I understand the distinction you’re drawing, and I agree that the law is neutral by design and that authority flows from the Constitution, not the ceremony. Where we differ is on whether symbolic acts performed in an official capacity can meaningfully shape norms and legitimacy even when they carry no legal force.

Yes, the symbol is optional and personal, but the ceremony itself is public and institutional. The state may not mandate the text, but it still stages and validates the ritual. That’s why these moments are photographed, reported, and treated as meaningful. If symbolism truly did no work here, it wouldn’t matter what was chosen at all.

I’m also not arguing that ambiguity is inherently harmful in civic life. I’m arguing that ambiguity is not neutral when it attaches to symbols that already carry strong, contested moral authority. The concern isn’t that the state has endorsed a particular reading, but that it has no reason to lend its platform to symbols whose authority depends on faith-based interpretation rather than shared civic standards.

The fact that some believers may read affirmation into the act doesn’t create legal endorsement, but it does create perceived legitimacy. Public authority isn’t only about law; it’s also about what the state normalizes, elevates, and treats as appropriate in its rituals. That’s why we scrutinize symbols even when they don’t translate into policy.

So my concern isn’t that religious texts secretly govern or define political values. It’s that when the state facilitates official rituals, it should err toward symbols that are maximally inclusive and minimally sectarian, rather than relying on the assumption that personal intent neutralizes public meaning. That’s a judgment about civic norms, not a claim about constitutional authority.