• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should “Justice Barrett” recuse herself from any election case?

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
An ideal Supreme Court would be 100% atheist/secularist.
There would be no question the Constitution will be placed above one's own religion.
<...>
Gee, aren't you placing your own views about religion above the Constitution where is says NO RELIGIOUS TEST?
The irony machine is really getting close to blowing up here....
From Article 6 of the US Constitution:

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.​
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Fine, remove my "Bible" and insert "Religion."
I think we all know what kind of non-religious tests we'd see with a Muslim being nominated. The right are hypocrites.
Sure. Be bold. Don't worry about the blatant use of the word "religion" in your so-called "not-a-religious-test" test that actually contains the word "religion" as part of the test. :confused:

Of course, the "no-religious-test" clause from the Constitution doesn't apply to you, because those people over there (the religious ones) are the real hypocrites. :rolleyes:

I think I'm ready to start drinking heavily here. Maybe I'll offer the irony meter a drink.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
... 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.

That was circa 1776.

Circa 1997 it was still being ignored/challanged.
In 1997, a South Carolina religious test for public office provision was struck down in Silverman v. Campbell, 486 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. 1997). Herb Silverman, an atheist and Foundation Life Member, had applied to become a notary public, but the application was denied because a line had been drawn through the portion of the oath stating “so help me God.” The court held that provisions of state constitution barring persons who deny existence of “Supreme Being” from holding public office violate First Amendment religion clauses and Religious Test Clause of federal constitution.

In 2020 we still have this...
Eight states still have language requiring a belief in God in order to take public office. However, the Torcaso v. Watkins decision renders the statutes null and void. Please note that Maryland’s and South Carolina’s religious test provisions have been explicitly struck down by federal courts. The states are:

Arkansas: “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” (Constitution, Article 19, Section 1)

Maryland: “[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God….” (Bill of Rights, Article 37). *Still on the books, but overturned.

Mississippi: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” (Article 14, Section 265)

North Carolina: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” (Constitution, Article 6, Section 8)

Pennsylvania: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)

South Carolina: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. (Constitution, Article 17, Section 4). *Still on the books, but overturned.

Tennessee: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)

Texas: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” (Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)​
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
That was circa 1776.

Circa 1997 it was still being ignored/challanged.
In 1997, a South Carolina religious test for public office provision was struck down in Silverman v. Campbell, 486 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. 1997). Herb Silverman, an atheist and Foundation Life Member, had applied to become a notary public, but the application was denied because a line had been drawn through the portion of the oath stating “so help me God.” The court held that provisions of state constitution barring persons who deny existence of “Supreme Being” from holding public office violate First Amendment religion clauses and Religious Test Clause of federal constitution.

In 2020 we still have this...
Eight states still have language requiring a belief in God in order to take public office. However, the Torcaso v. Watkins decision renders the statutes null and void. Please note that Maryland’s and South Carolina’s religious test provisions have been explicitly struck down by federal courts. The states are:

Arkansas: “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” (Constitution, Article 19, Section 1)

Maryland: “[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God….” (Bill of Rights, Article 37). *Still on the books, but overturned.

Mississippi: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” (Article 14, Section 265)

North Carolina: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” (Constitution, Article 6, Section 8)

Pennsylvania: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)

South Carolina: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. (Constitution, Article 17, Section 4). *Still on the books, but overturned.

Tennessee: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)

Texas: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” (Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)​
Yikes! However, I don't see anything wrong with Pennsylvania's. I just says that no one shall be disqualified from office on account of their belief in a god. The rest of them, however--yikes!
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
That was circa 1776.

Circa 1997 it was still being ignored/challanged.
In 1997, a South Carolina religious test for public office provision was struck down in Silverman v. Campbell, 486 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. 1997). Herb Silverman, an atheist and Foundation Life Member, had applied to become a notary public, but the application was denied because a line had been drawn through the portion of the oath stating “so help me God.” The court held that provisions of state constitution barring persons who deny existence of “Supreme Being” from holding public office violate First Amendment religion clauses and Religious Test Clause of federal constitution.

