2016 Election

[Lamplighter]

All of these points of view about Islam, Muslims, Sharia Law,
and how each Dwellar evaluates them is interesting,
but the discussion started with Ben Carson and his statements on Meet the Press,
as a Candidate for the G.O.P. nomination for President of the US.

The point was:
Ben Carson,himself, used a religious test to reject all of Islam
as being inconsistent with the US Constitution.
But the Constitution (6th Amendment) prohibits any religious test
from ever being used as a qualification of a candidate.


If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.

[it]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

used a religious test to reject all of Islam
as being inconsistent with the US Constitution.
But the Constitution (6th Amendment) prohibits any religious test
from ever being used as a qualification of a candidate.


If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.

So I'll ask again: Do you seriously think that the correct interpretation of the constitutional amendment's idea of a "test" within the context of the amendment includes the voter's choice of who to vote for as such as test?

As Carson himself misses, whether it is "muslim" or "test", context is kind of important in understanding the meaning of things...

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by traceur

So I'll ask again: Do you seriously think that the correct interpretation
of the constitutional amendment's idea of a "test" within the context of
the amendment includes the voter's choice of who to vote for as such as test? ...

No.

My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:
No Muslim can be President of the US because Islam is inconsistent with the US Constitution.

[it]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

No.

My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:
No Muslim can be President of the US because Islam is inconsistent with the US Constitution.

Again, context. He is essentially saying no Muslim can be a good president because he thinks Islam is inconsistent with the US constitution, thus, he does not think Americans should vote for a Muslim president. The "test" is in the voting booth.

Contrast with the requirement for the royalty to belong to The Church of England in the very same rule they just gained independence from - which is the most likely context at the time, or for that matter with the Imam's self-given right to test the faith and filter presidential candidates in Iran prior to being allowed to run, if you want a more recent example.

[Lamplighter]

He is essentially saying ...

Not "essentially". That becomes your interpretation.
Read his actual words, above.

Contrast with the requirement for the royalty to belong to the church of England ...

The US is not England, so any such a contrast is a misdirection.

[it]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Not "essentially". That becomes your interpretation.
Read his actual words, above.



The US is not England, so any such a contrast is a misdirection.

....It's not England, but it was Britain, and for the writers of the constitution, very recently. This was the historical context the amendment was written in.

Given as they just recently deposed a monarchy that had an official religious test, it is far more likely they meant it in the context, rather then an abstract post-modern meaning of being judged for their religion, which is in itself a meaning the concept of judgment wouldn't even start to form until 2 centuries after, which would have being an amazing but very unlikely prediction of social evolution for any of them to have made.


You are somehow under the impression that the later interpretation is free of personal interpretation and the clear cut meaning, when it is completely built in a verbal context that would have being impossible at the time. If you hear someone from the 17th century say the word "ship", they probably didn't mean a spaceship (Also you may want to check if ghostbusters do ear exams).

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:

Yeah, but who the hell is Carson? He's just some guy. His personal test means nothing.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yeah, but who the hell is Carson? He's just some guy. His personal test means nothing.

No, he is a formal candidate of the G.O.P. as their nomination for President of the US.
As GOP Nominee for President, his "personal test" could be meaningful. (e.g., in selection of Vice President)

Otherwise, I would agree --- just as I agree or disagree with Dwellars above saying how they interpret Islam.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... Wanting the ballot to be open to all, but not wanting certain people elected, is not hypocrisy, it's democracy. ...

Exactly.
But that is not what Carson said. Pls read his actual words.

Closing the Presidential ballot to all Muslims because
"Islam is not consistent with the US Constitution" is,
in itself, not consistent with the 6th Amendment.

Therefore, a voting for a candidate because he/she makes such a proposal is hypocritical.

The US went through this before with the Catholic religion and JF Kennedy.
We put it behind us.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.

Such is the definition of bullshit! You're telling me if I vote for, or against, someone because I disagree with, or fear, their religious tenets, that makes me a hypocrite? Get the fuck out of here, it's called democracy, it's called freedom, don't force me to call sexobon to give you a ten minute speech on the men and women who have given all, to protect my right to use any fucking basis I want in making selection.

Let's see... no, he's half Jew... no, heard he's a faggot... Woman, oh please... not you negro.
Appalling? Yes. Disgusting? Yes. Illegal? No. Hypocritical? Nope, not at all, because the constitutional point of law that nobody can be barred from running, has absolutely no bearing on how or why individuals vote. Wanting the ballot to be open to all, but not wanting certain people elected, is not hypocrisy, it's democracy.
Do you suggest I submit my choices along with my reasons for them, to the ballot approval board, Senator McCarthy?

[henry quirk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

[Lamplighter]

Thank you, Henry !
Maybe for the first time we agree with one another !

[henry quirk]

....it's not about religion, but only about employees doin’ the work they were hired to do.

Again...

Employers (of presidents, clerks of court, stewardesses, etc.):

Don't hire X if X can't do the job.

Fire X if X refuses to do the job.

Offer no accommodations that relieve X of work at the expense of other employees.


Potential and actual employees (wanna be presidents, clerks of court, stewardesses, etc.):

Don't apply for work you can't do.

Quit if the work becomes unacceptable.

Don't expect accommodations that relieve you of doing your job.

[henry quirk]

HA!

[henry quirk]

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

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.[a]

This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution, indicating that the requirement of such a statement does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine. The option of giving an "affirmation" (rather than an "oath") can be interpreted as not requiring any religious belief or as a nod to Mennonites and Quakers who would not swear oaths but would make affirmations. This does not apply to voters, who are free to apply a religious test or any other test of their devising to their consciences before casting their secret ballot for a candidate for federal office; it only means that the federal government may not refuse to swear-in and seat an elected official based on a religious test of their devising.