...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...
--from Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America
During this election cycle, I've heard and seen some people invoke Article VI of the Constitution, as if by doing so they are striking down people like myself with a fatal condemnation. But I would propose that Article VI is just one more reason why we need to elect a Christian President.
What do I mean by that? Well, it's quite simple, really. If we do not elect a Christian President, the Constitution is not going to fix our error. The law will not save us from our mistake. If we choose a non-Christian, we will get our just desserts. The Constitution is designed so that no candidate will be prevented, by a precept of law (literally a "Test"), from attaining political office, presumably after he or she has already been elected by the people. The only test to be given is by the people, when they cast their ballots.
The reality is, the Constitution doesn't begin to decree to the citizenry on what bases we are permitted to embrace or shun a candidate. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment for it to do so. If my faith tells me to cast my vote a certain way, I am allowed to act accordingly.
Consider what the naysayers, claiming constitutional superiority, really are implying when they proclaim that we can't "discriminate" against Romney because of his Mormonism. They are, in effect, saying, "You can vote against Romney because you dislike his ideology, record, wealth, speaking style, hair, fashion, campaign theme song, or the weird feeling you get when you see him, but you can't vote against him because of his religion." That's nonsense! Religion is the foundation upon which all else is built! If nothing else, one's religion installs oneself as god, or the State as god.
In all legality, I could vote against Barack Obama (which I will) merely because of the color of his skin (which, fortunately, happens to not be one of my reasons). That rationale would be despicable, deplorable, disgusting, diabolical, and just about any other negative adjective starting with "d," but that does not make it unlawful. Anyone can freely attempt to take that same tact about the rationality of considering faith in selecting a candidate to support, but no one can honestly make the argument that it is a case of constitutionality.
Alasan Bermain Judi Kasino Online
-
Perekonomian agen bola terpercaya dunia tidak berjalan dengan baik. Biaya
hidup semakin tinggi setiap harinya. Oleh karena itu, setiap individu[...]
7 years ago
4 comments:
Speaking of article VI, not sure if you have heard about the independent film coming out in the next week or so titled: “Article VI: Faith. Politics. America,” but I thought it would make for a great post. The film was directed by Bryan Hall and Jack Donaldson. It is an intense discussion of the role of faith in politics. The title is taken from Article Six of the United States Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
If you haven’t seen the trailer I suggest you check it out:
http://www.articlevithemovie.com/
Pretty powerful.
Let me know what you think!
I have heard of it. In fact, it was one of the things (or "people," if you will) I was implicitly referencing.
I have visited the site, but I haven't seen the trailer, mainly because my computer, alas, is slow as molasses when it comes to such things.
I very much dislike the premise of the movie, though, from reading the "about" page.
First of all, John F. Kennedy's statement, "an act against one religion is an act against all," is completely illogical. Is our act of war against radical Islam an act of war against all Islam? No. And it certainly is not a war against Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, agnosticism, Deism, ad nauseam.
They also display this Kennedy statement on the site: "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic."
Technically, that statement is true, and it has some sense to it. But the "happens also to be a Catholic" part of the quote is marginalistic. Kennedy was minimizing the importance of his faith, compartmentalizing it.
Then, the site declares that no one should vote until they see this documentary. "Don't vote until you see it." Well, it claims that it is "unbiased." But what are they trying to get across to the public? When I see phrases such as "religious bigotry" and "intolerance in America" prominently displayed on the "about page," I sense a slant. Then, there is the heavily slanted question, "Would you have denied America some of its greatest Presidents because of their religious beliefs?" Yet, it doesn't appear to ask the question, "May the importance which Americans have historically put on faith and Christian principles have saved us from some terrible Presidents?" Maybe it does ask that question within the course of the documentary. But it's apparently not a central inquiry.
Furthermore, you can see from this post that Article VI of the Constitution has nothing to do with citizens' personal valuations of presidential candidates. So, I can't help but wonder what the makers' of this film grasp of the constitutional concepts is.
Hopefully you have the opportunity to see it soon. I recently attended a screening, and the entire film was incredibly thought provoking. If you can attend one of the screenings I highly recommend it. The DVD is also on sale online. If you ever see the film in its entirety, I would love to hear your thoughts!
If I see it, I'm sure I'll have plenty to say about it.
Although you have not been responsive to my post or comment, I thank you for your civility.
Post a Comment