The video here from an interview with Roy Moore spokesperson Ted Crockett is … both hysterical and deeply depressing. When asked why a Muslim shouldn’t be allowed to serve in Congress (as Moore has argued), Crockett notes that a good Muslim could not swear on the Bible, as someone is required to do to get into office.
And when Jake Tapper notes that, no, the Constitution does not require swearing in on a Bible, just taking an oath or affirmation however one can solemnly do so, Crockett sits there for several seconds, silent, until he argues that both he (as a previous elected official) and Donald Trump swore on a Bible, so clearly that’s the requirement.
It’s funny, but it’s also illustrative. It’s ignorance in action. It’s “well, everyone I know is that way, so that’s not only the normal way, it’s the only way.” It’s the sort of thing I would expect from a Moore supporter … and, sadly, too many other people.
For the record, here is the oath of office for the US Senate:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. [1]
While the US Constitution gives the text for the President’s oath, it only says that other federal officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.” The original US Congress set as the oath “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States,” but in the Civil War era the rules were changed to expand the oath text to weed out Southern sympathizers. The current wording is defined in the US legal code.
None of this says anything about the Christian Bible, or being a Christian, or anything about the belief system of the person so swearing. Indeed, no holy book is required, as an office holder may simply “affirm” their vow (some Christians, for example, believe that swearing an oath is actually sinful). And it’s worth noting that Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible in 1901 when taking the oath, and both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law (as they were swearing on the Constitution).[23]
But apparently some people who seem to fetishize the US Constitution to use as a tool against others have no idea what it actually says.
[1] When given as an affirmation, rather than an oath, the phrase “so help me God” can be omitted, e.g., court officials.
Moore Spox Falls Silent When Told Bible Isn’t Required For Oaths Of Office
A spokesman for Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore’s campaign on Tuesday appeared dumbfounded when asked whether he knew that…
Swelp me God.
It's actually worse than that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
So the Constitution that he supposedly loves, and that Roy Moore claimed to be properly adjudicating specifically EXCLUDES religious tests.
I got this shit taught to me in GRADE school. We need to bring this back, and I'd love to see a cultural shift toward defaulting to swearing ON THE CONSTITUTION rather than on the fucking bible.
He says he's been an elected official on three occasions yet he has apparently never read the US Constitution.
+Greg Stockton Well, if he follows the Bryan Fischer School of Constitutional Zaniness, then he'd argue that the "religious Test" clause (and the First Amendment) only refer to various denominations of Christianity, not to, y'know, non-Christian "religions."
+Cindy Brown We learned the first several amendments but didn't learn the Constitution as a whole. It's a shame really. I think having that part of "Civics" in HS is important to the continuation of our country. They'll teach American History up to a point, but "Government" is rather lacking other than to teach a rather high level explanation of the separations of power at the Federal level.
I had civics classes in 6th, 7th and 11th grades. I think they were phased out after that, though I think California students still get it at least once. I should ask my sister about that.