Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!ask From: ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned Message-ID: <1128@cbdkc1.UUCP> Date: Sat, 31-Aug-85 18:12:26 EDT Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1128 Posted: Sat Aug 31 18:12:26 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 06:20:51 EDT Reply-To: ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) Followup-To: <7300001@orstcs.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 29 >Many of this country's laws were passed with clauses about religion written >into the text. This is most often apparent in (1) oaths of office; (2) laws >relating to what is or is not allowed in the schools; and (3) laws of exemp > >(1) Oaths of office: Most of the oaths of office are at least religious by > implication. More blatant examples are: The Presidential oath (and > the oath required of a witness) require that one hand be on The Bible. > I think that this has been relaxed in more recent times, but I wouldn't > (on a stack a' Bibles. Honest! :-) ) swear to it. For example, I don't > think that the type or denomination of Bible is specified, so you might > be able to get away with substituting the New American (or Koran) for > the King James. What is the source for saying that, "The Presidential oath (and ...) require that one hand be on The Bible?" I believe that using The Bible, or taking an oath rather than affirming, is the choice of the president. The Constitution of The United States, Article II, Section 1, states: Before he enter on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask