What don't people get about Amendment I? The religion part...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

If they swear to uphold the constitution, which clearly says there is a seperation..and is in fact one of the core reasons why the original constitution was agreed to (that's another story), then why do they think forcing religion on people is ok? When I say forcing religion I am talking something to the effect of putting the ten commandments in courthouses, moments of silence in schools or school events, and other such things that the public funds. It seems to me that if their religion conflicts with the constitution then they disregard the constitution in favor of the religion. This, IMO, is where the idealogy comes into play...whether its a radical christian or a radical muslim, they both are one and the same at this point. We are a country of LAW, not religion!

A law professor said "when you were sworn in you put your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, you didn't put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Thought that hit it perfectly.

elect REFUSED to put his/her hand on the bible?

so help me god at the end

n/t

On religious grounds, former Senator and Congressman Franklin Pierce chose "to affirm" rather than "to swear" the executive oath of office. He was the only President to use the choice offered by the Constitution.
***
Several weeks before arriving in Washington, the Pierces' only surviving child had been killed in a train accident.
***

from:
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/northamerican/UnitedStatesPresidentsInauguralSpeeches/chap18.html

Interesting that there's been only one that chose that option.