A Religious Test for Office in the USA?

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm still reading "Ratification," a book on the history of the ratifying of the Constitution by the states. I just read a part on Luthor Martin, the Maryland Attorney General in 1787 who disliked some parts of the proposed Constitution. In particular, he wanted a religious test for citizens to hold office.

I'm an atheist, and the surveys I've seen say we are one of the most despised groups in the USA. Most people would rather have their kids marry terrorists than an atheist. We are incapable of morals. Yada, yada. I think this view is crazy of course. I've met many Christians that were anything but Christian. Frankly, I think religion has little to do with a person's true character since every individual is capable of somehow rationalizing or ignoring their own bad behavior. It does have some effect on the margins, but if you are a good person, you are a good person, religious, atheist, agnostic, or deist. If you're bad, the same thing goes.

What do yo folks think? Should there have been a religious test to hold office under the Constitution? Should the requirement have been that you had to be Christian to hold office or just believe in Jesus or some form of God? Or no test at all (did they get it right)?

Are we atheists the evil incarnate that so many seem to think we are?

[Noir]

There are places where you have to pass a religious test (swearing to god) to hold office even though it's aginst the constitution. (I don't have mine with me as I'm in work but I believe it's article 6 section 3 if memory serves.)

And IMO there should be no such test.

[Gunny]

I'm still reading "Ratification," a book on the history of the ratifying of the Constitution by the states. I just read a part on Luthor Martin, the Maryland Attorney General in 1787 who disliked some parts of the proposed Constitution. In particular, he wanted a religious test for citizens to hold office.

I'm an atheist, and the surveys I've seen say we are one of the most despised groups in the USA. Most people would rather have their kids marry terrorists than an atheist. We are incapable of morals. Yada, yada. I think this view is crazy of course. I've met many Christians that were anything but Christian. Frankly, I think religion has little to do with a person's true character since every individual is capable of somehow rationalizing or ignoring their own bad behavior. It does have some effect on the margins, but if you are a good person, you are a good person, religious, atheist, agnostic, or deist. If you're bad, the same thing goes.

What do yo folks think? Should there have been a religious test to hold office under the Constitution? Should the requirement have been that you had to be Christian to hold office or just believe in Jesus or some form of God? Or no test at all (did they get it right)?

Are we atheists the evil incarnate that so many seem to think we are?

The firstest, biggest problem here is my gut reaction is what's the trick to the atheist's question? If you need the background on that, PM J.T or others of his ilk who always have a twist. Some screwy swerve.

The Constitution got it right. It precludes a state-sanctioned religion. That precludes a religious test to hold office.

Unfortunately, you STILL have to answer for the consequences of your actions to your constituents. If the majority votes a religious person into office because that's what they want, that also is in line with the law.

Problem is, opponents turn around and twist and use the law and cry "tyranny of the majority ... blah, blah, blah ...." when what they are actually doing is enforcing the tyranny of the minority via backwards-assed legislating from the bench. So much so, people and the law down know what's up or down or right and wrong.

The best person qualified for the job they are applying should get it. Period.

[ConHog]

The firstest, biggest problem here is my gut reaction is what's the trick to the atheist's question? If you need the background on that, PM J.T or others of his ilk who always have a twist. Some screwy swerve.

The Constitution got it right. It precludes a state-sanctioned religion. That precludes a religious test to hold office.

Unfortunately, you STILL have to answer for the consequences of your actions to your constituents. If the majority votes a religious person into office because that's what they want, that also is in line with the law.

Problem is, opponents turn around and twist and use the law and cry "tyranny of the majority ... blah, blah, blah ...." when what they are actually doing is enforcing the tyranny of the minority via backwards-assed legislating from the bench. So much so, people and the law down know what's up or down or right and wrong.

The best person qualified for the job they are applying should get it. Period.

You hit on an important point that bothers me Gunny. MANY people have posted on many boards that they beleive Christians themselves should stay out of government because of some imaginary separation of church and state. There is a HUGE difference between the government itself saying "we are a Christian government" and the voters saying "we want a Christian in office"

[Gunny]

You hit on an important point that bothers me Gunny. MANY people have posted on many boards that they beleive Christians themselves should stay out of government because of some imaginary separation of church and state. There is a HUGE difference between the government itself saying "we are a Christian government" and the voters saying "we want a Christian in office"

Very much so and when people read the Constitution in proper context, it CLEARLY states there will be no government established religion. I doesn't say a damned thing about religion being in government. The latter is just contrived BS. Reading something that isn't there.

[ConHog]

Very much so and when people read the Constitution in proper context, it CLEARLY states there will be no government established religion. I doesn't say a damned thing about religion being in government. The latter is just contrived BS. Reading something that isn't there.


They act like the COTUS is just some suggestion and that they can weave it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

[Gunny]

They act like the COTUS is just some suggestion and that they can weave it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Some act like they can do that to ANY law. Words mean things. They make up sentences which make up paragraphs, etc. and provide a context. Cherry picking words and ignoring original intent because one doesn't like it is the work of frauds and liars. They don't want to be right. They want to win at any cost. The end cost will be this nation. We're already a parody of what we are supposed to be and heading downhill with Obama at the reins like the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heading for Whoville.

