Frank throws pooh.
Shocking.
Stuff like this is lame enough coming from a regular poster, but coming from a Mod it’s cringingly pathetic. Worthy-of-a-telethon pathetic. Next time, try eating the pooh or rubbing it on our face. You would look less stupid.
I can’t tell if this answers my question or not.
You’re simply choosing to draw the line starting the foundation of the nation at The Constitution. Do you really think that it sprung out of thn air? That that work itself is also it’s own foundation. This seems like a word game to me. The foundation does not merely span the time from the drafting of the final version to it’s ratification. The Constitution is the final work: a series of laws. It is a practical document, with very little, if any philosophical context. That context is provided in the D of I. It explains why they feel they have the right to do what is necessary to get to the point where they can craft their own laws, as they did with the Constitution.
Excuse me? Why?
Well then, why don’t you take a shot at directly answering the questions re: monotheism addressed to you by tomndebb and MEBuckner, both of whom are much more restrained and patient than I am.
Here, I’ll help:
I mentioned before that the monotheism clearly expressed in the D of I does not attempt to establish a religion, but champions a philosophy. I maintain that position. The proof is that if all I tell you is that I believe in one god, you do not know if thet god is the Father of Jesus, Buddha, Mother Earth, the Sun, a shiney rock, my dog Sam, etc. Does it exclude some religions? Yes. And that poses a conundrum. But I do think you could argue, as I have more than once, that if you look at the D of I that the founders believed this to be a nation that owed it’s existence to a monotheistic god. They may have subsequently chosen to allow all to practice their religion, even polytheists and atheists, but that does not change the philosophical underpinnings of the nation.
More to your question, here is the passage from Article VI:
My answer is that a literal reading of the last line prevents a religious test, but it is mum on a philosophical one, so it should be allowed. Now this distinction I make drives some peolpe crazy, but I think it is real and substantive. Unfortunately, the result of this is that certain religions would in fact be excluded. I do not know what the founders would have advised at this point. They were certainly aware of other religions, yet they believed that a Supreme Being imbued them with natural rights. I remember reading that Adams, I think, thought that the reason The U.S. would be a greater success than either Greece or Rome was the idea of One God. I’ll try to find the passage tomorrow. If that is in fact true, then maybe they would have wanted to exclude any non-monotheistic philosophy.
The bolded language taken together makes the object from which their rights sprang a monothestic god. Other language for other documents and letters supports this reading. Even the Constitution, which has no philosophical language, even in the preamble, states " In the year of our Lord.
Oh, piffle. Or pooh, if you prefer. I could as easily claim that as the Constitution is mum on a baseball test, that no Yankees fans are allowed.
Here are the requirements to be a member of the U.S. House of Representatives:
Here are the requirements to be a member of the U.S. Senate:
That’s it; that’s all there is; there ain’t no more.
WHOOPS! Made a mistake. It should have read "And I don’t think anyone would *say *that it has to remain that way.
Sorry of the confusion and thanks for reading carefully.
Yes, quite. And the reason they didn’t discuss it much was because it was so perfectly obvious, philosophicaly, that we can’t have a whole mob of Dieties mucking about. Bound to be squabbles, states rights issues, that sort of thing. Something so profoundly obvious wouldn’t need to be discussed, just as they saw no real need to have any views relative to midget bowling, or the designated hitter rule.
Yes, all clear now.
And if you would perhaps put more effort into comprehending and less into pooh throwing, you might have noticed that I have been fielding questions non-stop for about two hours. In fact, if you were twelve minutes more patient you would have discovered that I had been writing an answer to MEBuckner concerning the very question that so interests you.
*You forgot “capable”.
I am a god. I must be, like the Rain God in the Hitchhiker’s Guide. I have this uncanny ability into 13-year-olds with all the answers. Now, to find some way to harness this power and put it to work for good.
They made a statement regarding religious exclusion. I mention that they didn’t mention a philosophical exclusion. And to the 13-year-old mind that is equivalent to rules regarding sport. Baseball. Which had yet to be invented. Hoo-boy. Maybe it’s late for all of us.
'Night.
You are, as usual, missing the point. You remind me of Tony Lazzeri swinging against Grover Cleveland Alexander.
There are many, many, many, many, many things that were not explicitly excluded along with religion. There are very good historical and, yes, philosophical reasons why religion was explicitly excluded. That doesn’t mean that any other test is OK.
And good night to you too, though I’m about to go to work.
Eh, I can still see room for pantheism in there. The specific parts referring to a god;
As for the Constitution; it does not establish monotheism to use a calender system based around the birth of Jesus. I am an athiest, but certainly this is the year 2006 of the Christian God. It’s also the year 5767 by the Hebrew Calendar. It’s the year 1427 in the Islamic Calendar. My use of any of them does not mean i’m Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. That said, it does say our Lord; I couldn’t say, however, whether the “our” referred to all present, nor that to use “the year of our Lord yadda yadda” was not the custom for all important documents of that time, rather than a specific observance of the Christian God.
I tend to think personally that a lot of the writers of the Constitution and the DoI were indeed Christians. But it’s certainly not clear in the text, and that (along with the whole seperation of Church and State business) suggests to me that the founders very specifically tried to avoid establishing their own religion and views into the foundation of the country.
From which it follows that using the Qur’an–a book that expresses the beliefs of a very monotheistic culture–as the object by which a person will give his word is very much in keeping with that monotheistic trend. Therefore insisting that a person swear upon the bible either is an unconstitutional religious test or is irrelevant to the taking of office.
Frank:
Are you sure you got those quals correct? ISTM that they’re required to be inhabitants of the states in which chosen.
You probably would have been disappointed at their reaction.
Those are exact quotes of the constitution. I think what’s throwing you is that they are stated as a negative. I.e., “No person shall …”
Nearly 400 posts about something that could’ve been covered by the OP and maybe a couple, “Yeah, he’s a moron who doesn’t understand the Constitution,” posts? How could there possibly be a debate here?
Monotheism is a religious belief. More importantly, it is a denial of any alternative religious belief. Demanding that elected officials declare theit monotheistic beliefs is patently a religious test and it’s ridiculous to try to argue otherwise. There is nothing in the Constitution about a supreme being. As has been pointed out to you, the DoI is irrelevant. This state was not founded on the DoI but on the Constitution. Under your theocratic reimagining of the Establishment Clause, no Buddhist or Hindu or atheist would be allowed to hold office. Do you really maintain that they wouldn’t be failing a religious test.
Incidentally, you might want to go ahead and read the rest of the First Amendment. No “philosophical” test is permitted either. It’s called freedom of speech.