I have no idea (I am French and we thankfully do not have this problem).

My point is that the adversaries do not ignore the important points of the other side. These are usually the important point for them as well, they are just exactly at the other side of the spectrum.

This is why there is no way for them to come to consensus as the differences of opinion are about these points.

It is not like someone, when hearing the arguments of the other side, would say "oh, I did not think about this because i thought it was important"

I do not know to which point you have separation of church and state, taken that the oath is done on the Bible (at least traditionally), with a formal "So help me God" at the end (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_presiden...). It sure can be omitted and you could swear on something else than the Bible but this sends a message.

We French do not have a clear cut separation of the two either, but this is more a cultural thing because a minimal percentage of the population is religious, at least with the religion our culture was raised with (Christianity, roughly speaking).

Also, when we passed in 1975 the abortion law (Loi Veil), the opposition was not for religious reasons but, sadly, a pure masculine view on the role of the woman and her rights.

Oaths taken on the bible are done by choice. Someone being sworn in can choose any book they want.

The god stuff was added during the cold war due to the red scare and its definitely unconstitutional to force people to recite those words.

Murder is okay as long as my religion says it is.

It's honestly bizarre that the same people in the US who were screaming about Sharia law are now pulling this dumb crap