Wouldn't it be a lot more powerful, for a President

[avebury]

to take the oath of office with his/her hand on the US Constitution then a religious book? I would rather have a President who fights to uphold the Constitution then a specific religious belief.

[forestpath]

1. K&R

[RedstDem]

2. Leeme get a "Hell Yeah"!!

I've always wondered the same thing.
it would be a much stronger message, than holding ones hands on a book fables...

[Buzz Clik]

3. Whose interpretation of the Constitution?

It's a symbolic act. Let it go.

[elias7]

4. Yeah, but whose interpretation of god?

I think we should have them swear on a picture of their mother. Just sayin'...

[kestrel91316]

5. Seems much more appropriate to me.

But there is tradition, and everyone who swears an oath should be free to decide what document (or none) to swear it on.

[zbdent]

6. At least he didn't put his hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold

the Bible ...

[NCTraveler]

7. I want Christian Presidents to use the Bible.

Not the Constitution. The Bible is at the core of who they are. Not the Constitution.

[avebury]

10. Whose version of the bible?

What makes one version of the bible more valid then another?


Then First Council of Nicaea was made up of a group of MEN deciding what THEY thought should be in the bible. How does that make that Bible the word of God?

The Catholic Church tries to dictate religious matters to their masses while protecting pedophile priests. The Mormons, for a long time, promoted polygamous marriages, magic underwear, and ruling planets in space upon death. Southern Baptists believe that wives are subservient to their husbands.

Just because someone claims to have religious beliefs and takes an oath with their hand on a religious book does not guarantee that said person is a good person.

[NCTraveler]

12. Pretty simple. The version the President wants. nt

[NCTraveler]

16. And to add....

"Just because someone claims to have religious beliefs and takes an oath with their hand on a religious book does not guarantee that said person is a good person."

If they have their hand on the constitution it does not guarantee they are a good person.
If they have their hand on the Bill of Rights it does not guarantee they are a good person.
If they are saluting the flag it does not guarantee they are a good person.

I am not sure why that would even be a point. I really don't think it is.

"The Catholic Church tries to dictate religious matters to their masses while protecting pedophile priests. The Mormons, for a long time, promoted polygamous marriages, magic underwear, and ruling planets in space upon death. Southern Baptists believe that wives are subservient to their husbands. "

Jumped the shark.

[morningfog]

13. Not necessarily. At best it is the core of who they want voters to think they are.

[NCTraveler]

17. I think that is a very valid point.

In many instances it is probably a correct point. That still doesn't take away from the fact that it doesn't bother me.

Too often, politicians do things they might not believe(at least fully want to do) simply for public perception.

[avebury]

19. Not necessarily.

Just think about it. If someone is really ambitious, wants to rise up to be President, he/she knows that he/she has to appear to be religious to satisfy the religious nuts in this country. Just because a person goes to church and memorizes a bible DOES NOT mean that the person actually BELIEVES in religion or the text. It can be just an act with a goal in mind, getting elected. People do not what is actually going on inside a person's head or heart.

Just because someone takes an oath of office with their hand on a bible (or other religious text) doesn't mean that they actually take it seriously. The original oath of office for the President did not include the words "so help me God." That was added on later on.

[NCTraveler]

20. I agree with you.

The difference is, I call that being a politician.

[Taverner]

21. IN a way I agree, but the Constitution SHOULD ber at the core of their job

and thus, their lives.

But I do agree that the President should use whatever they feel strongest about

[Myrina]

8. Agreed.

n/t

[rurallib]

9. I have always felt using the Constitution would make much more sense

there is but one version of the constitution.
It should be the core of our beliefs on government.

[Bake]

11. I believe John Quincy Adams did exactly that.

Took the oath with his hand on the Constitution.

So sayeth CNN this morning on my phone.

Bake

[Recursion]

14. Then elect a President who doesn't care about the Bible

seems pretty simple to me.

[WinkyDink]

15. BZZZT! Subtle variation, but not quite a cigar. Pack your knives and go.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

18. It goes back to the belief that you make a promise to god.

Break that and you will go strait to hell. Many Christains today, and many of the time this start, would say it is just superstion. But it is a suprise how this kept people in line back then.

[phantom power]

22. seems like a great idea to me