I think the best response to that is BALONEY.
1 Like
and you think thatās all inclusive? have they ruled a questionaire about your faith prior to employment is not a religious test? no, they have not
You are very misinformed.
This:
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
means federal office holders must not be obligated to join a sect or adhere to a religious doctrine to hold office.
It does not mean, and has never meant, no person may ask a nominee or candidate questions about public declarations of faith. It does not mean criticism of doctrine is prohinited.
Doing the internet version of a mule stomp wonāt make you right, here. Though I do imagine weāre in for a gallop anyway.
1 Like
and the best to that is ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā
Fantastic. Iām 69, being treated for AFib, have an aneurysm of the aortic root, leaking mitral valve, have had a clinical heart attack caused by the AFib and have had two cryro-ablation procedures to correct the electro misfires that caused the heart to go into AFib outer space! Good news: no blockageS LOL!
So should I tell the wife either I stay away from the gym ācause if I catch the āRona thereās a good chance sheās going to be a rich gal?
Or maybe better not bring it up huh? 
they can criticize whatever doctrine they like, they have no right whatsoever to question the nominee about any of it. What you think it means is absolutely ā ā ā ā ā ā ā irrelevant.
You remain in error nonetheless.
1 Like
and your opinion matters just as much now as it did last post.
Weāre arenāt engaged in dueling opinions. You are in error on text, precedent, finding, case law and practice.
This was Delawareās religious test:
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: āI, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.ā
1961, Torcaso v. Watkins made even State Constitution religious tests non-binding.
thatās where youāre wrong. there has been no case before the court on the matter to hold as precedent. I have a broad view of the text, thatās my opinion. your narrow read is your opinion and nothing more. your opinion is not a fact. mine either. until and unless the courts deem questions on faith to not be a religious test, the answer is open to interpretation.
Heh.
and that is not the same. it has no bearing on the question at hand
Bāen, maybe you should do yourself a favor and read up on the Test Acts, you know, to see where the word ātestā comes from and what it means in relation to aā¦āreligious test for officeā.
You remain, yet and still, in complete error.
I hope she doesnāt drink beer 
The Court will never rule on it. If it were even possible for anyone to have standing to bring a case, it would clearly fall under the political question doctrine.
2 Likes
You should ask your Cardiologist about the Watchman device. Sounds like it could really help you.
it would clearly fall under the first amendment and the no religious test clause. there is nothing remotely in the realm of politics involved in questioning a persons faith
