Sidebar

Politics: God, Guns, and Gullibility: The Dangers of White Christian Nationalism

NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,277
362
Mountainous Northern California
jthomas666 said:
I posted this in another thread, but it applies here as well...

First amendment? WHAT first amendment?
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786397303244263702
Click to expand...
Republicans have repeatedly said at various points that they want a religious test for politicians and public servants, despite the Constitution's prohibition in this regard.

And when they want to implement their version of christianity and not only to the exclusion of nonchristian religions but also other christians who do not hold their backward and immoral beliefs to heart. (e.g: not allowing a mother to protect her life or health and separating families at the border on purpose as a deterrent)

These are people who believe 100% in the antichrist and can't see him when he's staring right back at them.
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: Maudiemae, dtgreg, Bama75&80 and 3 others
92tide

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
61,224
52,990
287
55
East Point, Ga, USA
NationalTitles18 said:
Republicans have repeatedly said at various points that they want a religious test for politicians and public servants, despite the Constitution's prohibition in this regard.

And when they want to implement their version of christianity and not only to the exclusion of nonchristian religions but also other christians who do not hold their backward and immoral beliefs to heart. (e.g: not allowing a mother to protect her life or health and separating families at the border on purpose as a deterrent)

These are people who believe 100% in the antichrist and can't see him when he's staring right back at them.
Click to expand...
this is orders of magnitude more dangerous than president biden being a gaffe machine
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Maudiemae, dtgreg, Bama75&80 and 3 others
Tidewater

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,439
18,421
337
Hooterville, Vir.
NationalTitles18 said:
Republicans have repeatedly said at various points that they want a religious test for politicians and public servants, despite the Constitution's prohibition in this regard.
Click to expand...
I know I shouldn't, but this is such low-hanging fruit.
The Constitution forbids religious tests for federal office, because the Founders could not agree on what that test oath would be at the federal level.
At the state level, religious tests were common at the time of ratification.
Religious Tests and Oaths in State Constitutions, 1776-1784
The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a religious test. ("That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.") The current North Carolina Constitution still has it. Art. VI, Sect. 8 Disqualifications for Office. "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Delaware, 1776
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: “I, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Maryland, 1776
That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.

New Jersey, 1776
No Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature. . . .

Pennsylvania, 1776
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

North Carolina, 1776
That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Georgia, 1777
The representatives shall be . . . of the Protestent religion. . . .

Vermont, 1777
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, ” I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.”

Massachusetts, 1780
Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration: “I . . . do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.”

New Hampshire, 1784
Every member of the house of representatives shall be of the Protestant religion. . . . That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion. . . . The President shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he . . . shall be of the protestant religion.

None of the above is an argument in favor of a religious test today, but let's not pretend that this was invented out of whole cloth in 2016.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonJazz
NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,277
362
Mountainous Northern California
“I want to send our support and our deepest sympathies to the victims and families touched by the terrible school shooting yesterday in Perry, Iowa,” Trump said during a campaign rally.


“It’s just horrible, so surprising to see it here. But have to get over it, we have to move forward,” he added.


www.nbcnews.com

Trump tells supporters 'we have to get over it' after Iowa school shooting

His comments came after nearly 36 hours of silence and a day after his GOP rivals addressed the shooting that took the life of a sixth grade student and injured others.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1802751571786084390

After a school shooting in Iowa that killed a student and a teacher, Donald Trump said we have to “get over it.” Hell no, we don’t have to get over it. We have to stop it.
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: Maudiemae, Go Bama, Huckleberry and 2 others
Tidewater

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,439
18,421
337
Hooterville, Vir.
NationalTitles18 said:
I guess some want to ignore the equal protection clause of the Constitution...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go that far.
The origins of the equal protection clause of the XIV Amendment was that southern states imposed one penalty for a white man breaking the law, and another if broken by a black man. Congress (rightly) found that unacceptable.
Which equal protections did you believe someone was arguing against?
 
NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,277
362
Mountainous Northern California
Tidewater said:
I wouldn't go that far.
The origins of the equal protection clause of the XIV Amendment was that southern states imposed one penalty for a white man breaking the law, and another if broken by a black man. Congress (rightly) found that unacceptable.
Which equal protections did you believe someone was arguing against?
Click to expand...
NationalTitles18 said:
Republicans have repeatedly said at various points that they want a religious test for politicians and public servants, despite the Constitution's prohibition in this regard.
Click to expand...
I know I shouldn't, but this is such low-hanging fruit.
The Constitution forbids religious tests for federal office, because the Founders could not agree on what that test oath would be at the federal level.
At the state level, religious tests were common at the time of ratification.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing Constitution prohibitions at the time of the ratification, but present day.

Since I am not saying anything about what was but what is you seem to be implying that present day the states would be able to get away with a religious test, which if prevailing wisdom and SCOTUS precedent (Torcaso v. Watkins) is carried they would not be able to do today.

So, not so much low hanging fruit for now; but with the present court, who knows?

ETA: Technically, SCOTUS may have ruled it as a 1A issue, but the end result is unchanged.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,439
18,421
337
Hooterville, Vir.
NationalTitles18 said:
I am not arguing Constitution prohibitions at the time of the ratification, but present day.

Since I am not saying anything about what was but what is you seem to be implying that present day the states would be able to get away with a religious test, which if prevailing wisdom and SCOTUS precedent (Torcaso v. Watkins) is carried they would not be able to do today.

