Wednesday, Dec 07th

Last update:08:21:32 PM GMT

You are here: Christian Doctrine Society and Culture The British MPs Oath:- “Hypocrisy for Status”

The British MPs Oath:- “Hypocrisy for Status”

E-mail Print PDF

First, I will dispense with the oath taken by Muslims who enter this country seeking citizenship. Frankly, when they accept and speak their oath, to be loyal to the British monarch, they are either lying, or they are lax Muslims. I say this because no Muslim is allowed to promise allegiance to a monarch or country unless the monarch is an Islamic ruler, and the country is Islamic. My main concern in this paper is the oath taken by British Members of Parliament… most of whom are liars and hypocrites. I will show you why…

Promissory Oaths Act, 1868

The oath uses the following words, or similar:

“I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

Of course, the name of the present monarch is inserted in the stead of Victoria. The full judicial version read as follows:

“I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria in the office of (insert judicial office of), and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. So help me God.”

No Muslim can make such an oath, to show allegiance to a non-Islamic ruler. And the judicial oath is similarly laughable given the way the judiciary now hound and attack Christians. And, given the abnormally high percentage of homosexuals in Parliament, these and other humanistic deceivers cannot possibly ask God to help them! Nor can immigrants who wish to apply for citizenship. Yet, they lie anyway. (See "Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 [Schedule 1, Section 2]"). Others also pledge their allegiance to the monarch.

The oath finds its root in the Magna Carta (15th June, 1215), when the rebellious Barons swore their allegiance to King John after he agreed to their demands. When the Bill of Rights came along in 1689, others were also required to pledge allegiance, such as servants of the Crown and judges. ("h2g2 - King John and the Magna Carta". BBC. 31 March 2014. And, Breay, Claire; Harrison, Julian. "Magna Carta: an introduction". British Library). Various divisions were introduced at times. For example, after the romanist Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament and the king with it, James 1st demanded a new test of allegiance, the Popish Recusants Act, 1605, and the Oath of Allegiance Act, 1609. Significantly, these required an oath to be loyal to the monarch, PLUS a renunciation of the pope. Can you imagine this today, applied to Muslims OR Catholics? Until recently, the oath was based on “the true faith of a Christian”. Sadly, we have lost this allegiance to God first, and so Parliament is filled with leftists, atheists, the sexually perverse, and Islamic infiltrators.

The Oath came in a number of forms until the present day, when words referring to God and to the Monarch are fudged if not removed. In the 19th century Jews made their oath with hand on the Old Testament, while Christians (or Christianised at least) swore on the New Testament. In 1977 the Administration of Justice allowed for an MP to pledge allegiance by affirmation. In a similar way a Christian can elect to affirm he is telling the truth when part of a jury, so that he does not swear an oath on the Bible. But, anyone can affirm and thereby avoid any mention of real allegiance.

Today, a new MP can affirm or give an oath. He then signs the Test Roll headed by the oath. The book is kept by the Clerk of the House of Commons. If new MPs refuse to take the pledge, whether by affirmation or oath, they are barred from participation and from receiving their salaries. Also, their seats are said to be vacant, “as if (they) were dead” and if they tried to participate without the oath, a fine of £500 could be imposed. In 1998 it was found that a shocking 260 peers had not made an oath or affirmation in the House of Lords! They were thus banned from participation, such as sitting, speaking or voting. The most interesting Lords not to pledge included three members of the Royal household – the Dukes of Edinburgh and York, and Prince Charles! Later, when the House was reformed all who did not pledge were no longer listed as members of the House of Lords. It is intriguing that the Monarch’s own husband and son were amongst the high-ranking personages who did not pledge their allegiance to the Monarch. Surely they should thus forfeit their titles?

The Judicial Oath includes both the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath. This is where the rot has set in, for judges of non-Christian religions can dispense with the words “I swear by Almighty God” and substitute something they prefer! Those who DO swear by the Name of God are liars and deceivers, whoever they are, or in whatever capacity, for if all do not pledge to serve the Queen in the Name of God, they are not part of the same band of people who do. In particular, Muslims will not pledge allegiance to the Monarch or to the country in good conscience. If they do make an oath it must, by definition, be a lie, a form of taqiyya.

In England, police officers do not repeat any form of ‘God’ and only promise to serve the monarch. In Scotland and Northern Ireland police do not pledge allegiance to the monarch. In Northern Ireland reference to God was removed from 2001. Oddly, those who take up the priesthood in the Church of England also take the usual oath, though a huge number do not believe in God. Entrants to the RAF and Army also take an oath of allegiance. Though Muslims served with great honour in the two World Wars, since that time their allegiances have deteriorated. Members of the Navy do not take an oath, but are assumed to be loyal.

I feel the citizenship oath applied to Muslims is derisory to the country, to God, and to the Monarch, because they must pledge an oath to live according to British law… something a growing majority of Muslims refuse to accept.

The Citizenship Oath of Allegiance is:

“I... swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.”

The Citizenship Pledge is:

“I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.” ("Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 [Schedule 1, Section 2].")

Islam does not agree with democracy or its rights and freedoms! So the only way Muslims can repeat these words is if they do so as an act of taqiyya, in order to deceive and push their Islamic agenda. And it is not just Muslims who are a problem. There have been attempts within Parliament to change the law, so that neither the oath NOR affirmation need be used!

A group called ‘Republic’ is campaigning to remove any reference to an oath. This group wants to legally change the oath so that it is to the people and not to the monarch. By removing the ‘higher’ pledge, this is a seditious idea that would lead people to follow a prevalent ideology which would have no link to God at all. Even the fascist EU courts recognised the danger when ex (?) IRA member Martin McGuinness, since an MP for Sinn Fein, tried to be rid of the oath.

It is my opinion that the oath will soon become a relic. I say this because all of the governments in the West are trying to demonise Christians and scripture. They are led in the background by Islamists. We know this because governmental and police policies are written after consultation with both Stonewall (homosexuality) and Islamic leaders. This will not end well unless the Lord intervenes, though Christians themselves are weak and scripturally impure, if not wicked.

© July 2018

Published on

Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
United Kingdom