separation of church and state?

No, because the "so help me God" part isn't an official part of the oath; it's just something that a lot of presidents-elect add, so it's become something of a tradition.

If it were required, then yes.

Presidents aren't required to swear in on the Bible or any other holy book, either.

__________________
Man up.

It is simply a interpretation. No where in the constitution does it state "separation of church and state". Therefore it is legal to have it there.

Link to brush up on.
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separ...-and-state.htm

__________________
"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice." (Proverbs 12:15 NIV)

it doesn't have to.

Constitution, Article 6 section 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, 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.

were the oath under god required, it would be unconstitutional.

Yep. The word "God" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

But I mean, if you (personally) wanna add it into your oath, I got no problem with that.

I mean, if it "helps" you to invoke your God, by all means, go for it. If it means that you're "more likely to adhere to your oath", then as far as I'm concerned, on behalf of We the People, it's a good thing.

I don't think such a thing, "adding" your personal religion into whatever your politics are, is a bad thing, and I don't think it violates the principle of separation.

What is and what does, is when your personal religion comes to determine your politics. So, you know, if you're out there saying that everyone else should believe like you do, and then you somehow find a way to institutionalize that belief into law, then I gotta problem with that. I got a BIG problem with that. Nah, as far as I'm concerned, you need to do two things: a) go through the proper legal and constitutional channels, if you wanna change something, and b) obey the constraints imposed on you by the contract. If you do those two things, then as far as I'm concerned, you can do "whatever you want" in the domain of religion, and belief.

You know, if you're a Muslim, and you wanna add the words "so help me Allah", into your Presidential oath of office, I got no problem with that.

On the other hand, if you're gonna foist your Muslim beliefs on the kiddies, like if you try to change the Pledge of Allegiance to say, "one nation under Allah", then I got a big problem with that, 'cause that would be a clear and unequivocal violation of the principle of "separation of church and state".

Does that make sense?

what do you think about George W Bush?
does he violate the separation of church and state acting as a born-again evangelical? shouldn´t he make his decisions as a president who is independent from any religious affiliation?

How do you propose a person go about separating their personal judgment from their religious beliefs, given that both inform each other?

He shouldn't make decisions solely on religious grounds, but it's impossible to take belief out of the equation.

__________________
Man up.

Yes. I mean, the most obvious example there, would be Bushie's veto on the stem cell research thing, which he says he did for moral reasons related to his religious convictions.

My "perception" of that whole thing, goes along two lines:

a) he "really" did it mainly for political reasons, but
b) this would be an example of religious belief "determining" politics

And I mean, I'm not even sure I'm clever enough to fully "articulate" exactly what makes that latter example different from some other examples -

But I mean, Bushie's stated "reason" for what he did, has to do with a definition of "life", that only the religious types have - no other scientist, philosopher, biologist, physicist, or anyone else has that belief, other than from a religious standpoint. Or let's say, if there are any people who see that kind of thing "non-religiously", they're few and far between.

So I mean, my "take" on that, would have been, that Bushie really should have made the decision from the reference frame of "We the People", rather than from the reference frame of some kind of "religious definition of life".

I guess that's kinda the "logic" - does that make sense?

Seperation of Church and State simply means that the nation will not adopt a national church or religion and that the suggestions of churches will bear no influence on laws, education, health care, etc.

I think separation of church and state is a good thing. Religious voters have virtually controlled the last 2 elections. Look where its gotten us. Voting blindly or at the suggestion of the church is stupid and un-American and yet millions do it.

We need to grow up. Lawyers and the lawsuit-happy people of this nation are tearing it apart.

This clause was inserted by the Founders to prevent any notion of an official state church, such as the Church of England, it has nothing at all to do with a "wall of seperation" between church and state.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847