Moderator: Nicole Marie
cheetah wrote:Definitely agree with you there. Religion is a part of history and a very importnat one given all the politics, wars, etc. it has motivated. It's when the religious view of history is accepted over any other versions that problems occur.
Shapley wrote:Fifty or a hundred years from now it may seem inconceivable to readers of history that men could fly planes into buildings or explode themselves on a bus full of civilians
cheetah wrote:And Barfle, I have to agree. I don't mean to go on a tangent, but aren't the Judaeo-Christian faiths supposed to be founded on the concept of a LOVING god and not one who blows up innocent children on a bus going to school?
Shapley wrote:I do believe that some have misinterpreted the 'freedom of religion' clause to mean 'freedom from religion', and those people are the ones guilty of violating, or advocating the violation of, the Constitutional requirement that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I am speaking on a collective level, not a personal one. Freedom of Religion means that any individual citizen may practice any, or no, faith. However, the Constitutional provision that says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." prohibits any expression of religion by anyone in public office. The Constitutional provision clearly puts a limit on Federal laws passed by Congress, and nothing else.
"Those people" refers to the groups who have cited the religious views of various office holders or potential appointees as a disqualifier. I cite opposition to Chief Justice Roberts based on his religious beliefs, the advocacy of various abortion groups against Catholic judges and office holders, and those who attempt to hold President Bush' religious beliefs against him. This is the type of 'religious test' the Constitution specifically forbids.
I would forward the position that an Islamic Imam running for public office would have his religion called into question, particularly if he were to campaign on a platform of suicide bombs and other terrorist actions.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]