When Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (in photo), D-Minn., has his ceremonial swearing-in, he wants to use the book that represents his faith, which is Islam’s Quran rather than Christianity’s Bible. Seems like common sense, especially in a country whose founding tenets include religious freedom. Yet Ellison’s election as the first Muslim member of Congress has some Americans out of sorts, a mood worsened by the Quran flap.
“Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress,” wrote Dennis Prager, a conservative radio talker whose membership on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum board is now being criticized.
But as columnist Susan Paynter noted: “Never mind that no member is actually sworn in with a hand on the Bible or any other book anyway. Or that, if they want to, the dearly elected can carry anything they want to the ceremony including a vintage copy of Mad Magazine. Or that a senator from Oregon carried the Book of Mormon to his swearing-in. And at least two presidents didn’t swear oaths at all but merely ‘affirmed.’”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
86 Comments
Fundies seem to dream things up to swell their persecution complex. Representatives don’t swear on books. Perhaps fundies should read the Constitution and take note of the part that says no elected official has to take a religious test in order to hold office. That, and there’s that entire First Amendment which grants everyone the freedom of or from religion.
Prager is a perfect example of conservative Christians who think that freedom of religion means the freedom to be a conservative Christian and rights don’t apply to anyone else. How swearing upon the Constitution to uphold the Constitution? There’s a concept conservatives might try some day.
Eugene Volokh was on CNN with some bigot from townhall.com, and he got it exactly right. Aside from the reality that Doug notes above, the very purpose of the oath is to ensure that the person taking it would be regard it as serious committment, so serious, perhaps, and to invite retribution from the Almighty for betraying. While I suppose a Muslim could endure swearing on the Judeo-Christian bible, it’s not the same, and would obviously signify a solemn a committment as swearing on the sacred book of one’s own faith.
As Paynter notes, you can also affirm without reference to any deity at all (it’s in the Constitution, folks). But, for myself, I think “The Big Book of Mad” would be a fitting choice. Or perhaps the Sacred Orb of my own religion, the Frisbetarian Church.
“not” signify. And other typos, again. .
Preview? What’s that?
Simple solution to complex problem. Compile the 2,900+ death certificates of our young men and women who have died in Iraq into a binder, and he can “swear” his oath on it. He wants to pose as a Muslim, we owe him that right, and he owes us that responsibility.
You would think that we Christians would actually RESIST swearing on a Bible, considering what the Bible says about it….
Matthew 5:33-37
Oaths33″Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
This is such BS. Who cares what any person swears an oath to. I don’t care if it’s the Bible, Koran, or a blank piece of paper.
But just as Doug related to, the swearing in of Congressional members are done in mass and all they do is hold their hand in the air. They don’t put there other hand on anything.
There is a cerimonial swearing in, but that is mostly for photo-ops and etc. It is not the offical swearing in. That is the one for which Ellison is going to use the Koran.
What about Jewish members of congress. Do they cerimonially swear to the Torah?
It doesn’t matter. The whole swearing on the bible is a farse anyways. I mean do you really expect people to tell the truth or be an honest and good person just beccause they swore on a bible? It’s nothing! It does absolutely nothing!
“Simple solution to complex problem. Compile the 2,900+ death certificates of our young men and women who have died in Iraq into a binder, and he can “swear” his oath on it. He wants to pose as a Muslim, we owe him that right, and he owes us that responsibility.”
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You are saying that Keith Ellison’s identity as a Muslim trumps his identity as an American to the extent that because he is a Muslim he somehow bears a responsibility for the American dead that other non-Muslim Americans do not?
Just for y’alls FYI-
“Both CAIR and NAIF work closely with Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim member of Congress. Conveniently enough, he immediately stepped in on their behalf to pressure US Airways and the local airport to change security policies.”
I recommend reading the whole story.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=250126364574564&view=1&view=1
Do Jewish members swear on a Bible containing the New Testament?
ksagnostic – you raise an important point that both we and he need to answer. Back when JFK was elected that same question was raised – would the Vatican call the shots? I still remember “No Pope Here” signs from that election. More recently, similar questions were raised about Joe Lieberman. And, we have questions raised about some fundamentalists trying to write their beliefs into law.
I do not want to see Ellison trying to legislate Islam – I just finished my breakfast that included very improper bacon. I also do not want to see his beliefs unduly impact our foreign policy any more than I would with Lieberman or Kannedy. The USA should come first.
I am sure his constituents who elected him in a free and fair democratic election were fully aware of his religion. They chose him to be their Representative. He should serve.
