what I mean

 America, as we all know, was founded by white Europeans. That is an indisputable fact in history. Yes, Europeans are white people regardless of nationality, just as all Africans are black. Well, that is in a strictly common sense view anyway not necessarily technically correct. But for purposes of discussion I believe it is a fair statement. So, it was white European culture that was the basis for the United States of America, with a few modifications. Those basic modifications were delineated in the Declaration of Independence, really an explanation for behaving in the fashion we choose to behave and later on in the Constitution and subsequent amendments to that constitution.

 A fundamental principle in this was the separation of church and state. It was, in fact, the very first amendment to the constitution. There is a reason for that. Those white Europeans that established the nation had experienced the effects of religious persecution and witnessed the effects on government. No religion was to be established as the official religion of the nation. They went on to say no one could be prohibited from practicing their religion as well. That's the basic premise. It is also indisputable that the majority were Christians and Jews, although there were a few Muslims present at that time in America. The founding fathers and those later legislators composing amendments to the founding documents were also Christians and Jews. I mention that for a very specific reason. The following is an excerpt from a paper written by a Muslim cleric explaining the religion of Islam. Muslims practice that faith. Here is what he says. "  Another unique aspect of Islam which has made it an everlasting religion is the fact that Islam is not only a ‘Friday-go to mosque` religion. Islam is a system of life and as such has ECONOMIC and POLITICAL doctrines. Unlike Christianity, in Islam religion and state are not separated. The prophet of Islam himself established the first Islamic state. He was a prophet and was simultaneously the head of a state. " Note especially that he says, in Islam religion and state are not separated. He continues to explain that Mohamed is the head of state! 

 For me this problematic. The problem is this. Keith Ellison became the very first Muslim congressman. He was sworn in on the Quran by Nancy Pelosi on January the 4th, 2007. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar followed as the first women Muslims in government positions. Legislative positions! That's what troubles me. Yes currently they are in the minority by a vast margin and stand little chance of introducing any legislative changes regarding the separation of church and state. Still it is of concern when a legislator professes allegiance to the religion of Islam, indeed takes the oath of Office upon their Holy book, indicating to me their belief in the same, no different than a Christian or Jew swearing upon the Bible. But there is a difference! That difference is contained in the book itself! It is, as explained by a Muslim cleric and scholar, that Islam is not solely a religious belief but a POLITICAL system well! Can I take the word of anyone that would swear upon their Holy text an oath in contradiction to that text?( the contradiction is their religious belief is their government as well )
  In the United States of America religion and government are separate entities entirely! No where in the Christian Bible or in the texts of the Jews does it say government is to be controlled by God! No, God should be the motivation for moral and ethical actions, but man has free will to exercise his judgement. Islam says, Mohamed is the head of state! The believer is bound to follow the instructions of Mohamed in politics and economic decisions. For me it is akin to swearing on the Bible an oath all the while saying, I don't believe all of it, just some of it. 

 For me I just see that as a contradiction. I have no issue with the religion. I have no issue with a person being a follower of Islam. I do have an issue when that may impact my government! I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I can't help but feel should these followers of Islam ever achieve a majority in government they could impose their religious teaching on the minority, both Christian and Jew. There justification being they are following the precepts of their religion. They did, after all, swear upon that text so I shouldn't be surprised that they are following it. I provided the very text for them to take the oath upon!  If that should happen would not the Islamic clerics be in charge of government? That's how it works in the Muslim nations we see in the world today. In fact the reason they are called Muslim nations. Ever notice the outcry if anyone where to say the United States is a Christian nation? Not according to the law it isn't!! That is what the response will be and heavily defended, even by Christians.  There are nations in the world that call themselves Christian nations or have a state sponsored religion but you don't hear them referred to in that way. Why is that? Because Christianity and Judaism are not political systems.   

 The founding fathers were all too aware of how religious doctrines can be applied to the populace. That was the concern. What if we had a Catholic president? If we had established Catholicism as the official state religion wouldn't the nation be bound to follow the rulings of the Pope? What if we had established Judaism as the official religion of the state. That could also be problematic in a nation where we declared, all men are created equal. By extension do we not have to also say all religions are created equal? For that reason we can not favor one above another. But what they hadn't considered was a religious belief that insisted on altering government, indeed religion as the government. They proudly declared and codified in Article VI of the Constitution " no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States " I am left to wonder if in their idealistic ideology they haven't left an open loophole. By including this bold declaration is the door left open to having the first amendment removed from the document by legislative action? Could Muslims, by a majority vote in Congress not repeal the first amendment?

