The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in 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.
I have never met a single one who "hate the constitution". However, I have definitely seen several liberals who hate the fact that it will not let them institute pure socialism.
Yeah, and they're getting around the Constitution by using czars, executive orders, indefinite detention, forced healthcare mandate, etc. View attachment 382
BO has mentioned what a thorn in his side the Constitution has been as he tries to push his agenda & ideals on the country.
I think the better question would be "why does Moen think that Christians hate the Constitution?" I'd like to see him defend that position without resorting to "I think" or "I believe" statements.
Doesn't everything come down to personal opinion in this place? You know it does. I just watched Franklin Graham question Obama's and Romney's "Christianity" and I just have to wonder why any elected official or anyone running for public office should have their faith questioned considering that it explicitly states in the U.S. Constitution that there shall be no "religious test" to qualify for any office or public trust. Questioning someone's faith seems like a pretty clear religious test to me. You read into it any way you want but the elitist Christians of the Franklin Graham variety are anti-American and hate the U.S. Constitution in my opinion. I'm just sick of the elitist "Christian" hatred these religious freaks spew. Thank God they occupy the Right-wing and if you want to condemn someone like Jeremiah Wright for saying God damn America, live in his shoes in this country first. Know what it is to a black man in a white privileged world and then look at people like Graham who have has had all the advantages this country has to offer and still believes that he and his cult are the only "real" Christians. They are a bunch of elitist hypocrites. I know good Christians and they condemn idiots like Graham. They walk the talk and don't see themselves as better than other Christians. Graham is a freak.
Why, then, would you come up with such a silly title & fire a shotgun blast at every Christian? It takes all the potential credibility of your post & flings it right out the window before you even begin.
Absolutely unreal. Not only did you purport absolutely nothing but "I think" or "I believe" statements, but you also brought race into it. Good one! BTW, no, most everything here does not come down to personal opinion except when the left is speaking.
I have freely discussed my religious beliefs here but I have never once tried to use my beliefs to influence what anyone else may or may not believe. Regretfully, though, there are members here who will make fun of and bash others beliefs at every opportunity. It seems those who believe in God are the last "fair game" it is okay to discriminate against.
I wrote about religion on another thread, but it's also somewhat relevant here: The "no religious test" clause be damned. The religious insist on a test, they want validation for their beliefs. This is why a "religious test" would fail. There is no "test" that would satisfy all religions. Yet each religion claims superiority, that it's belief is the correct one and all other beliefs are wrong. Each religion demands validation of it's superiority over other beliefs and seeks that validation in it's representatives in government. ...or to require anyone in public office to submit to a "religious test". Public questionings by the religious regarding an official's religious beliefs should be discouraged, however, personal opinions by a religious person are a right. The problem is when religious groups influence their members, and the group becomes politically involved.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
...on an individual, and private, basis. The amendment does not allow public scrutiny or "testing" of an individuals faith as a requirement for public office, it demands the opposite. It's intent is to say that you are free to believe in any religion of your choice, but you may not question the faith of another, especially the beliefs of someone running for public office.
The Constitution does not say that you may not question the faith of another, regardless of whether or not they're running for public office. The Constitution merely says that those questions cannot be part of the official tests (citizenship, residency, age, etc.) that are regularly applied to office seekers. However, if someone wanted to associate themselves with a group (religious or social), then the members of those groups have every right to question and evaluate the claim. For example, if President Obama said his views were in concert with those of the Republican party, then the Republicans would have the privilege, right, and responsibility to question the validity of his "faith" (as would, frankly, the Democrats).
Absolutely the religious can test all they want, and I didn't mean to suggest they can't. What I'm saying is their opinions shouldn't matter as a rule of law, and absolutely shouldn't influence government. I'm not saying they can't express their views, only that the government should not allow them to influence policy. The government doesn't ignore them though, since politicians must (and should) listen to their constituents, and that's why religion is a political problem. ...going back to basics... Personal beliefs are irrefutable, but what happens when there's more than one person and they have opposing beliefs? Now both are irrefutable, yet neither can prove the other person is wrong in their beliefs. Who is right? Should the government let one of them influence it's policies? And if the government did decide to favor one belief over the other, how is that just? Religion can't be completely removed from government since most people are religious, BUT a government should do all it can to limit religious influence, especially when religion attempts to dictate law, since religious beliefs are personal beliefs and no two people have identical beliefs. Favoring one religious belief over that of another is wrong, so any "test" any religious person wishes to use on candidates for office should be discouraged.
DUH! What you claim is alright is exactly what is happening. Name a single person who is advocating a gov't sanctioned litmus test regarding religious beliefs. Please be specific when you attempt to prove your assertion.
I'm going to pretend to be David for a moment: ...(the moment passes)... Ok, not much accomplished, unless you count the drool on the keyboard.
Do you ever have anything to contribute to a conversation other than insults? Maybe you can address the topic at hand?
Yes, I can and have contributed to topics without resorting to insults or other bad behavior, and I've done so even with insults and bad behavior being used against me. At the moment though, I'm throwing some of that back at David. IMO, he's earned it. Now, although I have seen your recent attempt to be more neutral in admonishing people on this site, from my view-point I'd have to say you allow others more in line with your particular beliefs to go without admonishments far more often than those who don't. No offense meant, but that's how I view your comment to me... as a less-than-neutral admonishment. To prove my point though, that I can indeed refrain from insulting others, I will desist... but I have to question your apparently self-appointed position as ambassador for civil 'conversations' on this site, considering your apparent lack of proper neutrality necessary for the position... and your own past behaviors.