As for those like Taliban Dennis Prager I don’t want THEM forcing THEIR religion on me either.
Here’s a solution.. Since the job of an elected official to uphold and make law. Why don’t we make them swear on oath using a book that contains laws? :)
Ugh, no grammar this morning. “Since the job of an elected official IS TO uphold and make law.”
Doh!
Good idea Erik. The Constitution perhaps?
Re: hmmm…
Sounds good to me
*shrug* Trust has nothing to do with religion and all about actions.
I could care less if he was satanic, godfaring, or whatever. As long as he made policy that was the will of the people.
As my memory serves, there is no requirement that anyone being sworn on oath place their “other” hand on anything; this includes Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents. The custom began, as I recall, when George Washington took the oath of office as the first President. So, if Ellison wants to use the Koran, so be it.
VT, it also includes anyone testifying in court. You DO NOT have to have your hand on the Bible.
Honestly, this practice should be completely done away with. It’s in violation of the first ammendment and the separation of church and state. If a person giving testimony or being sworn in would prefer to use a religious book, let them, but expecting them to is beyond the law.
RD, true; didn’t bring it up originally, as my read of the IP was concerning Ellison taking oath as a new member of the House, so was limiting my discussion to politicians taking oaths.
FWIW, when one takes the oath upon enlisting in the military, no religious or secular book or other matter is utilized, either.
I guess the Rapture-right who claims to be so religious forgot about the lines in the new testament that actually FORBID the swearing of oaths.
“Let your yea’s be yea’s and your nay’s be nay’s.”
Consistency is not these people’s strong suit, obviously. Neither is actually BEING Christian, apparently . . .
“Let your yea’s be yea’s and your nay’s be nay’s.”
Dubya swore on a stack of Bibles and his yea’s and nay’s don’t mean squat.
Again we have these fundamental Evangelical Christians trying to ram their views down everyone else’s throat. I see this as more of scheme to get their sheeple energized to fight. There is no better strategy than to find a common enemy to get your base up and foaming at the mouth.
But hopefully the last election has shown some insight into the majority of Americans are fed up with these phoney churchy Evangelicals and will rightly keep them in their place at each and every election.
It is the law and tradition of our Christian founded nation. Swear on the Bible or quite. Simple.
But I suppose if that’s really how it comes down then this guy and his kind would be “offended”. Shit, can’t have that or who knows what hell will break loose. Remember France?
No. SOB, you are wrong. There is no law specifying we use your book.
America wasn’t founded as a Christian nation SOB. Where did you even dream that nonsense up? Perhaps you should reference the Treaty of Tripoli which makes it absolutely clear this nation wasn’t founded as a Christian nation, heck, even try perusing the Constitution.
It was founded by Christians. You know it. You hate it, but you know it.
hahaha – some were Christain, some were Deist. Franklin had close relationships with the Jewish community in Philadelphia.
Ok, you’ve conviced yourself otherwise. That must have took some work.
Christians are in the vast majority. You hate it but you know it.
I know Christians are in the vast majority but I do not hate that fact. Most of the people I know are Christian; I am married to one. You, SOB, are a liar.
Now tell us, what law says “Swear on the Bible or quite. Simple”?
From the Treaty of Tripoli
which was one of the first international treaties of a young United States
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Got it SOB?
This is such a non issue. Praeger is only making a stink about this to try and get listeners for his radio show. He wants to play with Hannity and Rush and the other shill masters.
Did Mark FOLEY swear on a bible? I bet he did.
How about having folks swear on their honor?
“How about having folks swear on their honor?”
RepubliCONS can’t do that; they don’t have any.
Nope, I aint got it. Explain.
oh…I see…another right-wing ploy to gain ratings! Yeah!
I know it don’t matter to you JR that this is just another indicator of our culture going the wrong way.
And, SOB, while you’re at it, please tell us why such a law, should it exist, is not in violation of Article VI, United States Constitution, the pertinent part of which reads:
“Oath to Support Constitution; religious test not to be required. The Senators and Representative before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the seeral 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.”
Just cuz. I win.
Just to help out, SOB; if the oath was to be taken on the Bible, wouldn’t the founders so said, and further, not allowed an affirmation? And, as several of my law school professors might say, “Quaere, is an oath which is required to be taken by placing a hand on the Bible a religious test?”.
Got it Pro-Mulsim, anti-Christian.
If it were not Muslim, you would not care and this would not have made headlines.
“I know it don’t matter to you JR that this is just another indicator of our culture going the wrong way.”
On this I agree SOB; the likes of Prager on the air is DEFINITELY another indicator of our culture going downhill.
