[tacticalogic]

Interesting. Would the explicit exclusion of a religious test for holding public office in the Constitution make secularism the foundation of the American Republic?

[Tailgunner Joe]

No, because the entire purpose of the exclusion of religious tests is to protect the free exercise of religion by office holders. The purpose of the rule is religious, not secular. An office holder has the God-given inalienable right to express any religious belief. Secular ACLU zealots have reversed the meaning of the Constitution 180 degrees, by claiming that the office-holder has no right to express any religious beliefs, because they are an agent of the government and to do so would violate the separation of Church and State. Leftist judicial activists have "evolved" the meaning of our "living Constitution" to make it mean the exact opposite of the Founders' original intent.

[Lexinom]

What that would do is undermine the basis for any Constitution or any meaning at all, since in its denial of God it denies the starting point for all truth.

[Alex Murphy]

Interesting. Would the explicit exclusion of a religious test for holding public office in the Constitution make secularism the foundation of the American Republic?

IMO, yes. All covenants declare a Sovereign who authors its "rules", initiates the covenant relationship with other parties, and who enforces the covenant if other parties fail to keep the "rules".

What Sovereign or source of law is declared within the U.S. Constitution, except the document itself?