politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
He had his fingers crossed...
If I recall, he didn't even place a hand on the Bible.
Fact!. For all his claims of being a "Christian", he couldn't be bothered.
Pretty crazy that it's sworn in the Bible when the state is supposed to be separated from the church
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.
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.
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.
Probably
A. Pissed it wasn't one from his merch store
B. Afraid that if he touched a real Bible, he'd burst into flames.
Lies!
His hands are far too tiny for his fingers to cross.
And he said …NOT, under his breath