"I, state your name, do solemnly swear (or affirm)...
The option to affirm is already built in. If I'm not mistaken, this is because groups like the Quakers had already noticed this. I think there were some important cases about it, but I forget.
The Words of Our Lord do not quibble. They simply are. I'm often convicted by them. The parts of the Bible that I don't understand don't bother me nearly as much as the parts that I do understand.
I thought the methods of accountability involved court proceedings to determine guilt or innocence on criminal charges.
If someone is a liar, why would saying an oath make them any more accountable?
To be fair, I will not quibble with you over a time honored tradition dating back hundreds of years.
If "you" seriously have a problem with it, then go through the process to change it!
For NOW, it is the established method of holding one accountable to the Constitution and the people, while holding the office they are seeking.
It holds merit and meaning and should never be allowed to be perverted by aHoles with Dr. Seuss.
No need to change it:
"I, state your name, do solemnly swear (or affirm)...
The option to affirm is already built in. If I'm not mistaken, this is because groups like the Quakers had already noticed this. I think there were some important cases about it, but I forget.
The Words of Our Lord do not quibble. They simply are. I'm often convicted by them. The parts of the Bible that I don't understand don't bother me nearly as much as the parts that I do understand.
I thought the methods of accountability involved court proceedings to determine guilt or innocence on criminal charges.
If someone is a liar, why would saying an oath make them any more accountable?