Should "no religious test" clause be repealed?

No. Absolutely, intensively not.

We are not a theocracy.

 

Should not be repealed.

 

Hello Roger,

I would say no, it shouldn't be changed, however that wouldnt stop me from voting or not voting for someone because of their religion.

For example, I can not see myself voting for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. That doesn't mean he isn't qualified as far as our laws goes, it just means he isn't qualified in my opinion for my vote.

So, no, don't change the law, however we have to respect people's opinions and if they don't vote for someone because of their religion, they have that right.

Of course, they shouldn't be ashamed to admit that is the reason they are not voting for that person either. I have mentioned the reason I can't vote for Mitt to Ken, a great supporter, I didn't hide behind another reason.

Jamie

 

No, it should not be repealed.

Should Ellison's words be taken at face value, when he says "spread Islam", or should we just assume he intends to follow the constitution? If a christian ploitician was talking of "christian activism", would people support him ? Would you, Roger ?

Speaking in Dearborn late Sunday night, the first Muslim elected to Congress told a cheering crowd of Muslims they should remain steadfast in their faith and push for justice.

"You can't back down, you can't chicken out, you can't be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.

"Allahu akbar" — God is great — was the reply of many in the crowd.

Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat elected to the U.S. House, has been the center of a national debate in recent weeks over Islam and its role in politics. Ellison has said he would take his oath of office on the Quran, the Muslim holy book, igniting a storm of criticism from some commentators. And U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, a Republican from Virginia, said in a letter to constituents this month that the election of Ellison and other Muslims poses a danger to the country.

But Ellison said in Dearborn that Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection, suggesting that Muslim activists may be part of God's plan. He spoke at the annual convention of two Muslim groups, the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America. The convention ended Monday morning.

"Muslims, you're up to bat right now..." he said. "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better? How do you know that Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala,” (meaning praised and exalted is he) “did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?… How do you know that you're not here to teach this country?"


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061225/NEWS99/61225002

 

My answer is a very simple...

No

 

It should not be repealed. However, we should not be allowing unrestrained immigration of non-Christians (primarily Catholic) nor should Christians be voting for heathens to take office. Giving away our inheritance for a bit of pottidge is not going to endear us to God and it will not maintain the blessings this nation received under Christian leadership. We get the gov't we deserve and if we keep voting for heathens or faux Christians like Bush and Obama then we're going to have a heathen gov't. History and current events suggests that Christians don't often bode well under heathen leadership.

 

Great answers, all of them.:type:

 

The framers of the Constitution never envisioned that religious/political enemies (muslims) would have infiltrated our country so much that they would ever even be elected, let alone appointed to office. Had they been able to see into the future, that clause probably would have never been included in the Constitution. The reason it was included was because of the Church of England.

I agree with the comments Rufus made.

 

I would not welcome a constitutional change.

However, LE, by your agreeing with Rufus, are you actually equating Catholics with Muslims?

 

No, sorry for not clarifying.

Sorry you think it's a whim. If you want a Muslim president and Muslim elected officials and appointees, you may just get your wish before long. Think about that and the possible ramifications towards the freedoms American seem to cherish. A Muslim President deciding to declare martial law and a military which is required to obey the CIC (as has been stated in other threads) and you will end up with Christian persecution and murder in America just as has happened in nearly all of the nations of the world where islamic leaders have taken over. They are using our Constitutional freedoms against us and there are too many (even on this board) who are gullible enough to believe it is the peaceful religion the propagandists want all of the sheople to believe it is. They have won your hearts and minds. They know they are not strong enough to invade us by force, so they are invading peacefully with the ultimate goal in mind - to make the United States of America an Islamic state. This is the third caliphate.

 

By disagreeing are you suggesting Catholics are Christian?

 

If I may step in, yes, Catholics are Christians. Only the most uninformed Fundamentalist would claim otherwise.

 

Catholicism is considered a Christian religion.

 

I'll be glad to, but when people spout inanities which unfairly typify other believers, it needs to be quickly addressed.

 

And I must whole heartedly agree.