[ConHog]

Some act like they can do that to ANY law. Words mean things. They make up sentences which make up paragraphs, etc. and provide a context. Cherry picking words and ignoring original intent because one doesn't like it is the work of frauds and liars. They don't want to be right. They want to win at any cost. The end cost will be this nation. We're already a parody of what we are supposed to be and heading downhill with Obama at the reins like the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heading for Whoville.

Oh, I agree with you. And that's how they are teaching lawyers to think in law school now to. Don't worry about actual intent. Just worry about how you can twist the document to fit your agenda.

[Gunny]

Oh, I agree with you. And that's how they are teaching lawyers to think in law school now to. Don't worry about actual intent. Just worry about how you can twist the document to fit your agenda.

I agree, but it isn't just lawyers. It's everyone. People see and hear what they want. The most laughable crap ever is the different stories I've heard of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. You'd think they were written in sanskrit.

You can't have a statue of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse because it's a state building ... never mind our basic morals and laws are based on them.

Then there's the 2nd Amendment doesn't say you can own a gun. Never mind the fact it clearly does.

The symptoms of a lay, decadent society existing off the efforts of its forefathers but not willing to work or sacrifice for jack shit. Just want everything handed to them.

[ConHog]

I agree, but it isn't just lawyers. It's everyone. People see and hear what they want. The most laughable crap ever is the different stories I've heard of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. You'd think they were written in sanskrit.

You can't have a statue of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse because it's a state building ... never mind our basic morals and laws are based on them.

Then there's the 2nd Amendment doesn't say you can own a gun. Never mind the fact it clearly does.

The symptoms of a lay, decadent society existing off the efforts of its forefathers but not willing to work or sacrifice for jack shit. Just want everything handed to them.

but you could expect that kind of stupidity from the average idiot. Lawyers are supposed to be our best and brightest. Look at Obama. He went to Harvard for Christ's sake and he doesn't understand anything about real life and shows a clear disdain for our COTUS.

Just pathetic.

[Gunny]

but you could expect that kind of stupidity from the average idiot. Lawyers are supposed to be our best and brightest. Look at Obama. He went to Harvard for Christ's sake and he doesn't understand anything about real life and shows a clear disdain for our COTUS.

Just pathetic.

Lawyers are people too, and I already consider Obama less intelligent than the average idiot. Hell, I'm a dumb retired Gunny and even *I* would have realized by now I was fucking up royally as President. He just keeps blaming others.

I didn't however mean for this to devolve into yet another indictment of Obama, nor lawyers. He is what he is and they are what they are. I responded to KRB because I want to see if there's a point here.

BUT ... :laugh: ... if Obama's our best and brightest we're FUCKED.

[KartRacerBoy]

The firstest, biggest problem here is my gut reaction is what's the trick to the atheist's question? If you need the background on that, PM J.T or others of his ilk who always have a twist. Some screwy swerve.

The Constitution got it right. It precludes a state-sanctioned religion. That precludes a religious test to hold office.

Unfortunately, you STILL have to answer for the consequences of your actions to your constituents. If the majority votes a religious person into office because that's what they want, that also is in line with the law.

Problem is, opponents turn around and twist and use the law and cry "tyranny of the majority ... blah, blah, blah ...." when what they are actually doing is enforcing the tyranny of the minority via backwards-assed legislating from the bench. So much so, people and the law down know what's up or down or right and wrong.

The best person qualified for the job they are applying should get it. Period.

Actually, from the various books I've read on the subject, at the ratification of COTUS, all or almost all states in the colonies had state supported religions. Some states taxed citizens to help fund the favored New Hampshire religion, for example. You are right in that the federal constitution was only intended to stop a favored federal church over those of all the states. Like the Church of England. The COTUS did nothing to prevent states from imposing their favored religion. That was left to the states to decide through their own political process and their own state constitutions.

As an aside, nor did any of the other Bill of Rights apply to the states until SCt adopted the incorporation doctrine and imposed it on the states. In fact, until the SCt applied the 2nd Amendment to the states in the Chicago gun case last year, states could, subject to the constrainsts of the their own constitutions, restrict gun rights in any way they wanted. They could ban them altogether if their constitutions had no equivalent to the 2nd Amendment (subject to review of federal courts, of course). The feds couldn't have banned all guns, of course, but the states could have.

[KartRacerBoy]

I agree, but it isn't just lawyers. It's everyone. People see and hear what they want. The most laughable crap ever is the different stories I've heard of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. You'd think they were written in sanskrit.

You can't have a statue of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse because it's a state building ... never mind our basic morals and laws are based on them.

Then there's the 2nd Amendment doesn't say you can own a gun. Never mind the fact it clearly does.

The symptoms of a lay, decadent society existing off the efforts of its forefathers but not willing to work or sacrifice for jack shit. Just want everything handed to them.



So why is it that most societies have very similar laws despite the fact they aren't all Christian? For example, it's illegal to murder, steal, etc in a Buddhist society. I think the answer is becz the practical parts of the 10 Commandments are just common sense rules that societies adopt to stay stable. Allowing neighbors to murder one another doesn't lead to a nice, stable community. Same goes for stealing.

