Succession

[John Iacoletti]

No, there’s no requirement for a bible to be involved.

[Jerry Organ]

In all of the posts...the nagging question was never answered..... Was LBJ's swearing in legal....Since he didn't swear the oath while having his hand on a BIBLE.

There has to be a separation of Church and State. There is no requirement that a Bible is necessary, but it's an obviously-favored option. John Quincy Adams and Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible.

The first swearing-ins were quick; the President-elect heard the oath spoken by the administrator and all he had to say was "I do".

Some "Current Crop" Republicans want the Bible to be a mandatory requirement for swearing-ins.

[Walt Cakebread]

No, there’s no requirement for a bible to be involved.

Isn't that odd..... When a witness is sworn in at a trial, they are required to place their hand on a bible ....

[Charles Collins]

Isn't that odd..... When a witness is sworn in at a trial, they are required to place their hand on a bible ....

United States

The phrase "So help me God" is prescribed in oaths as early as the Judiciary Act of 1789, for U.S. officers other than the President. The act makes the semantic distinction between an affirmation and an oath.[4] The oath, religious in essence, includes the phrase "so help me God" and " swear". The affirmation uses " affirm". Both serve the same purpose and are described as one (i.e. "... solemnly swear, or affirm, that ...") [5]

In the United States, the No Religious Test Clause states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Still, there are federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God", such as for justices and judges in 28 U.S.C. § 453.[6]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God





The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several 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." It immediately follows a clause requiring all federal and state office holders to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. This clause contains the only explicit reference to religion in the original seven articles of the U.S. Constitution.

The ban on religious tests contained in this clause protects federal officeholders and employees as well as the officeholders of "State Legislatures, and [...] the several states". This clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of the "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution to avoid any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is significant because this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

[Steve M. Galbraith]

United States

The phrase "So help me God" is prescribed in oaths as early as the Judiciary Act of 1789, for U.S. officers other than the President. The act makes the semantic distinction between an affirmation and an oath.[4] The oath, religious in essence, includes the phrase "so help me God" and " swear". The affirmation uses " affirm". Both serve the same purpose and are described as one (i.e. "... solemnly swear, or affirm, that ...") [5]

In the United States, the No Religious Test Clause states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Still, there are federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God", such as for justices and judges in 28 U.S.C. § 453.[6]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God





The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several 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." It immediately follows a clause requiring all federal and state office holders to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. This clause contains the only explicit reference to religion in the original seven articles of the U.S. Constitution.

The ban on religious tests contained in this clause protects federal officeholders and employees as well as the officeholders of "State Legislatures, and [...] the several states". This clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of the "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution to avoid any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is significant because this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

Yes, as I understand it, it's just a tradition not a requirement. As you point out, it would be a violation of a person's Constitutional rights to require the use of a Bible. Or any religious text/document. Several Muslim-American Representatives have been sworn in using the Quran, e.g. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. And I'm pretty sure jurors can refuse to swear on a Bible; they just have to give an affirmative oath.

Of course, I could be completely full of it. Not for the first time <g>. Merry Christmas.

[John Iacoletti]

Isn't that odd..... When a witness is sworn in at a trial, they are required to place their hand on a bible ....

No, that’s not a requirement either. Nor should it be.

[Richard Smith]

Isn't that odd..... When a witness is sworn in at a trial, they are required to place their hand on a bible ....

They will probably start arresting people for that soon.  Like in "Europe."   

[Martin Weidmann]

They will probably start arresting people for that soon.  Like in "Europe."

Another outright Fox news lie. Nobody was arrested in Europe for having a religion.

A religious fanatic was arrested in Birmingham for violating a Public Space Protection Order (intended to keep an area safe) four times.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/isabel-vaughan-spruce-45-charged-25794626

This has just been discussed in the off topic section and Richard's lie was exposed. I guess he thought to give the same lie another try here!