The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution, indicating that the requirement of such a statement does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine. The option of giving an "affirmation" (rather than an "oath") can be interpreted as not requiring any metaphysical belief or as a nod to Mennonites and Quakers who would not swear oaths but would make affirmations.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.
Can someone inform the GOP candidates for POTUS, Franklin Graham, and Fox Nooze?... PLEASE!!!
28 comments:
Can someone inform the GOP candidates for POTUS, Franklin Graham, and Fox Nooze?...
Please do not invade the right wing fairy tale land with facts,
The collective implosion of their cognitive dissonance would be a little too much for them to take,
We would end up with around 25% of the country becoming cognitively limited, angry, foaming at the mouth, raging bands of people ..... er
never mind;
That has already happened in November 2008 didn't it?
We now a days call them tea baggers.
Oh well can't hurt to give them a little more psychic electro shock to their illogical right wing meme,
After all a second major jolt is a coming this November, and they will just double down on the insane tea baggin' fooles they already are.
Radical Inbred obviously got kicked out of bed by sis/cuz last night. Such anger!
Damn, RR has been so angry lately he keeps lighting his swastika instead of his cross. It's time to calm down some.
it's gonna take alot of strength on our part to put up with the dickheadfuckwads of the selfrighteousradicalright in the next five yrs, then it'll start all over again when they offer up Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann against our Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Elizabeth Warren.. Bwahaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa! Can it get any better than that? It's GOOD to be a Liberal today, hell yea!!!
The Right doesn't mean the US Constitution. They mean THEIR constitution, that says Jesus is a Republican and liberals are commies.
The only part of the constitution they care about is the 2nd Amendment. The rest is negotiable, depending on which way the money is going.
Did the last part of your post get cut off, Sue?
I missed the point about someone violating the Religious Test Clause.
"I missed the point about someone violating the Religious Test Clause."
All one has to do is listen to those on the right who deliberately and mistakenly continue to maintain that Mr. Obama is a Muslim. The GOP candidates refer obliquely to it all the time--"If he says he's a Christian, then that's what he is." Or some such nonsense. Why can't they admit the truth and just say "Of course he is!" Or they talk about his Muslim father and step-father.
But the purpose, it seems to me, is to associate Mr. Obama with the Muslim faith, something Americans are suspicious of, thereby creating the idea that Mr. Obama is a fake Christian and secretly part of a religion that lots of Americans distrust and fear.
The point is that even if Mr. Obama were a Muslim or a Mormon, or even an atheist--why would it be an issue?
The nuts [not all, just the nuts, and there are a lot of them out there] on the religious right need to educate themselves on the Constitution they so dearly love to whip out and pretend they know, and read the part about no religious test in Article VI, paragraph 3 in the Constitution.
We've probably already had atheists in the WH, and I look forward to the day when we stop talking about whether or not someone believes in a deity or not in order to be the president.
She and he don't, and never have. It's only the recently crazed righties who make this an issue, and the Conservative Media that promotes it.
Shaw: I can't argue with you on the Muslim thing. There are people out there doing that. So how is any of this violating the Religious Test Clause?
[ but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief.]
We can not ignore the GOP pandering to the Religious Right, for them it is a qualification, a high priority for them to nominate a Christian candidate to go up against Obama(the un-American). The Religious Right and their extreme candidate Rick Santorum believe this country is ruled by Satan(and Obama) and we MUST elect a Christian to save us from doom. Have we ever before had this kind of religious test for a presidential candidate?
BTW, SF, The post does not say the religious test clause has been violated. The Religious Right wants religion to be top priority on who the GOP candidate is and who we should have as our president. The president is attacked relentlessly and accused of "faking" his Christianity, why?? Because a liberal Democrat can NOT be a Christian...god forbid...
It is not the letter of the Constitution that is violated. It is the spirit and intent. The intent of the Constitution is circumvented by the real world application of a religious test required as a qualification to RUN for president.
The reality is there is growing tendency of a de facto religious test within political parties as a condition of getting on the presidential ballot. A candidate who doesn’t proclaim his Christian faith could not be elected President. It would have been just as true about a black person until very recently, so I hold some hope.
So while there is no religious qualification to HOLD office, there’s just a bit of a religious test to get on the ballot.
And of course, one party goes way overboard into that theocratic posturing.
Any way you look at it, this clearly undermines the founders’ intent, I’d say.
SF, to try to argue that there isn't a de facto religious test in the Rushpubliscum Party today is just plain silly.
Tucked away on page 245 of his budget, the truth of Obama’s budget is revealed. Over the next 10 years, he will be increasing the federal debt -- the debt that you and I as taxpayers owe -- by an unfathomable $11.189 trillion!
not only did he wipe his ass with it,he took a dump on it.