 It is clear and a mandate by the religion of Islam that everyone must be converted or pay a tax. That is what the Quran says. It's true that many Christians and Jews will say that you must convert to Islam or be killed but that isn't accurate. You can pay a tax, a tribute to the ruling clerics and live. You don't have to say you believe in Allah or anything else for that matter, as long as you pay, up to 80%. Now you could " convert " to Islam by saying specific prayers and you'll be left alone. Submit to their beliefs and incidentally their " government " policies it's all the same thing remember. I'd suggest that is how they originally got so many converts. Submit, pay the tax or die. Your choice!

 I guess you could just say, how strongly do these folks believe. They say they are Muslims, followers of Mohamed the prophet. They believe in his teachings and promise to obey. So do Christians and Jews. I get it, I understand all of that. The difference for me however is this. Being a Christian I know that no where does Jesus instruct me personally to kill anybody, collect a tax from anybody, or insist I convert anybody. Yes I am to spread the word but it is up to you to either receive this word or reject it. I'm not to force you to do anything! Mohamed on the other hand does instruct his followers to do all those things as a condition to gaining eternal salvation! Now you say you believe all of that, all I can do is take your word for it. That's no different than a Muslim taking the word of a Christian. What is different is, what if you really do believe that. That's my point here, what if you really do? Your Holy text says it is fine to lie, cheat , steal, deceive  and do any number of things as long as you are doing it to convert me. As long as you are doing that to advance the cause of Mohamed you will be rewarded! My text on the other hand prohibits all of that so if I were a Muslim I would hope that the Christian is telling the truth. As a Christian I hope the Muslim isn't;  know what I mean?

 Well the bottom line is, can I trust you? Sure you can, I swear it. If you don't believe it does it matter what you swear on? No, it doesn't. But if you don't believe it why swear to it in the first place? You don't have to. There is no constitutional requirement to do so, you can affirm. That has always been so, it isn't anything new. In English law you have been able to do that since 1695 so the founding fathers knew all about that. But by swearing with your hand on the Bible or the Quran you are invoking the concept of God and final judgement on your soul! You are saying I believe that! Isn't that the thinking? It certainly is and also why few choose to affirm rather than swear. You wouldn't want to appear deceitful or unbelieving in a God. You are asking me to believe you and sending a clear message that if you are lying you are risking eternal damnation! That is what you are saying whether it the Christian God or Allah that is making the judgement.

 Call me an alarmist or whatever you choose. I'm just pointing out what I see as a contradiction. I don't understand how you can swear an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of America, a constitution that specifically guarantees the separation of church and state by swearing on your religious text that says God is the head of state. Which is it? 

This is the actual oath taken : I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. 

The text upon which I either swore or affirmed instructs me to convert everyone, by any means necessary to Islam. It is a mandate from my God! Can I support and defend the Constitution of the United States when the first amendment to that Constitution clearly states, religious belief is to be separate from government, from politics? I fail to see how if you are a true believer in the prophet! If you are not why aren't you saying so? Why not just take an affirmation without a Quran or Bible? It's true there is no requirement for you swear upon any text at all. You can take the oath simply by raising your right hand and saying so. That's my only point here. If you take an oath swearing upon your Holy book you are declaring you believe that book. If I take an oath swearing upon my Holy book I am declaring that I believe that book. So it comes down to this: what instructions are contained in those books? You can't just say I believe this chapter or verse but I don't believe that chapter or verse. It's an all or nothing thing. Unless of course you want to adopt the attitude it's all just for show anyway.  Then you have to say we are all practicing a deceit. 

 Well I can't see Muslims ever gaining a majority and changing the constitution. Still I'm very much aware of the possibilities. It starts with small things, subtle changes. The little introductions of culture. America isn't the white Europeans culture that is was in 1776, it has evolved. It is the white Europeans that allowed that to happen, by legislation. Slavery as an institution existed for 86 years in America. Yes, it was on the north American continent far longer, by that wasn't America. That was abolished, white Europeans fought and killed each other to accomplish that. Civil rights acts followed to codify the basic human right that we declared, all men are created equal. A government established on what some would say are idealist principles. Are those principles really an achievable goal? Well the track record of man isn't so great in that regard. If we are to be free should we also be free from God? According to the Prophet Mohamed that isn't the case. Our founding fathers established a Republic where the people rule. It is expected those elected to office will rule in accordance with Christian principles of fair play, acting in a Christian manner and all that implies. Religion and religious belief is not the test to rule, to hold office. In fact you don't have to believe anything at all! 

And so after this long discourse, this rambling thought, I am left with a single thought. How much should we believe? Can I believe any politician? Is there honor among politicians?