Doesn’t even know the presidential oath he pledged.

You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

  • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    The separation of church and state is exactly why the president can be sworn in on a bible. Barring a member of office from swearing in on a religious text would specifically violate their first amendment right to practice religion. Importantly, the state doesn’t require them to use a bible, and it also doesn’t prevent them from doing so.

    That’s the whole point of separation of church and state. If the state required a religious text, that would be establishing a national religion. And if the state prevented it, that would be infringing on peoples’ right to practice religion.

    It doesn’t need to be a religious text at all. It simply needs to be something that is important to the person being sworn in. Technically, you could be sworn in on a copy of the constitution itself, or some handwritten letters from your mother, or a stack of hentai comics.

    • Almacca@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Technically it’s a performative ritual and serves no real purpose. The swearing of the oath is the only important bit and should be enough. You humans and your weird attachment to symbols and artifacts. :)

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Coming from a place where we practice laïcity, it’s a weird way to separate the State and religion to say that people can swear allegiance on a religious book.