So, not so much low hanging fruit for now; but with the present court, who knows?

ETA: Technically, SCOTUS may have ruled it as a 1A issue, but the end result is unchanged.
Click to expand...
Thanks for a thoughtful response. I have two comments.
1. The state constitutions would (and in most cases now do) outlaw religious tests for office holding. North Carolina is the one exception that comes readily to mind. But the federal government stepping beyond its proper sphere to tell a state it cannot have a religious test would violate the provisions of the X Amendment. It is possible that the drafters and ratifiers of the XIV Amendment said that we should ratify this amendment because it will empower the federal government to compel a state to drop a religious qualification for office. I would love to see the evidence of this construction from the period when the XIV Amendment was being debated and ratified.

2. There was a practical reasons for a religious test which came out during (ironically) the debates in the North Carolina ratification convention in 1788. The upshot was that a non-Christian taking the oath of office should not be trusted. A system of rewards and punishments after this life seemed important to people at that time.

James Iredell explained. "According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a 'solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments, according to that form which will bind his conscience most.' It was long held, that no oath could be administered but upon the New Testament, except to a Jew, who was allowed to swear upon the old. According to this notion, none but Jews and Christians could take an oath, and Heathens were altogether excluded. At length, by the operation of principles of toleration, these narrow notions were done away. Men at length considered, that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It is well known that many nations entertain this belief who do not believe either in the Jewish or Christian religion. Indeed there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all. And if none but Christians or Jews could be examined upon oath, many innocent persons might suffer for want of the testimony of others. In regard to the form of an oath, that ought to be governed by the religion of the person taking it. I remember to have read an instance which happened in England, I believe in the time of Charles the second: A man who was a material witness in a cause, refused to swear upon the book, and was admitted to swear with his uplifted hand. The jury had a difficulty in crediting him, but the Chief Justice told them, he had, in his opinion, taken as strong an oath as any of the other witnesses, though had he been to swear himself, he should have kissed the book. A very remarkable instance also happened in England about forty years ago, of a person who was admitted to take on oath according to the rights of his own country, though he was an Heathen. He was an East-Indian, who had a great suit in Chancery, and his answer upon oath to a bill filed against him, was absolutely necessary. Not believing either in the Old or New Testament, he could not be sworn in the accustomed manner, but was sworn according to the form of the Gentoo (ed. "Hindu") religion, which he professed, by touching the foot of a Priest. It appeared, that according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the Judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered, that in administering an oath, it is only necessary to enquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most."
And that is why, I believe, the provision continues in the North Carolina Constitution to this day.
 
NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,277
362
Mountainous Northern California
Tidewater said:
Thanks for a thoughtful response. I have two comments.
1. The state constitutions would (and in most cases now do) outlaw religious tests for office holding. North Carolina is the one exception that comes readily to mind. But the federal government stepping beyond its proper sphere to tell a state it cannot have a religious test would violate the provisions of the X Amendment. It is possible that the drafters and ratifiers of the XIV Amendment said that we should ratify this amendment because it will empower the federal government to compel a state to drop a religious qualification for office. I would love to see the evidence of this construction from the period when the XIV Amendment was being debated and ratified.

2. There was a practical reasons for a religious test which came out during (ironically) the debates in the North Carolina ratification convention in 1788. The upshot was that a non-Christian taking the oath of office should not be trusted. A system of rewards and punishments after this life seemed important to people at that time.

James Iredell explained. "According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a 'solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments, according to that form which will bind his conscience most.' It was long held, that no oath could be administered but upon the New Testament, except to a Jew, who was allowed to swear upon the old. According to this notion, none but Jews and Christians could take an oath, and Heathens were altogether excluded. At length, by the operation of principles of toleration, these narrow notions were done away. Men at length considered, that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It is well known that many nations entertain this belief who do not believe either in the Jewish or Christian religion. Indeed there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all. And if none but Christians or Jews could be examined upon oath, many innocent persons might suffer for want of the testimony of others. In regard to the form of an oath, that ought to be governed by the religion of the person taking it. I remember to have read an instance which happened in England, I believe in the time of Charles the second: A man who was a material witness in a cause, refused to swear upon the book, and was admitted to swear with his uplifted hand. The jury had a difficulty in crediting him, but the Chief Justice told them, he had, in his opinion, taken as strong an oath as any of the other witnesses, though had he been to swear himself, he should have kissed the book. A very remarkable instance also happened in England about forty years ago, of a person who was admitted to take on oath according to the rights of his own country, though he was an Heathen. He was an East-Indian, who had a great suit in Chancery, and his answer upon oath to a bill filed against him, was absolutely necessary. Not believing either in the Old or New Testament, he could not be sworn in the accustomed manner, but was sworn according to the form of the Gentoo (ed. "Hindu") religion, which he professed, by touching the foot of a Priest. It appeared, that according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the Judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered, that in administering an oath, it is only necessary to enquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most."
And that is why, I believe, the provision continues in the North Carolina Constitution to this day.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS since 1961 has disagreed with you and I hope they do not break that track record. There should be no religious test for office in this nation.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Maudiemae, Bama75&80 and gtowntide
NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
32,419
42,277
362
Mountainous Northern California
  • Like
Reactions: Go Bama, Maudiemae and Bama75&80
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
86,320
44,215
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonJazz, 92tide, Maudiemae and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom