Talk Elections

...would he be sworn in on the Bible?

Good question, actually.

No mention of any bibles.

I'm sure he would.

It's not required just a quaint tradition.

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.

Was there any reason for using the Constitution instead of the Bible with Pierce?

Hopefully we get to find out.  The Constitution idea would actually be a real good fit for Feingold however

Was it an actual copy?

He blamed God for the recent death of his son Benny. It had nothing to do with "seperation of Church and State."

couldn't they get a bible and hjust white-out the new testament?

Or, as a campaign pledge to ensure 90% black support, black them out instead?

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?

He's Jewish.

He could swear on the constitution or even the Torah perhaps? Funnily enough was Johnson not sworn in on a Catholic mass book on the presidental plane?

Isn't the Torah nothing more than the Old Testament section of the Holy Bible?  If so, then the Bible would represent the combined traditions of both the Jewish and Christian faiths, and technically the Torah would already be incorporated into it in the form of the Old Testament. 

Therefore, I do not see any reason why Russ Feingold would find it objectionable to be sworn in on the Holy Bible as tradition dictates. 

He may not object of course, but by swearing on the Bible he is swearing on a book that proclaims that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Not that I speak for him, but he would have every right to take objection to that :)

Feingold fancies himself a Champion of the Law, so he would be sworn in under the Constitution. Whether he is a Champion of the Law is debatable however.

The tradition is terrible.  If a Jew became president he would never swear over something that declared Jesus had any relation to G-d.  It would be heresy and would strongly anger the pwerful Jewish lobby and most likely the Israelis.  Besides this, Feingold is an excellent liberal who most likely believe beinbg swown in a religious book to be unconstitutional anyway.  I would be shocked if he was not sworn in some other way.

How is being sworn in on the Bible unconstitutional?

The argument is good old C+S.

No one is swearing to uphold the Bible as law; they are swearing on the Bible to uphold the law.  That's a fairly ridiculous argument.

It seems to me that swearing in on the Bible is no more merging church and state than praying in the White House.  The fact that one president did not do this tells me that it's entirely voluntary on the part of the president-elect, and is simply a way of expressing that the president-elect is being honest when taking the oath.

Separation of church and state does not mean that politicians are not allowed to be religious.

I kind of forgot about this thread, but I now have a response.  I made a mistake, I take back the unconstitutional part. 

Though I do believe it is more unconstitutional than praying at the White House.  The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.  Praying at the White House, is the business of the people involved.  I just don't think religious objects should be used during state ceremonies.

First of all, I appreciate your retraction.  But with all due respect, something is either unconstitutional or it isn't.  Appropriateness is another matter, though, and on that I sympathise with your argument.

And it doesn't.  It has the president-elect swear to uphold the Constitution.  The fact that it includes a religious prop does not make it a religious ceremony.

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible in 1901. I suspect that he had to swear himself in to the Presidency suddenly upon McKinley's death; it is possible that no Bible was available. (Roosevelt had no religious objection to using the Bible--he used the book during his second term, and also when he was taking the oath as Governor of New York.)

This is a long shot, but perhaps in the present trend of things, the religious conservatives might try to deny him office, much like Lionel Rothschild was barred in England in the mid-19th century. Anyway, don't you have to take an oath to serve in Congress too?

I never said the ceremony was religious.  The Bible is.  It is specific to one faith.  I am saying that it should be devoid of religion.

I think every person who is sworn should have a choice. I couldn't really care less.

The lack of endorsement of faith or religion is not endorsement of atheism.  It's an endorsement of nothing.

Good point. Separation of church and state calls for neutrality, not hostility towards religion, or hostility towards non-religion.

hello,

Governor Lingle, of Hawaii, is jewish and took the oath of office upon a tanakh (Jewish Bible) :

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg

In my opinion, the recent interpretations of "seperation of church and state" (and entity not even in the constitution at all) have been an utter witchhunt against all expressions of religion, and that, in my opinion, is hostility towards religion, not neutrality.

The idea of separation of church and state does not constitute a vendetta against all expressions of religious views. It merely opposes expressions of religious views by the government. Private people remain free to express whatever they please.

Fortunatly, we won't ever find out.  :P  However, I'm sure he would.

Well, the problem is "government" is being interpreted as being government employees and property etc.. rather than what it should be, explicit establishment of a religion by legislation.

Pretty sure he would use the Constitution instead.

But I think the real question is would anyone actually want him to swear to uphold the Constitution using a Christian Bible that he doesn't believe in?

Separation of Church and State was meant to fully separate the two, not so limited as to say you can't set up an official religion. 

Based on you rules it would only be wrong it the government officially endorsed the Nazi party, but fine if they hung nazi flags throughout government buildings.  Do you actually think that?

For what it's worth, I e-mailed Feingold last night asking him what he would do.  I'm not sure if he's allowed to give a response to non-Wisconites, but we'll see.

Having the bible sworn on at the inaugural is just to have something that means a lot to the person and that was the point. Feingold probably wouldnt want to cause any right wing contraversy and swear in on it.

He would enrage the Jewish community (a very noisy bunch) if he swore in over the Christian Bible.

If Russ doesn't want to swear in on the bible for his religion, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be granted that right. What difference does it make if he wants to swear in on the Bible, the Torah, or the Talmud, as long as he does his job.

I think the problem is that Americans have never had a non-christian President, and the first one will probably endure hell from religious righters, no matter if they be Jewish (It's the same God), Muslim (Once again, the same god), or Athiest.

I feel sorry for the first non-christian President, for they will have to surely endure hell for the first year at least because of thier religion.

I would personally be sworn in on the Constitution, so I'm guess that's how he would do it. 

Actually it should be noted that many of our presidents were christian in name only or on paper or according to old state laws before the founding.  For example many of our presidents including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson while they attended Christian services, were deists along with many of the other founders and early presidents.