Doesn’t even know the presidential oath he pledged.

You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Pretty crazy that it’s sworn in the Bible when the state is supposed to be separated from the church

      • Mooncheeze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        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.

          • Dragomus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 days ago

            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.

      • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      he didn’t even place a hand on the Bible.

      Fact!. For all his claims of being a “Christian”, he couldn’t be bothered.

    • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      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.