Why Larry Kilgore Can Eat Ham

Yesterday I noted the “Christian” candidacy of Larry Kilgore (I put it into quotation marks because I don’t particularly like how certain groups have abrogated the term to themselves. Someone else has used the term “Christianite,” which does seem more appropriate). A very nice lady from the Kilgore campaign corrected me about the dietary laws:

Mr. Kilgore’s position on Biblical Moral and Judicial Law does not include the ceremonial or dietary laws of the Old Testament. The ceremonial laws were fulfilled by Jesus Christ and His death (sacrifice) upon the Cross. Scripture tells us the dietary law restrictions were also lifted by the sacrifice of Christ. In Acts, chapter 10, verses 9-16, God instructed the Apostle Peter that he had “abrogated the laws of ritual cleanliness” when showing him a vision of “all kinds four-footed of animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air” with the command of “Rise, Peter, kill and eat.” (Please also see Mark 7:14-19.)

That’s good enough for me. But I have a question. If Larry Kilgore, in a miracle that would be akin to the parting of the Red Sea, were to be elected, would he be able to serve? That is, would he be able to take the oath of office to defend the Constitution? The Constitution, of course, includes that very pesky First Amendment, the one that includes, among other things, the separation of church and state.

Am I wasting too much time on this?