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.Repeat that last part just to make it clear to you who don't get that the US is a SECULAR Society (like it or not):
no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.That means it doesn't matter what religion Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney or anybody else for that matter) happens to be.
You might have missed that bit since that paragraph comes right after:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.And if you don't think the founders would support this: guess again:
"Both House and Ground were vested in Trustees, expressly for the Use of any Preacher of any religious Persuasion who might desire to say something to the People of Philadelphia, the Design [purpose] in building not being to accommodate any particular Sect, but the Inhabitants in general, so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a Missionary to preach Mahometanism [Islam] to us, he would find a Pulpit at his Service. "As I said, you have a problem because the Constitution isn't on your side if you are trying to make someone's religion an issue in US politics. In fact, religion would not intrude in US politics given the US's being a secular state--I only wish more people would be disgusted by this trend.
But, maybe some of you aren't the strong supporters of the Constitution that you claim to be.
Or, maybe you just need to brush up on what exactly it is that you are supposed to be defending.
The US is a secular nation: understand that fact.
At whom is this rant aimed? Once again, you're just repeating things that many of us already know.
ReplyDeleteThat's what it says but of course, we've had de facto religious tests for years.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway the zealots will just invent quotes from the Founding Fathers to support their Fanaticism, e.g George Washington and the bogus 'Liberty's Teeth' speech.
That's all well and good, but people are allowed to cast their vote for whatever reason they choose. It's unfortunate, but a lot of people vote for very superficial reasons.
ReplyDeleteSecular and Atheism are two different things as you point out. But, Dog Gone gives a much better contrasting belief--theocracy. Or there is also an alternative: a state religion.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, a nation can have a state religion and not be a theocracy. The degree and nature of state backing for denomination or creed designated as a state religion can vary. It can range from mere endorsement and financial support, with freedom for other faiths to practice, to prohibiting any competing religious body from operating and to persecuting the followers of other sects.
Secularity (adjective form secular, from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied or against any particular religion. Secularism is the principle that government institutions and their representatives should remain separate from religious institutions, their beliefs, and their dignitaries.
Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.
Anyway, as Dog Gone points out, atheism is an accepted option in a Secular society where it may not be in either a theocracy or one with a state religion.
The founders wanted a Secular Society because they knew of the problems associated with having state religions given that many came to the New World to flee religious persecution.
It's about keeping religion out of government and government out of religion.
DeleteAnd given what a mess government makes of things--I would think that people would want it out of religious affairs.
Again, to whom are you addressing this?
DeleteGee, did Laci just make up another straw man argument to attack and destroy. The funniest thing about this is that he actually thought that his criticisms in this piece applied to those of us he's been insulting for the past week or so.
ReplyDeleteLaci, you are a very well educated buffoon.
Still not sure who this is aimed at. That level of tolerance is what our Constitutional Republic is supposed to have (unlike some other places...ask the Copts if you don't understand). The values that our founders had, and used in our founding, were certainly Judeo Christian, but that does not mean they wanted to exclude anyone else' religion. What is your point?
ReplyDeleteWe proudly base our laws on Christian beliefs, fight and kill in the name of that God.
ReplyDeleteWe claim Muslim terrorists hate freedom, which is why they attack us. BS, they hate our religion and know we base our society on that religion.
The issue of the religious affiliation of a president or prsidential candidate has a long history. Take the talk regarding JFK being Catholic. And more recently Mitt Rommney's being Mormon. Though it shouldnt make a difference, it does. And that is a person's right to cast his own vote for whomever they wish in the privacy of the voting booth.
ReplyDeleteLaci involves her/himself in jury misdirection. You know, saying things to just get it out there. Knowing full well that there will be an objection that will lead to the judge to order the jury to disregard the statement that they just heard, they still heard it and it will forever remain in the juries head.
ReplyDeleteReligion shouldn't matter, but it does.
Personal feelings shouldn't matter, but they do.
Personal ideals shouldn't matter, but they will.
These are the dangers involved with people that follow there personal, whatever, instead of following the law and the upholding of the same. Personal, whatever, causes interpretations of some laws and civil rights that needed no further interpretation in the first place.
These personal things always seem to get in the way.