Dude, a test about religious beliefs that excludes certain religions is a religious test. Calling it a “philosophical test” instead does not alter that. You can call it a fried egg or a feather duster if you like, but it’s clearly an exclusionary test based upon religious belief, which the US Constitution DOES NOT ALLOW.
Yes, and those laws determine how the government is to operate in its specific functions. You cannot override those laws by appeals to some fuzzy philosophical “context” surrounding those laws.
Why are you scrambling for vague, speculative interpretations about what “maybe they would have wanted” instead of just abiding by what they actually explicitly said they wanted?
They said they didn’t want any religious test applied to office-holders. You cannot come up with any form of your “philosophical” monotheism test that doesn’t effectively function as a religious test, by excluding some religious views. Therefore, game over, dude. Your proposed exclusion of officeholders who do not profess monotheism is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Ask magellan01. AFAICT he’s the only one who isn’t getting it.
As a Theological Darwinist, I support monotheism. The Eternal Ecology cannot sustain more than one omnipotent and omniscient Being, the processes of Supernatural Selection are absolute. There can be only One.
magellan, I’m confused as to what you see as the difference between a philosophy and a religion. It sounds like one could simply declare that their religion is really a “philosophy” and try to sneak around the 1st ammendment. How is monotheism a philosophy and Christianity a religion? Both are proposing metaphysical systems by which the universe is supposed to function. Aside from having a great deal more specific detail, I don’t really see a significant difference between Christianity and simple monotheism, at least as far as the first ammendment is concerned.
Laws requiring a voter to be able to read (unless their grandfather was eligible to vote) are not discriminatory against any race of people. Unfortunately, the result of this is that large numbers of persons of certain ethnic groups may, in fact, be excluded from voting.
Is it me, or does he manage to say that other people have either not used a Bible or used something other than the Bible in same column that he asserts that Ellison will be the first ever since George Washington to do so? Can you get more ridiculous than that?
Bonus points for the gall to claim that the fact that the ceremony has no legal or official significance somehow makes his views better off!
Oh, and I like how Jews who use the Torah have been downgraded from “undermining civilization” to people he disagrees with. Muslims, however, are still civilization underminers.
I seriously don’t understand how he can claim that he is a practicing Jew. What sort of Jew insists that the New Testament is necessary for Jews to have good values? That’s running so hard to the evangelical Christian anti-Jewish ideology that it’s not even funny.
You know, this is amazing. Back during the Cold War, the United States was locked in a “long, twilight struggle” against the Communists, who were of course a bunch of atheists. Many people (including honorable members of Congress) incapable of grasping the simple point of logic that “All Communists are atheists” does not necessarily mean that “all atheists are Communists”, made various statements and enacted various measures (“one nation, under God”) designed to relegate atheists to second-class citizenship.
Now, however, Communism is pretty much dead. Today we are engaged in a “long, twilight struggle” against the forces of World…Monotheism. They don’t make them any more fucking monotheistic than Wahhabite Sunni Muslims. And some people’s political-ideological solution to this? “Let’s tell the atheists that they’re second-class citizens who don’t deserve equal political rights!” Given that we’re locked in a life-and-death struggle against the insidious forces of World Monotheism, as exemplified by Osama bin Laden, why isn’t anyone proposing a “philosophical” test foribidding monotheists from holding public office (which would, according to the Constitutional scholar magellan01, be pefectly kosher, if you’ll pardon the expression)?
Of course, pacemagellan01, it wouldn’t be remotely Constitutional to do this, because making tests for political office regarding one’s beliefs in or about the Deity is pretty much the definition of a “religious test”. He seems to be under the same belief as many on the religious right, which is that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of brave, noble, patriotic, sober, and right-thinking men who weren’t, however, all that bright. “Oh, yes, they meant to establish the United States as a Christian” (or “monotheist”) “Nation, but they just forgot to say so”. The drafters of the Constitution could just as easily have written “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, but all officers thereof must profess a belief in a Supreme Being” or words to that effect, but gosh darn it, they just forgot! I bet James Madison was kicking himself for the rest of his life over that one!
Thanks, Ponder Stibbons. Yeah. The positive qualification in the middle of the negatives threw me (and the fact that I passed over the commas in the quals). Too bad those dudes couldn’t’ve written in 21st Century American English!
Man oh man, Prager must be thrilled about this publicity. I feel somewhat guilty for feeding the troll, but I had to note some of his idiotic remarks from Apos’ link:
In other words, Prager is trying to bring the ceremonial swearing-in of office-holders under the umbrella of ceremonial deism. “Everybody oughta take oaths on the Bible no matter what religion they are, because it’s American and it’s traditional and ennyway it don’t really imply anything religious.”
How trivializing and condescending can you get? Is Prager really willing to water down an oath sworn on a religious text into a mere meaningless ceremony, just so he can insist that only one religious text is acceptable for the purpose? How is that supposed to be showing respect for the Bible or its “Judeo-Christian values”?
