Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In addition to which, your proposal would violate the constitutional requirement of a republican form of government ...
Nonsense. A republican form of government can co-exist easily with religious tests for holding office. Furthermore, freedom of religion can also co-exist easily with religious tests for holding office. The Constitution of a Christian state can and should protect the rights of minority religions.
Nonsense. A republican form of government can co-exist easily with religious tests for holding office. Furthermore, freedom of religion can also co-exist easily with religious tests for holding office. The Constitution of a Christian state can and should protect the rights of minority religions.
Hypothetically would that also apply if Christianity were the "minority" religion?
I know it's considered "extreme" to say this, but our recent little experiment in godless government isn't working out too well. (Funny how so much of mainstream western civilization is now viewed as "extreme".)
Government either places itself under God or it becomes an arbitrary despotism subject only to power and money. Welcome to America 2012.
Requiring office holders to publicly profess not only belief in God, but also the faith of the Nicene Creed, would do this country good.
There is only one reason to pass laws like this or advocate for laws like this.
You are scared.
You are so scared that you want to pass laws that MAKE people adhere to you particular beliefs.
Hypothetically would that also apply if Christianity were the "minority" religion?
Certainly, it's not only possible but it happens in real life (unless the majority religion is Islam). Thailand, for example, is a Buddhist monarchy where Christianity is not suppressed.
But the very notion of religious tolerance is Christian in origin. It's normative in a Christian culture for reasons of both doctrine and long experience. In non-Christian societies, religious tolerance is imported from secularism in the Christian West or it doesn't exist.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles45
Having said that, it's still a flaw in the Constitution. Yes, I said "flaw". Sorry, the Constitution is a human document, not holy writ. You can't have a government without a religious creed. We don't have one today: our creed is Secularism, and it's destroying the country.
U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.
Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.
...
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
...
When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people "securely beyond the reach" of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI supports the accuracy of our observation in Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61, 69 , that "[t]he test oath is abhorrent to our tradition." Not satisfied, however, with Article VI and other guarantees in the original Constitution, the First Congress proposed and the States very shortly thereafter [367 U.S. 488, 492] adopted our Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. 6 That Amendment broke new constitutional ground in the protection it sought to afford to freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. Since prior cases in this Court have thoroughly explored and documented the history behind the First Amendment, the reasons for it, and the scope of the religious freedom it protects, we need not cover that ground again. 7 What was said in our prior cases we think controls our decision here. FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Nonsense. A republican form of government can co-exist easily with religious tests for holding office. Furthermore, freedom of religion can also co-exist easily with religious tests for holding office. The Constitution of a Christian state can and should protect the rights of minority religions.
You don't know what you're talking about. Of course, given that you are on record as supporting a monarchy it's not surprising.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
