Religious Tests For Office

[Jeff K.]

Too old and too slow. That's me

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Edited January 12, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

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.

We all know what the Document says, the question before the house is, "Can an individual voter decide to vote against (or for) a specific candidate on no basis other than his, the candidate's, religion,

because of the

"

no religious test

"

clause in the Constitution

?" In other words, does the Constitution apply to the government or to the people?

The Document itself, as well as its

sitz im leben

(the climate in which the Founders wrote it), require that it apply solely to the government. No other interpretation meets the requirements its writers set for it.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

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.

Also, please note that the "no religious test" clause is directly connected to the "oath or affirmation" clause. It is because the office holder is required to take an oath (or make an affirmation) that the Constitution specifies that

this oath

/affirmation

may not include a religious test

. Again, there is no reason or basis to assume that this sets the least restriction on the voter.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

The question is SHOULD individual LDS impose a religious test for public office? Say; Should we only vote for Mormons? Not whether we CAN. Should a Catholic only vote for Catholics, Southern Baptists only vote for Southern Baptists, etc., etc., etc.?

[LeSellers]

The question is SHOULD individual LDS impose a religious test for public office?

No, that is not the question. The allegation was that the Constitution forbids individuals from using such a test of their own.

No one here (as far as I know) has said it is wise for voters to do so. In fact, however, I am convinced that were the state to require (assuming there was any meaningful way to enforce it) people to vote against the outcome of their personal test, it would be horrific and a gross overstepping of the bounds of legitimate government. So, while I don't advocate that people apply a religious test, I am grateful that they can, and saddened that they do (or would).

Lehi

Edited January 12, 2012 by LeSellers

[Lightbearer]

Lehi:

The question is SHOULD individual LDS impose a religious test for public office? Say; Should we only vote for Mormons? Not whether we CAN. Should a Catholic only vote for Catholics, Southern Baptists only vote for Southern Baptists, etc., etc., etc.?

That is not what is being said. In fact personally I would not vote for someone just because they are a Mormon. After all Harry Reid is supposedly a Mormon but it would be doomsday before I would ever vote for him! I would vote for Romney because he is a Mormon, but also the platfom he espouses is closer to mine. Also I believe he could beat Obama and that I believe is the most important factor in this election. I would also vote for Newt, or any other Republican or Democrat that opposed the current administration. Oh and for the record, the Constitution is what limits Government NOT the PEOPLE! That is the difference between the two major parties (or seems that way) the current administration and most of his party seems to believe in the power of the Government, not the power of the governed. While some political hacks claim to seperate their religious beliefs from their political, I believe that is impossible. I cannot subject my religious beliefs under some political standard. Our salvation is not in our political beliefs, but in our religious. Because when the Lord returns what political philosophy one espouses will not be relevant, and I hope and pray for that day to come soon. In the meantime I believe we must do all we can to foster good government and oppose oppression and hold up the standard of liberty. If I never voted for anyone unless they were Mormons I would rarely vote. I have voted for many of various faiths, but I have the right to place whatever "test" I want to impose on MY VOTE. That is one thing that the government cannot take from me (yet) and so everyone has the same priviledge to be bigoted or stupid or whatever as long as they allow me the same right. I truly believe the constitution is hanging by a thread and I will do all in my power to save it from the Gadianton band that threatens to destroy it.

[Sky]

Here is a prime example of a religious test and just plain bigotry. On principle, this is what the Constitution clearly discourages, and for good reason.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

You are in the habit of answering questions I did not ask. Please let me frame my own questions.

In a pluralistic society such as ours. As a LDS how do I maintain that pluralism through voluntary means? Do I as a Saint, follow the leaders of our Church in voting for those whom I feel best will represent my interests, and values, or do I impose some type of arbitrary religious test? Further Mitt Romney and Harry Reid both have very different ideas about governance. Yet both are active LDS. Should I vote for one because of his religion, or decline to vote for one because of his religion?