I disagree that our laws are based on the bible or the 10 Commandments. They of course have some influence, but even an atheist society would adopt similar laws. Common sense basics.

[Gunny]

Actually, from the various books I've read on the subject, at the ratification of COTUS, all or almost all states in the colonies had state supported religions. Some states taxed citizens to help fund the favored New Hampshire religion, for example. You are right in that the federal constitution was only intended to stop a favored federal church over those of all the states. Like the Church of England. The COTUS did nothing to prevent states from imposing their favored religion. That was left to the states to decide through their own political process and their own state constitutions.

As an aside, nor did any of the other Bill of Rights apply to the states until SCt adopted the incorporation doctrine and imposed it on the states. In fact, until the SCt applied the 2nd Amendment to the states in the Chicago gun case last year, states could, subject to the constrainsts of the their own constitutions, restrict gun rights in any way they wanted. They could ban them altogether if their constitutions had no equivalent to the 2nd Amendment (subject to review of federal courts, of course). The feds couldn't have banned all guns, of course, but the states could have.

First, I'm a 10th Amendment, states rights advocate. Marshall v Texas in 1868 took care of that. IMO, the feds should not be able to review ANY law not specifically in the Bill of Rights. Amendments that suit the Fed with the states having no recourse are BS to me.

That having been said, the clause on religion IS in the Bill of Rights and no state law should be able to subvert it. The religion clause IS because of European religious persecution and specifically against the Church of England. Any state agreeing to join a union of states that agree to a central Bill of Rights should not be able to legally subvert it, IMO.

The Fed, by its own law, has no right to restrict gun ownership.

[Gunny]

So why is it that most societies have very similar laws despite the fact they aren't all Christian? For example, it's illegal to murder, steal, etc in a Buddhist society. I think the answer is becz the practical parts of the 10 Commandments are just common sense rules that societies adopt to stay stable. Allowing neighbors to murder one another doesn't lead to a nice, stable community. Same goes for stealing.

I disagree that our laws are based on the bible or the 10 Commandments. They of course have some influence, but even an atheist society would adopt similar laws. Common sense basics.

An argument as faulty as "human nature". Human nature is to seek food, warmth and shelter. Nothing more. Everything past that is a learned/taught trait. To presume an atheist (or not) society would adopt the laws and morals we live by from "common sense" is to say "there might be life on Mars". We are the product of Judeo-christian beliefs, whether or not you wish to believe in them. Matter of fact, not believing in them is what has got us on this downhill ride now.

We have the laws and the morals. Quite a few seem to have forgotten where they came from.

[Missileman]

You can't have a statue of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse because it's a state building ... never mind our basic morals and laws are based on them.


Except they're not. 3 out of 10 actually codified into law and our most precious right in direct contradiction of the First commandment. As for inclusion at public buildings, I could care less, though IMO, courthouses should be avoided if only for the fact that legal system should be 100% neutral as it deals with everyone, not just Judeo-Christians.

[Gunny]

Except they're not. 3 out of 10 actually codified into law and our most precious right in direct contradiction of the First commandment. As for inclusion at public buildings, I could care less, though IMO, courthouses should be avoided if only for the fact that legal system should be 100% neutral as it deals with everyone, not just Judeo-Christians.

If it just says "religion" you appear as if magic. And you're wrong, as usual. They are. Like it or not.

The law being neutral is irrelevant to anything I posted. Putting a statue of the 10 Commandments in a hallway in a courthouse in no way makes the law unequal. People claiming it makes the law unequal DOES though as it prejudices the lawmakers.

Judeo-Christianity isn't based solely on the 10 Commandments. Our morals as a society derive from Judeo-Christianity. That's just an obvious fact those in denial have a myriad of excuses for. Fact is, again, you're wrong.

[KartRacerBoy]

First, I'm a 10th Amendment, states rights advocate. Marshall v Texas in 1868 took care of that. IMO, the feds should not be able to review ANY law not specifically in the Bill of Rights. Amendments that suit the Fed with the states having no recourse are BS to me.

That having been said, the clause on religion IS in the Bill of Rights and no state law should be able to subvert it. The religion clause IS because of European religious persecution and specifically against the Church of England. Any state agreeing to join a union of states that agree to a central Bill of Rights should not be able to legally subvert it, IMO.

The Fed, by its own law, has no right to restrict gun ownership.

As I said, until the Incorporation doctrine through the 14th Amendment came of age in the mid-1900s, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. I think incorporation is a wise thing, but it's not exactly "original intent." In fact, original intent would seem to say the states can do what they want with their laws subject to their own constitutions. If you are truly an original intent kind of guy, you can't pick and choose. You either are or you aren't. Up until last year, under the theory of original intent, the states could ban guns if the federal courts didn't overturn it. And if you truly believe that the fed courts couldn't review state laws, then such state laws would've stood until the law was repealed.

