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.
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. :)
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.
I’m pretty sure each person chooses a document/book to swear on that is core to them. So most people in the US would choose the Bible because they identify as Christian, but if a Jewish person or Muslim person was sworn in they could choose the Torah or Quran. And a non-religuous person could choose anything that they could convinceably argue is important/core to their values.
Disclaimer: I did no research right now to confirm this but that’s what I remember.
Revoking citizenship is a tough one, because statelessness is a huge issue in some parts of the world. It drastically complicates the international refugee process, because oftentimes people are fleeing their state and seeking asylum after being made stateless.
It’s actually not mandatory that a Bible, or any religious text be used for swearing in a president. There’s nothing stating that a Jewish president couldn’t use the Torah or a Muslim president couldn’t use the Koran. We’ve just only had Christian presidents so far, though not all of them have used bibles for the ceremony.
Separation from church and state only pretty much states that congress can make no laws favoring one religion over another or make any laws prohibiting the practice of one’s religion. To prohibit a president from swearing in on a religious text of their choice would, in and of itself, be a first amendment violation. Saying they have to, would also be a violation. The strict separation of church from the state, freedom from religion or the “wall of separation,” is something people have argued for, but isn’t actually laid out in the constitution.
Pretty crazy that it’s sworn in the Bible when the state is supposed to be separated from the church
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.
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. :)
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.
I’m pretty sure each person chooses a document/book to swear on that is core to them. So most people in the US would choose the Bible because they identify as Christian, but if a Jewish person or Muslim person was sworn in they could choose the Torah or Quran. And a non-religuous person could choose anything that they could convinceably argue is important/core to their values.
Disclaimer: I did no research right now to confirm this but that’s what I remember.
I remember one politician being sworn in with a stack of comics.
Found it
I did not know this … it is both awesome and interesting.
I think the act of being sworn in should also be on one’s passport, give it more weight that if you break the oath you lose the citizenship.
Revoking citizenship is a tough one, because statelessness is a huge issue in some parts of the world. It drastically complicates the international refugee process, because oftentimes people are fleeing their state and seeking asylum after being made stateless.
Though to be fair, the US is one of the only countries that refused to sign the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and only signed half of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1967.
Ya I’d be fine with trump being stateless at this point
I guess then we’d get to have a lot more Terminal situations.
It’s actually not mandatory that a Bible, or any religious text be used for swearing in a president. There’s nothing stating that a Jewish president couldn’t use the Torah or a Muslim president couldn’t use the Koran. We’ve just only had Christian presidents so far, though not all of them have used bibles for the ceremony.
Separation from church and state only pretty much states that congress can make no laws favoring one religion over another or make any laws prohibiting the practice of one’s religion. To prohibit a president from swearing in on a religious text of their choice would, in and of itself, be a first amendment violation. Saying they have to, would also be a violation. The strict separation of church from the state, freedom from religion or the “wall of separation,” is something people have argued for, but isn’t actually laid out in the constitution.