Replies

Religious tests for particular religions yes.... but they acknowledge that there are Universal Truths set by God for our rights are inalienable because of the existence of God.........belief in God was not considered a particular religion by our Founders....it was necessary for the standard of government and our laws....as Cicero stated....Just Law presupposes a Creator whose universal truth can be discovered by Natural Law......

Some of our Founders were Deists but most were devout Christians—maybe one an Atheist who believed in Universal Truth (absolutes established by the Bible). Postmodernism (Marxism, Progressivism) is incompatible with our Constitution because it denies Natural Law and God’s Laws which is the basis of our individual rights which are inalienable (given by God).......

Founders and our first legal systems did ban atheists from courts because they had to say the oath to testify and if they were atheists, their oath meant nothing and they couldn’t be trusted. That is not a “religious test” that is a oath to validate the belief in inalienable rights that come from God-—not a particular religion.

Our rights are from God and it is the basis of our government....atheists are incompatible with our system of government because they don’t believe in inalienable rights which are only given by the Creator.

The Founders may have overwhelmingly believed in Universal Truths set by God, but the Constitution does not require that government officials hold such a belief, and the text of the No Religious Test clause would in fact prohibit the government from requiring government officials to hold such a belief. Moreover, aside from merely prohibiting religious tests, the Constitution specifically states that government officials must agree to support the Constitution by Oath or Affirmation. An Affirmation (which, as it happens, is often used today by atheists who testify in court) requires no belief in God. If the Founders were intent on requiring a belief in God, why would they allow the use of an Affirmation instead of an Oath.

It may well be a good idea to limit the influence of atheists in government, but a per se prohibition on atheists would clearly violate the plain language of the Constitution.