Of course, now that the SCt has adopted incorporation for the 2nd Amendment, it's a moot point, but I just wanted to point out how your professed belief in original intent could leave you without the right to guns if your state passed such al law.

[Missileman]

If it just says "religion" you appear as if magic. And you're wrong, as usual. They are. Like it or not.

The law being neutral is irrelevant to anything I posted. Putting a statue of the 10 Commandments in a hallway in a courthouse in no way makes the law unequal. People claiming it makes the law unequal DOES though as it prejudices the lawmakers.

Judeo-Christianity isn't based solely on the 10 Commandments. Our morals as a society derive from Judeo-Christianity. That's just an obvious fact those in denial have a myriad of excuses for. Fact is, again, you're wrong.

Sorry, but your "Nuh uh" doesn't refute the facts I just posted.

Let's see a list of uniquely Judeo-Christian morals upon which our society is based.

[Gunny]

As I said, until the Incorporation doctrine through the 14th Amendment came of age in the mid-1900s, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. I think incorporation is a wise thing, but it's not exactly "original intent." In fact, original intent would seem to say the states can do what they want with their laws subject to their own constitutions. If you are truly an original intent kind of guy, you can't pick and choose. You either are or you aren't. Up until last year, under the theory of original intent, the states could ban guns if the federal courts didn't overturn it. And if you truly believe that the fed courts couldn't review state laws, then such state laws would've stood until the law was repealed.

Of course, now that the SCt has adopted incorporation for the 2nd Amendment, it's a moot point, but I just wanted to point out how your professed belief in original intent could leave you without the right to guns if your state passed such al law.

Not picking and choosing. If a state CHOOSES to join the union, it should abide by/not try to circumvent the laws of the union. Again, the fed made that issue moot in April 1865 by force of arms and legally covered it's ass in 1868 in (my bad I originally said Marshall v texas) White v Texas that basically states that states have no right to secede with no documentation nor precedent to support its decision.

While no longer applicable, I see no problem with the original Bill of Rights and states making their own laws that aren't specifically handed the Fed in the Bill of Rights. Then, if you join the union, it's like anything else, you agree to follow the rules set forth in the contract.

The 1st Amendment specifically covers the question you posed as a thread topic. The Fed cannot establish a state religion; therefore, any state agreeing to join the union cannot establish a state religion. That would make the question of a religious test irrelevant.

[Gunny]

Sorry, but your "Nuh uh" doesn't refute the facts I just posted.

Let's see a list of uniquely Judeo-Christian morals upon which our society is based.

You posted no facts. Just rhetoric that supports your anti-religion argument. Nothing factual about that. Just wishful thinking and/or delusion on your part. The truth is there, obvious and in your face. You just have to take the blinders off.

[ConHog]

As I said, until the Incorporation doctrine through the 14th Amendment came of age in the mid-1900s, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. I think incorporation is a wise thing, but it's not exactly "original intent." In fact, original intent would seem to say the states can do what they want with their laws subject to their own constitutions. If you are truly an original intent kind of guy, you can't pick and choose. You either are or you aren't. Up until last year, under the theory of original intent, the states could ban guns if the federal courts didn't overturn it. And if you truly believe that the fed courts couldn't review state laws, then such state laws would've stood until the law was repealed.

Of course, now that the SCt has adopted incorporation for the 2nd Amendment, it's a moot point, but I just wanted to point out how your professed belief in original intent could leave you without the right to guns if your state passed such al law.

Not entirely correct KRB.

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.

Now CLEARLY that means that the state of NY couldn't pass a law saying "No guns in NY" when the COTUS clearly gives a person the right to bear arms.

Now I know your next move is to claim that this also means no state could have an official religion, BUT the COTUS does not say that. IT merely says that there can't be an OFFICIAL religion. No state EVER had an official religion as far as I know.

[Missileman]

You posted no facts. Just rhetoric that supports your anti-religion argument. Nothing factual about that. Just wishful thinking and/or delusion on your part. The truth is there, obvious and in your face. You just have to take the blinders off.

Maybe you're blind, so let me post the facts again for you.

FACT: Only 3 of 10 commandments are actually codified into US law. You might be able to argue a 4th, but it only applies to military personnel.

FACT: The First Amendment (Freedom of religion) directly contradicts the First Commandment.

[ConHog]

Maybe you're blind, so let me post the facts again for you.

FACT: Only 3 of 10 commandments are actually codified into US law. You might be able to argue a 4th, but it only applies to military personnel.

FACT: The First Amendment (Freedom of religion) directly contradicts the First Commandment.

FACT: Christian/Judeo morals are based on much more than the Ten Commandments. So just because something doesn't correlate directly to the Ten Commandments doesn't mean it isn't Christian based.

[Missileman]

FACT: Christian/Judeo morals are based on much more than the Ten Commandments. So just because something doesn't correlate directly to the Ten Commandments doesn't mean it isn't Christian based.

Break out a list of uniquely Judeo-Christian morals that are codified into our laws. You have to discount the universally accepted morals like those against killing, stealing, etc, right?

[ConHog]

Break out a list of uniquely Judeo-Christian morals that are codified into our laws. You have to discount the universally accepted morals like those against killing, stealing, etc, right?