Bull-fucking-shit. Yes, many American values were to a large extent “molded by the Bible”, but religious neutrality sure as hell isn’t among them. The Bible does not advocate religious neutrality or secular government. We as Americans get those values not from Judeo-Christian religion, but from Enlightenment-era humanism.
If this was all we had of their thinking this would be a plausible stretch, but other writings of the founders do make it quite clear that theyare referring to the same person. Grand archirtect, Supreme Being and other similar phrases are used often.
This has been discussed in previous threads at length. One side points to it being a simple convention. The other says, if they were explicitly attempting to be secular, that would have been an easy obvious thing to change.
This last part is correct. There is, after all, the Establishment Clause. But one line of thinkiing is that this simply prevented just what it says: an official national religion, like England. Additionally, the Constitution may have not been ratified if the individual states thought that a religion would be imposed on them.
Because you say so again? Have you not bothered to read what I wrote? Yes, The Constitution is the law of the land. The foundation for The Constitution is the D of I. Of course, it is trumped by the Constitution as far as what is legal, but to say that it is irrelevant is absurd. You are aware that it explained both the practical and philosophical reasons for the break with England. That’s hardly irrelevant.
If it were religious it would be disallowed. I do, and have, acknowledged the conundrum. But that is what history has given us. Do you know for a fact that the founders, Jefferson and Washington even, would have advocated that a President of the U.S. could disagree with the philosophical underpinnings of the country’s founding (the D of I)? That this person could *not *hold the “truths” enumerated in therein to be inalienable yet still lead the country. No, I don’t think you know that for a fact.
That has nothing to do with an oath. Some are flexible, some aren’t. You have the freedomn to take an oath or not. You can’t just make up your own words when you take an oath to serve in the military or become a citizen or for some particular offices. Now these oaths, may offer religious leeway, but that is not a free speech issue.
Okay. they said “congress shall make no law respecting an establidhment of religion, or prohibitiing the free exercise thereof;”. So we can do anything and everything that falls short of that, right? That’s what your stuck with if you insist on a hyper-literal interpretation.
Based on the current interpretation, yes, it is the law of the land. Can you not expand you thinking enough to even entertain an alternative interpretation.
So, what, precisely, am I not getting? I fully understand your arguement. I’ve stated as much. I also understand that another interpretation is possible. So it seems like you might be the one “not getting” something.
Your’s requires some pretty fancy tap dancing. For instance, your insistance that the DoI is the “founding document”, when it is simpler to regard it as a fuck-you note to George III. As is the widest accepted interpretation.
Further, it was the custom of the age to solemnify political processes with such verbal curlicues and orotund flourishes, references to the Deity lend a certain gravity. But they are no more a witnessing, no more a statement of belief, than a coin inscribed with “In God We Trust” is a metal communion wafer.
elucidator, wait until he starts telling us that the use of “Year of Our Lord” proves the nation’s obviously founded as a Christian nation. But what’s that mean when some of our official documents issued in Japan are dated with the local system? Hmmm…I guess somewhere along the way, the US turned Shinto; officially, that is.
Wait a minute–on this issue what “the founders”, or rather the drafters of the U.S. Constitution, are perfectly straightforward:
It’s your bullshit interpretation that somehow this can be tortured into “it’s OK to exclude atheists and polytheists from public office”. Yes, Thomas Jefferson professed a belief in God, which was reflected in the arguments about human liberty he made in the Declaration of Independence. This does not mean he wanted his religious beliefs or anyone else’s to be used as some kind of un-constitutional catechism for anyone seeking office. If you think otherwise, you fucking prove it.
The Constitution is very clear on what, “philosophically”, the President of the United States must do: he or she must solemnly promise to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Whatever his or her religious or philosophical beliefs, that is what is required; if the President fails in this duty, he gets impeached, tried, and removed from office.
Again–If the drafters of the Constitution wanted to ensure that only monotheists could hold office, why didn’t they simply say so?
And neither of those terms indicate a solitary god, either. Supreme would merely indicate the “chief” god.
Ah. Well, I have no wish to start a hijack larger than this one, so i’ll not continue with that.
If that was a subtle dig, you wound me.
I’m confused, though; your reading and mine seem to differ quite considerably. Could you tell me what you personally see in the Establishment Clause? My own view of it i’d class as being “just what it says” - Congress may make no law that accepts or allows religion into the law (tempered with the inability to stop people worshipping or not worshipping what they like). I don’t see how you can get “official national religion” out of that; Congress could pass law saying “oh, and Christianity is the one true religion” without it being enshrined as the official religion of the U.S., but still being unconstitutional.
It’s a pleasure to share a message board with people who can tell the time. But clarity and facts will not persuade those whose beliefs and good opinion of themselves depend upon muddled thinking and clinging to what just plain ain’t so.
