Aren't some atheists suing to stop Obama from being sworn into office because he will swear on the Bible? What does it have to do with them? They aren't being told they have to swear on the Bible. They bitch about people trying to force religion on them and yet they want people to do things their way as well. hypocrites.
But what about Obama having his freedom of expression? He isn't trying to press his religion upon us (or to our current knowledge). So why can't he have his own right to do as he pleases.
Not in the Constitution, the State according to the Constitution should stand mute on the subject. Religion should not be pushed out of the pubilc square, read the First Amendment: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I didn't say it's in the Constitution. Nice of you to to bold & enlarge a phrase unrelated to what I said. 1111
It's word salad. It breaks spelling and grammar. It fails in both syntax and semantics. Here's a word I bet you can spell; TROLL.
Then the seperation of Church and State isn't legal. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and as stated in the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
what does atheism have to do with atheists suing so that Obama can't be sworn in with a Bible? :shrug: I think it has everything to do with atheism. Its who whole idea behind the lawsuit.
Assuming that's really happening, it's probably because separation of church and state isn't being enforced and I suspect that's something very important to some atheists.
then I think an atheist needs to get them self elected and they can refuse to use a bible. I don't understand why it matters if someone else uses it.
I guess I don't read it that way. There is no established religion. I bet if Obama was Muslim, he could swear in on the Koran if he wished. And it seems like the atheists want to prohibit the free exercise of his religion.
Christianity would be the religion in this case. I think the issue is that this is a government inaguration for a government employee. If it wasn't funded by the public then the ceremony could be performed in any way desired.
Please post the relevant part of the Constitution that state such. The only thing in the Constitution about religion is the first Amendment, Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Plus the Freedom of speech protects the Right to express religious views openly and in the public perview, and that includes in Govermental setting, for the Government is the public square.
You have already done so; however, I think what you want to see is the legal interpretation: "The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another." http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment Any official government practice that utilizes religious practices is going to violate this; hence, it's illegal. I agree.
But it doesn't prohibit the free practice of, and: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; So what don't you get about the free practice of? the free practice isn't limited to your Home, or House of Worship, free practice means that there are no restrictions as to where.