You do realize that killing, for example, is not a universally accepted moral don't you?

[Missileman]

You do realize that killing, for example, is not a universally accepted moral don't you?

Killing was the wrong word. I should have said murder. As far as I know, there are laws on the books in every country against murder.

[ConHog]

Killing was the wrong word. I should have said murder. As far as I know, there are laws on the books in every country against murder.


Murder is in fact the illegal killing of another person, so therefor it is only logical that MURDER is illegal in every country. Killing however is not, and every society has their own rules on what is and what is NOT considered to be murder. For example, In Iran killing your cheating wife is NOT murder. It is merely killing her. In the US however, that is clearly murder.

[KartRacerBoy]

Not picking and choosing. If a state CHOOSES to join the union, it should abide by/not try to circumvent the laws of the union. Again, the fed made that issue moot in April 1865 by force of arms and legally covered it's ass in 1868 in (my bad I originally said Marshall v texas) White v Texas that basically states that states have no right to secede with no documentation nor precedent to support its decision.

While no longer applicable, I see no problem with the original Bill of Rights and states making their own laws that aren't specifically handed the Fed in the Bill of Rights. Then, if you join the union, it's like anything else, you agree to follow the rules set forth in the contract.

The 1st Amendment specifically covers the question you posed as a thread topic. The Fed cannot establish a state religion; therefore, any state agreeing to join the union cannot establish a state religion. That would make the question of a religious test irrelevant.

I'm not sure if what you're saying is the SCt made secession illegal under the Constitution. If you are, I think once you ratified the COTUS, you were bound by it. Section 8 of Article I specifically says Congress has the power "to provide for calling for Militia to execute the Laws of Union., suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." I'm no scholar on this point but the words of the document seem to say once you're in, you're in.

And the establishment clause says nothing about my thread topic. There is another clause in COTUS (Article VI) that speciifically prohibits religious tests as a qualification for office. I knew that when I started this thread. I just wanted to see if the forum members thought that was wise or unwise. Someone also said that since elected officials of the US govt have to win an election to get into office, for all practical matters if the electorate wants religion, they will have it. I realized that, too, when I started the thread. I just want to see what the members think about the need for religion to hold office. Would they refuse to vote for an announced agnostic, atheist, or a Muslim for example?

And once again you wrong about states joining the union and being bound by the federal Bill of Rights. They were not bound at all until almost 1900:

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) to the states (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/U.S._state). Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States). Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Due_process) of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion).


Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore) that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), still held that the First (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and Second Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

[KartRacerBoy]

Not entirely correct KRB.

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.

Now CLEARLY that means that the state of NY couldn't pass a law saying "No guns in NY" when the COTUS clearly gives a person the right to bear arms.

Now I know your next move is to claim that this also means no state could have an official religion, BUT the COTUS does not say that. IT merely says that there can't be an OFFICIAL religion. No state EVER had an official religion as far as I know.


It means nothing like that, ConHog. See my post to Gunny above and the reference to the incorporation doctrine.

And try reading all my posts b4 you may silly claims about me and religion. I already posted on that subject in this thread so I'm not gonna drag it up for a nonreader like you again. But since this is irrelevant to the thread topic, I waste no more time on it. If you don't want to learn, so be it.

[ConHog]

It means nothing like that, ConHog. See my post to Gunny above and the reference to the incorporation doctrine.

And try reading all my posts b4 you may silly claims about me and religion. I already posted on that subject in this thread so I'm not gonna drag it up for a nonreader like you again. But since this is irrelevant to the thread topic, I waste no more time on it. If you don't want to learn, so be it.

talk about not knowing how to read. I made NO claims about you and religion whatsoever.

[KartRacerBoy]

talk about not knowing how to read. I made NO claims about you and religion whatsoever.

Did you retire becz of bad short term memory? I quote you, "Now I know your next move is to claim that this also means no state could have an official religion." I believe you are talking about me and something about religion when you refer to me and use the word "religion."

I'm sorry I'm respecting your atoritay, Cartman, but I like my authorites to be authoritative.

[ConHog]

Did you retire becz of bad short term memory? I quote you, "Now I know your next move is to claim that this also means no state could have an official religion." I believe you are talking about me and something about religion when you refer to me and use the word "religion."

I'm sorry I'm respecting your atoritay, Cartman, but I like my authorites to be authoritative.

What I said had NOTHING to do with you and religion, and EVERYTHING to do with you and your opinion of the first amendment. You just can't help being dumb can you.

[KartRacerBoy]

What I said had NOTHING to do with you and religion, and EVERYTHING to do with you and your opinion of the first amendment. You just can't help being dumb can you.

Ok, Cartman.

And you can never admit being wrong. An ex military cop that doesn't know about the law and a so-called historian that studies COTUS for 8 yrs but knows jack shit about it. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Ok, Cartman.

And you can never admit being wrong. An ex military cop that doesn't know about the law and a so-called historian that studies COTUS for 8 yrs but knows jack shit about it. :laugh:

My you sure are butt hurt over the spanking I gave you awhile back, how many threads are you going to irratinally carry your butt hurt into?

