smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (07/27/84)
I heard a good one on the radio this morning. It seems that after a legal battle lasting seven years, the state of Texas has finally agreed that a provision in their state consitution violates the First Amendment. Said provision barred from public office anyone who did not profess belief in a supreme being. In light of the First Amendment, is there anyone on the net who'd care to claim that this provision is indeed constitutional? In light of a Supreme Court ruling in 1971 striking down a similar clause in Maryland, would anyone care to defend Texas' decision to fight this for seven years? Finally, would anyone care to defend the concept of such a clause, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with American law? (This one is much easier; Thomas More himself advocated such policies in his "Utopia".) --Steve Bellovin
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/01/84)
>The requirement to profess belief in a Supreme Being could indeed be >Constitutional, iff the manner in which this expression is made is left to the >individual. This would not grant recognition to or constitute establishment of >a religion... Could someone please explain how "belief in a Supreme Being" is not a religious issue? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Keep your day job 'til your night job pays.
geb@cadre.UUCP (08/01/84)
Doesn't the constitution say "congress" shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion? Since the Texas legislature isn't congress, that would seem to leave it open for them to establish a religion. I'm sure the supreme court wouldn't allow it, though.
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/02/84)
>The Bill of Rights stipulates that no one's rights shall be >abridged on account of uncontrollable characteristics or for >choosing to accept or to reject the tenets of some religion. >But nowhere is the privilege of holding public office >identified as a ``right''. Nor are the following identified, per se, as "rights" in the Bill of Rights: being allowed to have a job owning/operating a car being allowed to buy food ... I think I get the point of the parent article, and I don't think I like it very much. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Keep your day job 'til your night job pays.
ix21@sdccs6.UUCP (08/02/84)
Several articles have been debating whether a religious test for holding a public office is consitutional. Many people have stated that such a test violates the 1st admendent. That has nothing to do with the debate. Article six of the consitution specifically states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of the United States or any of its compoment states. What can be more clearer?
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (08/02/84)
The Constitution does not allow congress to make a law to establish a religious enterprise/endeavor. When originally drafted and made law this prohibition only applied to the federal congress. With the passing of the 14th Amendment, this guarantee or protection is passed on to the citizens of the U.S. and is applied against the states. Mark Reina
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/02/84)
From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP Message-ID: <2927@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Tue, 31-Jul-84 21:13:30 EDT The Bill of Rights stipulates that no one's rights shall be abridged on account of uncontrollable characteristics or for choosing to accept or to reject the tenets of some religion. But nowhere is the privilege of holding public office identified as a ``right''. Well, the 14th Amendment guarantees to all citizens uniform "privileges and immunities", and "equal protection of the laws". Given the context of the times, I'd say it was most certainly intended to include the right to hold office. Article VI of the Constitution itself explicitly bars any religious test as a requirement for holding office (my thanks to Joe Presley for pointing this out); though it isn't clear to me whether the language applies to the states, it's certainly within the general class of restrictions that have been extended to the states by the Supreme Court under the banner of the 14th Amendment.
djw@imsvax.UUCP (08/02/84)
From: hawk@oliven.UUCP: * * * * * * * * * * The requirement to profess belief in a Supreme Being could indeed be Constitutional, iff the manner in which this expression is made is left to the individual. This would not grant recognition to or constitute establishment of a religion. * * * * * * * * * * True, no religion is being established by this, nor is the individual required to attend a particular church, or churches of a particular sect. But it de- pends on how you define "religion": If religion is the philosophy of the indi- vidual regarding the formation, purpose, and organizational entity of the uni- verse, and the resulting preferred set of actions and attutudes to attend this philosophy, then a belief that there is no supreme being (atheism), or even a belief that there can be no certainty (agnosticism), can be considered a re- ligion. Now, if it is a requirement that a person believe in a Supreme Being (or Beings), such as God, Vishnu, Satan, or whatever, regardless of which one, then the individual is disallowed to not believe in their existence -- in other words, [s]he is prevented from pursuing the religions of atheism or agnosticism. Is this not an impairment of religious freedom? PLEASE, no flames about "supporting" atheism or agnosticism. After all, those of you who are out to evangelize must realize that imposing a god on someone is a very good way to get that person to hate said god, which should be con- sidered somewhat counterproductive... Don Whytock ...allegra!umcp-cs!eneevax!imsvax!djw
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/02/84)
The First Amendment indeed only pertained to Congress. However, the
post-Civil War amendments (13,14,15) extended these restrictions to
the states.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/02/84)
Maybe Texans just think the supreme being is the Governor. -Ron
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/02/84)
If you go by the INTENT of the framers of the document, rather than the current interpretation of the wording, I doubt that you could ascribe 1st Amendment protections to non-Christian belief systems. We have an attitude of toleration and acceptance which classes Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc., as "religions" of equal legal status with the various Christian denominations. To the "Founding Fathers", any non-Christian belief system was simply "heathenism" or pagan; these beliefs would not be accorded the status of a "real" "religion", which would only be defined as one of the Christian sects or denominations. We have, of course, since then expanded the interpretation of the wording to include all we now define as "religion". (This is still culturally determined, though -- if you claim religious beliefs mandate that you smoke pot, sacrifice virgins, engage in polygamy, or otherwise act contrary to social conventions, your claims of "religious" justification often get scant shrift.) Will
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/05/84)
I should mention that the phrase "establishment of religion" (in the First Amendment) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court -- apparently without dissent -- to mean the act of establishing any religion. It does not refer to a particular religious establishment. (Source: assorted Supreme Court opinions on church-state matters.) Viewed in this light, the Texas law clearly fails to pass muster.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/06/84)
I do not know if they considered Zoroastrianism, but at least some of
the founding fathers did have the INTENT to protect certain
non-Christian belief systems, particurally Judaism. To assert that the
founding fathers, as a group, wished to guard only Christian belief
systems is erroneous.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!daviddubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/07/84)
> [David Whiteman] > Several articles have been debating whether a religious test for > holding a public office is consitutional. Many people have stated > that such a test violates the 1st admendent. That has nothing to do > with the debate. Article six of the consitution specifically states > that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to > any office of the United States or any of its compoment states. > What can be more clearer? Yes, it should be clear, but seems not to be. For instance, the National Organization for Women tried to have a judge removed because they disagreed with his position on abortion, on the grounds that he was a Mormon and, hence, of course he was "biased" (meaning, he failed to be persuaded of the correctness of NOW's doctrine). It is significant that they tried to enforce a religious test upon the judge. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (08/08/84)
>I do not know if they considered Zoroastrianism, but at least some of >the founding fathers did have the INTENT to protect certain >non-Christian belief systems, particurally Judaism. To assert that the >founding fathers, as a group, wished to guard only Christian belief >systems is erroneous. > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david I am not sure David Rubin is correct here. While George Washington seems to have been well disposed toward Jews, I am not sure any of the writers of the constitution ever expressed an intention to protect Judaism. I believe several states did not give Jews voting rights until the early 19th century. Maryland sticks in my mind as the prime offender. Yaqim Martillo An Equal Opportunity Offender
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/10/84)
Martillo is right about the mixed attitude towards freedom of religion among the framers of the Constitution. They were a mixed bag, with opinions all over the spectrum. Jefferson, for example, had said many nasty things about Christianity in his youth, and was an ardent defender of full religious freedom. Most of the other prominent Virginians were with him on that issue. But the New Englanders still had state-paid clerics, which Virginia had abolished quite some time before. And yes, some states did restrict the franchise well into the 19th century -- Maryland and Delaware come to mind, though I'm not certain about that.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/10/84)
I did not say ALL the founding fathers were tolerant of Judaism. What
I said was that SOME (in fact many) were, thus putting to lie the
contention that the founding fathers as a group were concerned with
protecting Christian beliefs only.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidmartillo@mit-athena.UUCP (08/12/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA Message-ID: <244@mit-athena.ARPA> Date: Sun, 12-Aug-84 01:04:59 EDT Date-Received: Sun, 12-Aug-84 13:44:15 EDT d public life: texas Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 7 My point was that while some of the founding fathers were sympathetic to Jews as individuals, there is no evidence that any of the founding fathers were interested in protecting Judaism as a belief system (unless you include Haim Solomon [sefardi 'abal ben `anusim] and in his case we are discussing self-interest). Yaqim Martillo