You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. I found this article, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/5381462.html and it brought up some great points.
In a time where candidates, and citizens alike are speaking about our nation being a, "Nation of Laws"
In a time where candidates, and citizens alike are speaking about our nation being a, "Nation of Laws" when being used in favor of illegal immigration reform, why isn't this same phrase used for candidates keeping their religious ideals to themselves to be elected? It's in the constitution, Article VI, section 3, that, "......no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It's law, and we're breaking it.
So, how can we be a nation of laws, when we don't ever follow them? Unless it benefits the majority, of course. Also, why do our candidates need to profess their faith to be elected? My opinion is that religion, and the practice of it, are one thing, and imposing your religion into state and federal politics is a completely different thing.
I would like just one of the talking heads to just refuse to answer the question.
"My religion, or lack there of, is my business. It is mine alone and will not affect how I lead this country if elected. Note, if any of you feel inclined to ask me again, just refer back to this answer, which will be known as rule#1 from here forth."
I would like just one of the talking heads to just refuse to answer the question.
"My religion, or lack there of, is my business. It is mine alone and will not affect how I lead this country if elected. Note, if any of you feel inclined to ask me again, just refer back to this answer, which will be known as rule#1 from here forth."
Which would be great, until the opponent got wind of it. Then we'd be swamped with negative ads suggesting that he/she was hiding something, possibly muslim extremism. Can we really trust so-and-so leading this country as a potential terrorist?
It will be a great day for the Republic when a mainstream candidate can confidently profess faith in evolution and agnosticism toward God, rather than vice versa.
It will be a great day for the Republic when a mainstream candidate can confidently profess faith in evolution and agnosticism toward God, rather than vice versa.
Quote:
A Gallup poll taken in 1999 asked Americans whether they
would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was a woman
(95 per cent would), Roman Catholic (94 per cent would), Jew (92 per
cent), black (92 per cent), Mormon (79 per cent), homosexual (79
per cent) or atheist (49 per cent). Clearly we have a long way to go.
Can the prohibition of religious tests ever be up held? 
4/10/82
