It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Just to clarify for me here. The " so help me God'' repeated is just that, repeating the oath as the justice presents it.
But when the justice asks''so help YOU God, and is followed by 'so help ME God, this is replying to a question which is unconstitutional. Is this the premise of the idea?
originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Yes, but the use of the word 'god' does not denote any PARTICULAR religion.
That's what the language of the document prohibits.
Also, the mere asking of the question does not imply requirement.
Its an add-on and thus optional.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Look, you put together a very well-researched thread, here, but I must say, you're basing your conclusion on this conspiracy on something would never, ever be upheld in a court of law.
originally posted by: TechniXcality
originally posted by: Sillyolme
A logical thinker wouldn't think this.
Rolls eyes.
What would a logical thinker, think?
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Interesting theory, however, Im not sure the use of the word 'God' indicates any PARTICULAR religious test, as the language of The Constitution prohibits, rather a quite generic one.
Like you said though, he was apparently free to decline with a "no" in response to that question. I dont think it could be used to deny him the office. Although it would piss off the religious folk im sure.
"God" plus the question mark = religious test.
As an atheist, I would not be able to affirm my oath with that question.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Shamrock6
Pretty sovereign citizen-esque interpretation of the law.
All the clause states is that no person can be forced to adhere to a religion or religious doctrine as a condition of taking office.
The oath is what the oath is. Once the oath is repeated and affirmed, the oath is affirmed. The president (who after taking the oath is now the president) has the option of adding a prayer or reference to god at the conclusion at the oath. The manner of that prayer has no bearing whatsoever on the oath itself.
It is unlike any Oath I have found.
The question had no place as an affirmation of the Oath.