pól o háodha

Matt, Matt, Matt. How can someone with a forehead that pronounced not have a brain in it? Let's break down this claim in four parts: 1. Senators ordinarily don't put their hands on a book. The official Senate oath is generally administered collectively. Religious books are optional, not required. 2. American officials have taken oaths without Christian Bibles since the founding era. John Quincy Adams used a law book in 1825, Theodore Roosevelt used no Bible in 1901, and numerous Jewish members of Congress have used Jewish religious texts. 3. The Founding generation explicitly considered Muslims holding office. In fact, it was explicitly debated and rejected. Some opponents of the Constitution objected to that possibility. Henry Abbot, an opponent of the proposed Constitution, worried that eliminating religious tests would allow non-Christians into government, saying: "The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic." warning "pagans, deists, and Mahometans (Muslims) might obtain offices among us" William Lancaster, in defense of religious tests argued: "In the course of four or five hundred years, I do not know how it will work. Papists (JFK anyone? How about Biden) may occupy that chair, and Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it (meaning nothing that can prevent it.) Luther Martin, an Anti-Federalist who had participated in the Constitutional Convention, discussed the religious-test prohibition in his published Genuine Information. He reported that some convention delegates believed Christianity deserved special recognition in the qualifications for office. James Irdell, defending the lack of religious tests argued: "It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States." He explained that a non-Christian could be elected if voters respected that person's conduct and character, regardless of religion. So he clearly anticipated that possibility. Supporters defended the prohibition on religious tests, and Article VI was adopted with that protection intact. So while Matt Gaetz says this could have never been anticipated, it absolutely, explicitly WAS considered, and rejected. 4. A Christian Bible doesn't necessarily carry religious authority for a non-Christian. Requiring a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, atheist, or anyone else to use one would undermine the freedom of conscience the Constitution protects. The whole POINT of swearing in on the religious book is that that it means something to YOU. The entire argument is colossally farcical.