tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post2548008093262096683..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Once Again with the Presidential OathUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-28872797383047444922011-12-29T22:39:43.898-05:002011-12-29T22:39:43.898-05:00David McCullough also claims that GW added the end...David McCullough also claims that GW added the ending words to the oath on the spot that day. But to me, since GW was not an overly religious man (and had been criticized from the pulpit for it), it just doesn't seem to be in keeping with his character to add those words, however "nice" it would seem for him to do it. I put it into the same category as GW praying in the snow at Valley Forge.John L. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14827783825431694038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-15298548060642392582011-12-29T15:29:38.934-05:002011-12-29T15:29:38.934-05:00True, that's the language of the Constitution....True, that's the language of the Constitution. The New York law does require a Bible in the "usual mode," and the exceptions enacted to that mode say that people don't need to swear on or kiss the Bible, but don't remove it from the scene. Barton is arguing that the state laws indicate what the federal ritual would be. But he's the sort of scholar who starts from what he believes in the right answer and then tries to find evidence to justify his belief rather than starting from a question and seeking the best evidence for any answer. <br /><br />Barton's argument provides just as much evidence that Washington added the words from New York law about being in the presence of God to the start of the presidential oath as the words at the end. But since Barton didn't start with that belief to defend, he doesn't notice that implication.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-32743252055997267022011-12-29T10:10:25.375-05:002011-12-29T10:10:25.375-05:00Curiously, Mr. Barton's copiously footnoted de...Curiously, Mr. Barton's copiously footnoted defense of an unprovable "fact" fails to mention a source for his statement that "the law required that a Bible be part of the ceremony."<br /><br />As far as I know, aside from the 37words of the oath, the Constitution only stipulates (Article VI) "...all executive and judicial Officers... 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."G. Lovelynoreply@blogger.com