Lisa, dear, I'm sorry to break this news to you, but no one pays any attention to your comments, since you have a long history here of posting lies and distortions.
But thanks anyway for your adorable little attempt at hijacking a thread.
Dave Dubya,
You got it right. It is the conservative right that is obsessed with religion. Anyone running for president has to pass their auto de fe on the "right" sort of Xtianity before they will approve their candidacy.
It's the new Inquisition, and Little Ricky is their very own Torequemada. Just what we Americans dream of for preznit.
LOL!
Sue: You said the right is "Shredding the US constitution"
Seeing as how every democrat nominee has been a Christian, I don't see how this is a particularly-republican phenomenon.
Indeed, a Jewish man tried to get your nomination and you rebuffed him, you anti-semites!
And anyone who thinks Obamacare is a good thing while simultaneously talking about the "spirit and intent" of the constitution needs to have their head examined. The two are incompatible.
And anyone who thinks Obamacare is a good thing while simultaneously talking about the "spirit and intent" of the constitution needs to have their head examined. The two are incompatible.
Raise an unfounded assertion, beat that straw man, and avoid the point.
It's the far RIGHT thing to do.
"Indeed, a Jewish man tried to get your nomination and you rebuffed him, you anti-semites!"
Jesus tried to run for POTUS?
Who knew!?
Dave: What strawman?
Sue has posited that conservatives "wipe their ass" with the constitution.
Someone else brought up "spirit and intent."
I went directly to the point in asking how the constitution was being violated and no one could tell me, unless the government has a mind reading machine and we start declaring thought crimes.
So anyway, you've rolled out some fancy terms, please parse my statement and break it down for us!
please parse my statement and break it down for us!
It ain't happening SF. THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Parse this.
Was my comment that complicated or is someone desperate for attention?
anyone who thinks Obamacare is a good thing while simultaneously talking about the "spirit and intent" of the constitution needs to have their head examined
What do you know about what I think, apart from what I write?
You Righties not only believe in the infallibility of your beliefs, but you arrogantly presume to know mine.
That is a cult mentality.
The constitutionality of health care is a separate topic that I have not addressed.
The entire point was about religion as a de facto test in politics. You want to change the subject with your "obamacare" straw man.
This is what you sound like:
Anyone who thinks violent felons and psychotics having a right to bear arms is a good thing, while simultaneously talking about the "spirit and intent" of the constitution needs to have their head examined.
Where would the Right be without their fallacies and distractions?
Perhaps Rmuse over at Policususa can help you out:
"There are many examples of Republican presidential aspirants’ disdain for the Constitution that have as their basis religious dogmata. However, the entire concept of bringing a candidates religion into question as a qualification to serve is in itself unconstitutional and yet the candidates who have taken the oath of office in the past have impugned President Obama’s faith as one reason to deny him a second term.
In Article 6 of the Constitution it says that, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office,“ and yet the Republicans have questioned President Obama’s faith continuously.
The President says, like Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul, he is a Christian but it is apparent he is not the right kind of Christian; a white Christian. But racial bigotry aside, there is no reason the President, or Republican candidates, have to attest to their Christianity or lack thereof to serve according to the Constitution, but since the Republicans reject Article 6, they have made President Obama’s religious qualifications a major campaign issue.
It is no coincidence that Republicans never questioned George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan’s allegiance to the Christian faith despite their policies and agendas that were decidedly anti-Christian; because they were white Christians. Franklin Graham, the money-grubbing evangelist, said he knew Santorum and Gingrich were Christians because they said they were, but he questioned the President’s Christianity even though Obama told Graham he was a Christian. Graham said he could not read the President’s heart, but he could discern Santorum and Gingrich’s dedication to Christianity; because they are white. Disregarding Article 6 is not the worst of the Republicans’ disregard for the Constitution, it is their incessant and dangerous contempt for the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that is more than troubling."
BTW, Lisa, you're the last person I would check in with for "the truth."
You were the one who posted a comment that said abortions cause breast cancer. Remember?
And you posted a completely made-up comment that you attributed to Mr. Obama.
Do you really think we'd trust you ever again with anything you plop down on a comment board?
I'll give you this, though: You've got a elephant load of chutzpah.
LOL!
that's right SHAW that's why Sue deleted my comment:
Buried within President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget is a proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends which now stands at 15 percent, a move that would have a severe effect on retirees, The Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial.
Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6 percent, according to the Journal. The rate jumps to 41 percent with the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions and then hits 44.8 percent with the 3.8 percent investment tax surcharge in Obamacare.
“Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you're a greedy couple. We're all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it,” the Journal wrote.
Hey Shaw did you get a Waiver from the president?
Good gerkins, Lisa, you get your news from that rightwing, Murdoch rag, The Wall Street Journal?
LOL!
Post a Comment