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.
Thanks for this post.
"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.
Have I gained another convert to Declarationism? :)
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.
‘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.
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 ....