Should the U. S. Constitution be amended to remove the “no religious test” clause from Article VI? Here it is:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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.
I guess it depends, would the test be multiple-choice or essay? Would it require knowledge of obscure religious groups or doctrines? I would be content if person could pass a test specific to his or her identified religion equivalent to what might be practiced in a coming-of-age confirmation.
(I know this isn’t what Dave mean)
Agree with PD. We need some sort of religious test to show that people really belong to the religion they claim. There should be a written exam and then there should be a practical exam where people show that they at least try to adhere to their proclaimed faith. Only those who pass get to complain about supposed affronts to their faith.
More on topic, I think, we shouldn’t have religion tests to hold office, but I dont think that should stop anyone from being able to ask questions when it appears that an individuals faith may have influence on their behavior. That is just being PC. For example, if a candidate for judge was a Pastafarian (worship of the Flying Spaghetti monster), it would be OK to ask if he/she favored the banning of alfredo sauce.
Steve
Ronald Reagan purportedly believed the second coming would happen in his lifetime.
Probably felt less urgency to “save the planet” than other leaders, but in retrospect, he did ok.
One of the qualities of language is that using language it is possible to make utterances that have no meaning. If your faith does not influence your behavior, you do not have a faith.
I don’t think that clause applies to the individual votes of Senators, who can oppose a nominee for any reason they want.
It’s a can of worms that should not be opened up. A push towards even more division and tribalism. Senators and voters should vote up or down based upon a person’s past actions or opinions, not their religious beliefs, no matter how much those beliefs may have influenced their actions or opinions.