In our society no one can force you, or anyone else, to reveal the rationale, and/or motivations for you voting for or against anyone. To do so would involve extreme violence to the very idea of pluralism.

[thesometimesaint]

Lightbearer:

Such is your choice, and far be it from me to try to change your mind with the facts.

[LeSellers]

Here is a prime example of a religious test and just plain bigotry. On principle, this is what the Constitution clearly discourages, and for good reason.

It is bigotry, it is not a "religious test" as mentioned in the Constitution. A religious test, as noted in the Document, is one like those established by the British "Corporate Law" of 1661 and the "Test Acts" of 1673 and 1678. Both were rescinded or repealed in 1828 and 1829.

The Constitution, itself, does not discourage anything. The principles on which it was written discourage a voter's applying his own values when making a choice among candidates for office.

Lehi

[Sky]

After all Harry Reid is supposedly a Mormon but it would be doomsday before I would ever vote for him! I would vote for Romney because he is a Mormon, but also the platfom he espouses is closer to mine.

Harry Reid isn’t “supposedly” a Mormon – he is a Mormon. And he’s just as much of a Mormon as you are. His political philosophy is different than yours, and that is okay.

[LeSellers]

In a pluralistic society such as ours. As a LDS how do I maintain that pluralism through voluntary means?

The question is, why do we want (or should we want) to maintain a pluralistic state? If it persists by the infinite voluntary acts of the people in the state, then there will be such a state. If the people, each acting voluntarily and independently, determine to act in a unified manner, then no amount of coercion will prop it up.

Thus, as a Saint, you cannot maintain a pluralistic state by voluntary means, and no Siant would use coercion to do so.

Do I as a Saint, follow the leaders of our Church in voting for those whom I feel best will represent my interests, and values, or do I impose some type of arbitrary religious test?

You are free to do as you will. I'd follow the Brethren.

Further Mitt Romney and Harry Reid both have very different ideas about governance. Yet both are active LDS. Should I vote for one because of his religion, or decline to vote for one because of his religion?

I have never advocated voting on the basis of religion alone. Why do you ask me to defend a position I have not taken?

In our society no one can force you, or anyone else, to reveal the rationale, and/or motivations for you voting for or against anyone. To do so would involve extreme violence to the very idea of pluralism.

I do not worship pluralism, per se. I do appreciate the freedom to do as I choose as long as it does not harm anyone else (unless he has agreed to the result of my act).

Lehi

[frankenstein]

If we can not use a religious test, then that spirit of the law would also prohibit a "party test". For the most part people seem to adhere to political ideologies as they do religion.

If the spirit of the law prohibits religious test, then the spirit of the law must also prohibit political parties.

[Sky]

It is bigotry, it is not a "religious test" as mentioned in the Constitution. A religious test, as noted in the Document, is one like those established by the British "Corporate Law" of 1661 and the "Test Acts" of 1673 and 1678. Both were rescinded or repealed in 1828 and 1829.

The Constitution, itself, does not discourage anything. The principles on which it was written discourage a voter's applying his own values when making a choice among candidates for office.

Lehi

Lehi, I'd like to know where you are getting your information from, and why you seem to think that you know more than anybody else on here about the Constitution and the founders original intent.

To me, Article 6 of the Constitution never actually specified whether the “no religious test” clause was only intended to apply to governments and not individuals.

Rather, Article 6 of the Constitution teaches a correct principle (don’t use religious tests to determine who you are going to vote for), and then leaves it up to the people to use their best judgment and govern themselves accordingly.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

From the experience of a thousand years where opposing beliefs lead to the very evil acts that the Founders and we rightly abhor. From the LDS perspective the Restored Gospel could not have survived in rest of the world at the time. Even in the US it was a near thing.

I have made no apeal to force. In fact I reject the use of force to the conscience of men. Further just because you CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD. If my rationale, ideas, and love for humanity doesn't convince you. Then be of good cheer I will not force you to believe, or vote for anyone.

