They would disagree with you on that point.
Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Even the president isn’t required to take an “oath of office”. They choose to affirm instead.
Article II
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.’’
There is no purpose in taken an oath that has no consequence if you break it. Congress and the President have consequences if they break their oath. If you gave it a real consequence would you be comfortable with the current White House or Department of Justice to deciding who to prosecute?
This is the same group the took the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....” to make laws limiting law limiting the free exercise of religion by focusing on the establishment clause.
Franklin Pierce is the only President to affirm rather than swear an oath.