Who Truly Threatens the Church?

The drafters of the Constitution agreed. As we have recently learned, even a convicted felon is not automatically disqualified from holding office. There is one limitation that the drafters thought presented a special danger, in Art VI

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

Thank you for pointing that out. Over the years, I have heard some people argue that a religious person should be disqualified from holding office.

 

And by that they really only mean Christian.

 

It just can't be a qualification.

IMO, that is stronger evidence for the intended "wall of separation" than the Establishment Clause. It was part of the original unamended text, and points to a very specified view of seeing office holders as religious promoters. There are literally NO qualifications for office in the Constitution other than minimum age and born here (for POTUS only). Everything else was left to the political process. But there was one statement of what could NOT be a qualification

 

Doc, the virulence in your posts regarding Christianity goes far beyond merely disbelieving in God, or disliking or disagreeing with the teachings of the Bible. It seems there’s a deep-seated animosity towards Christianity. Is there some specific reason for this?

By the way, this is an honest question, not merely a come back at you or attempt to put you down. Even when I disagree with your posts on other subjects, I usually appreciate them because they are well thought out and informative. On this subject, however, you seem to have a gut reaction.

 

Understand, but someone who says a religious person should not be allowed to hold office is establishing a religious test. So the constitution would be against that.

Please don’t read into my comment what isn’t there. I’m not for promoting a theocracy. But religious people are citizens also, and have just as much right to express their views of how the country should be run as anyone else.

Some people interpret the wall of separation as eliminating religious views from public discourse. If I recall correctly, however, Jefferson‘s “wall of separation” comment was made to the Danbury Baptists who feared that the Congregationalist church was going to be made the official church of the land. Jefferson‘s comment was not to eliminate religion from the public square.

I don’t want to go off topic, but it seems over the last six decades or so “establishment” has been broadened to include any benefit whatsoever.

 

FWIW, most of the Founding Fathers were fundies by today’s definition.

 

Not a fan of selling neglect & ignorance as love

 

Thank you for replying.

I’m sorry, that post doesn’t make any sense to me. Merely being “not a fan” doesn’t lead to such virulent posts. I can’t help but think there’s got to be more to it.

 

I don't think you're attempting to establish a theocracy. But I do think you have to consider context. I'm not even talking about the letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson should be considered somewhat of a personal authority along with Madison on the meaning of the First Amendment religious clauses, as they were derived from his draftings (again, along with Madison) in the Virginia Constitution. It is literally the one area which he can be viewed as a constitutional drafter even though he was in France during the convention.

But I don't even get into originalism as that significant a guidepost in how to apply language today. Presuming I understood it correctly since I was paywalled, I am in substantial agreement with David French that the current atmosphere is more of one where the threat is from Dominionist thought than from the exclusion of religion. And I don't think it's remotely close.

I do absolutely think that every officeholder has an affirmative duty to try to separate their religious belief from their official exercise of powers. If you ask for a so-called test, a bright line for when that standard is crossed, I have a very hard time providing one. But it doesn't mean it's not there.

I think there's a reason the term used was a “public trust". That evokes the language of fiduciary duty, a concept the drafters would have been intimately familiar with. The term is used elsewhere in the Constitution like in the Emoluments Clauses


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.




You are not supposed to exercise your power for personal benefit or solely for the benefit of those that agree with you, but for the interests of the citizens. To borrow specific language from modern fiduciary law, which is derivative of the same concept, not really separate, Florida Statute 736.0802 states at the outset – “As between a trustee and the beneficiaries, a trustee shall administer the trust solely in the interests of the beneficiaries.”


Now of course it's possible that an officeholder could legitimately believe that the application of values shaped by their faith is in the best interests of the full citizenry. A trustee can believe that acts that benefit them individually as a beneficiary (often the case) equally benefit all beneficiaries.

But I take the no religious test clause also tell them that they should be especially wary of lapsing into that judgment, that there is special danger there based on history in governing by religious test, and that they represent all of their constituents, not simply their coreligionists. They should, at a minimum, conduct an examination of conscience (now lapsing into Ignatian spirituality) to consider their motives, their reasoning and whether they are acting consistent with a public trust in the interest of all constituents before proceeding.


There's more I can say, but I think that captures the basic point.


And though I know you were likely unaware of it and did not mean it, the way you phrased your points are very evocative of the way Opus Dei instructs the high officeholders they recruit, saying they can't be expected to leave their faith at the door when they enter public office. But bad things usually happen when that occurs, which is kind of the point behind the original clause

 

“As long as you pay us we’ll neglect and/or abuse you and yours.”

Sounds like government.

 

Oh, this you have trouble believing

 

I just wish that atheists would stop blaming Made-Up God for their own shitty dads …

Fathers Affect How We See God: Stories from Famous Atheists - Renew

 

I have no clue what you mean here.

 

I suspect your instincts are sound.

 

Such a dodge of the point Dan. Cmon brother.

A better analogy would be:

I rode my bike on a still day and I didnt fall over. I dont believe in wind.
You rode your bike in a hurricane. You fell over. You believe in wind.

A blind person may not believe, or even understand what light is, because they have never experienced it.

 

I'm far from fatherless brother.
...In both senses of the word

 

Disagree. This isn't like him to throw around such hateful terms.

And yes, if anyone talked about gays or minorities like he is talking it would be viewed as hateful.

 

It wasnt theology. It was an analogy. The difference between the two is stark.

Also, Yandy Diaz is a stud.

 

Light has very strong and defined meaning. Visible light is a specific wavelength. Infrared is a different wavelength on the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. If I was blind I could be explained this. I could tell that infrared light feels warm. It can logically be explained. Belief is not a subset of knowledge.