my thoughts on this are if they aren't a devout Muslim then it isn't even an issue. If they are a devout Muslim then it depends on the answer to this question.. Can a devout Muslim put his hand on the Koran and swear to uphold the constitution? If the Koran is inconsistent with the constitution (as some are claiming) then a devout Muslim would be unable to swear that oath. If the Koran is consistent with constitution then again it's a non issue.
my grandparents were missionaries. some christian variety that wanted people in mexico to stop believing in this kind of christ and start believing in another. they believe(d) in a literal interpretation of the bible, fully and unconditionally. if that's the sort of thing you mean by devout, i don't know if anyone could adhere to anything like that while being fit for any meaningful responsibility.
Theoretically, yes. The Constitution gives two requirements to be president. They have to be at least 35 year old, and have lived in the US for 14 years. Another requirement that's not stated is that they have to be a US born citizen, but that's a more recent thing, and not really a rule. Whether or not the public agrees on a candidates religious beliefs should be irrelevant, but people are idiots... With the separation of the Church & State, a presidents religious beliefs should not affect their decisions. Tho the President is a mascot for congress anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point.
Well there have been concerns about various Christian sects as well. Kennedy being a Catholic, Romney being a Morman. The concern is would they put the tenets of their faith above the constitution. I use the word 'devout' to indicate someone who would do that. So you then look at those tenets and have to make a determination if there are any conflicts. But again if those Christians can take the oath then that means there are no conflicts or they aren't devout, they are secular. Are you're saying that a devout Christian couldn't take that oath? @IMAGIRL I'm pretty sure you aren't president until you've taken the oath. I don't think it's just for show. In fact if you remember when Obama was being sworn in the Chief Justice mispoke and Obama made him start over. It seemed important to him that they get it exactly right.
It IS a requirement to be a natural born US citizen no immigrant can be President. (Being born abroad to TWO US citizens does qualify as being a natural born US citizen.) 1. Natural Born US Citizen 2. Resident for 14 years 3. 35 years old All 3 are directed by the constitution. - Most presidents are Christians as the US is predominantly Christian, the United States was written to be a republic ergo it retains certain religious ties specifically to Christianity and thus why it was such a big deal when JFK became president with him being a Roman Catholic. No president has been a Non-Christian religion, but 4 or 5 of them were accused of being atheist during the campaign so it is a factor people use to vote, Jimmy Carter for instance used his faith as a defining aspect of his campaign. Back to the topic at hand when swearing an oath before the court they usually swear on the Bible and all that however different religions or those opposed to swearing on the Bible for whatever reason have a different oaths for such things, I imagine if anybody was elected President that wasn't a Christian religion than the respective vow/oath for that religion would be used just as it is in court. You have to swear an oath to uphold the constitution you don't have to swear in any sort of religious way however. Obama was one of those accused of being an atheist during the campaign, I'd say that was a contributing factor in making sure the t's were crossed and i's were dotted just right so he could lay down such claims since again it is a determining factor. That said you aren't President until you're sworn into office, but again doesn't have to be in a religious manner.
Where did I say that you don't have to take the oath? Of course you have to. I omitted it as it was not a requirement so much as being apart of the electoral process. (At least, how I see it.) Ah, I must have been thinking of something else then. Thanks for the clarification. Exactly, nor should it be in a religious matter.
I ask the question because of the controversy around a statement made by Ben Carson (one of the republican candidates) that he couldn't support a Muslim as president. There was also an attempt to label Obama as a Muslim when he was running. @Dwlr what do mean they don't have to take the oath in a religious way? What's the religious way then? Here's my understanding of what an oath is, you promise to do something on threat of punishment by whatever God you are swearing on. Of course a non religious person can say the words, but that doesn't make the oath itself non religious. And I'm pretty sure if a religious person takes an oath they wouldn't later say, 'well that was one of those non religious oaths'. Seriously what are you talking about? And when I wonder if a devout (religious) Muslim can take the oath of office I'm asking if they could do it and still be considered devout by other Muslims. Of course they could lie. Anyone could lie.
Atheist politicians typically swear on a copy of the Constitution. Legally I a Muslim could be president, however there are too many bigots in the USA for it to happen anytime in the near future.
Prior to Kennedy, people had the same worry about Catholic's -- it was assumed their first loyalty would be to the pope.
i'm asking what you mean by devout. my understanding is that if you were to literally try to follow every word in the bible, and believe them all to be true simultaneously, you'd have not only a few contradictions but at this point probably a few reasons to turn yourself in for various 'crimes' if all you mean is that you must love your god(s) and do your best, then anyone could be president assuming they fulfill the other requirements. if you mean that one can't be devout without wifing your dead brother's widow or what have you, then i'd be surprised to know of many prominent devout politicians in our nation's history.
Fair enough. Consider the recent news story about that county clerk who refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. That's what I mean by devout in this case. Someone who puts their religion above the duties of their office. When she took her oath of office there was no conflict as the Supreme Court had not yet made its ruling. I'm thinking that if she had to take the oath AFTER that ruling she would have been unable to do it. So it's equally fair to ask could a devout Christian be able to take the oath of office for president.
i'm pretty sure that the oath at the time still demanded that she uphold the constitution above other things (even if she swore on a bible), and that the constitution in this country is legally dictated by the supreme court if need be. i have trouble seeing her actions as other than illegal, but i've also purposefully avoided looking into it because i mostly found the situation ridiculous by the definition of putting faith above the office, if a devout anyone were to run for president, i wouldn't think them qualified.
Can and should are different words. It is a question because many of us are wondering anyway, and now the genie done escaped from the bottle. Bravo Ragic. If I had to choose between breaking the law or doing something immoral, I would break the law. Have in the past, will in the future. Many leaders throughout history have been imprisoned, beaten, starved, humiliated, tortured, and even murdered for doing what they believed to be right. It is ridiculous to worship laws. Follow the good laws, work to improve the bad ones. ONLY a devout person should be POTUS. Obama appears to be devout in his beliefs. Guess he has to go.
i doubt we'd actually have a muslin president for a good while. almost any other major religion is more likely. having said that, i don't think there's a fundamental problem with a muslim president. just that they'd have a hell of a hard time convincing their party that they were electable right now.