The founding fathers (someone’s got to come with a definitive list of them one day, the roster changes with each special pleading that the Constitution doesn’t say what it says), like anybody else, believed lots of stuff: that there were 17 total planets and moons in the solar system, that slavery was mostly okay, that the popular vote wasnot a good way to elect U.S. senators, that snuff is good for you. Some of these beliefs influenced their actions creating the nation, more of it (consciously or not) influenced the language they used to express their thoughts, and the rest of them are fodder for idiots who think that the contents of Button Gwinnett’s wastebasket should be weighed equally with the federalist papers or even the Constitution if they align with the idiot’s personal beliefs.
Any group of people who establish a Constitution and codify within it the means of changing not only the country’s leaders but the Constitution itself are expressing, more than anything else, a humble modesty about their personal philosophies and ideosyncracies (and their utility in determining a distant future) that those who would cynically attach any founder’s name and reputation to their own personal prejudices will never have the sense or good taste to emulate. Pity.
magellan01, in my six and a half years here I have never read any thread in which someone was as stupidly, repeatedly, and obstinately WRONG as you are being in this thread. There is absolutely no wiggle room in that part of the Constitution. No vagueness. No cause for it to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Nada, zip, zilch.
There can be no religious test and, contrary to what you claim, ANY philosophically-based belief in one or more supreme being IS RELIGIOUS!
Thank you for the question. Let’s start with a basic question, maybe the basic question: “How did we come to be here?”
I think you’d agree that this is a philosophical question. And the answers, at least in the initial stages, will be philosophical answers. Basically, they will fall into two camps. Either the universe is eternal or the universe had a beginning. Expanding on the latter possibility, as that is where the founder’s beliefs will eventually reside, the thinking progresses:
If the universe had a beginning, it was begun by something
That something may be A) one thing or B) more than one thing
So, we’re still in philosophical territory. Either answer is a philosophical answer. Now we can explore the options in #2 further while still remaining in the philosophical realm.
A: What is the one thing that created everything else? Here are a few options:
a big explosion or
a giant whale or
the sun or
the earth or
the moon or
water or
fire or
wind or
a supreme entity up in the sky
B: What are these things that created everything else? (Choose a minimum of two.)
a big explosion and/or
a giant whale and/or
the sun and/or
the earth and/or
the moon and/or
water and/or
fire and/or
wind and/or
a supreme entity up in the sky
So we are still in the philosophic realm. Let’s now focus on option A, as that is from where monotheism will eventually emerge. One possible answer, a big explosion, is a purely “natural one” (we’ll ignore the question of what caused the explosion). The other options attempt to imbue the concept of will (to create) to non-human entities. This step makes the philosophical leap that “things”—orbs, elements, unseen entities, etc—have the ability to act. Now, keep in mind that there is no hint, yet, of anything resembling religion. A person may hold the position that everything was created by the sun or the unseen supreme entity and never give the issue another thought.
He may even go so far as to conclude that the sun or a supreme entity created everything, but that man is not the reason for the creation. Man may merely be the detritus of some unknown plan in another realm of the universe, human grains of sand. If he stops there, there is still no religion. Now part of the confusion comes from language. We tend to refer to notions of things imbued with the power to create worlds and control events as “gods”. It is an unfortunate word, as it connotes some"thing" that wants us to do something. Something that cares about our actions. But that needn’t be the case. It is a possibility that 1) we were created through an intentional act by 2) something capable of creation and 3) the “thing” desires no relationship with us whatsoever.
So, at this point it is possible to have a mono-“thing” view and still have no religion.
Next, this “thing” must be pretty awesome, so I’m going to think about it some more. One might be of the opinion that this “thing” creating me is like my mother or father creating me. Then through by the fault of language and the act of anthropomorphification one crafts a relationship of sorts with this “thing”. The question arises, what (if anything) is expected of me in this relationship. Given that the “thing” has so much more power than me and created everything and (probably)controls everything, let me try to see what would please this “thing”. Becuase if it is pleased with my actions, it might orchestrate events around me in a more benevolent and loving manner.
Now we have moved into the realm of religion.
I hold that a belief moves from the philosohical to the religious when, in broad strokes, a person 1) believes that there is something greater than himself with the ability to control events and 2) that person believes that his actions can effect the higher power. Even the simple act of prayiing would qualify.
So, now to the supreme entity referred to in the D of I. The monotheistic view seen there (reservations by Revenant Threshold aside for now) simply opines that 1) there is a supreme entity, 2) it created us 3) through that creation it instilled in us certain rights, 4) as these rights were instilled in us by our creator, they are inalienable, and 5) it is the supreme judge.
I’d say the only one of these that moves away from a philosophic position and begins to encroach into religous territory is the last one; if it is going to judge us, doesn’t that require me to modify my behavior? I say it does not require that step. It may tempt one into moving in that direction in that it supposedly gives one a means to control events around him, but it is not a necessary step to take. A person could easily conclude that this entity is so awesome that I cannot begin to understand what it wants, and to think that I can effect him by my thoughts or actions is a study in hubris and egocentrism.
Ironically, this person would have much in common with a weak atheist. The difference being that he believes there is an extra-natural higher power and that this power created him with rights attached—that he cannot be seperated from.
