If Feingold wins in 2008...

[jerusalemcar5]

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?

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. 

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.

[jerusalemcar5]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.