You said I made a claim about your feelings on religion, I did NOT, I made a claim about how I felt you interpret the first Amendment. It had exactly NOTHING to do with your belief or disbelief in any religion.


It simply isn't my fault that you can't recognize the difference in the two things.

[Gunny]

Maybe you're blind, so let me post the facts again for you.

FACT: Only 3 of 10 commandments are actually codified into US law. You might be able to argue a 4th, but it only applies to military personnel.

FACT: The First Amendment (Freedom of religion) directly contradicts the First Commandment.

Which again, proves nothing. One doesn't "ignore" nothing. One just doesn't see that you "facts" prove and/or contradict anything that was said. They DO however prove the lengths one will go to in a vain attempt to deny the obvious; which, you are wont to do in ANY discussion concerning religion.

Short version: your crap is irrelevant to the obvious truth.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure if what you're saying is the SCt made secession illegal under the Constitution. If you are, I think once you ratified the COTUS, you were bound by it. Section 8 of Article I specifically says Congress has the power "to provide for calling for Militia to execute the Laws of Union., suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." I'm no scholar on this point but the words of the document seem to say once you're in, you're in.

And the establishment clause says nothing about my thread topic. There is another clause in COTUS (Article VI) that speciifically prohibits religious tests as a qualification for office. I knew that when I started this thread. I just wanted to see if the forum members thought that was wise or unwise. Someone also said that since elected officials of the US govt have to win an election to get into office, for all practical matters if the electorate wants religion, they will have it. I realized that, too, when I started the thread. I just want to see what the members think about the need for religion to hold office. Would they refuse to vote for an announced agnostic, atheist, or a Muslim for example?

And once again you wrong about states joining the union and being bound by the federal Bill of Rights. They were not bound at all until almost 1900:

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights))

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) to the states (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/U.S._state). Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States). Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Due_process) of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion).


Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore) that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), still held that the First (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and Second Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

On your first point -- "if you're in, you're in" -- I disagree. Your conclusion is based on an assumption, not anything actually written. Be that as it may, it's not like we're the first to disagree and it IS another topic.'

I addressed the topic of the thread in my first post as far as my opinion goes. I happen to agree with the First Amendment as it is written and see no point to there being a religious test to hold a government position if the government has no established religion; whether, it be local, state and/or Fed gov't.

[KartRacerBoy]

On your first point -- "if you're in, you're in" -- I disagree. Your conclusion is based on an assumption, not anything actually written. Be that as it may, it's not like we're the first to disagree and it IS another topic.'

I addressed the topic of the thread in my first post as far as my opinion goes. I happen to agree with the First Amendment as it is written and see no point to there being a religious test to hold a government position if the government has no established religion; whether, it be local, state and/or Fed gov't.

You may be right. I don't know how the "insurrection" language has been interpreted by historians and judges over the years. Although I've read a lot about history, I've never read much of anything on the Civil War or Lincoln. A little but not enough to have an educated opinion.

But from a judge's standpoint, the language I quoted from the constitution (allowing the feds to use militias to put down insurrections) might be interpreted a couple of ways depending on the technique of constitutional interpretation you adopt. I have no idea how someone of an "original intent" bent might interpret it becz that requires historical context I don't know enough about (what was said in the Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, in state ratification conferences, etc). If you look at from how Justice Scalia might look at (he's an avowed Textualist, not an original intent kinda guy), he just tries to look at the plain language of the constitutional phrase in queston and tries to discern intent or meaning from that.

So from a textualist POV, the language I quoted says the feds can put down insurrections using militias. So the federal govt can crush insurrections great and small. If that's true, what is the greatest insurrection of all? A rebellion, of course. Civil war. That's just my offhand logic on the matter.

[Gunny]

You may be right. I don't know how the "insurrection" language has been interpreted by historians and judges over the years. Although I've read a lot about history, I've never read much of anything on the Civil War or Lincoln. A little but not enough to have an educated opinion.

But from a judge's standpoint, the language I quoted from the constitution (allowing the feds to use militias to put down insurrections) might be interpreted a couple of ways depending on the technique of constitutional interpretation you adopt. I have no idea how someone of an "original intent" bent might interpret it becz that requires historical context I don't know enough about (what was said in the Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, in state ratification conferences, etc). If you look at from how Justice Scalia might look at (he's an avowed Textualist, not an original intent kinda guy), he just tries to look at the plain language of the constitutional phrase in queston and tries to discern intent or meaning from that.

So from a textualist POV, the language I quoted says the feds can put down insurrections using militias. So the federal govt can crush insurrections great and small. If that's true, what is the greatest insurrection of all? A rebellion, of course. Civil war. That's just my offhand logic on the matter.

You textual point of view presumes secession itself is insurrection. While I would argue that if I join an organization freely that has no specific language stating I can't leave just as freely, and I walk out, it's hardly an insurrection. It's a parting of ways.

[KartRacerBoy]

You textual point of view presumes secession itself is insurrection. While I would argue that if I join an organization freely that has no specific language stating I can't leave just as freely, and I walk out, it's hardly an insurrection. It's a parting of ways.

