No, sweetie. I didn't miss it. You see, the first statement is a fact of history, independent of the second statement, which is an opinion on the current day. I have no need to argue with the first statement, as that problem has been fixed. Atheists/janists/buddhists/hindus no longer have to kowtow to the religious majority in a court of law by swearing on a book of a religious faith to which they do not ascribe, and swearing an oath to tell the truth by affirming the power of a God in which they do not believe. At least in our courtrooms, our society has moved forward in recognizing the full diversity of existing religious/non-religious POVs. It is a basic tenet of our form of government.
Nope, sorry. Just wanted to concentrate on the statement apparently implying that atheists should not be allowed to be lawyers, judges, or governors... as if they cannot function as fully capable and effective judicial and political leaders. That statement is not a fact, and would appear to be somewhat... biased.