Posted on 04/20/2008 10:47:33 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
"§ 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility. The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom. The history of the parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. They there found the pains and penalties of non-conformity written in no equivocal language, and enforced with a stern and vindictive jealousy. One hardly knows, how to repress the sentiments of strong indignation, in reading the cool vindication of the laws of England on this subject, (now, happily, for the most part abolished by recent enactments,) by Mr. Justice Blackstone, a man, in many respects distinguished for habitual moderation, and a deep sense of justice. "The second species," says he "of non-conformists, are those, who offend through a mistaken or perverse zeal. Such were esteemed by our laws, enacted since the time of the reformation, to be papists, and protestant dissenters; both of which were supposed to be equally schismatics in not communicating with the national church; with this difference, that the papists divided from it upon material, though erroneous, reasons; but many of the dissenters, upon matters of indifference, or, in other words, upon no reason at all. Yet certainly our ancestors were mistaken in their plans of compulsion and intolerance. The sin of schism, as such, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and punishment. If, through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety, through perverseness and acerbity of temper, or, (which is often the case,) through a prospect of secular advantage in herding with a party, men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate has nothing to do with it; unless their tenets and practice are such, as threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound, indeed, to protect the established church; and, if this can be better effected, by admitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emolument, he is certainly at liberty so to do; the disposal of offices being matter of favour and discretion. But, this point being once secured, all persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and colour of the minister's garment, the joining in a known, or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man's private judgment."
§ 1842. And again: "As to papists, what has been said of the protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain, if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects."
While the second point is directed toward "papists", I see no practical difference with regard to Islam and Sharia law. Constitutional protection of freedome of religion extends only so far as the followers of a particular religion are willing to hold the Constitution superior to their own religious strictures with regards to civil law. Once they start holding their own relitiguous beliefs above the Constitution in civil matters, that arrangement is no longer in effect.
You make it sound like an either or . . .
Our FREEDOMS
already have Constitutional limits.
We are not free to casually shout FIRE in a theater . . .
We are not free [unless we’re muzzies and atheists and globalists] to plot any violent overthrow of any other group or the government.
We are not free to go to Congress and stand in the Senate and shout out the felonies of the Klintoons.
We are not free to do a lot of things . . .
Some teachers are even having legal problems keeping their personal Bibles on their desks in their classrooms.
OUR FREEDOMS ALREADY HAVE BOUNDARIES. This just adjusts a very significant boundary. Whether it’s worth the risks or whether not doing so is worth the risk is certainly open to discussion and personal opinion.
Nuther big NO to this slippery slope amendment, but I’d certainly like my gov’t to hand out fewere visas to these folks.
Good thinking.
I agree No Thanks.
This is certainly a double-edged scimitar. Capriciously banning a religion is a *bad* idea - but it would certainly be wise to have have a means of dealing with any so-called "religion" which has the ultimate goal of taking on the role of secular government. No organization with that goal should be able to hide behind the First Amendment.
If we welcome Islam to the extent that Muslims wish us to, eventually there will be no recognized Constitution for us to argue about.
It is very easy for you to pound out those words on your keyboard but if you really feel that way you should turn your words into action.
Therefore, you should now go set fire to a Mosque and do as any respectable terrorist does and Claim Responsibility for Your Actions.
Of course your heroic actions would mean prison time but if you really believe what you say, hard prison time should not hinder you.
However, my guess is that you are not a person of your words and are simply using this platform to talk crap.
Oh I’m well aware of what Islam is. I’ve seen what this blood cult does all over the world. I’ve studied Islam for many years.
The problem is so many Americans haven’t a clue what Islam teaches, they think it’s just another religion simular to Christianity and Judism, and in fact “allah” is the same God.
Allah is NOT the same God, and in fact isn’t even an Arabic word meaning god. “Allah” is the NAME of the Islamic god (ilah), who’s origins are simply a black rock worshipped by the pagan Arabs and Mohammad himself before he began his “I’m a prophet” of Ar-Rahman”(Allah’s name before Moe stole Allah from the pagan Arabs) crusade.
The US Constitution is not a death pact. So according to you, we have to die to prove that we are not anti-Religious. Besides according to the Islamist we already do not have freedom of Religion because in there religion Shira law is there religion and because we do not have it we do not have freedom of Religion.
Also, if you read the words of the Founding Fathers, that freedom of Religion was to cover the various factions of Christianity, so as not to create hostility or put one above the other. Islam does not believe in living together but in being superior. This amendment would ban anything that would destroy the cohesion of the USA.
If we welcome Islam to the extent that Muslims wish us to, eventually there will be no recognized Constitution for us to argue about.
= =
I don’t understand why that fact is so hard to wrap one’s mind and patriotism around!
Willful blindness and wimping out vis a vis Islam is not a good survival strategy.
How do you two feel about Muslim immigration?
or local laws instituting Islamic custom to the degree they can constitutionally? (Dearborn)
I’m against an amendment myself but I am in favor of making it hard for them to institute their customs here and in favor of limiting the immigration only to those we owe.
Islam goes well beyond "speaking against liberty". It advocates murdering you if you refuse to abandon liberty and freedom, and submit to Allah. The very meaning of Islam is "submission". Convert or die is what Islam teaches. It teaches to invade the land of the infidel 9which it's already doing) infest it's education system, it's political systems and destroy them from within, (such as acting like a democrat)
Advance all Islamic causes, and then, when the numbers favor, total violent jihad, widespread slaughter of those who refuse to submit.
You just choose to keep the blinders on.
Islams stated goals are the deconstruction of most western political systems and their replacement by Sharia law.
If I said the American government should be disbanded and replaced by djf law, and I was willing to fight and die to make it happen, then there is one word that describes it:
Treason
The United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a 'religious test' for participation in the body politic.
That one paragraph is enough.
BTW, focusing on Islam ignores other present or future violent, theocratic religions (remember that Shintoism drove Japan in WWII).
This is really not a president. In the 1800’s the American Government banned the Sioux Ghost Dance, because they believed the dance was a calling for uprising and war.
IT DOES NOT, just bible/Christian based ones! read it.
I strongly agree.
Islam is treason.
And a majority in the Senate are also treasonous globalists about as bad or worse than Islam, even.
Just slicker and quieter.
I gotta agree. We have enough trouble with the government being able to make up definitions as it is.
1A does not protect religious violence as it is, so this amendment is unnecessary and foolish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.