You do understand a rhetorical question?

I don't worship pluarlism either. But I do recognize our society is such. E Pluribus Unum and all that.

[LeSellers]

I'd like to know where you are getting your information from, and why you seem to think that you know more than anybody else on here about the Constitution and the founders original intent.

I've read The Federalist, The Antifederalist, and a myriad of books, articles, tracts, pamphlets, and essays written by the men who wrote the Document (and others, including their opponents). Many people have not.

I doubt I know "know more than anybody else on here about the Constitution and the founders original intent". But I know a lot more than most.

To me, Article 6 of the Constitution never actually specified whether the “no religious test” clause was only intended to apply to governments and not individuals.

If it does, then the whole Constitution applies to people, too, since there is no explicit state4ment that it doesn't.

There is no basis for assuming the "religious test" clause applies to anyone other than the government.

Rather, Article 6 of the Constitution teaches a correct principle (don’t use religious tests to determine who you are going to vote for), and then leaves it up to the people to use their best judgment and govern themselves accordingly.

Article VI is in the Constitution; through the Constitution, the states grant a limited set of powers to the federal government; there is no way the Document could apply to people as individuals—that was not its purpose. Those who wrote it have explicitly rejected the notion.

The idea of rejecting a "religious test" is based on the British Test Acts of 1673 and '78 and the Corporation Act of 1661, which were still in effect in British America in 1776 (and in 1787/9, even though USmerica was no longer British) is a purely governmental restriction is the clear implication of the Document and its sitz im leben. It did not come forth in a vacuum. Those wise men lived in British America and the recently independent states that emerged from that milieu.

I am puzzled by so many people's being unable to grasp the fact that government is the subject of the Constitution, that the people are in no way restricted by it, that the government is. The "religious test" clause applies to the state (not the states) and prohibits it from defining a religious test (as noted above) that would disallow anyone from holding federal office based on his religion, and not disallowing someone to vote his own preferences irrespective of how those preferences were derived.

Lehi

[zerinus]

We all know what the Document says, the question before the house is, "Can an individual voter decide to vote against (or for) a specific candidate on no basis other than his, the candidate's, religion, because of the "no religious test" clause in the Constitution?" In other words, does the Constitution apply to the government or to the people?

Lehi

That was not the question either. The question was, What kind of answer should Mitt Romney give to these questions if asked by a reporter in a political campaign? My answer was that he should not answer them at all, because they amount to a religious test for a political office, which goes against the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of the law.

[LeSellers]

That was not the question either. The question was, What kind of answer should Mitt Romney give to these questions if asked by a reporter in a political campaign? My answer was that he should not answer them at all, because they amount to a religious test for a political office, which goes against the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of the law.

Here's the question from the OP:

How do you feel about religious tests for office? Why do you think this was put into the Constitution?

...

So if I understand [Lehi] correctly, it is acceptable for individual citizens to apply their own religious tests for candidates as long as the government itself doesn’t do it? What about people who refuse to vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon?

"Why do you think this was put in the Constitution?"

That's the key question. Whatever anyone feels about a voter doing whatever it is that voters do, it has nothing to do with the constitutional restriction on religious tests. Knowing what a "religious test" is, is crucial to discussing this topic. No one, myself excluded, has bothered to put the question into its historical context, nor provide a definition of a "religious test", as they who wrote the Document understood it.

Words mean things. Using them carelessly is the sign of a poor education, irrespective of how many degrees one may have.

Lehi

Edited January 12, 2012 by LeSellers

[Sky]

Your arrogance is getting old, Lehi. Your posts come across that you, and only you, have a perfect understanding of the Constitution, and anybody who dares to counter you or have a slightly different interpretation is simply misguided or doesn’t have the proper perspective or is poorly educated.

