If Feingold wins in 2008...

[skybridge]

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?

[jerusalemcar5]

The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.

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.

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.

[adam]

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

[© Tweed the Younger]

The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.

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.

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.

The idea of separation of church and state is that people have a choice, and a government endorsement of atheism is just as bad as it endorsing Christianity or Judaism or whatever.

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

[Emsworth]

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.

[revas]

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

[jokerman]

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.

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.

[Emsworth]

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.

[MODU]

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

[jokerman]

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.

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.

[GOP = Terrorists]

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?

[jerusalemcar5]

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.

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.

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?

[nini2287]

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.

[Conan]

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.

[jerusalemcar5]

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.

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[HockeyDude]

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

[Conan]

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.

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.