Don't you just love Article VI of the Constitution?

[ck4829]

You know, that little part of the Constitution that says that there will be no religious tests to enter office?

Too bad the 'christian' Right keeps forgetting about it.

"(To make a case for a biblical US), Reconstructionists make a claim that denies the existence of Article VI of the Constitution. Most historians agree that Article VI, which states that public officials 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," was a move toward disestablishment of churches as official power brokers and the establishment of the principles of religious pluralism and separation of church and state.

R. J. Rushdoony, in his influential 1963 book, The Nature of the American System, claims that "The Constitution was designed to perpetuate a Christian order," then asks rhetorically: "Why then is there, in the main, an absence of any reference to Christianity in the Constitution?" He argues that the purpose was to protect religion from the federal government and to preserve "states' rights."

Once again, however, such a view requires ignoring Article VI. Before 1787, most of the colonies and early states had required pledges of allegiance to Christianity and that one be a Christian of the correct sect to hold office. Part of the struggle toward democracy at the time was the disestablishment of the state churches--the power structures of the local colonial theocracies. Thus the "religious test" was a significant philosophical matter. There was little debate over Article VI, which passed unanimously at the Constitutional Convention.

Most of the states soon followed the federal lead in conforming to it. Reconstructionist author Gary DeMar, in his 1993 book America's Christian History: The Untold Story, also trips over Article VI. He quotes from colonial and state constitutions to prove they were "Christian" states. And, of course, they generally were, until the framers of the Constitution set disestablishment irrevocably in motion. Yet DeMar tries to explain this away, claiming that Article VI merely banned "government mandated religious tests"--as if there were any other kind at issue. He later asserts that Article VI was a "mistake" on the part of the framers, implying that they did not intend disestablishment."

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

Because of Keith Ellison's wish to use the Quran to be sworn in, the American Family Association asked all their members to tell their Congresspeople to force people to use the Bible to be sworn in, too bad the AFA has also forgotten about Article VI too.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. If they want a theocracy,

then that means they wish to go back to the days of the witchcraft trials. of courts that decided if what you wore was appropriate or not. We don't need to go back to that. Long live the Constitution, especially Article VI!!!!