Congresswoman did not swear oath on a Bible

[merrily]

87. I am not saying that rituals are unimportant, nor am I urging

that we abolish or modernize all rituals.

When something in American connects church and state, though, because we are preserving customs that have taken on a life of their own in RW minds, I think it may be time to recognize that the particular ritual may not have made perfect sense when it began centuries ago and makes even less sense in a country that is having a lot of problems around church/state issues.

To the extent that which book or writing people are swearing a relatively meaningless oath on (or, even sillier, taking a staged photo with) can either gain or cost them re-election votes, I say, let's substitute something more meaningful.

For one thing, if the oath is a requirement of taking office, it should be administered before a candidate goes on the ballot, not after a state has gone through the expense of electing a Senator or representative.

And, need I mention that whether someone swears on a holy book or not is not typically an issue that Democrats use against Republicans?

If i ruled the world, I would find a way of changing this without spelling out every detail of every reason I have to change it. Rather, I would focus more on making the oath more meaningul by administering at a more appropriate time. Noone is going to cover swearings in by all candidates in fifty states, so it will cease to be a media issue and therefore cease to be focus.

There are lots of rituals for people arriving to a new Congress. If they are not enough, add more. Just don't get into any new religion traps. There are too many as it is.