In 2020 we still have this...
Eight states still have language requiring a belief in God in order to take public office. However, the Torcaso v. Watkins decision renders the statutes null and void. Please note that Maryland’s and South Carolina’s religious test provisions have been explicitly struck down by federal courts. The states are:

Arkansas: “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” (Constitution, Article 19, Section 1)

Maryland: “[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God….” (Bill of Rights, Article 37). *Still on the books, but overturned.

Mississippi: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” (Article 14, Section 265)

North Carolina: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” (Constitution, Article 6, Section 8)

Pennsylvania: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)

South Carolina: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. (Constitution, Article 17, Section 4). *Still on the books, but overturned.

Tennessee: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)

Texas: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” (Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)​
How nice.
A Hall of Shame, and for once my State of Indiana isn't on it!
Tom
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Yikes! However, I don't see anything wrong with Pennsylvania's. I just says that no one shall be disqualified from office on account of their belief in a god. The rest of them, however--yikes!


Read it carefully. I need to "acknowledges the being of a God"



Pennsylvania: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)

That means NO ATHEISTS allowed.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Read it carefully. I need to "acknowledges the being of a God"



Pennsylvania: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)

That means NO ATHEISTS allowed.
I don't read it that way. I read it as "no theist shall be disqualified from holding office on account of their theistic beliefs."
Here is that snippet in greater context, which acknowledges the right to be an atheist (in green) immediately before acknowledging the right to be a theist (in blue,) followed by restraints upon the government to try to swing it one way or the other in order to deprive either atheists or theists the right to hold office (in purple)

II. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to bc vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.


from this source:
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights (1776) - LONANG Institute
A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF
THE COMMONWEALTH, OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to bc vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

III. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

IV. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants and at all times accountable to them.

V. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or sett of men, who are a part only of that community; And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.

VI. That those who are employed in the legislative and executive business of the State, may he restrained from oppression, the people have a right, at such periods as they may think proper, to reduce their public officers to a private station, and supply the vacancies by certain and regular elections.

VII. That all elections ought to be free; and that all free men having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or to be elected into office.

VIII. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: But no part of a man’s property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent, nor are the people bound by any laws, but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good.

IX. That in all prosecutions for criminal offences, a man hath a right to be heard by himself and his council, to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the country, without the unanimous consent of which jury he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; nor can any man be justly deprived of his liberty except by the laws of the land, or the judgment of his peers.

X. That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.

XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred.

XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

XIV. That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep a government free: The people ought therefore to pay particular attention to these points in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislatures and magistrates, in the making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the state.

XV. That all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness.

XVI. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I don't read it that way. I read it as "no theist shall be disqualified from holding office on account of their theistic beliefs."

Yeah. No theist. Atheists are not theists.

And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent:

That means they can't force anyone to attend a service he doesn't want to. It says nothing about an atheist being allowed to hold office - which is the subject of this conversation.

followed by restraints upon the government to try to swing it one way or the other in order to deprive either atheists or theists the right to hold office



From your full text...

Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen
Is it really necessary for me to point out, again, that atheists do not acknowledge the being of a god?


And that no authority can or ought to bc vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

That says anyone can freely exercise religious worship. It says nothing about atheists.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Some insight into Praise of People from WebArchive...


Our particular moment in this larger story began in the late 1960s, when students and faculty at the University of Notre Dame began to experience a renewal of Christian enthusiasm and fervor, together with charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues and physical healing, as described in the New Testament book of Acts.​

I wonder if Justice Barrett can write in tongues.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Sure. Be bold. Don't worry about the blatant use of the word "religion" in your so-called "not-a-religious-test" test that actually contains the word "religion" as part of the test. :confused:

Of course, the "no-religious-test" clause from the Constitution doesn't apply to you, because those people over there (the religious ones) are the real hypocrites. :rolleyes:

I think I'm ready to start drinking heavily here. Maybe I'll offer the irony meter a drink.
Uhuh. Let's consider if the nominee was a muslim who wore their religion on their sleeve. Who had ties to radical islamic organizations.

Do you think the muslim nominee would ignore their faith in rulings?

As mentioned, there's lots of religious people in our government. I'd assume most would put the constitution before their religion when it comes to decision making. But not those on the right, they feel they are commanded by the bible to implement their dominionist worldview in our secular society.
It is a part of their being and the whole point of being elected to office is to implement christian-inspired laws.

