It states Oath or Affirmation, It allows the individual to choose between the two, allowing the individual to determine how they should be held accountable.
The government only requires a spoken oath or affirmation. Also, I thought the officer being sworn in was required to bring their own bible. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:56 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: 10 commandments > > Actually, the historical intentions behind the first amendment were not to > prevent religion from having a place in government, it was to prevent > government interference with religion, meaning that the government cannot > tell Catholics to pray for a balanced budget after a hymn to Jesus Christ > or > make the President of the US the head of the Buddist nation. This came > from > historical interferance into the Catholic church by the king of England, > who > established his own brand of religion (Anglican, Episcopal in the US) and > himself as its leader. > > Even the Constitution refers to the Lord in Article 7 of the Constitution. > In Article 6, it makes reference to the fact that Officers named in the > Constitution must be bound by an oath to uphold it, "but no religious test > shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust > under the Unitest States." Notice carefully the wording of that section - > it says that no religious test is required, meaning that it is optional > for > the office holder. This gives the President the right to lay his hand on > the Bible when affirming his oath - which would be a violation of the > First > amendment under in your opinion. > > - Matthew Small > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:31 AM > Subject: Re: 10 commandments > > > > But you yourself have pointed out Article 10. This is one of those few > cases > > which the States are required to follow suit with the Federal laws. And > so > > by extension, a State Religion is not allowed at the state level any > more > > than at the Federal level. > > > > You are right that there is not explicit wording to separate the church > and > > state. However, I'm sure you know the historical intentions behind it. > It > > was to ensure BOTH religious freedom and prevent persecution, AND to > prevent > > an official religion promoted by the government. > > > > The Alabama situation is a cut and dried case. Displaying the > commandments > > wasn't the problem. ONLY displaying the Christian commandments was. > > > > -Kevin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:16 AM > > Subject: RE: 10 commandments > > > > > > > Up to the state at this point I would say. None on federal ground > though. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:12 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: 10 commandments > > > > > > > > > So should there be a free exercise of any religion on state or federal > > > property? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:02 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: 10 commandments > > > > > > > > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > > > prohibiting the free exercise thereof > > > > > > God > > > A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator > and > > > ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in > > > monotheistic religions. > > > The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. > > > A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and > worshiped > by > > a > > > people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature > or > > > reality. > > > An image of a supernatural being; an idol. > > > One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. > > > A very handsome man. > > > A powerful ruler or despot > > > > > > So how does that word establish a religion? If anything you > separation > > > folks are really violating the second half of that cause "prohibiting > the > > > free exercise thereof" > > > > > > Timothy Heald > > > Information Systems Specialist > > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > > U.S. Department of State > > > 571.345.2235 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:20 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: 10 commandments > > > > > > > > > At 08:12 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: > > > >There IS NO SEPARATION CLAUSE! > > > > > > > > > >Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights > > > > > > > >Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 > amendments > to > > > >the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were > ratified > > > >December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights." > > > > > > > >Amendment I > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > By including the phrase under god to the pledge of Allegience, by an > act > > of > > > Congress, this apprears to violate the separation clause in Amendment > 1 > of > > > the Constitution. > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