Now, about that law you claim exists … ?
Oh now, stop with the cleverness..you know what I mean.
Stand by the the law thing…I’m re-reading the Constitution…give me a few.
“Got it Pro-Mulsim, anti-Christian.”
Since I am neither pro- nor anti- either Muslim nor Christian that statement is a total non-sequiter.
I do not want EITHER religion ruling my life; however I support the rights of followers of BOTH to practice their faith.
as for Foley …
http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=2006120815210001656624
“Foley Panel: GOP Didn’t Protect PagesWASHINGTON (AP) – The House ethics committee reported Fridaythat Republican lawmakers and aides failed to protect young malepages from former Rep. Mark Foley’s improper advances, concludingan investigation into a scandal that convulsed Congress andcontributed to the GOP defeat in last month’s elections.The panel said it found no evidence that any current lawmakersor aides violated any rules. But it said it discovered a pattern ofconduct among many “to remain willfully ignorant of the potentialconsequences” of Foley’s conduct.”—–
That is mighty white of you.
“mighty white”?
SOB is a troll stringing you guys along.
Same old song and dance.
When will you numbskulls realize that America is an evil empire? Americans are self-glorifying fatasses, plain and simple. Today we have two types of self-glorifying fatasses… You have self-glorifying fatasses on the Right, and self-glorifying fatasses on the Left. Let’s examine the difference between the two, shall we?
The self-glorifying fatasses on the Right blame the entire world community if they don’t do what they want them to, of being “anti-American.” (i.e. anti-self-glorifying fatass, of course.) This type of self-glorifying fatasses see the world as backwards because the world is “un-American” (i.e. un-self-glorifying fatass-like, of course.) So the first type believes it is their divine duty to “Americanize” the world (i.e. make the world think and act like a bunch of self-glorifying fatasses, of course.) The second group of self-glorifying fatasses on the Left, believe that the problems of the world community are caused by religious ideology. This type believe that by “secularizing” the world (i.e. Americanization-Lite.) That there will be no more cause for the people of the world to hate the self-glorifying fatasses. This type sees anyone in the world community who doesn’t think and act like them to be “backwards” or “socially retarded.” They propose increasing the size of the self-glorifying fatass war machine so it will be easier in invading sovereign states at their discretion, and Americanizing people they consider to be backwards, or just bomb them into submission so they could force their Bibles and blue jeans on the “terrorists.” (i.e. pissed off Muslims who are sick and tired of having Americans and Israelis telling them how to live their lives.) Of course, neither self-glorifying fatasses on either side will admit that they are both part of the problem,because they are so arrogant that they believe that the salvation of the world community is based upon the strict adherence to their narrow principles. (i.e. Right politics + Left politics) To cite an example, the self-glorifying fatasses are stuck in Iraq, they could do the sane thing and just fucking leave. That is totally in their power. But they don’t leave. They CHOOSE to stay, as occupiers and oppressors of the Iraqi people. The reason they give is that they don’t want Iran to influence the Iraqis…. Think about this, if you will. The self-glorifying fatasses don’t want anyone to influence the Iraqis and their way of life except for THEIR OWN INFLUENCE. After all, they certainly don’t want Iraq’s oil fields to fall in the hands ofAhmadinejad’s Iran. I mean, heaven forbid that some other country profit from oil!!! The self-glorifying fatasses have a problem. It’s still not safe enough to exploit the Iraqis oil supplies. That is the real reason why they stay. The self-glorifying fatasses are still hoping beyond hope for the smallest chance that they’ll get to exploit Iraq. Indeed, it is a curse for a third world country to have an abundance of such a precious commodity such as oil. That is after all, the very reason behind why the self-glorifying fatasses invaded.
CrusaderX = latest anti-American to date.
SOB – still waiting for that law …
And you know because you give so many?
Where is the law?
SOB = LIAR
Thanks for the obvious joke. Good one hummer.
SOB=SOB
2+2=4 unless you’re in California.
Here’s that law: http://www.foxnews.com/legal/constitution/p7587l.html
“Page Cannot Be Found
You’ve requested a FOXNews.com page that cannot be found. The page you are looking for may have moved or it may no longer be available. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Please try the following:
If you typed the URL, make sure that it is spelled correctly.Open the FOXNews.com home page and look for links to the information you want.Use the navigation at the top to find the link you are looking for.Click the Back button to try another link.Enter a term in the search form above or below to look for information on FOXNews.com.If the page has moved, reset your bookmark.If you think this is a server error, please contact foxnewsonline@foxnews.com. “
Yep, I thought just maybe you were actually trying to substantiate yout bogus claim about a law. So, I guess you now acknowledge it was just another lie.