That's the difference and it has nothing to do with a religious test.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Uhuh. Let's consider if the nominee was a muslim who wore their religion on their sleeve. Who had ties to radical islamic organizations.

Do you think the muslim nominee would ignore their faith in rulings?

As mentioned, there's lots of religious people in our government. I'd assume most would put the constitution before their religion when it comes to decision making. But not those on the right, they feel they are commanded by the bible to implement their dominionist worldview in our secular society.
It is a part of their being and the whole point of being elected to office is to implement christian-inspired laws.

That's the difference and it has nothing to do with a religious test.
You can get around the religious test by asking about their political opinions regarding the Constitution and personal rights. I consider both of the main political parties to be "on the right," and one must be diligent to keep their fascist tendencies in check via the constitution. The underlying problem is political, not religious.
One could also make the argument that their religious affiliation would lead to prejudice and bigotry. Again, simply going after the prejudice and bigotry directly instead of *****-footing around by going after their religion (which would ironically make you look like a bigot) is the way to directly address the problem without any religious test.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
You can get around the religious test by asking about their political opinions regarding the Constitution and personal rights. I consider both of the main political parties to be "on the right," and one must be diligent to keep their fascist tendencies in check via the constitution. The underlying problem is political, not religious.
One could also make the argument that their religious affiliation would lead to prejudice and bigotry. Again, simply going after the prejudice and bigotry directly instead of *****-footing around by going after their religion (which would ironically make you look like a bigot) is the way to directly address the problem without any religious test.
There are religious people and then there are dominionists. This one is a dominionist.
Dominionists are commanded to turn America into a theocracy through our government.
A dominionist is someone who would not put the constitution before the bible. That's un-American.

111.jpg
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
As mentioned, there's lots of religious people in our government. I'd assume most would put the constitution before their religion when it comes to decision making. But not those on the right, they feel they are commanded by the bible to implement their dominionist worldview in our secular society.
It is a part of their being and the whole point of being elected to office is to implement christian-inspired laws.
You paint with a wide brush. There's a word for that.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
There are religious people and then there are dominionists. This one is a dominionist.
Dominionists are commanded to turn America into a theocracy through our government.
A dominionist is someone who would not put the constitution before the bible. That's un-American.

View attachment 43356
So, ask specific questions about the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 25th Amendments of the Constitution instead of applying a religious test. Framing the questions in a purely secular context not only helps to protect fascists from taking office, it also helps to expose fascists who are in office by applying the same secular principles of government restraint and equal protection under the law to the questioners--allowing hypocritical fascists to expose their hypocrisy through the nature of their questions.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
So, ask specific questions about the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 25th Amendments of the Constitution instead of applying a religious test. Framing the questions in a purely secular context not only helps to protect fascists from taking office, it also helps to expose fascists who are in office by applying the same secular principles of government restraint and equal protection under the law to the questioners--allowing hypocritical fascists to expose their hypocrisy through the nature of their questions.
I thought we're referring to Article VI, Clause 3?
Which states no religious test will be administered to qualify for office. In England, you had to be a member of a specific religion to qualify for office.
What I'm talking about isn't relating to any test question. The intent, when obtaining office should also be considered. The nominee should be questioned about this. The nominee should be questioned on the difference of church and state. Lot's of people on the right feel that there is no "separation of church and state." Dangerous and worthy of rejecting the nominee.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
I thought we're referring to Article VI, Clause 3?
Which states no religious test will be administered to qualify for office. In England, you had to be a member of a specific religion to qualify for office.
What I'm talking about isn't relating to any test question. The intent, when obtaining office should also be considered. The nominee should be questioned about this. The nominee should be questioned on the difference of church and state. Lot's of people on the right feel that there is no "separation of church and state." Dangerous and worthy of rejecting the nominee.
Read the Amendments in question (especially the Fourteenth) and you'll see where I'm coming from. You can completely separate religious questioning from political questioning in this way {separation of church and state. ;) } Question every candidate about it! If they don't enthusiastically uphold it, reject that candidate and demand one who will uphold it vigorously.
I'll give you the wiki link regarding the Fourteenth Amendment for your convenience so you can see what I mean.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
 
Top