Yeah, what the hell are they talking about there? She’s obviously full of shit, but I can’t think of any legislation in the past 10 years that they could conflate with how the oath is administered.
She’d almost certainly be able to name Leviticus as well as it has one of the few Bible verses that I suspect she cherry-picks when quoting the Bible.
If I ran for Congress and won (after suffering the massive amount of head trauma that would be required to make me want the job) I’d ask to be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
My aunts and cousins are all lovely; but I’m not too sure about me. I keep an eye on me using the mirror; but I’ve never seen me blink. Am I a Reptiliod?
So the whole point of swearing an oath on a bible or whatever seems to be, “By this document that I personally hold holy, I promise to do my duty”
Why oh why does anyone think it is improved by saying “by this document that YOU hold holy but I don’t care about, I promise to do my duty”???
It does not logic.
ETA: Include “swearing on your grandmother’s grave”, “Swearing on my mother’s life”, “Swearing on the heads of my children”, etc. “I swear on YOUR grandmother’s grave” is really unconvincing.
Because they believe that members of the canibalistic pedophile conspiracy will burn themselves if they touch a bible. These people are usually more familiar with vampire movies than the actual bible.
I thought that a few years ago. But it seems they don’t even care about moral standards any longer. It seems to me that the just want to keep a KY senator in a high place of office because half the party want minorities out and the other half think they’re gonna make it big in the stock market once the libs get out.
Religious test doesn’t even go far enough. The reason you would swear a Muslim in on the Quran is because it means something to them, whereas a bible is just a historically interesting but inaccurate book. You might as well swear someone in on a copy of Gladiator for all that does. They won’t necessarily lie, but you’ve certainly asked them not to take the oath seriously.
The only reason to push for it anyway is because you think the object itself has special powers on its own, and the only way it is a test is if you think non-Christians are afraid to touch it. Which, I mean, it does in that using it is a symbol of religious supremacy; and Greene very well might think about them. I’m just saying there’s more nonsense bigotry here than test alone would imply.