[LeSellers]

Your posts come across that you, and only you, have a perfect understanding of the Constitution, and anybody who dares to counter you or have a slightly different interpretation is simply misguided or doesn’t have the proper perspective or is poorly educated.

Whatever I may come across to you as, no one else has provided the first bit of evidence that a "religious test", as used in the Constitution, means anything other than what I have shown.

If you disagree, something other than personal feelings should support the case. I've laid some of my evidence on the table. Is there anything else I should consider?

Have you, or anyone else taking the same stand you do, read the Founders? At least The Federalist? To misquote (but appropriately, I believe—I'd call it adapting the scripture to the situation) Paul, no Constitution is of any private interpretation. We don't have a political holy ghost, so we have to rely on the words of those whose writing we are discussing. When they or their historical environment tells us what they mean, it is not up to us to say they were wrong.

Lehi

[Sky]

Some food for thought...

The De Facto Religious Test in Presidential Politics

[zerinus]

Here's the question from the OP:

This thread is an offshoot or branch off this thread, which was centered on the said questions. It is an extension of the same theme.

"Why do you think this was put in the Constitution?"

That's the key question. Whatever anyone feels about a voter doing whatever it is that voters do, it has nothing to do with the constitutional restriction on religious tests. Knowing what a "religious test" is, is crucial to discussing this topic. No one, myself excluded, has bothered to put the question into its historical context, nor provide a definition of a "religious test", as they who wrote the Document understood it.

Words mean things. Using them carelessly is the sign of a poor education, irrespective of how many degrees one may have.

I suggest you stop lecturing people and get to the facts. The Constitution lays down a principle that Federal and State legislatures should heed and respect when they enact laws that govern those issues. It is possible to violate those principles without enacting laws. Academics and reporters with ulterior motives posing those kinds of questions to a political candidate in order to undermine his political candidacy amounts to a violation of the spirit of those principles, if not the letter of the law. Likewise, individual citizens voting on a purely religious basis without political considerations will be acting contrary to the spirit of the Constitution if not violating the letter of the law. The question here is not whether the can or not, but whether they should or not.

Edited January 12, 2012 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

I suggest you stop lecturing people and get to the facts.

I believe I am the only one here who has provided any facts.

The Constitution lays down a principle that Federal and State legislatures should heed and respect when they enact laws that govern those issues.

No!!!

The Constitution defines how the federal; government (congress) can act. It is based on principles. It did not (and still should not, but that's a different discussion) define what the states can do, except in a very few cases.

It is possible to violate those principles without enacting laws.

Of course. I have not argued otherwise.

Academics and reporters with ulterior motives posing those kinds of questions to a political candidate in order to undermine his political candidacy amounts to a violation of the spirit of those principles, if not the letter of the law. Likewise, individual citizens voting on a purely religious basis will be acting contrary to the spirit of the Constitution if not violating the letter of the law.

Again, the Constitution only addresses governments, almost exclusively the federal government. The principle underlying the "religious test" clause is, indeed, one that wise people will follow. But the Constitution does not address citizens, and was not designed to do so. Anyone trying to make the Constitution limit them, even by "the spirit of the law", does not understand what the Framers were doing, nor why they did it.

Why do you (and anyone else who holds this position, feel free to chime in) believe there is a Constitution? How did we get it? What was the background they who wrote it played against when they did? Anyone without answers to these questions is very unlikely to be able to understand what the Document is, and what it means.

The lack of these answers, as I said before, indicates a poor education, a crime I lay at the feet of government-run, tax-funded schools, the politicians who own them, and the bureaucrats who run them.

Lehi

Edited January 12, 2012 by LeSellers

[Sky]

The lack of these answers, as I said before, indicates a poor education, a crime I lay at the feet of government-run, tax-funded schools, the politicians who own them, and the bureaucrats who run them.

Lehi

Ah, there you go again, raging against your favorite boogey man and the source of all our country’s ills – those “government-run, tax-funded schools” a.k.a. public education.