The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3. By its plain terms, no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
Nobody has advocated that Muslims adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine, have they?
That is exactly the explanation I gave for that provision--it is very simple and there is no real disagreement about its meaning (except by CFM who is keeping the "real" meaning secret).
I never suggested anyone advocated that Muslims adhere to any particular religious doctrine. However, I Love America said it "Doesn’t mean you can’t ban muslimes" and "Muslimes should be barred from serving in elected office"
Banning someone from holding public office because they are Muslim obviously violates the religious test doctrine.
In the wake of widespread global pogroms and acts of hatred against Muslims, it is only natural that there would be a group in the United States dedicated to the defense of Muslims from the hateful, violent, evil ideology of nationalist rightism. It is only natural that the adherents of the ideology of the Christchurch shooter, such as ILA, would be angered that they do not sit defenselessly, like the little girl who played dead that the Christchurch shooter went back to double tap so he could be sure she was dead.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
"Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
Bookmarks