http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm"Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here. Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist."
The reason why I posted this:
Obama has the RIGHT to have prayer or no prayer, and to have whomever he wishes to do so. He has the RIGHT to have a moment of silence, or no moment at all.
One day we will have an Atheist or an Agnostic take the Oath, should they be pressured into having prayer?
No.
One day, we will have a President take the Oath that believes in a minor religion. Should they be forced to deny their beliefs? Be forced to pretend to be Christian?
No.
The Republicans have been bending the Bill of Rights, and the spirit of it for decades. Promoting Christianity as the main religion of our country, and denouncing any others. Denouncing anyone who has no religious beliefs as well, even though it's their right.
Come on people- do we really want to force someone into our spiritual beliefs, or force someone to have who WE want to represent them? If Warren is who was chosen, well- I don't agree with it even remotely.
HOWEVER! It is not up to me to agree with someones religious beliefs, it is only up to me to respect their right to have them.
Link to the constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html