“Repub” would be shorthand for “Republican” just as “Dem” is shorthand for “Democrat.”
Yes, I’m a liar. ….thinking of joining the Dem party.
But it is the law. Prove that it is not. I double-dog dare you.
Actually, Repub is short for Republican,Dem is short for hate America anti capitalist give me a hand out now raise taxes kill babies defend the murderer KlaypasThat wasn’t short at all. I’ll try again later.
Here is it.
http://cnn.com/math/calif/d58497
TOTALLY, and changing the subject for just a moment on behalf of a friend who does not have a commuter who has asked me to do this, I quote:
“Since the (B)eagle has chosen to use newsprint so thin that you can read the other side while you are trying to read the side in front of you, and it curls up when you open it, would you please put it in a roll and perforate it, so it can be further recycled in the reading room?” Thank you.
hahaha! Good one rm …
HAHA LOL LOL
I know what funny is and that was funny!
The Presidential oath of office is described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Anyone see the word BIBLE in there?
ksagnostic: YEP, you got it ! Bright fellow. Thanks !
Even the “oath” form of the words prescribed by Article II, section 1 is secular in content. Unlike the oaths required in some states, the federal Constitution does not specify to whom the President “swears.” God is not mentioned; it is almost as if the framers purposely worded the oath to allow the President decide for himself who, if anything, is being sworn to.
I agree RD.The muslim guy can put his hand on anything he wants.Anybody who says otherwise is an idiot, looking to get poked in the eye with a sharp stick and I know the guy who can do it.
Thank SOB for proving my point.He’s a great exemplar of good ol fashioned American arrogance.
Fleet: I’m an infidel. If you don’t believe me, ask your Muslim buddies. If it pisses you off that I’m on “MY SIDE, MY CHILDRENS’, AND MY GRANDCHILRENS SIDE,” excuse the fuck out of me. Fleet, you couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with the directions written across the heel. Too bad you haven’t visited aTaco Bell lately !
And concerning the fake Muslim governor who supports the country that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian men women and children, he should be entitled to swear to his cowardly ass, to uphold the Constitution of the fatasses.
“It is the law and tradition of our Christian founded nation.”
Is SOB going to present us with those passages in the Constitution or some legislation that designates this country as officially Christian?
Or will that be like asking a creationist for scientific evidence for creationism? Seriously, why do reich-wing religious nuts keep on making these absurd claims?
You can tell that Republicans are really, really smart.
Oddly, it’s the same separation of Church and state and freedom of religion that gives these fundy nuts the ability for them to practice their own religions.
Thankfully our founding fathers knew how fundamentalists were dangerous to a nation, and they brilliantly founded our nation free from that.
I didn’t say it was in the constitution, now did I?
Oddly, it’s the same separation of Church and state and freedom of religion that gives these fundy nuts the ability for them to practice their own religions.
Uuhhhhh… no!
Constitution = 1776 A.D.
Christianity = 33 A.D.
Do the math.
‘establishment’ clause, combined with readings of the writers of the Constitution, is where we get it. I also look at the words of Christ re: God and Caeser.
It has to go both ways or there will be conflict between the ‘established’ religion and other relgions.
crusader, you’re a protestant? Wow I didn’t know- I thought all this time you were Catholic. If we were held to religious rules, we’d all live under one denomination…. and Catholicism was not nicely accepted in those days in the USA.
Prove it testicles.
LOL nevermind, forgot who I was asking. I’d never expect you to back up a statement with proof, silly me.
p-m – you are absolutely right about Catholics in past years. When I grew up we had required King James bible readings and Protestant version Lord’s Prayer every day. That, in my opinion, is WRONG. It is the establishment of Protestantism as the favord religion.
Peemom,You are naive! You believe that in order for religion to be protected, people must draft a secular constitution to protect that religion. There were no constitutions separating church with state before, how do you explain the thriving of religion in the past and how do you explain the current decline in religion IN COUNTRIES WITH SECULAR GOVERNMENTS???
You could argue that over time people have grown less religious, or at least indifferent to their patristic religious beliefs. You can say that the pews aren’t filling up with believers as they used to be. But I would argue that people are just changing what they believe. Some people say that they believe in God but not in religion. This makes little sense, since the belief in one god, or many gods or gods residing in everyday things or no gods are all statements of religious belief.
There is more education about religion now, and that’s why fewer buy into it.
