As an adjunct to what I've said above, I suspect there is an aspect shared by the Declaration and the Constitution upon which you might yet wish to muse: It is their governing use of the word "We." It's one thing to cite the Natural Rights of humans. It is quite another to dedicate one's life to those principals FOR ANY ANOTHER CITIZEN-MEMBER on penalty of all that one possesses, including life itself. Hence there is a coupling of the two documents a little artful parsing makes clear: "We hold these truths to be self evident, [list citing the Creator]" therefore "...we mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor," and "We the people... do ordain and establish." This IS the original oath of American citizenship, the principles and specifications under which "WE" govern ourselves. The more I think about it, the more I realize one should not be allowed voting rights without understanding and making this pledge, with but the subtle change substituting the word "I" for "we" (try it and you'll see what I mean). These specific principles are essential to being an American. One cannot be a member of the America body politic without that sinew. One cannot expect others to lay down their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor in our defense unless we each have freely made that mutual pledge to do the same for them.

The corollary is that to shed or renounce that sinew, is to no longer be a member of that mutual pledge. Therefore, by rescinding that pledge, one is no longer deserving of its mutual protections (by the well regulated milita for example).

Now, posit this logical couplet against the Shahada and you'll see what I mean about it. In it there is not even a mention of the self making any pledge; one becomes by acknowledgment a non-entity if you will. It is acknowledgment of another divine and unlimited power rather than to each other ("we"). It is to commit one's life, fortune, and Sacred Honor to force ALL to submit to that power without any operating constraint (never mind that the details of its tenets and statutes are abhorrent to those listed in the Declaration and Constitution respectively). Because of that limitless power, one offers and therefore loses one's Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor. There is nothing left of a person to commit to ANY other, thus denying the mutual commitment essential to specifically American citizenship. This is why the Shahada is effectively a renunciation of American citizenship, because it is a renunciation of a commitment to ANY person or country. There is no Caesar to whom to render, no human authority acknowledged of any kind other than a quasi-hereditary hierarchy descended from Mohammad supposedly wielding divine authority whose nature of and qualification for accession goes unspecified.

BTW, I had not before recognized in the last phrase of the Declaration that it elevates one's property to a status coequal with life itself and duty to G_d. Nice touch there.

[kiryandil]

Thanks for this post.

[Carry_Okie]

To which I should have added:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, [list citing the Creator]" therefore "...we mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor," and "We the people... do ordain and establish" powers specifically limited to that purpose.

I guess you could call this thinking out loud.

[kiryandil]

BTW, I had not before recognized in the last phrase of the Declaration that it elevates one's property to a status coequal with life itself and duty to G_d. Nice touch there.

Have I gained another convert to Declarationism? :)

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

All US citizens as adults should be recorded pledging allegience IMHO and held accountable. But that’s probably beyond reality at this moment.

So regarding legal foreign residents and naturalized citizens ...

The cheapest way to monitor someone is through periodic eye dialation testing. They could be in another state staring into a camera designated for the purpose. With ‘zoom’ tech [very cheap], its easy to train someone to notice eye dialation and other tells during a brisk question-answer.

But, if that makes voters too uncomfortable, we could consider more expensive solutions.

If there is compelling evidence that such a pledge is violated ... perhaps decided by a board appointed by the state governments [each term limited tightly], then surveillance should be warranted in secret to monitor such a person until that person has been a US citizen for so-and-so number of years.

And frankly — no new young muslim men allowed in for now. We might be pliable otherwise, particularly if they are from low-risk nations.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

‘This is why the Shahada is effectively a renunciation of American citizenship, because it is a renunciation of a commitment to ANY person or country.’

Oaths will weed out a high percentage, especially for a couple of years.

But a terrorist is flexible and there is always al takkiya — Muhammad granting the ‘sacred’ right to deceive unbelievers for the purpose of infiltration [and just about any other scheme].

Al takkiya also qualifies for a discount on Muhammad’s used camels. [Just kidding.]

That is why I frequently asked if Obama is an ‘al takkiya’ muslim only faking his Christianity. Note that Reverend Wright is a ‘former’ muslim. both Wright and Obama are friends with Louis ‘Mothership’ Farrakan.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

To be clear, I know ‘search and seizure’ does not specify privacy rights. Was referring to ‘unfair treatment’.

Got to raise my ‘game’ with Carry Okie I bet.

— FRegards ....