I'm arguing that the natural word meaning and grammar of the preamble says that "the people appeal to the Almighy God for guidance in setting up their constitution."
Therefore, any oath to SUPPORT that constitution MUST conclude that those are "just throw-away words from a bygone era" or that they must be taken seriously. If throw away words, then there is an admission that they mean something uncomfortable; If serious words, then we must deal with the uncomfortable fact that one is vowing to support the notion that there is an Almighty God.
That part is not in dispute. Your interpretation is very far off-kilter with a specific clause of the US Constitution, and that is the problem.
Therefore, any oath to SUPPORT that constitution MUST conclude that those are "just throw-away words from a bygone era" or that they must be taken seriously.
No, it means that they're part of the preamble, which (that nasty old common law again) is not a legally enforceable portion of the document; again, this is a principle dating back to before there were Crown colonies over here.
If throw away words, then there is an admission that they mean something uncomfortable;
No, it means that they're not in an enforceable part of the document.
If serious words, then we must deal with the uncomfortable fact that one is vowing to support the notion that there is an Almighty God.
Then you're insisting that there is a religious test for holding office in the state of Alabama, and your interpretation is a DIRECT (hello!) violation of the United States Constitution, Article VI, Section 3.
One more time: if you walked into any court of law in America at any time in our history and made that argument...well, at best, you'd get laughed out of the courtroom. At worst, you would get fined, and THEN get laughed out of the courtroom.