Good point. I guess it would come down to what one thought an "insurrection" was at the time of ratification. If it meant a violent revolt ONLY, you'd be right. Of course, it would be totally irrelevant if both sides mutually agreed to part. There would be no constitutional question. It's only when one side objects when conflict begins, which of course, is the issue. I would think, but I don't know, that one could make a good case for a cessation equating to insurrection. Who's "right" in such an argument comes down to who wins the actual physical dispute (in that the winners write the history).

In any case, I think from an OUTCOME perspective, I'm glad the Union won. Lincoln may have violated the Constitution in ways great or small, but it all turned out for the best. And president and congress violated the constitution both before and after that. It will continue to happen.

[ConHog]

You textual point of view presumes secession itself is insurrection. While I would argue that if I join an organization freely that has no specific language stating I can't leave just as freely, and I walk out, it's hardly an insurrection. It's a parting of ways.

From a legal standpoint you are 100% correct. The south did not engage in any attempts to overthrow the US government. They instead attempted to withdraw from the Union that they had presumably joined of their own free will in the first place.

Now , I would certainly contend that keeping the US together was in the long term best interests of everyone, and certainly things worked out better for the blacks than had Lincoln done nothing, but from a Constitutional standpoint I can find nothing that gave Lincoln the authority to force states to remain in the Union.

What's even odder is that some 100 years later we screamed bloody murder when the former USSR attempted to do the same thing as we did then.

Lincoln is often called the greatest US President, but that isn't true. His power grabs made Obama look like amateur hour. He was a total "the ends justify the means" guy.

[Gunny]

Good point. I guess it would come down to what one thought an "insurrection" was at the time of ratification. If it meant a violent revolt ONLY, you'd be right. Of course, it would be totally irrelevant if both sides mutually agreed to part. There would be no constitutional question. It's only when one side objects when conflict begins, which of course, is the issue. I would think, but I don't know, that one could make a good case for a cessation equating to insurrection. Who's "right" in such an argument comes down to who wins the actual physical dispute (in that the winners write the history).

In any case, I think from an OUTCOME perspective, I'm glad the Union won. Lincoln may have violated the Constitution in ways great or small, but it all turned out for the best. And president and congress violated the constitution both before and after that. It will continue to happen.

I have mixed feelings on the "who won" part being for the best. The Federal government has been violating the 10th Amendment at will since, and not always for the best.

[KartRacerBoy]

An argument as faulty as "human nature". Human nature is to seek food, warmth and shelter. Nothing more. Everything past that is a learned/taught trait. To presume an atheist (or not) society would adopt the laws and morals we live by from "common sense" is to say "there might be life on Mars". We are the product of Judeo-christian beliefs, whether or not you wish to believe in them. Matter of fact, not believing in them is what has got us on this downhill ride now.

We have the laws and the morals. Quite a few seem to have forgotten where they came from.

I'm not talking about human nature. I'm talking about how people LEARN to live together. Certain acts will inevitably lead to conflict. Those acts then get forbidden. My argument is that things like murder, stealing, etc, lead to such instability and hence any society, religious or not, would naturally look down on them and seek to stop them. They are universal if you want to have a stable society. Religion may have other benefits to a society (as well as costs), but it certainly isn't necessary. Pervasive? Certainly.

[Gunny]

I'm not talking about human nature. I'm talking about how people LEARN to live together. Certain acts will inevitably lead to conflict. Those acts then get forbidden. My argument is that things like murder, stealing, etc, lead to such instability and hence any society, religious or not, would naturally look down on them and seek to stop them. They are universal if you want to have a stable society. Religion may have other benefits to a society (as well as costs), but it certainly isn't necessary. Pervasive? Certainly.

I'm not arguing that we would or would not have inevitably come to this point. My comment addresses the fact that we DID follow the path we followed and it includes religious morals and beliefs ingrained in us for centuries. I didn't say it couldn't have happened close to the same if not the same without it. Just that it did. I merely addressed the assumption that it would bring us to this point regardless. There's no way of knowing. Your assumptions are based on beliefs that did happen/derive from religious belief.

Plenty of peoples throughout history have had little to no regard for human human life, and Native Americans even prized being good thieves because it meant to them they would be good providers. There is no ingrained moral compass in man.

[Missileman]

Which again, proves nothing. One doesn't "ignore" nothing. One just doesn't see that you "facts" prove and/or contradict anything that was said. They DO however prove the lengths one will go to in a vain attempt to deny the obvious; which, you are wont to do in ANY discussion concerning religion.

Short version: your crap is irrelevant to the obvious truth.

Freedom of religion is a direct violation of a basic tenet of Chrisitianity. You're the one in denial.

[ConHog]

Freedom of religion is a direct violation of a basic tenet of Chrisitianity. You're the one in denial.

You are absolutely, positively, incorrect there my friend.

In fact we believe that God could indeed MAKE everyone be Christians, but instead He chooses to give us free will to either accept His love or not on our own.

Free Will is the absolute point of Christianity, one must CHOOSE to accept Jesus.

