As the final hours of Alabama's special election came to a close, Ted Crockett, Republican candidate Roy Moore's campaign spokesman, appeared on CNN's "The Lead" for an interview with Jake Tapper on Tuesday. Tapper questioned Crockett on several of Moore's controversial statements, including why he believed Muslims would be ineligible to serve in Congress — a topic on which Moore opined in 2006, after Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota became the first Muslim member of Congress and used Thomas Jefferson's Quran for his swearing-in ceremony. "Because you have to swear on the the Bible," Crockett said. "I had to do it, I'm an elected official." "You have to swear on a Bible to be an elected official in the [US]," Crockett continued. "He alleges that a Muslim cannot do that ethically, swearing on a Bible." Tapper responded: "You don't actually have to swear on a Christian Bible. You can swear on anything, really. I don't know if you knew that. You can swear on a Jewish Bible." "Oh no, I swore on the Bible, Crockett said. "I've done it three times, Jake." Tapper replied: "I'm sure you have, I'm sure you've picked a Bible. But the law is not that you have to swear on a Christian Bible. That is not the law." After Tapper's last comment, Crockett did not respond. Tapper appeared to nudge the interview forward: "You don't know that?" "I know that Donald Trump did it when we made him President," Crockett finally said. Tapper replied: "Because he's Christian and he picked it. That's what he wanted to swear in on." Several US presidents have been sworn in on other sacred texts for their respective ceremonies. For instance, President John Quincy Adams is assumed to have placed his hand on the Constitution. "Some might care less about making the oath more effective, and more about using the oath to reinforce traditional American values, in which they include respect for the Bible ... over other holy books," UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in an op-ed in 2006, amid the backlash from Ellison's decision. "Yet this would literally violate the Constitution’s provision that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,'" Volokh continued. "For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. " http://www.businessinsider.com/roy-moore-spokesman-swearing-in-on-the-bible-cnn-interview-2017-12 Ignorance is bliss. Then again, when your political party likes to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution it likes, you'd actually convince yourself that a bible is needed to be sworn in as an elected official in the U.S.
See the little cogs in his little mind searching for some fake news to use as defence: https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/940818240112119808
I would wager that if you asked 100 people if you had to swear oaths on the bible you would find that 99 would say yes. Its just one of those things people have come to believe, like the old "10% of our brains" myth, or the various inaccuracies (and lies) told of African inventors during Black History Month. In tradition, a "sworn oath" involves the inclusion of the supreme figure be it a Christian God or otherwise. Occasionally law does reference this inclusion albeit mostly older laws that more or less aren't observed for anything other than their tradition. In truth when required to "swear an oath" the current legal definition is indicates that one is affirming that they intend to speak truth - in which case any affirming act is considered to have satisfied this requirement. But we can be thankful that this case of "righteous ignorance" doesn't lead to a beheading, or stoning, or terrorist attack as it would with, heh, other form of righteousness. /cough
What was the point of yours? Your guy was elected three times and was completely ignorant of Article VI? I take it you share in this ignorance?
