what is "modified oath" during oath of naturalization?

This means that instead of "swearing" you are "affirming". This is for individuals that are not permitted to swear due to religious reasons. Legally however, they both have the same force when it comes to compliance.
 
There is also the ability to remove "that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law" in the case of a bona fide pacifist/conscientious objector.
 
while removing "swearing" and using "affirming" is very easy - during interview IO crosses out those words for you

for "not bearing arms" you need a lot of documents proving that you - for long time belonged and regularly go to - certain church (Jehovah Witness) or temple (buddist),

and there was a case of application denied as "no attachment to US Constitution", appealed and finally approved after applicant on interview insisted on changing oath without any supporting documents/religion

besides, the only real danger to be involuntarily sent to battle - is to be male under 33 y.o with no other useful skills/education, there's tonns of other stuff to do in military

cooking, nursing, cleaning, clerical, languages, IT, doctors, chemist up untill intelligence
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you have to write describing why you want the modified oath and what you want modified. Thought it said how to do it on the form. Not sure if you need other contacts to list on there either...
 
Hmm, it seems like a lot of hassle. I guess I can live with it... thanks for the clarification guys.

You do not necessarily need any official documents. What if you are not religious but because of your personal beliefs (not associated with a faith) you object to bearing arms. Anyone can object to bearing arms. It is more advantegeous and easier to be approved to sign the modified oath if you belong to a pacifist faith, however, everyone applying can have a chance to take a modified oath if they so choose. Now, being given a chance and proving are two different cases. In either case, you need to prove your case as to why you would like to take the modified oath.
 
You do not necessarily need any official documents. What if you are not religious but because of your personal beliefs (not associated with a faith) you object to bearing arms. Anyone can object to bearing arms. It is more advantegeous and easier to be approved to sign the modified oath if you belong to a pacifist faith, however, everyone applying can have a chance to take a modified oath if they so choose. Now, being given a chance and proving are two different cases. In either case, you need to prove your case as to why you would like to take the modified oath.

I assume the same criteria apply as for "conscientious objector" status with Selective Service. This is how they define it:

Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.
 
I assume the same criteria apply as for "conscientious objector" status with Selective Service. This is how they define it:

Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

so basically applicant cannot just come to interview and ask - orally or in writing - to change oath for "no arms" , he/she should bring supporting documents from his past

I wonder if participating in some human rights anty-war initiatives ever worked as sufficient evidence?

2 reasons to leave "arms" in oath alone (unless you are Jehovah witness or buddist):
1) it can cause delays and denial
2) in case of almost loosing war with existing Army and actual involuntary draft - I don't think Govt will care to verify - what kind of oath we had. we will most likely be treated just like natural born US Citizens and obliged to do what everybody else does.

Uness the war is with your country of origin - then you could put you in jail/camp, like 110 000 Japanese Americans in 1941
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
 
Yeah, I was wondering whether if one doesn't take an oath saying one will bear arms, whether that person will be exempted from the draft. I highly doubt it.
 
applicant can only substitute "bearing arms" with "noncombattant service" i.e. either using highly professional skills or basic things as i said earlier.

it's same in any country - any gov't can force citizen in case of loosing war with normal military personnel,

but imagine what kind of situation should that be? Third World War? Nuclear attack? Global virus?

in that case nobody in Govt will care about your oath or rights - everybody will pursue own interests - govt try to control people and people try to run and seek refuge in safer countries. speaking of possible US refugees - it kinda sux to depend on only 2 neighbor countries, cuz most of big wars happened in countries that allowed refugees to run in all directions by land or short boat, but with US geography I think it''d be deadly. Just look at Katrina.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Modified oath in the court system is usually for someone who is an atheist/agnostic or for any other reason does not want to swear by GOD to tell the truth. One simply swears or promises to tell the truth without referring to God.
 
Modified oath in the court system is usually for someone who is an atheist/agnostic or for any other reason does not want to swear by GOD to tell the truth. One simply swears or promises to tell the truth without referring to God.

thanks! that's exactly what I was looking for.... I absolutely refuse to say any oath with the word god in it. so I can just take a modified oath without using the word god?
 
Unless the USCIS has a special rule ( would be unconstitutional) I do not see why anyone has to swear in the name of God if they are non believers.
 
Top