[KartRacerBoy]

Freedom of religion is a direct violation of a basic tenet of Chrisitianity. You're the one in denial.

I disagree with ConHog on nearl everthing, but I have no idea how you can make this leap over the philisophical Grand Canyon. I'd love an explanation of this.

[Missileman]

I disagree with ConHog on nearl everthing, but I have no idea how you can make this leap over the philisophical Grand Canyon. I'd love an explanation of this.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3 you shall have no other gods before me.

Clearly, you can't have freedom of religion AND comply with the First Commandment.

[Missileman]

You are absolutely, positively, incorrect there my friend.

In fact we believe that God could indeed MAKE everyone be Christians, but instead He chooses to give us free will to either accept His love or not on our own.

Free Will is the absolute point of Christianity, one must CHOOSE to accept Jesus.

Quote the Bible passage that it's okay for Christians to worship another deity.

[ConHog]

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3 you shall have no other gods before me.

Clearly, you can't have freedom of religion AND comply with the First Commandment.

That only applies if you CHOOSE to be a Christian my friend.

[KartRacerBoy]

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3 you shall have no other gods before me.

Clearly, you can't have freedom of religion AND comply with the First Commandment.

I think you're wrong. That is a command to an INDVIDUAL. It says the indvidual shall have no other gods.

Tell me how that says that OTHERS can't have other gods, please.

[Gunny]

Freedom of religion is a direct violation of a basic tenet of Chrisitianity. You're the one in denial.

As usual, you are dead wrong. Christ specifically tells his followers not to waste their time on non-believers. He also says "give unto Caesar what is his" -- meaning -- obey man's laws. Nowhere does Christ state people should be forced by law, by Christians, to be only Christian; which, would be the only way this dreamed-up "basic tenet" of yours could fly.

You remind me a lot of the Black Knight from Monty Python. You just keep coming back and back and getting your ass kicked over and over. Give your ignorance a rest, huh?

[fj1200]

zKhEw7nD9C4

All right. We'll call it a draw.

[Noir]

That only applies if you CHOOSE to be a Christian my friend.

I'd of thought it applies to the Jews aswell....

Also, I find it somewhat morbidly funny to think of it in a 'hey you don't have to follow this god, it's cool if you don't. Btw you will burn in yell for eternity if you dont, just saying' xD

[ConHog]

I'd of thought it applies to the Jews aswell....

Also, I find it somewhat morbidly funny to think of it in a 'hey you don't have to follow this god, it's cool if you don't. Btw you will burn in yell for eternity if you dont, just saying' xD

We do believe you'll burn in hell if you don't believe in God, but that it is YOUR choice to do so.

[KartRacerBoy]

The firstest, biggest problem here is my gut reaction is what's the trick to the atheist's question? If you need the background on that, PM J.T or others of his ilk who always have a twist. Some screwy swerve.


Rereading the thread and thought I'd address this. So have you discerned any trick yet, Gunny? I can see how you might've expected given how some atheists hate any thought of religion.

Personally, I think this has turned into a pretty good discussion. However, I still haven't seen any responses to whether anyone on this board would vote for an open deist, agnostic or atheist. Anyone? Buieller?

[fj1200]

Personally, I think this has turned into a pretty good discussion. However, I still haven't seen any responses to whether anyone on this board would vote for an open deist, agnostic or atheist. Anyone? Buieller?

Do any believe in lower taxes, rolling back government regulations, and increasing personal liberties?

[KartRacerBoy]

Do any believe in lower taxes, rolling back government regulations, and increasing personal liberties?

:laugh:

Consider it an "all else equal" situation, but I've met several people who have told me they would never vote for an atheist for any position.

[ConHog]

Rereading the thread and thought I'd address this. So have you discerned any trick yet, Gunny? I can see how you might've expected given how some atheists hate any thought of religion.

Personally, I think this has turned into a pretty good discussion. However, I still haven't seen any responses to whether anyone on this board would vote for an open deist, agnostic or atheist. Anyone? Buieller?

I would. If they stood for the same ideals as me. And I mean governmental ideals. I already have a preacher.

[KartRacerBoy]

I would. If they stood for the same ideals as me. And I mean governmental ideals. I already have a preacher.

Well, we agree on something.

I would rather vote for someone who believed in God who reflected my positions in political matters than an atheist who disagree on the those same matters.

[Missileman]

As usual, you are dead wrong. Christ specifically tells his followers not to waste their time on non-believers. He also says "give unto Caesar what is his" -- meaning -- obey man's laws. Nowhere does Christ state people should be forced by law, by Christians, to be only Christian; which, would be the only way this dreamed-up "basic tenet" of yours could fly.

You remind me a lot of the Black Knight from Monty Python. You just keep coming back and back and getting your ass kicked over and over. Give your ignorance a rest, huh?

Go fuck yourself Gomer! There's no way your "jealous" god would in any way be okay with his followers establishing a system that not only allows, but encourages the worship of other deities.

[Missileman]

I would. If they stood for the same ideals as me. And I mean governmental ideals. I already have a preacher.

Which is why I have no problem with religious people seeking public office as long as their priority while they're serving is the mundane not the spiritual.