In the 50’s you were expected to believe in god and go to Church. We watched less TV, and we believed what our grandparents taught us about God. And the schoolteachers supported it. There was no room for freethinkers, they were bullied into submission.
Priests weren’t accused of molestation either, till more people began speaking up. You’d have been whipped or put to death had you made a claim like that.
Face it Will, if we didn’t have freedom of religion, you wouldn’t have the freedom to be Catholic today. I guarantee it.
whatever Pee.
Funny how the conservatives whine about the government not being able to run any program well. However, when it comes to denying the established concept of separation of church and state they reject it because they think the government can run a national religion better than anything else.
Heck, it works in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and so many Americans love the religious freedoms in those countries.
Here’s some other things not mentioned in the Constitution, right to a fair trial and right to privacy. So how many of you conservatives would love to be in front of a kangaroo court or have the government tap your phone or monitor what you do on the internet? You’d like it as much as the government imposing a religion tax where 10% of your income goes to Ted Haggard’s meth enhanced “massages”.
Heh, no kidding, Doug.
Same deal with the military . . . government is a dismal money-wasting failure EXCEPT for national defense upon which we now spend fully HALF of our taxes and a historical post-war high of some 6 to 7 percent of GDP, IIRC.
As for the Constitution says “nothing about separation of Church and State,” WRONG.
The First Amendment–”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
If gov’t passes a bill to give money to one religion, say Baptists, and it doesn’t for say, the Ba’hais, that’s supporting one religion over another.
They passed this amendment as a direct result of the home country England forcing people to worship as Anglicans and outlawing Catholicism.
After Queen Anne, Parliment actually passed a law prohibiting any Catholic from becoming monarch.
That’s what the American founders didn’t want–religious conflicts interjected into politics.
Some things just have to be spelled out for fundies. Since you mentioned the military have you noticed the Constitution grants the power for funding the army and navy but not the air force. I guess since it’s not spelled out, like ’separation of church and state’ isn’t spelled out we have to dismantle the Air Force.
Apparently the fundies think the Founders were so stupid that they just happened to forget to mention Jesus in the Constitution. Oh sure there was Patrick Henry working to make this an official Christian nation and he got voted down, and sure there was Ben Franklin suggesting a prayer but got voted down, but I’m sure that was all an accident Was it President Adams who opposed a bill that would have provided funding for churches? I think it was, he said it would have violated the separation of church and state. What would he know about the intent of the First Amendment anyway?
“The intent of “Freedom of religion”…
Not to keep religion out of government – but to keep government out of religion.”
This definitely takes the prize for the most transparently ridiculous claim of the thread.
Never mind that the plains words of the Constitution and its history are completely against you on this–how on Earth could this possibly work, as a practical matter?
Say, for example, a Satanist majority wins the School Board elections, and mandates that Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible” be required reading in the public schools. By your own reasoning, that would be perfectly fine–certainly not an infringement on anyone’s religious freedom.
“”The intent of “Freedom of religion”…
Not to keep religion out of government – but to keep government out of religion.”"
Rage………….if you are saying that the INTENT of Freedom of Religion was to keep the government out of religion, isn’t that an inference just as much as the other way around?
Admit it, it would be a much better world if religion were separated from government AND government was separated from religion. Most constitutional scholars see the “Establishment Clause” that way.
Apophis,
Scroll up. Rage didn’t make that comment, he was repeating it for reference.
Ah, the hazards of posting before that first cup of coffee! ;-)
Here’s what happens on the first day Congress is in session:—-Oath of OfficeAfter taking the oath, the Speaker administers the following oath of office to all Members of the House, en masse, including the nonvoting Delegates and Resident Commissioner:
I do solemnly swear 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.
This oath is mandated by Article VI of the Constitution, and its text is set by statute (5 U.S.C. 3331).Occasionally, the swearing in of a Member-elect is delayed. When this happens, the Member-elect is sworn in at a later date in the House chamber or elsewhere by someone designated by the Speaker. When the oath is not administered in the House chamber, it is usually given by other Members or judges to Representatives-elect not able to appear in person in the House. The locations have often been at other sites in Washington, DC or other parts of the country.
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/RL30725.pdf—-
Prager’s whining about a ‘ceremonial picture’. Have Americans lost the capacity to decide what they want in their own PR photos? Is that in the Patriot Act somewhere? When was Prager elected to that position?
Surprisingly enough, Prager’s on the board of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and he feels that declining to swear on the Bible (read New Testament, check with Mr. Prager to make sure you’re using the correct version) should disqualify someone from public service. Did he have to swear on the New Testament for that job?